
LCHorn
Full Members-
Posts
2906 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Store
Downloads
Recruiting - 2020
2019-2020 Football Season
Football
Entertainment
Sports
News and Business
Cloak Room
Transfer Portal
Recruiting
Events
Everything posted by LCHorn
-
I don’t care for it, either. I’d use billionaire. Keep it simple.
-
I, too, chortled at that one. If I might rebut on this, there's a number of efforts going on simultaneously all working towards this goal. I'd also suggest there's a majority on the council currently that are very pro-affordability, at least conceptually, and not in a "let's campaign on this and then overly serve NIMBY neighborhood groups." Bear in mind that the r/Austin crowd will accept nothing less than home values going down substantially (which would be potentially catastrophic for a number of reasons), the next best option is to have a mix of housing, including at prices affordable to the average family and/or rents that are affordable to those unable to afford a home. At least for Austin proper, the reduction in minimum lot sizes and the parking lot minimum requirements are both steps towards that goal, and currently the council (and mayor) is enjoying the credit they probably don't fully deserve for rent stabilization due to the enormous amount of multi-family rental units that have come on the market over the last couple of years. Council is also the process of reviewing future land use maps, a ton of other acronyms in regards to land use, and attempting to use Cap Metro property for the purpose of making available more central affordable housing (affordable is such a fuzzy word I'm not sure it's helpful to keep using it). Some of the most ardent opponents, btw, aren't silver haired, property rich District 9 homeowners, but working class renters concerned that their 25 unit apartment complex will be torn down for market rate apartments. In other words, it's all a little messier than "let's just create the right conditions for building more density." I'm not suggesting anyone start hanging a "Mission Accomplished" banner, but if you value these efforts I'm sure you'll find a friendly ear by reaching out to your CM and their staff.
-
Texas Recruiting Notes 2026: They Can't Keep Getting Away With This
LCHorn replied to texifornia's topic in 🤫$9.95🤫
I also think it’s a good fit for a new eligibility environment in which players can transfer so easily. There’s going to be occasions in which a good first impression results in a second look if their first college pick doesn’t work out. -
I don't disagree with what I think you're saying (in effect, city taxes make up a relatively small percentage of the property tax burden between AISD, Travis County, and various special districts), but that's policy and I'm talking campaigns. Particularly central-west, I would have thought someone would want to run on a "your taxes are too high" platform, at least as a way to differentiate themselves in a primary and/or code themselves GOP friendly (perhaps the latter is why it would be considered ineffective). Somewhat adjacent to this, I got a wild hair up my ass a few months ago and started digging into Travis County's expenditures and there was a lot less fat than I would have imagined.
-
I've been wondering why aspiring CM's haven't been trying a "lower taxes" platform. Maybe affordability is a code for it but lower taxes is clearer.
-
Also apparently only has one staffer left, everyone else quit.
-
I think you've mentioned that you're part Persian, I'm married into it--it's interesting listening to that side of the family alternate between "they need to get rid of Khamenei" to "that said, I don't know why we can't have the bomb."
-
Look, at risk of beating a dead horse further on it, I'm a little surprised that the idea that Iran wasn't complying with the JCPOA is controversial or would require I name my source further in order to justify that I believe it to be true. To @RomaVicta point, I'm an OIF veteran and have a few connections in that community, including amongst those that have also worked or attended UT. One of those happens to be retired but is considered to be a subject matter expert on global intelligence matters, if not the middle east specifically. There isn't anything I've written that I would consider in the national interest to keep confidential and I'm also confident that my friend wouldn't share anything that would be considered a security risk if it were passed. That said, I offered it in the spirit of better understanding the conflict--if you don't want to believe it, that's okay. I'm not here for the collection of internet points, I just like the conversation even if I don't agree with someone. Just so we're not going completely off topic, these are the sources you're citing that are meant to corroborate the US and Iran were close to a deal? I don't see anything in your links that suggests that. That said, the War on the Rocks podcast from Tuesday does discuss this subject and one of the guests shares your position (the other disagrees). It's good, I'd recommend a listen, though if you're bored by munitions capacity you and just want information on "why does Israel attack now?" you can check out after the first five minutes.
-
I'm not seeing anything online that's not using Trump as the source. What sources are you seeing and why do you trust them? Again, why do you presume this? I've been taking deep dives into anything Israel-Iran related over the last couple of days and nobody in the foreign policy establishment, many of whom would have an interest in promoting their credentials as an insider, are making a claim that they KNOW Iran was about to have enough enriched uranium for a bomb or that that DON'T KNOW. I'm really surprised that you would rely on this particular administration, however, to inform you about their intelligence on the matter. I'm not trying to "prove" it, nor was "proof" offered to me. Someone I trust relayed it to me and I'm confident that's not something about which he would speculate, and if that's insufficient for your skepticism then so be it.
-
Are you daft, man? I already said I'm not naming my source. CIA veteran at high level under multiple administrations and who will share stuff with but certainly not to blab about it here (which is partly why I've tried to keep some of what he told me corroborated more publicly). As far as your other point, every problem you listed is a policy choice (or abrogation of one). I don't see a single one of them that is competing with national security as in "you can do this or that, but not both". Why do you presume this? Israel has FAR more reason to have better intelligence in Iran than we do. I've never asked this question, but I'd bet the vast majority of our intelligence gathering is centered around Russia and China, which is probably as it should be. What diplomatic progress? That which is claimed by the Trump administration, that you don't trust anyway? I come back to "if you're Israel, and you choose this moment in time with it's obvious risks, why now?" And no, I don't think it's purely as simple as Netanyahu trying to retain power.
-
I’m in total agreement that Bibi is basically Elon Musk promising self-driving will roll out five minutes from now, but I’m skeptical that WE would have already known about it. What we might read into Israel’s early success is they have ground assets and presumably far better human intelligence than we do. Either way, they put their money where their mouth is rather than defer it until later.
-
You’re probably at least half joking, but we didn’t really start to subdue Al Anbar until the Saudi’s funneled money to the sheiks. I feel like for what we spent over there we could have just bought the whole country, or at least the really shitty parts that ended up becoming part of ISIS. I’m going to sound like Lobo, but it reminds me of when Michael Clayton says to Tilda Swinton “I’m not the guy you kill, I’m the guy you buy.”
-
They don’t have the manpower for that and wouldn’t try to do it. Khamanei is 86 and probably the IRGC dispenses with the pretense of letting the mullahs think they run things if he’s killed and they are under threat. Letting him live, somewhat infirm and under duress, is far more helpful to create government confusion.
-
I’m not sure that’s a settled opinion here. What say you @chainsaw? Iran has two thousand years of history of attempting to exert regional dominance. In more recent times, they’ve attempted to lead the region economically and culturally (under the Shah), and more violently with proxies (under the mullahs/IRGC). In fact, part of the current enmity Iran holds towards Israel is for the simple fact the Shah was friendly to them and they were allies for 30 years until the revolution. Khomenei basically manufactured a rivalry to help justify his criticisms of the regime (to be fair, he alternatively hated and cozied up to pretty much everyone else in the region during his exile except the Israeli’s, so I’m sure his anti-semitism was at least sincere). I don’t think North Korea or Pakistan is a great example, but the latter is probably a better comparison, at least in that factions of their government do, in fact, support terrorist activities for regional influence (including, against us). For me, it’s not the threat of using the nuclear bomb that’s as realistic as their ongoing support for extremist groups that, and let’s be clear about this, aren’t allies in a religious or cultural sense (Hamas and Hezbollah). The only thing they share is a willingness to kill Jews (and Americans when they get the chance). Anyway, if you let them have it pretty much every “friendly” Arab state that’s close will want a stepped up US security guarantee. I don’t know why that matters in 2025 since basically we don’t give a shit about allies in this country anymore, but it’s ultimately destabilizing and only the most wishful thinker (or our current admin) imagines that the last 70 years of relative peace and prosperity in the world would have been possible without alliances. For the record, and I absolutely detest Trump and pretty much every asshole that voted for him, but this was the right call. It wasn’t working, the Iranians weren’t required to comply with inspections and they were secretly enriching uranium at undeclared sites anyway-I don’t want to get into a source-off, but mine is unimpeachable on this. If you don’t care to get into a pissing contest about who is right, I’ll just defer to “how do YOU know it was working?”
-
You jest, but this probably better describes the ongoing reality tv show that Trump imagines he’s hosting in the Oval than anything else. I had lunch with a former VERY senior intelligence official (retired) yesterday and, while this isn’t news, was a good reminder of how predictions based on any particular foreign policy are doomed. “Trump has no policy preferences, he’s going to do whatever makes sure he remains the star of the show.” Also, it seems like the board’s consensus is that Israel shouldn’t have attacked Iran and we should definitely not get involved, right? Am I alone in applauding the Israelis and that I’m very torn (but certainly wouldn’t rule out) supplementing their air campaign if needed?
-
Texas Recruiting Notes 2026: They Can't Keep Getting Away With This
LCHorn replied to texifornia's topic in 🤫$9.95🤫
I particularly like this on out of state recruits for whom the natural fit is closer, like a Georgia or U of F. -
Texas Recruiting Notes 2026: They Can't Keep Getting Away With This
LCHorn replied to texifornia's topic in 🤫$9.95🤫
Not to jinx it, but I also recall inferring that Kelee Ringo was headed here after spending all of his spring break on campus…. -
So Bari Weiss had Niall Ferguson and Dexter Filkins on her podcast today (recorded yesterday noonish) and they speculated that the Iranians could try to get what enriched uranium they have and detonate it in the desert, thereby declaring themselves a nuclear power in an effort to cower a restive populace. Another interesting tidbit was an expectation Israel will have to put boots on the ground to permanently cripple Fordo. Filkens said a former Biden official told him the Israeli SF were role playing that a month ago. What makes you think they haven’t already? Israel got to much of their arsenal already.
-
All Encompassing Mortgage and Real Estate Thread
LCHorn replied to UTPhil2006's topic in Business and Markets
Maybe it’s not the amount of the discount, it’s who is making it. I bet @Gil Bang doesn’t call the buxom travel nurse who wants his ADU and mentions “btw, I like to sunbathe nude if that’s okay” an asshole if she asks for a discount…. -
I would love to take someone with his shooting ability and give him Green’s minutes. Unfortunately, I think you mostly have to hide him on defense at the 4, maybe he plays 3 in a big lineup and you sacrifice a lot of defense for offense. I think that’s a bad fit unless you’re making other trades. Aside from Amen, the current Rockets look a little like a team of mismatched parts welded together. They each have deficiencies that can be covered up by other guys on the floor, but it also means that plugging someone new in has more fit challenges than on, say the Lakers.
-
Circling back to @Hank Kingsley's point about announcing now for '28, I've been thinking that one reason to NOT would be that it'd be a lot of time for the arrows to land and for voters to get fatigued. That said, there was an Atlantic article on 6/9 talking about how poorly measured so much of the Democratic campaigns outreach efforts have been, and the TL:DR on it is that what worked in 2016 appears to have really diminishing returns in 2018 and very little impact in 2024. Dem campaign subcontractors and policy groups don't like to talk about this because it undermines their value when trying to solicit donations. At the end of the article, a source made the point that the GOP is far better at creating in between election engagement and that's helped neuter Dem campaign efforts (i.e., if you're a Rogen listener and you've heard from a number of GOP officials, or comedians mocking incumbent Biden, etc., over the past couple of years, a personalized snail mail letter or really good social media campaign in the 60 days prior to the election isn't having much impact). Another interesting finding was that door knocking might actually be improving your opponents chances, i.e., voters in high engagement races are already saturated with outreach and are displeased at being bothered in person. Anyway, if you follow that logic, announcing now gives you the opportunity to build out your coalition more organically and follow the GOP playbook of making it more of a cultural (or for @troph and fellow Greg Casar lovers, economic) movement.
-
I wouldn't say entirely unscathed, apparently he's getting primaried if someone can meet your price 😉
Football ... Basketball ... Baseball ... Other Sports ... Futbol ... 🤫995🤫 ... Gambling ... Movies & TV ... Music ... Hobbies ... Lulz ... Food & Travel ... Daily Texan ... Business and Markets ... Cloak Room ... Help ... For Sale ... Board Discussion ... Subscribe!... Donate!... COOKIE MONSTER!