Jump to content

SL Xpress

Full Members
  • Posts

    3733
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    1

Everything posted by SL Xpress

  1. I mean...he's announced he's running for president. Obviously it's okay not to support him for whatever reason you choose, but to suggest he's quitting the Republican Party instead of trying to make it better from the inside seems completely counterintuitive to me. BTW, his successor at his former congressional district was recently censored by the state Republican Party. There aren't many paths where one can realistically "fight to make the party better from the inside." Running for president isn't realistic, either, but it creates a bigger platform than almost anything else would.
  2. From the sense of creating a more collaborative legislature, it would be ideal. You have more members of the HOR having to appeal to the middle rather than their base. On the other hand, gerrymandered districts can also contribute to a representation of people who hold a minority status in some way. That's the biggest problem with drawing up districts that are as competitive as possible in the general election across the board. It has a huge potential of creating tyranny of the majority scenarios, with minorities (in whatever sense - doesn't have to be about race, although it often is) having little to no representation, and no realistic way of gaining any. I just know that the massive gerrymandering that has gone on since 1990, when the Republican party weaponized it as they gained control of state legislatures, has had a huge influence on the no compromise, confrontational politics we see being employed today. Of course, the dynamics engendered by discourse across social media does, too, and that would still exist. But at least we wouldn't be systemically rewarding the most extreme positions in both parties, which is what we're doing now. Thank you for the clarification on his marriage status.
  3. Or maybe he believes in his message and feels like it's important to add to the process. But yes, holding statewide office seems like a stretch unless/until Republicans start losing. I could still see him being named to a cabinet in a Republican administration, but the Republicans would have to nominate a candidate who could win a general election. Their best hope of that is the Democrats nominating a candidate who is even worse, at least in the eyes of enough voters. Which is always a possibility.
  4. His highest office he's held is the House of Representatives from 2015 to 2021. He's never been a fan of Trump. He's been willing to work across the aisle. He won all 3 of his elections by skin of the teeth margins. His successor has been censured by the Republican Party for not voting close enough to the party line (an indication of how divided that district is - I wish all districts were this divided, actually). He's also never been married, which will be raised on the campaign trail. If someone traditionally votes Democrat but is looking for a Republican candidate that espouses something akin to their views that's never going to happen. There will always be litmus test issues - especially in this day and age - that knocks them out of contention. Same thing in the other direction. I voted for a Democrat for president the last two elections not because I supported the Democrat, but because the Republican candidate was such a significant danger to democracy nothing else mattered. We can be dismissive of Will Hurd for being black running for the Republican nomination, but he has a number of other critical factors going against him that would still be the case if he were lily white. I'll also say that many racists love to show they're not racist by pointing to someone of another race who subscribes to their values entirely. I always think of it as analogous to Dave Chappelle's bit about if you see a gang coming towards you and they have one white person in it, that's the guy you have to be careful of, because there's no telling what he had to do to be a part of that gang. Anyway, he's not winning the nomination. The most I hope for is adding a voice to the cacophony who is using inclusive language rather than demagoguery - which will also eliminate him as much as being black will. At the least running might elevate his profile. But he's going to have to demonstrate he can earn some level of support with his message, and I simply don't think that's going to be the case.
  5. I mean, it’s coming. Clear as day they’re going to fuck around and find out with that nuclear plant. I HOPE the US and NATO have an extreme response planned and have communicated it to Russia. I wish more was being done to educate the American people about what a danger Russia is to the civilized world and why they need to be severely curtailed here and now. I don’t see the kind of political will to do anything about that nuclear plant. It’s going to completely suck watching a meltdown occur feeling like more could and should have been done to stop it.
  6. I like my posts long. No doubt about it.
  7. I'm glad. Here I was under the wrong impression Ross Perot in 1992 and Ralph Nader in 2000 had an impact on the election.
  8. Sort of. I think it's fair to say he's lacked relevancy.
  9. I've given money to his campaign in the past, and I'll do it again this time. I feel like he has less of a chance to win than my last favorite Republican candidate, Jon "Call me crazy, I believe in evolution" Huntsman.
  10. It's just people fantasizing. There is zero chance a Seal Team 6 goes in Osama bin Laden style to secure a nuclear plant held by Russian forces who may already have the ability to blow it up at any time. One thing you can count on regarding representative governments is that they will always lean towards being reactive. Always. No one gets credit for fixing a problem before it gets worse. You just get blamed for doing something that was always "unnecessary" in the first place, even if the action prevented a much worse problem from occurring. We're not going to do shit about this nuclear power plant until Ukraine gains control of the area. Yes, by then it's likely going to be too late. At least there's some kind of monitoring going on, both with Ukrainian workers still at the plant, the state owned enterprise Energoatom, and the toothless but useful IAEA, and its idealistic and tireless but ultimately ineffectual director general, Rafeal Grossi. I have my fingers crossed Russia isn't going to do something stupid with this nuclear plant, but Russia. That's the best we can hope for realistically, IMO.
  11. Holy moly. That's dangerous work right there. Thanks for the post. From Noelreports: "SSO units of the 73rd Naval Special Operations Center went behind enemy lines during a recent mission in the south."
  12. I hope the Russian soldiers in that tank are okay.
  13. 2 RPG shots right into the side of a Ukrainian tank. I have no idea what kind of tank it is. Edit: A T-64BV.
  14. Report from the front. I've seen the one guy making wisecracks before on a different video in Bakhmut. Took a bunch of mortar shells. The translation keeps saying "mines" but apparently it's a problem with the Ukrainian to English translation. Ukrainian has a word "miny" which is used for a wide range of explosives, not just mines. About 9 1/2 minutes. Worth a watch, IMO.
  15. I would pay good money to be a fly on the wall for a Bob Huggins rehab assignment or an Alcoholics Anonymous meeting. One of my favorite scenes is from a British series called Cracker (there was a US version, too, but it's not as good). I highly recommend it if you like police dramas, and in particular the kind of interrogation scenes Matthew McConaughey portrayed in the first season of True Detective. In any case, the protagonist, played by Robbie Coltrane in his best role, starts going to group therapy to address his gambling addiction to try to save his marriage. But he can't stand the therapist, so in the middle of the group session he pulls out a deck of cards and starts exhorting everyone in the room to bet on what the next card will be. Soon enough he has everyone broken down going full on into the vice they're there to get treated. I see Bob Huggins doing something similar. Not to make light of alcoholism or any other addiction. But it is to make fun of Bob Huggins.
  16. “See? It says right here I was overcharged $5. $5!”
  17. Those Hudl highlights are worth watching simply for some of the DS reactions.
  18. I don’t know if she’s done for sure. She put her name in the portal prior to Metzger being named. But as far as I know she hasn’t withdrawn it, so...probably?
  19. Don't forget, Molly is in the transfer portal for beach. I'm sure she'll be playing beach again, but it might not be for Texas. I have no idea what her intentions are for that semester education wise. She's currently training in Chula Vista at the USA Volleyball Beach National Team camp. Don't know what that means exactly, other than she's serious about it.
  20. He probably should have listened to go pro dude and gone left to flank. My guess is it’s being shown to other assault teams regarding how quickly you can die out there if you’re being stupid. You can die out there being real smart, too, so why increase the odds?
  21. Honestly this shit should be on broadcast. It’s amazing to me that so many people I meet and have a conversation about the war have no idea there was a dam destroyed. Literally, no idea. Never mind all the other horseshit that’s gone on with it.
  22. I'd say Trump is more responsible for the anti Ukrainian sentiment than Carlson. I'll even say that vein of thought is there regardless, and they're both simply tapping into it. My anecdotal experience in talking to random people about the conflict is that almost everyone I meet is mostly indifferent. They're completely ignorant, don't really want to know more, and wish that money was being spent in the US rather than in Ukraine. It's my opinion a lot of those beliefs would exist even if loud voices weren't espousing the position. There's a chicken and egg dynamic going on. My biggest problem is that we're not doing a good job of justifying our involvement. I said the same thing yesterday when talking about F-16s as a tangent. My feeling is that we don't want to escalate the rhetoric with Russia, which is understandable. The problem is we're doing a terrible job of addressing the domestic audience about why we're doing what we're doing. We're avoiding the conversation in many ways, ignoring the critics, and hoping that somehow there will continue to be enough support among the elites to carry on. Which there very well may. But I do not believe it's the right way to handle it. The other problem is that support for Ukraine isn't going to help Biden get reelected. So from that perspective there's not a whole lot of good that can come from making it the center of attention.
  23. They will get ATACMS some day, but being able to fire US supplied weapons into Russia would require a different administration. That’s not cloak room. I’m grateful to this administration for their support of Ukraine. I don’t see another candidate out there that would do more. But it’s obvious they are prepared to withdraw support if Ukraine uses US provided assets to enter Russia. I hate it, but it is what it is.
  24. I don't think it gets much more intense than this footage. This is again from the Bakhmut side about 3 weeks ago, uploaded a little over a week ago. It's a full on assault against an entrenched Russian position, first with assault troops, then after initial success they have to call in reinforcements, including an M113. After moving forward they encounter more resistance and finally bring in a tank. I think it's a T-72, but honestly I'm talking out of my ass on that one. It's just a guess. Pucker up before hitting play on this one. This is the real deal. The brass balls on these assault teams is real.
×
×
  • Create New...