Leaderboard

I tend to see the opposite, honestly. Day one, you had an extremely odd reaction from CNN with the naval-gazing over who had the "most attended inauguration" in history. It was clearly meant to be "stumping" by the incoming administration, and it stood out to me that CNN commentators were so hyper-focused on this mundane detail. I still remember how peculiar it seemed. Little did I realize how it would be a harbinger of things to come. In hindsight, looking back, it was obvious from the start that there was a never-ending attempt to discredit him at every opportunity. Here's one about the "very fine people" business. Look at the entire video, and tell me this isn't someone who is very thoughtful in his analysis. Who is taking a clear-eyed and practical look at the situation. Here it is with all of it's context: ALL of the stuff about Charlottesville WAS fake news. It IS propaganda. It is right there for you to see it if you are willing to take the scales off of your eyes. Nearly every bit of this has been boiled down into a shorthand used by the likes of NBC, ABC, CNN, MSNBC, NYT, and many others to condemn him as a racist. The only part you ever hear talked about has been stripped of ALL context. Said another way - it's been lied about from the start. If he's so racist, why is he doing better with blacks this time around? What do they know that you don't? Or are you smarter than they are? What about the "Hunter Biden laptop"? Was that fake? Because many in our government with security clearances well-above mine and yours said it was "fake," and news about it was legitimately censored in direct violation of the 1st amendment. Turns out it wasn't fake, and our government compelled technology companies to censor information that was deemed "too dangerous" for you to know about. Now, do you still trust all those people? It was an actual attempt by our "betters" to leverage the inherent trust placed in them into a certain acceptable view of the world. Or is there perhaps something you don't understand about the state of things? Is there maybe something about the way politics works behind the curtain that you're not allowed to see? The signatories of that letter are basically a who's who of the people that are in charge of our little-understood global order and foreign policy. Maybe Trump is a threat to that order? https://www.politico.com/f/?id=00000175-4393-d7aa-af77-579f9b330000 I suppose all of those people are discredited in your mind now? Or were they right? Was the Hunter laptop fake news? Or was it real? Your answer says a lot about how you process facts and the value you place on truth. Your appeal to "what is more likely" is simply motivated reasoning and cherry-picking facts. That you wield a lot of important-sounding names makes you feel good and as if you have an actual argument, but you haven't presented anything. You take comfort and security in the fact that you place names like Mattis, Kelly, and others in your "quiver" of arrows you lean on, but they are merely people just like Trump. People who were in political office I might add. But I guess that's not a radar contact that's covered by your el strobe right now? You should try arguing with facts. You should look at the entire context. You should attempt to strip the emotion from your worldview and approach this with fresh eyes. Your TDS is showing. At this point, I want Trump to be President so all you infants can have your latent psychotic break, get past it, have your cathartic cry session, and we can all hopefully move on. I'm tired of the craziness.

It’s not hard. 2016-2020 was better than 2021-present unless you are a trans/illegal border crosser/indebted student/Taliban/woman unable to figure out birth control/welfare recipient/guy who wants to compete in women’s sports/person wants to get paid not to work. Who’d I miss? Choice is easy to vote for Trump despite him being a dickhead on Twitter. Sent from my iPhone using Baseops Network mobile app

You children just pick a few dissected quotes from a few posters here and act like everyone is saying the same thing. Go back and find any posts from me where I am denying the things you say we are all denying. You won't find them. Has it occurred to you at any point that the reason you keep falling back on the same stupid arguments is because you don't have anything approaching a policy prescription for America? We all get it, you're aghast at what a terrible person Trump is. The difference is some of us consider him not particularly worse than the people who have been occupying Washington for decades. And it's hilarious that you would list generals, who I consider to be the most pathetic group in America right now, as some sort of evidence. This generation of generals have distinguished themselves in nothing other than their ability to eat the most shit and disregard their own virtue to assure promotion in an organization that hasn't accomplished anything for decades. I don't like Trump. I didn't like him in 2016. Does it matter, what I have before me are two choices and two very different visions for America. I would love a different candidate representing the more conservative vision for America, but I didn't get one. Doesn't change the fact that if I have to choose between what Donald Trump did when he was in office and what Harris did while she was in office, that question is so simple that it boggles my mind you are even here defending the opposition. But you aren't defending the opposition, are you? You're doing the same thing Harris is doing: everything in her power to focus on Trump's admittedly awful personality instead of her obviously awful track record. I'm not voting for anybody for president this year because I've decided philosophically that I'm against presidents over the age of 65 beginning their first term. I'm in Texas, so I can do that and hope that there will be some statistical change that can be recognized and hopefully get us better candidates in the future. But if I was in a swing state, I would be voting for Trump. If you are unable to understand how someone can vote for someone they don't consider to be moral, then I have to wonder what type of drugs you are taking that make you think your candidates are moral. That's the more interesting conversation here.

SOH's Mom dealing with a Trump sign. video_56BA7HQ.mp4

IDK about the rest of you guys, but I believe the longer someone is in the military, or rather the higher rank they achieve, the more likely their actions are motivated by politics and self interest. If an individual transitions into the political arena post service then, for me, all bets are off on their trustworthiness, regardless of service or branch. That's why I have no problem withholding condemnation for a politician because another politician claims they said X,Y,Z. It's the same reason I'm not losing my mind over what some retard on fox news claims Kamala said. Pics/Video or it didn't happen.

Trump supporters only have 4 fallback responses to every single post: 1) “TDS” 2) “Fake news” 3) Whataboutism 4) Some version of the “lesser of 2 evils” argument Every response fits one of those categories. It’s true that the John Kelly quotes are secondhand. Believe him or not, it doesn’t matter. Personally, I ask which is more likely: That Kelly had a distinguished 46-yr career in the Marines, became Head of Homeland Security, was hired as WH Chief of Staff, and then all-of-a-sudden, decided to become a liar and traitor? OR…..that Trump is simply a shitty person and an idiot? But again, it doesn’t matter. You can dismiss the quotes as unverifiable. What’s not in question is the long list of people, in addition to Kelly, that all echo his comments. Pence, Mattis, Milley, Bolton, Tillerson, Barr, Esper, etc. Even Trump’s current VP pick was a Never Trump’er who called him an idiot. Again, what is more likely? All those guys are lying? Gen Maddog Mattis, (revered among Marines....like a living Robin Olds for us......) suddenly got a case of “TDS?” OR…..could it be…..wait for it……that Trump is a shitty person and an idiot? People are acting like Trump’s second term will be the same as his first. I hear that all the time. If they’re referencing the end, when he lost, they’re spot-on. If he loses, it will be nearly identical. You’re already seeing unfounded claims of voter fraud and building hysteria that “tHe fIX Is iN.” …..Strange how the “Stop the Steal” folks had 4 years to figure out how to stop the steal again, and apparently couldn’t do a thing to foil the democratic pentaverate’s evil plan. Weird. But I digress… If he wins, however, it will be much different. In his first term, people took comfort in having the “adults in the room." But imagine how different the next administration would look. It’s not 2017 or 2018 anymore. Everyone knows the rules of the Trump game now: Unquestioning loyalty and bootlicking, or you’re fired. That’s it. Put on the red MAGA hat and smile and feed into his ego ......or pack your $hit. No sane person of dignity, conviction, or genuine motives will be around him. And worse still, people looking to exploit the US and/or take advantage of Trump know exactly how to do it: Praise and flattery and adoration. Compliment him, especially about petty nonsense like crowd size or his golf game. Someone asked about Beta males. Ha. The joke’s on you. You’re about to vote for the biggest Beta ever.

On 27 Oct 1954, 70 years ago this Sunday, the U.S. Air Force got its first black general officer when Gen Benjamin Oliver Davis, Jr., was promoted to Brigadier General (temporary grade). The promotion would be made permanent in 1960, and he would eventually retire from the Air Force as a Lieutenant General. In 1998, President Clinton advanced him to a full (four-star) General. General Davis Jr. broke many barriers and accomplished many “firsts” during his career, such as when he became the first black officer to attend Air War College in 1950 or when he became the first black wing commander of an integrated wing in 1953. He originally earned his pilot’s wings in 1942, and participated in WWII with the Tuskegee Airmen, commanding the 99th Fighter Squadron and later the 332nd Fighter Group as a whole. In the photo below, his father, Gen Benjamin O. Davis, Sr. (who was the first black general officer in the Army and in the Armed Forces as a whole) is pinning a Distinguished Flying Cross to him (when he was then a Colonel) at Ramitelli Airfield in Italy in Sep 1944. He earned the DFC for a Jun 1944 bomber escort mission where he managed to lead his outnumbered fighter escorts in defending an Allied heavy bomber formation against approximately 100 enemy fighters. (Photo: USAF)

Anyone know this guy? I think me meant Hollywood but not sure. I can't get his video to load and would like to see it.

That was good. Bravo

There are actually more than two presidential candidates. Vote for whoever you think is best.

I would encourage to still vote even if Texas is likely to go to Trump. The last 2 Republican Presidents have won the electoral college but not the popular vote. As long as that continues to happen you're going to hear appeals from the Democrats to abolish the electoral college.

50 Years Ago Tomorrow (26 Oct 1974): The Rockwell B-1A Rollout Since the 1920s, the Air Force has leveraged technology to ensure that the mantra “the bomber will always get through” remained valid. Of course, defenses worked to make any such advantages temporary, resulting in the continuous evolution of offensive platforms for survivability. It was out of one of those inflection points that the B-1 bomber was born. In the 1950s, the Air Force relied on multi-engine jet bombers that could primarily use their speed and altitude to break the kill chain” of the USSR’s air defenses and avoid the fighters sent to intercept them. However, as Soviet ground-controlled interception systems and both air-to-air and surface-to-air missiles improved, the subsonic, high-flying B-47s and B-52s were suddenly vulnerable. The newer B-58 and XB-70, capable of exceeding Mach 2 and 3 (respectively), proved to be short-lived stopgaps when US intelligence concluded that they could also be shot down. Finding a solution was crucial to the survivability of the manned bomber not just as the lynchpin of the Air Force, but also as a relevant concept, especially in light of new Intercontinental Ballistic Missiles (ICBMs). Starting in 1961, the Air Force began studies to address this dilemma, which coalesced into the Advanced Manned Strategic Aircraft (AMSA) program in 1965. AMSA focused on developing a bomber that could cruise at high speeds and altitudes to get to enemy territory, then dive to just above the ground while still flying supersonically to penetrate air defenses and reach its target. This approach exploited ground-based radars’ inability to detect low-flying aircraft due to the curvature of the Earth and interference from terrain. Likewise, airborne radars were then incapable of tracking terrain-following targets amidst ground clutter. The Air Force’s F-111 fighter-bomber recently demonstrated how a “swing wing” (aka variable-geometry) could provide those capabilities, while systems devised for the XB-70 and the proposed Supersonic Transport (SST) could also be leveraged to hasten the new bomber’s development cycle. North American Rockwell leaned on its experience from those programs to win the B-1 Full Scale Development contract in June 1970. That award included just three airframes for flight testing and was distinct from a production decision. The B-1A made its public debut at Plant 42 in Palmdale, California, on 26 October 1974 (shown above), followed by its first flight on 23 December. In December 1976, the Ford administration authorized production of the B-1—but less than two months later, new President Jimmy Carter reduced the order, and then cancelled the program entirely on 30 June 1977. Lingering questions about traditional bomber viability, the introduction of the cruise missile, and the highly secretive demonstrations of stealth technology all played a role in that decision. In 1981, President Ronald Reagan revived the program as the B-1B, in part to serve in the interim before the Advanced Technology Bomber that became the B-2 would be operational. (Photos: AFLCMC/HO) BONUS: From the AFLCMC archives, below is the memo to the B-1 Program Office directing them to issue a “stop work” order to Rockwell in 1977.

Saying that Trump will fire people for poor performance when Biden doesn’t is showing a ‘contrast’ between the two, not “whataboutism”. You’ve been off whatever game you’d had lately…everything ok?

464124628_1053656252908078_1490079732851198514_n.mp4

Even at the current scope, it could fundamentally alter investment and capital strategies that punish the economy and common citizens. In addition to the potential scope expansion to the rest of us.

lol, I'm several orders of magnitude off that net worth figure, but even I know that my wallet is well within the WEZ of that dumb-fuck idea. But hey, unsustainable spending isn't going to sustain itself ya know!

Buenos, I am not worth $100M...yet, but to think this plan will only impact the 11,000 or so people in this category is a fallacy. The negative implications of this policy will have a huge impact on the market and our economy regardless of your net worth. There are of course varying assessments but some of the ripple effects are outlined here.

Reading some of of these TDS POSTS, I have to ask, When did the Air Force start allowing Beta’s to go to pilot training.

Last time I saw Israel drop a building that cleanly was 9/11.

....right on cue, response #3, whataboutism. lol Also right on cue, for you specifically, missing the point. Unless by "poor performance," you meant they displayed disloyalty. Because that's why he fires people. Kiss the ring, or kiss your job goodbye. What senior cabinet official got fired for actual legit "poor performance." Can you name one, with examples? He had more turnover in his senior administration than any other in the past 40+ years. Most firings were done predictably via tweet, calling people things like "dumb as a rock," "a loser," and "a gutless pig." Gen Mattis resigned and gave 2 months notice, and Trump later turned around and claimed he fired him, calling him "overrated." And all the while, the glaring contradiction: Trump campaigned that he would hire "only the best people." He knows the "best people. Tremendous people. Great, strong people." Yeah, ...sure. Upon announcing his nominees and/or at their swearing-in, he showered them with praise and cited how smart they were. They were going to "drain the swamp." ........blah, blah, derp derp. ....Then, he fires them "like dogs" and calls them stupid losers. This same pattern repeated over a dozen times. How do you explain that? ....Or, should I just try to guess now which one of the 4 standard responses you'll use to avoid answering the question? He's recycled the same exact promise about hiring in this campaign. .....Who could possibly still buy this obvious bullshit? The one's around him next time will be his kids (minus Ivanka and Jared -- sounds like they had enough the first time around), and psychos like MTG, Laura Loomer, Tucker, Keri Lake, and Lauren Boebert.