slackline

For the record: I was banned from the forum by Helodude for responding to personal attacks after multiple users refused to engage with sourced arguments. I'd invite anyone reading to scroll back and judge whether the tone of my posts was meaningfully different from what CH, LR, brabus, M2, and others post regularly without consequence. M2 liking DFRESH's reminder to the forum is a nice touch, given that personal attacks, or unsourced, baseless statements are a regular feature of his contributions here. M2, name one politician or member of this forum, any person that matters that ever said Iran should have nuclear weapons? Not "criticized the strategy," not "questioned the outcomes," not "doubted the rationale." Said Iran should have nukes. I'll wait. What people are actually frustrated with is an administration that can't keep its story straight. In June 2025, the program was "completely and totally obliterated." By November, the White House's own document downgraded that to "significantly degraded." In February, Witkoff said Iran was "a week away from industrial-grade bomb-making material." Days later, Trump said Iran could "soon" hit the American homeland with missiles, when the DIA's own assessment says 2035 at the earliest. Then we launched Operation Epic Fury, and Gabbard told the Senate the program had been obliterated again, while refusing to confirm it had been an imminent threat. The Director of the National Counterterrorism Center resigned over it. That's not one position. That's five, in twelve months, depending on what needed justifying that day. Pointing that out isn't advocating for a nuclear Iran. It's asking the administration to pick a story and stick to it. But sure, use an internet meme and stick to a strawman, false equivalence, and false dilemma with the 2A.

It's actually funny. It's like you finished your time in the military and reverted to high school cliques. Keep going, you're really stellar examples of what TDS really is. Keep going, you've hurt my feelings, so don't stop now...😂

You're all pathetic with your quips vice substance. No wonder people have stopped engaging here, it's like talking to children.

You asked if I feel better, if my views have changed, whether this is doing anything for me. Ridiculous questions aimed at dismissing rather than engaging. I'll answer anyway. No, my views haven’t changed. Neither have yours. I figured that out early. I’m not writing for you. I’m writing for the quiet majority on this board; the guys who value a clean debrief and are reading both sides without posting. They notice who brings data and who brings “probably for the best.” You’re capable of substance when you feel like it. But you didn’t touch the NIH numbers. You didn’t address the SAVE Act data. Not a word on China passing us in R&D or a trillion dollars in clean energy investment while we repeal every incentive we have. Instead you asked if I’m “happy” and compared me to a wife who needs to calm down. That’s not a debrief, it's an attempt at dismissing it as though you somehow are above the fray. Here’s what I think the lurkers actually see when they read your posts: red lines that move. You set them in 2016. Every time one gets crossed, you don’t re-evaluate the person crossing them; you redraw the line. You said it yourself: “another example of why Trump is worth the insanity.” Read that back. You’re conceding the insanity and arguing the tradeoff is worth it. So where’s the line you won’t move? What would actually be too far? Because if there isn’t one, then the cost-benefit framework you’re presenting isn’t analysis; it’s loyalty with a spreadsheet. And you’d never accept that framework from the other side. You talk about merit. Look at the cabinet. The SECDEF had zero defense leadership experience. The AG’s primary qualification was loyalty on television. The intelligence community picks were chosen for alignment, not expertise. If “merit” means “agrees with the boss,” that’s not meritocracy; it’s patronage with better branding. The people on this board who’ve spent careers watching what happens when loyalty replaces competence in leadership positions know exactly what that produces. ViperMan showed what happens when someone actually engages. He came in swinging, I came back with numbers, he came back with substance. We found common ground on multiple issues, and anyone who read it walked away better informed. That’s what this forum used to produce. I’m not interested in another round of rhetorical exits and concerned-tone deflections. Your methodology is built so you can’t be wrong; if the data challenges you, you redefine the question; if someone pushes back, you suggest they’re emotional. That’s a closed loop, and further debate inside it is a waste of bandwidth. The data of the last eighteen months speaks for itself for anyone willing to look at it without a pre-determined conclusion. I’ll leave it to the people reading this to decide which side of this exchange was running a clean debrief, and which side consistently (at least as of late) refuses to engage.

Well, you've done it again. Masterfully avoided saying anything of substance. It's so odd how you've built this self-image where you think you always hold the high ground without saying anything real. I've watched you do this in here, and other apologists seem to flock around you doing the same thing, patting each other on the back, accusing anyone not acting as an apologist for this administration of falling prey emotions, ignoring obvious facts, etc. All while you ignore facts and spin things in a way to placate your own egos and support your narrative. I guess time will tell...

You're one of those people who tells his wife to calm down aren't you...

Sick come back bro. You really showed me!

Brother, appreciate the response. Genuinely a better exchange than what I’ve gotten from most of the thread, and I mean that. Allies: we’re closer than you think. European defense freeloading is real, and pressing NATO members to hit their commitments is legitimate. No argument. Where I’d push back is on “vassal.” A vassal doesn’t get a vote on your force posture, basing, or overflight. Allies do. And when they stop seeing the value proposition, you lose access; not troops, access. That’s the part that matters operationally. We need them to want us there. Pressure them on spending? Absolutely. Treat them like subordinates? That’s how you end up renegotiating SOFAs you didn’t want to renegotiate. Believe me, I've been an EO and an Attaché, I understand their weaknesses and faults, but they still bring a lot to the table. Economy: you’re right about the structural picture. Fed policy, generational entitlement math, productivity versus outlays; solid analysis. Where I’ll push back is calling tariffs “miniscule.” The Yale Budget Lab estimated the current tariff regime costs the average American household roughly $3,800 per year in increased costs. That’s not macroeconomically transformative, but for the family making $50K, it’s a month’s groceries. Both things can be true: structural forces dominate the long-term picture AND tariffs are making the short-term pain worse for the people least able to absorb it. Science: I think we’re closer here than your first post suggested, and I appreciate you saying so. But I have to push back on “remove nearly all funding and let them produce profitable science.” Basic research doesn’t work that way. The internet came from DARPA (Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency) funding. GPS came from DoD. mRNA vaccine technology sat in NIH-funded labs for decades before it had a commercial application. Semiconductors, radar, the Human Genome Project; none of those had a viable business case at the time they were funded. Private capital doesn’t invest in 20-year timelines with uncertain payoffs. Government does. That’s the entire point. If you strip that out and only fund what’s immediately profitable, you get incremental product improvement, not breakthrough innovation. And right now, China isn’t being incremental. They passed us in total scientific publications, top-cited research papers, and R&D spending by purchasing power. They’re not doing that by letting the market sort it out; they’re doing it with massive, sustained state investment in basic science. We can argue about waste in the system all day (and there is waste), but the answer to waste isn’t demolition. It’s reform. Climate: you didn’t respond to this part, so I’ll put it out there again. We agreed that technology is the answer. So here’s the problem: China makes 80% of the world’s solar cells, 70% of wind turbines, 70% of lithium batteries. They invested $1 trillion in clean energy in 2025; four times what they put into fossil fuels. EVs went from 6% of Chinese car sales in 2020 to over 50% in 2025, and they became the world’s largest auto exporter in that period. Ford’s CEO said publicly that Chinese vehicle technology is “far superior” and that if they lose this competition, “we do not have a future Ford.” Meanwhile, this administration killed EV tax credits (expire September), residential solar credits (expire end of year), wind/solar project credits (expire 2027), froze offshore wind permits, and is trying to rescind the EPA’s Endangerment Finding, which is the legal basis for regulating greenhouse gases at all. That’s not “technology will fix it.” That’s ceding the technology race to China while telling ourselves we’re winning. If technology is the answer, where’s the investment? SAVE Act: “Fine then change how it works” is actually fair, and I respect that. But your ballot example (receiving ballots for family members who moved) is a mail-in ballot integrity issue, not a citizenship issue. The SAVE Act doesn’t fix that. It requires documentary proof of citizenship to register, which is a different problem aimed at a different (and nearly nonexistent) threat. Utah audited 2 million+ voters and found one noncitizen registration, zero noncitizen votes. There are better, less disruptive ways to verify citizenship (database matching through USCIS, for example) that don’t require grandma to dig up a birth certificate from 1948 or a married woman whose name doesn’t match her documents to take a day off work to visit an election office. I’m with you that election integrity matters. I just think this particular bill is a sledgehammer where a scalpel would do. Gerrymandering: sounds like we actually agree. Kill it everywhere, use a mathematical standard, done. I’ll take the win.

Lot of them are lucky that LEO shooting didn't hit anyone! Holy fields of fire!

"Our inferiors?" "Our vassals?" Come on, man. Those "dependents" host our bases, share intelligence, fly our wing, and bleed beside us. NATO interoperability, Five Eyes, AUKUS... none of that works if allies decide we're not worth the hassle. Swagger isn't strategy. You of all people should know the difference. Economy: we actually agree more than you think. Structural forces matter. But you can't hand-wave away tariff-driven consumer price increases that the CBO says hit lower-income households hardest, then tell the guy making $50K that the market is doing great. That's not an argument; that's a view from a portfolio. Science: you changed the subject. I'm not talking about social science replication problems. I'm talking about 7,800+ NIH and NSF grants cancelled or frozen in 2025, competitive NIH grants down by half in FY26, 25,000+ science agency employees gone, and NSF staffing down 35%. Meanwhile, China passed us in total scientific publications in 2024 for the first time since we passed the Brits in 1948, and an OECD report from March confirms they've matched or surpassed our R&D spending by purchasing power. You say technology will fix climate change. I actually agree with that. So explain to me how gutting the NSF, slashing DOE's Office of Science, and firing the entire National Science Board gets us there. You're rooting for the racehorse while shooting it in the legs. Gerrymandering: you're right that both sides do it. I'll give you that. Your New England example is real. But the Brennan Center's analysis of maps used in 2024 shows a net 16-seat Republican advantage from redistricting alone, and Republicans controlled the drawing of 191 districts to Democrats' 75. FactCheck.org surveyed multiple independent statisticians; none concluded Democrats held the larger advantage. Your math-based redistricting fix is actually a solid idea. Lead with that instead of pretending it's a one-sided problem. SAVE Act: "Why shouldn't you prove citizenship to vote?" Sounds great until you look at how it works. Citizenship is already required. It's already enforced. Utah audited its entire voter roll of 2 million+ people and found one noncitizen registration and zero noncitizen votes. Kansas tried a similar documentary proof requirement and blocked 30,000 registrations in two years; over 99% were eligible citizens. Under the SAVE Act, 52% of registered voters don't have an unexpired passport with their current legal name. Only 1 in 4 Americans without a college degree have a valid passport. Republican women are twice as likely to have changed their surname, meaning their birth certificate won't match. Rural voters, the elderly, working-class folks... these are your people, and this bill hits them hardest. It's a solution to a 0.04% problem that creates a barrier for millions of eligible Americans. I get it, the forum leans one way and I'm outnumbered. That's fine. But "you're hysterical" and "put down the AOC gummies" aren't rebuttals. Numbers are. I brought some.

Yeah, wild that anyone might be bugged by that...in an apolitical military. Crazy.

Did I hurt your feelings after calling the most unqualified SECDEF in history an accurate name? Truth sucks I guess.

I noticed none of you can provide legitimate responses to anything. I'm plenty happy, just trying to help you folks take your blinders off. Far be it from me though, if you're happy in your ignorance.

Really, that's rich. Just today Kegsbreath was saying he was the best CINC he's ever seen. Why lie about something so obvious? Have you not watched any of the footage from a cabinet meeting where they kiss up to him as he cat he's a nap? And I get it, Biden was garbage. Agreed wholeheartedly, but you guys and your blinders... They did change their tune, almost overnight. Then Trump lost 2020 (I'm sure some of you think he won because he told you to), and their tune changed again, oh, somewhere around Jan 6th... Unsure why. And then it looked like he was going to make a comeback, and they changed their tune again. As for the Hitler comparisons, I think you guys are forgetting that He didn't start his career out by killing millions of people. There was a slow boil that led to it... We are a laughing stock, the world over. The cabinet, for being all about merit, is full of unqualified lapdogs. The economy is great for people with enough money to invest, but sucks for everyone else. Trump has stopped science dead in its tracks, to the point that it will be almost impossible to catch up to China now. You guys must not believe climate change is a real thing, which, good for you because he's rolled back every measure that made sense to slow it down. Voting rights have taken another major hit thanks to his SC, which he only likes when they rule in his favor. His SAVE act is a thinly veiled voter suppression act, and if it passes Republicans will take the biggest hit since they're the voters least likely to have a passport. We could go on, but I won't waste any more of your time. The narcissistic attitudes in here by what I used to believe we're critical thinkers is mind boggling. OK, I'll go back to lurking for another few years.

Really, that's rich. Just today Kegsbreath was saying he was the best CINC he's ever seen. Why lie about something so obvious? Have you not watched any of the footage from a cabinet meeting where they kiss up to him as he cat he's a nap? And I get it, Biden was garbage. Agreed wholeheartedly, but you guys and your blinders...