Lord Ratner

That's my assumption. If you look at the video where he runs by, everybody draws their gun and just stands there pointing him in the same direction. They aren't running or moving after him. So I'm wondering if he just ran straight into a closed door or a wall, or just tripped. But I suspect if he had been running down the hall or into other rooms, they would have been in Hot pursuit. They didn't look stunned, other than the initial second or two, they looked like they were all watching him to see what the fuck he was doing.

Did I read it correctly? Everyone in the administration was a target but Kash Patel?

Did you watch the video? Full sprint with a shot to center mass. Thank God the agent had armor on because that was a hell of a shot. 31 years old. Crazy to think you can be that indoctrinated at such a normally-stable age

Oh, I read CNO instead of SECNAV. Oops. Care to address the actual point? We replace military leaders regularly during wars. Usually because existing leadership tends to fight the last war and not the present war. It makes sense that you'd uncover misaligned leadership when it actually counts, rather than when everything is calm and boring. You're just hyperventilating at this point.

It's obvious that the person is important. What's not obvious is that what you are suggesting is true. That removing or replacing that person is some sort of catastrophe to the goal at hand. I suspect replacing McClellan, Burnside, and Hooker had consequences, but I don't think anybody suggests that they should have been kept in place just because the civil war had not yet ended. And if that's what it took to get to Grant, so be it. In fact replacing military leaders in the middle of an ongoing war has happened in every major conflict that I could find. And in this case, the flag officer we are discussing is not even responsible for the current hostilities. He's in a primarily administrative role, exactly as you described.

Does the SECNAV wage the war? I thought that was the combatant commanders' role.

Are you suggesting that Iran has basically been unaffected by this war? Where do they make the drones? What about the ballistic missiles? How do they enrich uranium? Is a regime defined by the name, or by the leadership? Which leaders are "intact?" What is Iran's control of the Straits currently accomplishing for them? Would you say that Iran (the Islamo-fascist regime, not the abstract country) is going to be better off, the same, or worse off in 10-20 years as a result of this war? Will they represent more or less of a regional threat? And where is your claim about the population support coming from? I asked this before (with no answer), but why is Iran blocking the Internet still if the population is rallying behind them? You just say things, eh?

Wait till Pooter finds out that retirees and civilians can have security clearances... XedkA8l.mp4

Exactly this. Haven't we already done this with a few ships from the ghost fleet?

Ignore his rhetoric. No one here defended it, and we already know your position. What policy actions has Trump taken that you believe we are selling our souls in supporting? I'm truly curious if this is just another "liberals think conservative positions are evil" or "his rhetoric is too extreme to consider anything else?" You bend over backwards repeating the same thing and never addressing any of the actual counterpoints, so I'm trying to keep the question focused.

Maybe you guys just got boring? Sorry, that was vague. You guys got boring. Negotiations don't matter if both sides don't leave the table at some point. It's not even certain Iran has a centralized enough government to negotiate anymore. Vance played the hand well. So far.

You should check out Doomberg. They are paywalled, but there's a recent interview on Thoughtful Money. One of the most detailed energy researchers in the market right now. They are forecasting an oil collapse once the war ends, unless there's a massive attack on middle east infrastructure. The fact that oil hasn't even gotten remotely close to all-time highs, when the worst case scenario of war in the Middle East with the straits being closed, is rather telling.

Another example of why Trump is worth the insanity: https://www.cbsnews.com/amp/news/epa-lee-zeldin-tells-climate-skeptics-to-celebrate-vindication/

We're basically just arguing philosophy. Realpolitik vs idealistic liberalism. So we're not going to agree because you fundamentally believe in a utopian outcome, if we just get it right this time. I don't. Nonsense. Are we enemies with Japan? Germany? The American South? This is uniquely funny with Iran because if we are creating so many enemies amongst the Iranian people, why is the regime doing everything in their power to keep them silent? Curious. Also funny that you say "we let the regime slaughter thousands," yet now you are claiming we are making it worse by... killing the regime. Which is it? Is you true complaint that we didn't attack earlier? Your neighbor analogy is stupid. If he killed my daughter and tried to rape my wife, you bet your ass I'd kill him. And if his family has a problem with that, I'd kill them too. I already addressed this. Where you see policy failure, I don't. Which specific policies are failing again? Tariffs were supposed to collapse the world economy. They haven't. We were told that stopping illegal immigration would make groceries quadruple in price. They haven't. Hell, my whole life the Doomsday scenario for the oil markets has been the closing of the strait of Hormuz. Yet it's only doubled? Oil isn't even remotely close to the inflation adjusted highs of previous decades. What gives? Keeping trans athletes out of girls sports and bathrooms? Weren't there supposed to be mass suicides? Nope. I'm hoping for a catastrophic stock market collapse and an entire restructuring of the domestic economy. But in the meantime, the stock market is near all-time highs, and unemployment is still near all-time lows. So I asked you very specifically, what policies are failing, and how? You define an ally as someone who says they are an ally. I define them based on their acts. The European Union has taken economic advantage of us for a long time. You can call that retribution for the advantages we had following world war II. I called that ancient history. Just because I don't consider them in the enemy doesn't mean they are by default an ally. We haven't had shared goals in a while. Talking about what NATO was during the Cold war is not the same as talking about what NATO is now, over 30 years later. Comparing the per capita lives lost during the war on terror is interesting yet completely irrelevant. Unless you can find me part of the NATO charter that discusses how many lives each country is supposed to put up. It does not matter what they have done in the past. What matters is what they are doing now. And Ukraine proves unequivocally that they are not remotely pulling their weight. Can you honestly say with a straight face that if Western Europe were attacked today, they would have anything to offer? I worked with them, they could barely put together enough planes to practice refuelling. The "alienated" allies are putting more into defense thanks to Trump than they have in decades. I'd rather they be upset and lethal than harmless dependants. In the first few words you already miss the point. The "economic benefit" is only part of the picture. Is the middle class family of four better off with iPhones, large TVs, and fancier vehicle options if both parents must work out of necessity, and they will rent forever because a home is out of their reach? Are we better off having power pharmaceutical supply chain almost entirely at the whims of the Chinese? Even the manufacturing we retained, such as automobiles, we're ground to a halt because we don't even have the capacity to make 27+ nanometer chips, ancient technology by today's standards. Just because something was good yesterday doesn't mean it's good tomorrow. Opioids reduced the physical pain of millions of Americans over the past couple decades. Now we have a crippling addiction problem because of it. And why? Who decided that pain was bad? Who decided that pain was so bad it was worth any risk to mediate it? Do you think it's a good thing that our rare Earth mineral supply chain is functionally entirely in the hands of the Chinese? Please explain how we are better off for that. Poetry is not policy. Are the rest of your political opinions informed by poetry written for a fundraiser? I'm confused. When I say "Politicians aren't respectable war veterans anymore, they're profit-seeking sociopaths," and you point out that Trump is a draft-dodging sociopath, that just sounds like you're agreeing with me. And once again, arguing a point I never made. "Our government is better off with a spectrum of backgrounds and experience." Agreed, of the many thousands and thousands of people that make up our government, a spectrum of backgrounds is desirable. For the very specific position of the president, military experience is an invaluable ingredient to the literal head of the military. I watched Trump do multiple multi-hour unscripted interviews. Harris could barely make it through 5-minute softball session with friendly interviewers without spouting literal gibberish. Why do you think Kamala couldn't do a single podcast? Joe Rogan is literally a Bernie Bro. I never said Trump was telling the truth or demonstrating some sort of incredible knowledge base. He knows very little. But it's laughable to try to compare Biden and Harris, who even while hiding from any sort of press scrutiny couldn't remain coherent for longer than 2 or 3 minutes, with Trump who subjected himself to every single microphone that he could get in front of, friendly or foe. You guys are so desperately trying to frame us as Trump sycophants, justifying away his every flaw and failing. We're not. We're simply pointing out that of the options we were given, this was the best shit sandwich, and objectively better for our policy preferences. Obviously you guys are just smarter and more capable and more honorable than everyone else here and in Washington DC. Great. I can't wait to see your names on the ballot. It's clear that you are the first people to realize that honor and truth and cooperation are valuable components of domestic and foreign policy. It should be pretty easy then for you to make your pitch to the American People and get voted in. We need you! I'm sure they'll vote for the "better way" as soon as you, the first ever to put it in words, share your genius with the rest of us. Surely the Russians and Chinese and Iranians and Venezuelans will set aside their violent ambitions as soon as they hear the siren-sing of your logic and poise. Or maybe, just maybe, that's not how the world works.