I guess it does look like whitney houston a tad

Ready for the fun question? When we Dems have power... do we uh.. surrender? or actually try to win?

#61 | Posted by sitzkrieg

I have answered your question, now answer one of mine

Why do you think winning or losing is in our power?

Please, someone tell me where my short analysis is wrong. i would LOVE to see some other options or to be wrong with my conclusions.

Then there is this simple fact

We, America, started this illegal, unjust, immoral, unjustifiable war of aggression with a cowardly sneak attack, during negotiations (for the second time mind you) that murdered their leader and the head of their country's primary religion along with young children. We have committed multiple war crimes. We have threatened more war crimes. We have proven ourselves completely untrustworthy. We have provided unquestioning support to a genocidal regime.

Winning? What does that even mean?

Diplomacy?
HA

We are losing this war too.

1. China and Russia, who can aid Iran without worry of response are by far sufficient to provide Iran with enough to carry on any fight. They are completely and utterly motivated to harm the US through Iran. make no mistake of it. Do you think Piggy would dare sanction China over Iran? HA

2. The Guld states are looking for the exit door in their relationship to the US. We have demonstrated for the world to see our complete and utter inability to defend them. to add insult to injury we stripped their defenses and prioritized Israel's defenses with the limited defensive munitions we were able to supply. The Gulf states are looking for separate peace with Iran

3. Our primary ally Israel is a pariah on the world stage

4. Our pacific allies see America removing missile defense systems and carriers from the pacific. Compound that with THEY are suffering the worst of the economic price of the war. They have options

5. Piggy has insulted and threatened our NATO allies. We freaking threatened to invade Greenland to the point that our allies were putting sacrificial lamb soldiers on the island to bleed and die if we invaded

No, no one else is going to save us

Let's start militarily

We cannot win militarily

What are our options

1. Ground assault ain't gonna happen. In fact, even the possibility of a ground invasion is beyond fanciful. We simply do not have the troops to do it and have exactly zero allies willing to put their lives on the line to that end.

2. Limited ground action, i.e. seizing territory-strategic dead end. There is no land that could induce Iran to surrender. Kharg Island? NOPE. To say nothing of the challenges at assaulting it and putting our troops as sitting ducks, it will achieve exactly 1 thing. Iran will level the gulf state's energy infrastructure

3. Concerted air offensive-Iran already took the worst America and Israel could inflict on us and hit back hard enough to induce Piggy to surrender with the Memorandum of Understanding-you know, the surrender document. We do not have the stand-off offensive or defensive missile supply. Full stop

4. Tit-for-tat attacks-low intensity ongoing bombing campaign. Iran has a distinct advantage in this regard as their munition supplies are not strained and they have a plethora of targets and other options, i.e. Houthis

5. Blockade-isn't working, Iran has been an isolated country for decades and is prepared to sacrifice. $5 per gallon fuel is making Americans cry surrender

6. That leaves us with the nuclear bomb issue. Piggy may get that desperate. Will Piggy use 1 leaving iran with 29 other missile locations unhit able to respond and destroy as much as they can? Or will Piggy use 30 nukes to hit the 30 buried missile locations inflicting a globally devastating nuclear winter.

Nope no military solution

Ready for the fun question? When we Dems have power... do we uh.. surrender? or actually try to win?

#61 | Posted by sitzkrieg a

Sure, that's a fun question

The answer is quite simple

We cannot win.

Period

Full Stop

It is not in the range of possibilities

There is nothing we can do to win

We cannot win

We have no ability to win

Winning is not on the table

You beginning to see a pattern?

People in his administration know this.

On some level, the occasionally rational piggy realizes it too.

But, you see, that is the problem with defeat, you no longer are in charge of your destiny.

We have lost our ME bases

We are losing our ME allies.

These losses are not something that are easily mended

FFS Piggy spit is Saudi Arabia's face. As vile a regime the Saudis are they have been our partners-buying our ----

You think SA doesn't have options other than the US? When the primary thing we provided them was security?

You think SA isn't in danger of an uprising if the economy collapses cause they can't sell oil?

the Emiratis and Bahrain and Kuwait are desperate for deals with Iran.

Kuwait, who owes its existence to the US will run from us

If you can't comprehend the danger we face, you really need education

The impact of that cannot be overstated.

America without its military projection is not as powerful

Our economic power rests, in significant part, on our military power. We give protection, they give economic support/investment.

If we do not have the military power, the economic relationships will dry up.

Take Japan as an example

We have underpinned their defense since WW2.

As a result, Japan has been a major buyer of our bonds

You know the very money we use to function.

If we cannot protect them (and we are giving them hard facts that we cannot or will not-pulling defensive missile systems and a carrier from the western pacific) they will by necessity seek protection elsewhere-like I don't know China.

Same with South Korea

We lose South Korea and Japan, Taiwan may willingly join China to avoid being invaded.

There goes our defense, technology and AI industries-Taiwan makes the microchips we use.

This is NOT a fantasy, this is happening, now, as we speak.

Japan and SK have been hit hard by our Iran war and the oil disruption. How long before they decide to stop buying our bonds?

People need to understand what is happening.

America is losing.

Badly

Iran has seized the initiative from us.

That is just astounding.

For like 100+ years we have projected military power. We have ALWAYS had the military force to project and impose our will.

That is no longer the case

Drone and ballistic missile warfare has thrown that out the window.

Yes, we still have a HUGELY powerful military

But the form of our military, it's basic premise is thrown out the window.

We base our military power and thus our foreign policy and thus our economic power on the projection of power from a worldwide network of bases.

that is no longer feasible.

Any country with a capacity to produce drones on a substantial level completely checks that power. We cannot have carriers within range of drone swarms. We cannot have bases within range of ballistic missiles.

That means we cannot have bases within range of Russia, Iran, China and soon more countries

That means the most basic assumption of our military projection is useless

So what exactly are you basing your claim on that Trump might use one?

#45 | Posted by BillJohnson

Donald Trump is a malignant narcissistic Sociopath.

In many ways he does not think other people actually exist.

He has acted throughout his second term as if he wants to solidify a legacy that will outlast him, because even in his sick demented mind he knows no one will honor him after he dies.

That is why he is obsessed with the ballroom and the arch and renaming ----.

There would be no clearer legacy then using a nuclear weapon.

In his sick, demented mind he would perceive himself as having the unique strength to use one-a historic figure. He thinks of himself in terms of the worst conquerors in history.

He is a very short-term thinker; long term strategic thinking does not occur to him.

There is no military solution to Iran.

Iran is kicking our ass. We are losing. Badly.

Piggy cannot, will not, accept defeat. He never has and never will. That is the essence of who he is.

Am I saying it is likely? Not at all

I am saying that the thought he wouldn't use one is simply insane.

I think some of the prime motivators to him would be the impact on him personally-the corruption and grift he is perpetrating, the bribes coming in from middle eastern dictatorships, the fact that using a nuke MAY even get republicans to support getting rid of him (long shot but who knows).

As for him saying he wouldn't, well that is just silly to think that means anything.

If you don't think there is a non-zero chance piggy would use nuke you're well an idiot but that is a well known fact

Piggy said the war would be over right after the election.

You do understand what that means, right?

Piggy will escalate the war at that point as the mid-terms will be behind him. If he loses the Senate and House, he will have 2 months to expand the war.

That could include tactical nukes.

Thanks magat scum

This Monday the Gulf states will be meeting with Iran, apparently, to reach separate agreements to end the fighting.

We are not participating.

Our allies are abandoning us

Saudi Arabia came hat in hand begging Piggy to help them against the Houthis

Piggy said no

Saudi Arabia communicated to the Iranian militias in Iraq that they wouldn't retaliate for the attack on their pipeline

A high ranking naval officer admitted that our base in Bahrain was destroyed and there is no plan to repair it.

Iran's proxy in Yemen seems to be on the brink of seizing control of that country.

To sum up, we have lost the initiative, Iran has seized the initiative. Iran is projecting power throughout the regions. We are fleeing from the region. Our "allies" are looking for a separate peace. Iran and it's proxies control 2 of the 3 exits from the ME for oil. Saudi Arabia's oil is cutoff

this is what defeat looks like

We are losing, ---- we have LOST this war. Badly

come to mohammed it would seem more apropos

LOL

workarounds

LOL

is there a workaround that is immune to drone attack?

I was assured that the Saudi pipeline made the Strait of Hormuz obsolete

Seems I was right, again

"I don't care if I'm registered or not, I'm going to try to cheat like hell like they do."

When I refer to "fraud," I'm not only talking about fraud committed by individual voters.
I'm also talking about the possibility of systemic fraud at the state level, including collusion among state officials or others involved in the election process.
Personally, I believe there is enough reason for concern that this may already be occurring.
I don't think the possibility should simply be dismissed because it doesn't fit the traditional idea of what voter fraud looks like.

#52 | Posted by BillJohnso

So, iow, you want a conspiracy theory to drive voting policy that will inevitably, unquestionably, disenfranchise 10s of thousands if not millions of voters.

IF it were happening, this "systematic fraud at the state level" it should be proven to justify disenfranchising 10s of thousands if not millions of voters.

Would you not agree that that is appropriate?

How many people would have to be involved for this conspiracy to play out?

You are aware that election boards are bipartisan, right? The people that count and certify the votes are bipartisan, that there are bipartisan vote watchers. You understand that right?

That ALL of the evidence of this systematic fraud at the state level has been laughed out of court due to lack of evidence.

Truth,
"A total ban on mail-in voting would heavily restrict participation for military members stationed overseas, citizens living abroad, the elderly, and voters with disabilities who depend on mail infrastructure to participate."
I don't believe a total ban on mail-in voting would ever stand a chance.
Traditional absentee voting is necessary for people who need it.
So why are you even bringing up a total ban to me when I have never proposed one?

#51 | Posted by BillJohnson

So, just a ban on blanket mail-in-voting

Replaced by those people having to a. show ID and b. show up at the voting booth

You do realize that will disenfranchise 10s of thousands if not millions of voters?

Christ how the world would be different if Gore and Hillary had won.

For those not paying attention Piggy's war is slowly inexorably expanding.

Thanks magat scum

ruth,
"Which is a bigger danger to the democratic process-voter fraud or voter suppression?"
You mean requiring people to show ID and vote in person?
Is that the suppression you are referring to?
The answer to your question is voter fraud.
#44 | Posted by BillJohnson

Then you don't live in reality

Older Citizens: Approximately 18% of citizens over the age of 65 (nearly 6 million people) lack a valid photo ID.
Black Voters: Roughly 25% of voting-age African Americans (about 5.5 million people) do not have a government-issued photo ID.
Latino Voters: Around 16% of Latino voters lack a qualifying government photo ID.
Low-Income Earners: About 15% of voting-age Americans earning less than $35,000 per year do not possess a valid photo ID.

Impact of Eliminating Mail-In Voting
Eliminating mail-in options entirely would fundamentally alter how a large portion of the electorate participates:
Overall Usage: Data from federal election surveys shows that approximately 29% of all voters cast their ballots by mail in recent major elections.
Affected Groups: A total ban on mail-in voting would heavily restrict participation for military members stationed overseas, citizens living abroad, the elderly, and voters with disabilities who depend on mail infrastructure to participate.

It is a simple obvious fact that if you put hurdles to voting tens of thousands, if not hundreds of thousands, if not millions of eligible voters will not or will be able to vote

That is a simple fact

If you think fraud ANYWHERE comes close to that number of votes, you are literally insane.

President Piggy ""Most people don't know that 'dumb' has a B at the end. You know, they think it's D-U-M, and that's okay." "

Thanks magat scum

Does bill know that dumb has a "b" at the end?

Can (will?) bill present an alternative to mail-in voting that will not disenfranchise a massive number of voters?

Will the number of voters disenfranchised by any alternative to mail-in voting far exceed any number of fraudulent votes?

For those wondering the answers are no and yes