That is not dead which can eternal lie, and with strange aeons bring us some web forums whereupon we can gather
http://garbi.online/forum/
Technically, Congress has to declare war. But they haven't done that since 1942.stessier wrote: Fri Mar 21, 2025 2:33 pm Like his net worth, the US's state of war depends on how Trump feels at any given moment.
And we're what, three months in? It's gonna be a long thread.
God, Trump made it be named the F-47 because he's the 47th president, didn't he.IceBear wrote: Sat Mar 22, 2025 5:58 am I think he was saying that it's page 47 and Trump is the 47th president just like the new jet is going to be named the F-47
Military aircraft designations follow no other pattern that I've ever been able to figure out. Maybe Musk can get it renamed the F-420. It's the highest-flying fighter ever.
The speculation I've seen is that someone who wanted to improve the odds that Trump would approve the proposal designated it as the F-47 to flatter his ego by implying it was named after him.
If that's the case, kudos to whoever came up with that strategy to win the business.Max Peck wrote: Sat Mar 22, 2025 11:47 pmThe speculation I've seen is that someone who wanted to improve the odds that Trump would approve the proposal designated it as the F-47 to flatter his ego by implying it was named after him.
I mean, I guess we have to hope that this sentiment ages well, but, you know...msduncan wrote: Sun Mar 23, 2025 7:33 pmIf that's the case, kudos to whoever came up with that strategy to win the business.Max Peck wrote: Sat Mar 22, 2025 11:47 pmThe speculation I've seen is that someone who wanted to improve the odds that Trump would approve the proposal designated it as the F-47 to flatter his ego by implying it was named after him.
Didn't say that it was good that it worked. It was just a smart strategy from whoever came up with it.Holman wrote: Sun Mar 23, 2025 7:38 pmI mean, I guess we have to hope that this sentiment ages well, but, you know...msduncan wrote: Sun Mar 23, 2025 7:33 pmIf that's the case, kudos to whoever came up with that strategy to win the business.Max Peck wrote: Sat Mar 22, 2025 11:47 pmThe speculation I've seen is that someone who wanted to improve the odds that Trump would approve the proposal designated it as the F-47 to flatter his ego by implying it was named after him.
America being made great again, I guess?Max Peck wrote: Sun Mar 23, 2025 8:26 pm If it's that easy to manipulate the PotUS, then what could go wrong?
I was a Trump 45 supporter and I didn't feel he was too terribly bad during that run. He seemed restrained and mostly enacted conservative policies. He went off the rails when he lost the election though and am certainly not this time around.Victoria Raverna wrote: Sun Mar 23, 2025 8:57 pmJust a question. You are Trump supporter? Or were one?
Are you happy with Trump in his second term so far?
Were you and your friends all cool with the Ukraine/Laptop shake down that took place ages ago? Sounds like it. To me, that is sorta a 'deal breaker'. There is a point were you can't say "I like his policies" when he is doing things like this as well. That's what character is about. Having some lines that even if someone support what you like, you don't support them because of other things they do. It's not something you can just draw lines around a pick from.msduncan wrote: Sun Mar 23, 2025 9:22 pmI was a Trump 45 supporter and I didn't feel he was too terribly bad during that run. He seemed restrained and mostly enacted conservative policies. He went off the rails when he lost the election though and am certainly not this time around.Victoria Raverna wrote: Sun Mar 23, 2025 8:57 pmJust a question. You are Trump supporter? Or were one?
Are you happy with Trump in his second term so far?
I've had conversations with friends about the entirety of the Trump phenomenon and we have decided that he's a reactionary President. We were fearful prior to his first election that he wasn't actually conservative and would flip after the election. What we observed is that the harder the left came after him the harder he went right. He started during the Russian dossier. Then after the last 4 years he's pushed even farther. We think it's an "I'll show their asses" reactionary shift from him. Almost a punishing reaction.
Remember he was verbally not all that conservative for years prior to politics. We literally think it's a personal thing.
Edit to add: we never liked his bombastic and non-statesman behavior though. Strictly talking policies.
The world found out shortly before 2 p.m. eastern time on March 15 that the United States was bombing Houthi targets across Yemen.
I, however, knew two hours before the first bombs exploded that the attack might be coming. The reason I knew this is that Pete Hegseth, the secretary of defense, had texted me the war plan at 11:44 a.m. The plan included precise information about weapons packages, targets, and timing.
This is going to require some explaining.
...
On Tuesday, March 11, I received a connection request on Signal from a user identified as Michael Waltz. Signal is an open-source encrypted messaging service popular with journalists and others who seek more privacy than other text-messaging services are capable of delivering. I assumed that the Michael Waltz in question was President Donald Trump’s national security adviser. I did not assume, however, that the request was from the actual Michael Waltz. I have met him in the past, and though I didn’t find it particularly strange that he might be reaching out to me, I did think it somewhat unusual, given the Trump administration’s contentious relationship with journalists—and Trump’s periodic fixation on me specifically. It immediately crossed my mind that someone could be masquerading as Waltz in order to somehow entrap me. It is not at all uncommon these days for nefarious actors to try to induce journalists to share information that could be used against them.
...
Two days later—Thursday—at 4:28 p.m., I received a notice that I was to be included in a Signal chat group. It was called the “Houthi PC small group.”
A message to the group, from “Michael Waltz,” read as follows: “Team – establishing a principles [sic] group for coordination on Houthis, particularly for over the next 72 hours. My deputy Alex Wong is pulling together a tiger team at deputies/agency Chief of Staff level following up from the meeting in the Sit Room this morning for action items and will be sending that out later this evening.”
...
One minute later, a person identified only as “MAR”—the secretary of state is Marco Antonio Rubio—wrote, “Mike Needham for State,” apparently designating the current counselor of the State Department as his representative. At that same moment, a Signal user identified as “JD Vance” wrote, “Andy baker for VP.” One minute after that, “TG” (presumably Tulsi Gabbard, the director of national intelligence, or someone masquerading as her) wrote, “Joe Kent for DNI.” Nine minutes later, “Scott B”—apparently Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent, or someone spoofing his identity, wrote, “Dan Katz for Treasury.” At 4:53 p.m., a user called “Pete Hegseth” wrote, “Dan Caldwell for DoD.” And at 6:34 p.m., “Brian” wrote “Brian McCormack for NSC.” One more person responded: “John Ratcliffe” wrote at 5:24 p.m. with the name of a CIA official to be included in the group. I am not publishing that name, because that person is an active intelligence officer.
He certainly was far from an ideal candidate in 2016, but he was the official alternative to a plan of policies that are mirror opposites of what people who are not on the left oppose. In other words - you have an America with practically diametrically opposed positions.... not a spectrum where things overlap. So you either swallow hard and say "yeah, he's unpolished and unprofessional...but it means the policies that I strongly oppose will not be enacted', or you accept a path of 4 years worth of continued destruction of your supported positions being enacted after 8 years of the same prior to it.GreenGoo wrote: Mon Mar 24, 2025 1:04 pm There were plenty of reasons why Drumpf was not an acceptable candidate for the presidency in 2016, and none of which had anything to do with his politics or policy positions or party affiliations.
I mean, I was strongly opposed to Trump in 2016, but at the same time it is true that Trump was at least more unknown in 2016 than he was in 2024, and he did *mostly* (but very much not entirely!) govern as most GOP presidents would have in his first term. Voting for him in 2024 on the other hand is 1,000% indefensible. And more broadly as long as someone's on the train now I'm not going to knock them too hard for not getting on board sooner.GreenGoo wrote: Mon Mar 24, 2025 3:38 pm I'm not going to list all the reasons Drumpf was not a valid candidate 2016 for any critical thinking individual on the left or right. Because after 8 years of this clown, I'm exhausted pointing out reality to people. I know you know why you thought he was a valid choice. He was not. Writing it down doesn't change anything.
You simply didn't research your candidate enough, or let others tell you he was acceptable and that was good enough.
He's the same man today that he was in 2016. That he "only" went off the rails this term is not indicative of some change in his viability for the office. He was always this terrible. He made the mistake of having professionals around him last time. He's fixed that for his current term.
In any case, think critically and google competently. That's all it takes.
I was talking with my father-in-law yesterday about how after 20 years selling to the government, I had to get a new job because 95% of my government contracts got wiped out by some combination of DEI Executive Order, USAID shuttering, and DOGE. He's not a MAGA by any means, but has always been staunchly conservative. Never discussed it specifically, but I strongly suspect he's been a "hold my nose and vote for him" guy each time Trump has run, because he would never, ever vote blue. Yesterday, he said:El Guapo wrote: Mon Mar 24, 2025 2:20 pm Every Republican / conservative I meet (in person or virtually) who opposes Trump makes me feel a bit better. At least more like I'm not losing my damn mind.
I was completely floored, tbh. He wasn't just talking about Trump either. He said he's disgusted at the way our state reps (Mike Lee and John Curtis) along with every other GOP leader has simply rolled over and not "stood up for what they know is right". He's so flat-out disgusted by the corruption, the greed, and the lack of a backbone from any of them that it has simply driven him out."I've voted Republican in every election in my lifetime. After seeing what they've turned into, I'm not about to make that mistake again."
El Guapo wrote: Mon Mar 24, 2025 3:41 pm I mean, I was strongly opposed to Trump in 2016, but at the same time it is true that Trump was at least more unknown in 2016 than he was in 2024, and he did *mostly* (but very much not entirely!) govern as most GOP presidents would have in his first term. Voting for him in 2024 on the other hand is 1,000% indefensible. And more broadly as long as someone's on the train now I'm not going to knock them too hard for not getting on board sooner.
So much this. He managed to find corrupt toadies for every position while himself being led by Project 2025 team and PutinGreenGoo wrote: Mon Mar 24, 2025 3:38 pm I'm not going to list all the reasons Drumpf was not a valid candidate 2016 for any critical thinking individual on the left or right. Because after 8 years of this clown, I'm exhausted pointing out reality to people. I know you know why you thought he was a valid choice. He was not. Writing it down doesn't change anything.
You simply didn't research your candidate enough, or let others tell you he was acceptable and that was good enough.
He's the same man today that he was in 2016. That he "only" went off the rails this term is not indicative of some change in his viability for the office. He was always this terrible. He made the mistake of having professionals around him last time. He's fixed that for his current term.
Hopefully your fellow Americans are more understanding as to your position. I am not.
In any case, think critically and google competently. That's all it takes.
I mean, I don't really disagree. All I'm saying is: (1) it was more indefensible to support Trump in 2024 than it was in 2016; and (2) I don't see much utility in lecturing people who don't support Trump about why they should have stopped supporting him sooner.GreenGoo wrote: Mon Mar 24, 2025 3:48 pmEl Guapo wrote: Mon Mar 24, 2025 3:41 pm I mean, I was strongly opposed to Trump in 2016, but at the same time it is true that Trump was at least more unknown in 2016 than he was in 2024, and he did *mostly* (but very much not entirely!) govern as most GOP presidents would have in his first term. Voting for him in 2024 on the other hand is 1,000% indefensible. And more broadly as long as someone's on the train now I'm not going to knock them too hard for not getting on board sooner.
No. He was clearly unqualified and an amoral sex offender in 2016. He has decades of very public abhorrent behaviour. In a political environment where saying something racist would disqualify you, he was constantly reprehensible for decades.
This is all very publicly available information. He was, however, on a short lived successful "reality" tv show. So...it kind of balances out.
The moment he started commenting on the attractiveness of other candidates wives should have been enough to know he was shit personified. But if that wasn't enough for you, he has thousands of other acts and words that are worse. Not from a "woke" standpoint. From a human being standpoint.
Agree!El Guapo wrote: Mon Mar 24, 2025 4:04 pm All I'm saying is: (1) it was more indefensible to support Trump in 2024 than it was in 2016; and (2) I don't see much utility in lecturing people who don't support Trump about why they should have stopped supporting him sooner.
Unfortunately by 2024, the cult like figure had taken hold in many people strongly enough that all that other stuff didn't break the spell. Or, for those not lured by cult like appeal, the anger at the left outweighed any sense they had to not vote against him.El Guapo wrote: Mon Mar 24, 2025 3:41 pmI mean, I was strongly opposed to Trump in 2016, but at the same time it is true that Trump was at least more unknown in 2016 than he was in 2024, and he did *mostly* (but very much not entirely!) govern as most GOP presidents would have in his first term. Voting for him in 2024 on the other hand is 1,000% indefensible. And more broadly as long as someone's on the train now I'm not going to knock them too hard for not getting on board sooner.GreenGoo wrote: Mon Mar 24, 2025 3:38 pm I'm not going to list all the reasons Drumpf was not a valid candidate 2016 for any critical thinking individual on the left or right. Because after 8 years of this clown, I'm exhausted pointing out reality to people. I know you know why you thought he was a valid choice. He was not. Writing it down doesn't change anything.
You simply didn't research your candidate enough, or let others tell you he was acceptable and that was good enough.
He's the same man today that he was in 2016. That he "only" went off the rails this term is not indicative of some change in his viability for the office. He was always this terrible. He made the mistake of having professionals around him last time. He's fixed that for his current term.
In any case, think critically and google competently. That's all it takes.
Very agree. If we're going to get a better world, it'll be by coming together with those we don't see eye to eye with and bringing about change. Maintaining blame and enmity - deserved or not - might feel better, but it could stop us from addressing it.El Guapo wrote: Mon Mar 24, 2025 4:04 pm I mean, I don't really disagree. All I'm saying is: (1) it was more indefensible to support Trump in 2024 than it was in 2016; and (2) I don't see much utility in lecturing people who don't support Trump about why they should have stopped supporting him sooner.