Politics

[Nyati]

Unfortunately, the priests in those countries preach "liberation theology." Not exactly the same a Western Christianity.

Actually quite a few immigrants from central/south america are Evangelical Christians

 

[spike.t]

I’m screwed if other countries that I may want to visit implement something like this. This website is the only “social media” I’m on.

Yup same thing....but the last time I did my esta from memory they asked if you were on any social media sites..I replied none.....with the madam renewing her visitors visa at same time we just put Facebook and whatever other...can't remember if any other she on....think might have had to put name she used but that was it from memory....we were issued no probs...now though .....some of the info required now I probably couldn't answer.....my first usa visa which I got in the late 70s was an unlimited time one with multiple entry facilities...beat you could have....courtesy of a usa embassy security person who stayed at our hotel....he sent me the application and sorted it out....got taken away when the esta was introduced....

 

[fourfive8]

Oh good Lord. And we are collectively complaining about the heavy handedness of European social media surveillance? I can't wait to see the form the blowback will take with regard to this nonsense. I wonder how many on this thread would survive British or French scrutiny.

Trust Trump. If there isn't a crisis with a traditional ally, he'll find a way to create one. I am beginning to have concerns that what we saw with the Biden administration, where subordinate "true believers" were running amok, isn't starting to take root in Trump's.

Tourists — including those from Britain, Australia, France, and Japan — will be mandated to provide five years of their social media history as part of their applications to visit the U.S., according to a notice posted by U.S. Customs and Border Protection, or CBP, on Wednesday.

https://www.cnbc.com/2025/12/10/us-to-inspect-tourists-social-media-history-from-past-5-years-.html

Agreed! I’m not following this policy approach at all for common tourist travel to the US. Trump needs to think twice about this. Does seem like a group of invisible, internal advisors running some kind of junior G man security campaign. There are all manner of hidden traps and potential unforced errors embedded in this … not good..,

 

[Hunt anything]

We can’t even deport people that spout crap like “death to America” in a pro Hamas demonstration or threaten our law enforcement officers.

 

[CJW]

Mamdani is appointing just who you think he would in NYC.

Zohran Mamdani taps ex-con rapper who served 7 years for armed robbery as criminal justice adviser on transition team: ‘Insane’

Rapper-turned-activist Mysonne Linen did seven years in prison for armed robbery. Now he’ll advise Zohran Mamdani on crime.

nypost.com

 

[Boyd Brooks]

Not sure how you equate the travel bans during the Chinese virus fkup to this.....sorry but this is a ridiculous amount of crap to provide.....if they could work out whether you were OK to travel with the amount of info you had to provide for the esta prior to these ludicrous demands, with all the facilities at their disposal then something is pretty fkd up now....

My point was that travel from home is not a right, it’s a privilege. Every government makes requirements for entry, which change with the wind. If you want to travel, you have to jump the hoops, or find something fun to do at home.

 

[mdwest]

@Red Leg @mdwest and others with military backgrounds, please review this report if you wouldn't mind? I'd like to hear your perspective on this shocking claim in the press today regarding China's capabilities to retake Taiwan and sink our carrier groups.

China will destroy US military in fight over Taiwan, top secret document warns

Beijing’s hypersonic missiles ‘could sink US aircraft carriers within minutes’

www.telegraph.co.uk

I am FAR from a China or even a PACOM expert.. I honestly dont have a whole lot of experience in dealing with "near peer" threats either (from either a planning or operational perspective).. most of my knowledge base and experience is in SOLIC (special operations low intensity conflict), and most of my defense industry experience is tied to Security Sector Reform (SSR), and DDR (Disarmament, Demobilization, and Reintegration)... basically activities that happen post conflict.. most of that is in the middle east, SW asia (for obvious reasons) Africa, and Latin America..

Ive done a little work in Korea and Japan (PACOM countries), and have spent some time in China years ago.. but Ive honestly spent very little time studying their military capabilities/strengths/weaknesses..

There are couple of things that stick out to me in the telegraph article though....

It is absolutely true that Chinas military is huge.. they have a lot of everything... and they have been for the last several years filling gaps in things they traditionally have not possessed in their militaries (like aircraft carriers).. and.. their manufacturing capability is enormous.. they can build ships, planes, artillery, etc.. MUCH faster than we can...

but.. they have some very serious limitations.. and some very serious challenges/problems as well..

the quality of much of their military "stuff" is not unlike other chinese stuff... they have high failure rates, substantial numbers of vehicles, aircraft, ships, etc that stay dead lined because they break down / fall apart A LOT.. and.. while for example the chinese do have a 5th generation fighter (the J-20), it is lightyears behind the US 5th generation fighters (F22, F35).. it will indeed take A LOT of J-20's to take on and have a chance in hell against our most modern jets..

They do have a lot of hypersonic missiles.. but all 600 of them are not the same make/model.. and reports Ive read show many/most to be unreliable..

Then you have a matter of training... it takes A LOT of money and A LOT of time and A LOT of resources to maintain a fighting force of 3M personnel (how many people are in their active and reserve forces).. and they lack the money, time, and resources to do it to the same standard as the US...

While the sheer numbers of the Chinese army for example would create serious problems in a large scale conventional conflict.. the reality is youre talking about sending a really good high school baseball team to take on the NY Yankees (well... 20 HS teams.. all playing at once lol).. its going to take several divisions of chinese armor and infantry to take on a single division of US armor or infantry..

and then you have Chinas very strict, centralized command system (much like Russias) vs the US's decentralized system...

we've all seen how the overwhelming number of Russians have done against the much smaller Ukrainian fighting force over the last few years.. centralized systems arent very effective on the modern battlefield (I dont know that theyve ever been as effective as you'd want them to be).. but in a communist state, its really the only option youve got.. you cant go letting young NCOs and Officers make decisions.. that might lead to free thinking and free will in other areas of life, etc..

Lastly, and possibly the biggest and most important difference... the US is extremely battle hardened right now... we just came out of a 20 year war.. our forces are extremely experienced.. our leaders have led in combat for most of their careers... the chinese have participated in a few skirmishes here and there.. but really havent been battle tested on a large scale since Vietnam...

Again.. I am NOT an expert on all things China.. and I would concede that China would be a hell of a tiger to grab by the tail.. it certainly wouldnt be a walk in the park...

but.. Im equally confident the Chinese have no desire to grab the eagle by its wings either.. even if they won, they'd lose... their economy would get hammered.. their military would get decimated.. and they'd then be vulnerable to 2nd tier threats that they share borders with that dont particularly like them..

as an afterthought.. another HUGE challenge I think China would have is resources.. wheres all the fuel going to come from to fight the US? how are you going to pay those million reservists youre going to have to call up? how about all of the steel required to build those tanks, planes, etc..

Its one thing to have the manufacturing capability to build lots of stuff quickly.. but.. its quite another thing to be able to feed that manufacturing capability...

having a factory that can pump out a million artillery shells in a week is awesome.. if you have the raw materials to make the shells.. if you dont, its really just a big building that not worth shit during a fight..

 

[Kharn]

@Red Leg @mdwest and others with military backgrounds, please review this report if you wouldn't mind? I'd like to hear your perspective on this shocking claim in the press today regarding China's capabilities to retake Taiwan and sink our carrier groups.

China will destroy US military in fight over Taiwan, top secret document warns

Beijing’s hypersonic missiles ‘could sink US aircraft carriers within minutes’

www.telegraph.co.uk

Needs a subscription to view the article... (Not happening from me).

But I don't see how China could even "challenge" the US military industrial complex (In any regard) with the US spending oh so very much more than China does?

When I ask google "China Military Budget vs America Military Budget" this is its response.

"The U.S. military budget dwarfs China's, with the U.S. spending nearly $1 trillion in 2024 compared to China's estimated $314 billion, making the U.S. the highest spender globally; however, China's budget is the world's second-largest, growing steadily and approaching one-third of U.S. spending, with adjustments for buying power (PPP) suggesting a closer, though still significant, gap, as China's defense spending now vastly outpaces other Asian nations like Japan and South Korea"

 

[mdwest]

Needs a subscription to view the article... (Not happening from me).

But I don't see how China could even "challenge" the US military industrial complex (In any regard) with the US spending oh so very much more than China does?

I was able to click the link.. no paywall for me for some reason...

its a crude summary... but basically the argument made in the article is that china has a lot more stuff than the US has.. and that some of that stuff is cutting edge tech (like hypersonic missiles).. and that US wargames demonstrate that we would lose to the Chinese every time we play them..

the lot more stuff argument is primarily what I addressed in the last post..

the cutting edge tech.. from what I understand.. isnt really all that cutting edge at all.. most of it doesnt stand up to current south korean or european equivalent tech.. and almost none of it gets remotely close to US tech..

and.. regarding wargames (this is something I know a good deal about.. my firm has been inside title 10, theater level wargames with the DoD for more than a decade).. well.. theyre largely designed for us to lose.. the entire point of the wargame is to learn where you are vulnerable.. so that you can go fix that problem.. then fight another wargame.. and find another problem.. etc..etc..

the people that design/build/execute our large scale wargames are mostly retired senior field grade and general officers with decades upon decades of very specialized and highly varied experience..

we've all seen the movie Top Gun, and understand how veteran fighter pilots show up and get their assess handed to them by the true experts... and then, over time, as they learn new skills, new tactics, become more familiar with their tools, etc..etc.. they slowly start winning engagements..

wargames are similar.. OF COURSE youre going to lose... youre facing the best of the best of the best.. the guys that designed the game made it super hard/difficult on purpose..

the whole point is for you to go away, lick your wounds, learn from it, and come back a better fighter..

its a whole lot better to "die" in a game than it is to die in an actual fight..

 

[wesheltonj]

China has volume, the USA has quality. Volume does have its advantages. I highly doubt China will invade China, next year. Now after all the chip plants move to the USA then ask me again.

 

[Red Leg]

I am FAR from a China or even a PACOM expert.. I honestly dont have a whole lot of experience in dealing with "near peer" threats either (from either a planning or operational perspective).. most of my knowledge base and experience is in SOLIC (special operations low intensity conflict), and most of my defense industry experience is tied to Security Sector Reform (SSR), and DDR (Disarmament, Demobilization, and Reintegration)... basically activities that happen post conflict.. most of that is in the middle east, SW asia (for obvious reasons) Africa, and Latin America..

Ive done a little work in Korea and Japan (PACOM countries), and have spent some time in China years ago.. but Ive honestly spent very little time studying their military capabilities/strengths/weaknesses..

There are couple of things that stick out to me in the telegraph article though....

It is absolutely true that Chinas military is huge.. they have a lot of everything... and they have been for the last several years filling gaps in things they traditionally have not possessed in their militaries (like aircraft carriers).. and.. their manufacturing capability is enormous.. they can build ships, planes, artillery, etc.. MUCH faster than we can...

but.. they have some very serious limitations.. and some very serious challenges/problems as well..

the quality of much of their military "stuff" is not unlike other chinese stuff... they have high failure rates, substantial numbers of vehicles, aircraft, ships, etc that stay dead lined because they break down / fall apart A LOT.. and.. while for example the chinese do have a 5th generation fighter (the J-20), it is lightyears behind the US 5th generation fighters (F22, F35).. it will indeed take A LOT of J-20's to take on and have a chance in hell against our most modern jets..

They do have a lot of hypersonic missiles.. but all 600 of them are not the same make/model.. and reports Ive read show many/most to be unreliable..

Then you have a matter of training... it takes A LOT of money and A LOT of time and A LOT of resources to maintain a fighting force of 3M personnel (how many people are in their active and reserve forces).. and they lack the money, time, and resources to do it to the same standard as the US...

While the sheer numbers of the Chinese army for example would create serious problems in a large scale conventional conflict.. the reality is youre talking about sending a really good high school baseball team to take on the NY Yankees (well... 20 HS teams.. all playing at once lol).. its going to take several divisions of chinese armor and infantry to take on a single division of US armor or infantry..

and then you have Chinas very strict, centralized command system (much like Russias) vs the US's decentralized system...

we've all seen how the overwhelming number of Russians have done against the much smaller Ukrainian fighting force over the last few years.. centralized systems arent very effective on the modern battlefield (I dont know that theyve ever been as effective as you'd want them to be).. but in a communist state, its really the only option youve got.. you cant go letting young NCOs and Officers make decisions.. that might lead to free thinking and free will in other areas of life, etc..

Lastly, and possibly the biggest and most important difference... the US is extremely battle hardened right now... we just came out of a 20 year war.. our forces are extremely experienced.. our leaders have led in combat for most of their careers... the chinese have participated in a few skirmishes here and there.. but really havent been battle tested on a large scale since Vietnam...

Again.. I am NOT an expert on all things China.. and I would concede that China would be a hell of a tiger to grab by the tail.. it certainly wouldnt be a walk in the park...

but.. Im equally confident the Chinese have no desire to grab the eagle by its wings either.. even if they won, they'd lose... their economy would get hammered.. their military would get decimated.. and they'd then be vulnerable to 2nd tier threats that they share borders with that dont particularly like them..

as an afterthought.. another HUGE challenge I think China would have is resources.. wheres all the fuel going to come from to fight the US? how are you going to pay those million reservists youre going to have to call up? how about all of the steel required to build those tanks, planes, etc..

Its one thing to have the manufacturing capability to build lots of stuff quickly.. but.. its quite another thing to be able to feed that manufacturing capability...

having a factory that can pump out a million artillery shells in a week is awesome.. if you have the raw materials to make the shells.. if you dont, its really just a big building that not worth shit during a fight..

I think this is spot on. While I did spend most of my career on the peer conflict side of the house, my access to real data on these sorts of assessments ended some little while ago. I count my corporate time, because I maintained my tickets and we were building capabilities against these sorts of threat environments. That was still 12 years ago. Though there is a relatively small community of people with my background who carry on a dialogue on these sorts of subjects constantly.

The size of China's ground forces is a bit of a red herring. How would we ever come to grips with each other? The Chinese Navy is rather unlikely to appear off San Diego to conduct an amphibious invasion, and under no circumstances are we going to invade China. Therefore the conflict, should it occur and assuming it is conventional, will take place at sea, in the air, and in space. It is possible, in a period of heightened tensions, we could have a military assistance team on Taiwan should the Chinese attempt an invasion, but that battle, one way or another, would be over before we could introduce conventional land forces onto the island.

While I do wish we had more air and naval platforms, the qualitative difference is meaningful. Our pilots are the best trained and most experienced in the world. Our carrier, surface warfare, and submarine experience is not remotely matched by anyone. That does not mean such a conflict would be easy - on the contrary - it would be catastrophically bloody. But I would not wager a dime on the Chinese.

Needs a subscription to view the article... (Not happening from me).

But I don't see how China could even "challenge" the US military industrial complex (In any regard) with the US spending oh so very much more than China does?

When I ask google "China Military Budget vs America Military Budget" this is its response.

"The U.S. military budget dwarfs China's, with the U.S. spending nearly $1 trillion in 2024 compared to China's estimated $314 billion, making the U.S. the highest spender globally; however, China's budget is the world's second-largest, growing steadily and approaching one-third of U.S. spending, with adjustments for buying power (PPP) suggesting a closer, though still significant, gap, as China's defense spending now vastly outpaces other Asian nations like Japan and South Korea"

Yes but. It isn't just PPP. Like the Russian military budget, the Chinese budget doesn't contain a lot of things that ours does. For instance, Chinese pensions and medical care expenditures for veterans or both significantly lower, and in the case of medical care, largely off budget. Military R&D is separate from the military budget. The same is true of military satellites and other space operations.

The US industrial base is a more expensive resource. China makes cheap electronics because they do not pay their labor force a wage structure comparative to the US. As a rule, they also don't create as reliable or capable a product.

Our first operational F-22 squadron took to the air in 2005. Originally planned for a total of 750, congress and two administrations whittled the total buy down to only 187. I would still far rather go to war with those 187 20-year-old fighters than the 300+ J-20 aircraft currently operated by the Chinese.

 

[mdwest]

China has volume, the USA has quality. Volume does have its advantages. I highly doubt China will invade China, next year. Now after all the chip plants move to the USA then ask me again.

I agree...

once we have chip manufacturing completely under control, Taiwan is suddenly far less valuable and of far less interest to the average american..

right now we have a very strong reason why we would push back, and push back extremely hard if China were to try to take the island..

the Chinese if they are not anything else, are a patient people...

they wont have a problem waiting for the US to not be as interested in Taiwans defense..

 

[Red Leg]

I was able to click the link.. no paywall for me for some reason...

its a crude summary... but basically the argument made in the article is that china has a lot more stuff than the US has.. and that some of that stuff is cutting edge tech (like hypersonic missiles).. and that US wargames demonstrate that we would lose to the Chinese every time we play them..

the lot more stuff argument is primarily what I addressed in the last post..

the cutting edge tech.. from what I understand.. isnt really all that cutting edge at all.. most of it doesnt stand up to current south korean or european equivalent tech.. and almost none of it gets remotely close to US tech..

and.. regarding wargames (this is something I know a good deal about.. my firm has been inside title 10, theater level wargames with the DoD for more than a decade).. well.. theyre largely designed for us to lose.. the entire point of the wargame is to learn where you are vulnerable.. so that you can go fix that problem.. then fight another wargame.. and find another problem.. etc..etc..

the people that design/build/execute our large scale wargames are mostly retired senior field grade and general officers with decades upon decades of very specialized and highly varied experience..

we've all seen the movie Top Gun, and understand how veteran fighter pilots show up and get their assess handed to them by the true experts... and then, over time, as they learn new skills, new tactics, become more familiar with their tools, etc..etc.. they slowly start winning engagements..

wargames are similar.. OF COURSE youre going to lose... youre facing the best of the best of the best.. the guys that designed the game made it super hard/difficult on purpose..

the whole point is for you to go away, lick your wounds, learn from it, and come back a better fighter..

its a whole lot better to "die" in a game than it is to die in an actual fight..

Exactly. I have been a player and then a mentor on these things with both the Army and Joint commands my whole adult life. This is NOT how the US military conducts a wargame.

Everything possible is done to defeat the player commands. Far better to lose and refine strategy, tactics, and capabilities as a result of a failure against an unanticipated scenario than as a result of real world defeat.

 

[steve white]

I am FAR from a China or even a PACOM expert.. I honestly dont have a whole lot of experience in dealing with "near peer" threats either (from either a planning or operational perspective).. most of my knowledge base and experience is in SOLIC (special operations low intensity conflict), and most of my defense industry experience is tied to Security Sector Reform (SSR), and DDR (Disarmament, Demobilization, and Reintegration)... basically activities that happen post conflict.. most of that is in the middle east, SW asia (for obvious reasons) Africa, and Latin America..

Ive done a little work in Korea and Japan (PACOM countries), and have spent some time in China years ago.. but Ive honestly spent very little time studying their military capabilities/strengths/weaknesses..

There are couple of things that stick out to me in the telegraph article though....

It is absolutely true that Chinas military is huge.. they have a lot of everything... and they have been for the last several years filling gaps in things they traditionally have not possessed in their militaries (like aircraft carriers).. and.. their manufacturing capability is enormous.. they can build ships, planes, artillery, etc.. MUCH faster than we can...

but.. they have some very serious limitations.. and some very serious challenges/problems as well..

the quality of much of their military "stuff" is not unlike other chinese stuff... they have high failure rates, substantial numbers of vehicles, aircraft, ships, etc that stay dead lined because they break down / fall apart A LOT.. and.. while for example the chinese do have a 5th generation fighter (the J-20), it is lightyears behind the US 5th generation fighters (F22, F35).. it will indeed take A LOT of J-20's to take on and have a chance in hell against our most modern jets..

They do have a lot of hypersonic missiles.. but all 600 of them are not the same make/model.. and reports Ive read show many/most to be unreliable..

Then you have a matter of training... it takes A LOT of money and A LOT of time and A LOT of resources to maintain a fighting force of 3M personnel (how many people are in their active and reserve forces).. and they lack the money, time, and resources to do it to the same standard as the US...

While the sheer numbers of the Chinese army for example would create serious problems in a large scale conventional conflict.. the reality is youre talking about sending a really good high school baseball team to take on the NY Yankees (well... 20 HS teams.. all playing at once lol).. its going to take several divisions of chinese armor and infantry to take on a single division of US armor or infantry..

and then you have Chinas very strict, centralized command system (much like Russias) vs the US's decentralized system...

we've all seen how the overwhelming number of Russians have done against the much smaller Ukrainian fighting force over the last few years.. centralized systems arent very effective on the modern battlefield (I dont know that theyve ever been as effective as you'd want them to be).. but in a communist state, its really the only option youve got.. you cant go letting young NCOs and Officers make decisions.. that might lead to free thinking and free will in other areas of life, etc..

Lastly, and possibly the biggest and most important difference... the US is extremely battle hardened right now... we just came out of a 20 year war.. our forces are extremely experienced.. our leaders have led in combat for most of their careers... the chinese have participated in a few skirmishes here and there.. but really havent been battle tested on a large scale since Vietnam...

Again.. I am NOT an expert on all things China.. and I would concede that China would be a hell of a tiger to grab by the tail.. it certainly wouldnt be a walk in the park...

but.. Im equally confident the Chinese have no desire to grab the eagle by its wings either.. even if they won, they'd lose... their economy would get hammered.. their military would get decimated.. and they'd then be vulnerable to 2nd tier threats that they share borders with that dont particularly like them..

as an afterthought.. another HUGE challenge I think China would have is resources.. wheres all the fuel going to come from to fight the US? how are you going to pay those million reservists youre going to have to call up? how about all of the steel required to build those tanks, planes, etc..

Its one thing to have the manufacturing capability to build lots of stuff quickly.. but.. its quite another thing to be able to feed that manufacturing capability...

having a factory that can pump out a million artillery shells in a week is awesome.. if you have the raw materials to make the shells.. if you dont, its really just a big building that not worth shit during a fight..

Very well though out post, as usual. I wish all mine were--I occasionally go on a rant, for which I apologize to all concerned....

 

[WAB]

A question for @WAB, I believe that you are, or have been in the fertilizer business. Does the US have the ability to supply their own agriculture industry with enough potash? With talks of tariffs on Saskatchewan potash, will this increase imports from countries less aligned (Belarus, Russia), or can the US sufficiently ramp up production?

No the US cannot supply their own potash needs. A tariff on Canadian potash is the height of folly. I wonder if anyone in the administration has a sweet clue what they are doing with tariffs. I feel certain that the president does not.

 

[WAB]

That’s been hashed over already if you want to flip back a few hundred pages him and I and a few others discuss it, the short answer is no but it’s likewise unviable for canada to sell it to any other market.

I really see the point of this, and I wish Canada would adopt the same. It is not a right to visit another country, it’s a privilege that they extend to others. If you are not a criminal or terrorists you won’t have any trouble complying with these requirements. There is a risk that a good guy won’t be allowed in, but better odds of not allowing a terrorist in.
Just look at the Pandemic bullshit placed on travel, if you wanted to travel you had to jump through all the hoops. Some countries banned entry to all but Citizens.

Not quite true. Canadian producers export a tremendous amount of potash through Canpotex. The Chinese and Indian contracts are bellweather events in the industry.

 

[Mark A Ouellette]

Concerning the US military vs. China or other countries...

Let’s not forget what makes the US military services the best in the world. I can write volumes of how the US develops requirements for, designs for operational performance, reliability, maintainability and so on of our defense systems. For our equipment the US develops, tests, modifies, re-tests and so on until the requirements are satisfied. Its darn frustrating most of the time but our equipment works as designed because our brothers, sisters, sons and daughters lives may someday depend on that.

All the best equipment won’t however be worth much 14 days after the shxt hits the fan if that equipment is not operated, maintained, and supplied by our professional NCO corps. New Marines, soldiers, sailors, and airmen are trained by NCOs who were trained much the same a half dozen or dozen years prior. The same of course is true of our "operational" specialties such as infantry, air crew, tankers, drivers, boatswain mates, and others that do their best to break equipment. Regardless of their regular duties, our NCOs are leaders, and leaders inspire others to achieve greatness.

The NCOs I write of be the who I looked up to almost 50 years ago or those serving today were trained by Staff NCOs and Chief Petty Officers who made the service their home. They ensure that they and those who will someday wear their boots, are every bit as good as those who fought our past wars. We’ve got 250 years of history to live up to.

The US has good officers but even more so we have the best trained, most professional enlisted personnel. NCOs who don’t hesitate to take charge should their senior NCO or officer go down. Lead, follow, of get out of my way.

Perhaps some countries have NCO corps that match ours, most do not.

 

[Aaron N]

Not quite true. Canadian producers export a tremendous amount of potash through Canpotex. The Chinese and Indian contracts are bellweather events in the industry.

Exactly, it can’t be any more difficult to get rail cars of potash to Vancouver, Prince Rupert, or Thunder Bay than it is grain.

 

[Brent in Az]

House passes $901b defense bill. Sending it to the Senate.

 

[CoElkHunter]

Search … Dr Demetre Daskalakis… it’s on left. I assume pic taken at an HIV love fest gay S&M event or nightclub. He was an infectious disease specialist in CDC in Biden admin. No longer there . Take a shower and wash your hands in Clorox after doing search.

So, an acquaintance of yours from Boulder? LOL