Politics

I don't know about where you live, but here we do have to show a picture ID to buy a gun, legally. I don't find it racist or much of a burden.
I think every state requires that, at least when purchasing from licensed dealers. My question is, do you think that you should be required to do so to buy a gun? What crime does showing an ID prevent? How many criminals purchase guns from licensed gun dealers? Of those who do, how many show their real ID and are arrested?
 
That is what the background check and the Form 4473 is for. I believe we should also provide some type of ID when voting. :whistle::whistle:

We know how effective those background checks are. :)
 
There is no mechanism to “hold up” a LTC’s promotion to Colonel within DOD. It is a board process. Someone can indeed be removed from a promotion list, but not at the whim of the Secretary of the Army or even the SECDEF. Also, doing the math, I suspect that the good Lieutenant Colonel is not even in the primary zone for promotion yet. He likely was in the secondary zone (as in "below the zone" as we say, where one is considered a year early). However, the Army, unlike the Air Force promotes very few from below the primary zone. It may be due to his seemingly high regard for himself that he felt he should have been one of that select group - after all he thought he was Defense Minister material.

I'll tell you what has really happened. He has found himself persona non grata in his own service. Assignment to the White House has everything to do with representing one's service in a joint environment at the highest level of government. It is also a mark of favor to that officer. It has nothing to do with what that officer may or may not know about national security because no LTC knows enough of anything to offer meaningful advice to the president, or in this case, the National Security Advisor. Rather, the position is for him to become a better, more aware and experienced, potential general officer. Instead, this moron decided to embarrass the President, his administration, and the US Army. I have no idea what the SECDEF or CJCS think, but I promise you, the Army will never forgive such behavior, and particularly not his peers.

The person whose behaviour I find truly repugnant is Duckworth. The power to block promotions is a powerful one and should be used rarely and only with legitimate cause. Imagine if it was your name sitting on a list on hold due to the political calculations of of a senator. The person I would be blaming however is Vindman who gave her the opportunity to play with so many others' professional lives; another set of reasons Windman will find few invitations to dinner from former colleagues in the coming months and years. What he will become is another of these disaffected talking heads (a perfect candidate to replace someone of Ralph Peters or Andy Krepinevich's ilk?) who undermine and second guess their former services and leadership; a system which, in their minds, must be corrupt because it didn't recognize and promote their special talents.

I think Bolton is extraordinarily dangerous. He seems incapable of understanding any opinion other than his own. I am convinced that had his preferences been followed, we would have carried out air strikes against Iran's nuclear facilities two years ago. I personally think war with Iran following two decades of conflict in Afghanistan and Iraq would have been a disaster. He also obviously has serious personal integrity issues, publishing this sort National Enquirer book just before an election.

@Red Leg , Joe, if Vindman's name is on the O-6 promotion list and he is indeed below the zone, doesn't that confirm he was well regarded by the Army promotion board?

Random thought: Thinking back in history, wasn't Oliver North a LTC at NSC and perhaps a polar opposite of Vindman.

Last comment: I find it interesting and smart that historically generals and admirals have stayed out of politics and abstained from making public comments on sitting presidents. Lately though, there is a growing number of good and honorable men that have spoken publicly against Trump. Generals include Mattis (Trump's former Sec of Def), John Kelly (Trump's former Chief of Staff) and John Allen (a Hillary supporter). Others that spoke publicly against Trump include former Joint Chiefs Chairmen Gen Martin Dempsey and Admiral Mike Mullen , along with former SEAL Admiral William McCraven. People can draw their own conclusions.



 
There is an intersection of two groups of people seeking a specific outcome. The outcome is the prevention of "want" by some people due to lack of funds. The wants in question are adequate housing, food and medical services but also peripheral wants such as transportation. One of these groups consists of do-gooders. They are unselfish and feel sorry for those with less economic stability than they. These are people in the US that are generally of Christian faith and vote Democrat. The other group is made up of people that are seeking to gain or maintain political power. They use government as their means to earn favor and dependence from those with less economic stability. Their motivation is not to benefit the recipients (as is the motivation of the do-gooders) since they really care less about the wellbeing of the recipients. Their motivation is the furtherance of their own position and power by causing a dependence of the recipients on them. This group likely holds very little of Christian faith except when expedient to so claim, but they are entirely of the Democrat party.

It does little to argue about whether a person is of the first or second group since both groups support the same policies that are leading to the destruction of the USA as we know it.
 
Last edited:
@Red Leg , Joe, if Vindman's name is on the O-6 promotion list and he is indeed below the zone, doesn't that confirm he was well regarded by the Army promotion board?

Random thought: Thinking back in history, wasn't Oliver North a LTC at NSC and perhaps a polar opposite of Vindman.

Last comment: I find it interesting and smart that historically generals and admirals have stayed out of politics and abstained from making public comments on sitting presidents. Lately though, there is a growing number of good and honorable men that have spoken publicly against Trump. Generals include Mattis (Trump's former Sec of Def), John Kelly (Trump's former Chief of Staff) and John Allen (a Hillary supporter). Others that spoke publicly against Trump include former Joint Chiefs Chairmen Gen Martin Dempsey and Admiral Mike Mullen , along with former SEAL Admiral William McCraven. People can draw their own conclusions.



Assuming that is turned, it does indeed indicate he was so considered. But I guarantee you he has now made sure he is no longer well regarded by his service. He has also insured that he will never be considered for GO. It is a very small club in which to try to exist as a pariah.

I have known Marty Dempsey for 20 years - even rated him when he was a Brigadier. I have enormous respect for him. His concern over the potential use of active duty forces in maintaining internal order is a legitimate one. However, we swore an oath about defending this nation against all enemies - foreign and DOMESTIC. It is the president’s prerogative to determine when that threshold has been met. I am glad we have not reached that point - yet.

I am frankly uninterested in what Mattis, Mullen, or Kelley may opine.
 
Assuming that is turned, it does indeed indicate he was so considered. But I guarantee you he has now made sure he is no longer well regarded by his service. He has also insured that he will never be considered for GO. It is a very small club in which to try to exist as a pariah.

I have known Marty Dempsey for 20 years - even rated him when he was a Brigadier. I have enormous respect for him. His concern over the potential use of active duty forces in maintaining internal order is a legitimate one. However, we swore an oath about defending this nation against all enemies - foreign and DOMESTIC. It is the president’s prerogative to determine when that threshold has been met. I am glad we have not reached that point - yet.

I am frankly uninterested in what Mattis, Mullen, or Kelley may opine.

Wasn't H.R McMaster in the pariah club for awhile? Passed over for promotion due to his book, "Dereliction of Duty." Eventually it worked out well for him as far as his army career, but not so much when working for Trump.
 
Wasn't H.R McMaster in the pariah club for awhile? Passed over for promotion due to his book, "Dereliction of Duty." Eventually it worked out well for him as far as his army career, but not so much when working for Trump.
No, he wasn't. Though were McNamara still alive, he likely wouldn't have sent him a Christmas card. You will find no one who wore the uniform who much disagrees with his analysis.

What makes you think he was ever "passed over" for promotion? Colonels have periods of eligibility for promotion to general officer. He was not picked at the earliest (the vast majority aren't). Regrettably, the press looked for a conspiracy where there was none. Last I looked he made Lieutenant General. That is a pretty remarkable military career.

Political appointees work at the pleasure of the President. Trump does indeed seem to thrive in a bit more chaotic conditions than many of his predecessors. I would suggest his time as NSA did nothing to subtract from his resume'.
 
Last edited:
Yes it should. I fail to see what that has to do with my statement though. Please expand.
My point is that there is very little evidence of widespread voter fraud, and when it does occur, those who intend to do it will just use a fake ID. This is similar to how there is very little evidence of widespread illegal gun purchases from licensed gun dealers, and all of the IDs, background checks, and permits do not stop the criminals anyway.
 
My point is that there is very little evidence of widespread voter fraud, and when it does occur, those who intend to do it will just use a fake ID. This is similar to how there is very little evidence of widespread illegal gun purchases from licensed gun dealers, and all of the IDs, background checks, and permits do not stop the criminals anyway.
I think you are drawing a false sequitur based upon an irrelevant comparison. My problem with mail-in voting is it allows the harvesting of "votes" among those who have neither the intention or interest in voting. Admittedly, that typically equates to the urban poor, where an energetic canvasser can collect hundreds of ballots for marking and mailing. It is why the "likely voter" category is so critical in most polling. The fact that Democrats are so eager to exploit the mail-in option should be warning enough.

What is particularly troubling to me however is that the urban masses are assumed to be so succestable to such vote manipulation. The Democrats assume 100,000 five-dollar bills in the right hands will make a difference, and Republicans fear they are correct. Meanwhile, the harvested voter continues his trapped existence on the urban plantation.
 
Last edited:
My point is that there is very little evidence of widespread voter fraud, and when it does occur, those who intend to do it will just use a fake ID. This is similar to how there is very little evidence of widespread illegal gun purchases from licensed gun dealers, and all of the IDs, background checks, and permits do not stop the criminals anyway.

Is this one of those times where you are trying to make a mountain out of a mole hill just for the sake of banter?
 
I think you are drawing a false sequitur based upon an irrelevant comparison. My problem with mail-in voting is it allows the harvesting of "votes" among those who have neither the intention or interest in voting. Admittedly, that typically equates to the urban poor, where an energetic canvasser can collect hundreds of ballots for marking and mailing. It is why the "likely voter" category is so critical in most polling. The fact that Democrats are so eager to exploit the mail-in option should be warning enough.

What is particularly troubling to me however is that the urban masses are assumed to be so succestable to such vote manipulation. The Democrats assume 100,000 five-dollar bills in the right hands will make a difference, and Republicans fear they are correct. Meanwhile, the harvested voter continues his trapped existence on the urban plantation.

While I have no problem with absentee ballots, my reservation with expanding such a system to everyone is that it stresses an already vulnerable system and allows for possible voter fraud, or at least vote interference on a much more impactful scale than traditional voting. I do think that election day should be a national holiday so that it is easier for people to get to the polls.

Is this one of those times where you are trying to make a mountain out of a mole hill just for the sake of banter?

No. Just like voting, the right to bear arms is guaranteed in the Constitution. Background checks, screenings, gun licences, and whatever else you want do not stop criminals from getting guns. All they serve to do is add expense and delays to law-abiding people. Furthermore, it provides the government with a way of identifying and targeting gun owners. We should not be restricting Constitutional rights simply because doing so may stop a few bad actors.
 
Speaking of voting, I best most of the people who were protesting Trump in the streets did not vote in 2016, and I doubt many more of them will vote in 2020.
 
What makes you think he was ever "passed over" for promotion? Colonels have periods of eligibility for promotion to general officer. He was not picked at the earliest (the vast majority aren't). Regrettably, the press looked for a conspiracy where there was none. Last I looked he made Lieutenant General. That is a pretty remarkable military career.

Read it in several articles and one book that he was twice passed over.
https://foreignpolicy.com/2008/07/16/h-r-mcmaster-gets-his-star/
https://slate.com/news-and-politics/2008/08/finally-the-army-is-promoting-the-right-officers.html

However, it looks like he was promoted to BG at 24 years service, which certainly doesn't look bad or late. Quite the contrary. There's a comment on McMaster Wikipedia bio that he was the second member of the West Point class of 84 to make BG.

BTW, McMaster is coming out with another book, slated for Sept 2020 release. Gee, just before the election.........
https://www.amazon.com/s?k=Battlegrounds-Fight-Defend-Free-World
 
Read it in several articles and one book that he was twice passed over.
https://foreignpolicy.com/2008/07/16/h-r-mcmaster-gets-his-star/
https://slate.com/news-and-politics/2008/08/finally-the-army-is-promoting-the-right-officers.html

However, it looks like he was promoted to BG at 24 years service, which certainly doesn't look bad or late. Quite the contrary. There's a comment on McMaster Wikipedia bio that he was the second member of the West Point class of 84 to make BG.

BTW, McMaster is coming out with another book, slated for Sept 2020 release. Gee, just before the election.........
https://www.amazon.com/s?k=Battlegrounds-Fight-Defend-Free-World
As an example, I was "below the zone" to LTC and Colonel, and was selected for promotion to Brigadier General in 1999 on my first look (that put me two or three years ahead of my year group - '74 - depending how one wants to look at it.) I was immediately assigned to a Brigadier General slot (ADC 4th Infantry), but was not formally promoted until 2001. That means I was selected with 24 years of service and promoted with 26 years. Yes, McMaster made general officer about as fast as is possible in the United States Army.
 
Screenshot_20200709-174200_Instagram.jpg
 
This is going to cause some problems.

Wonder how many convicted felons just got a get out of jail free card. Good chance no more casino revenue will go to the state, even though it helps maintain roads and infrastructure.

Understand where Gorsuch is coming from, but don't see how he can ignore 100+ years of Statehood and precedent.

Glad I live in the unassigned lands.



https://www.zerohedge.com/political/supreme-court-nearly-half-oklahoma-indian-reservation



While all eyes were on the Supreme Court's Thursday decision granting New York prosecutors access to President Trump's taxes, a ruling earlier in the day recognized roughly half of Oklahoma as an Indian reservation - in a move which could have wide-ranging legal implications for the 1.8 million people who now live in "Indian Country," according to the New York Times.

The decision, authored by Justice Neil Gorsuch, holds the United States to an 1866 treaty that the Muscogee (Creek) Nation signed with the United States after the Civil War over land which was home to the "Five Civilized Tribes"; the Creek, Cherokee Nation, the Seminole, the Chickasaw Nation, and the Choctaw Nation, according to The New Republic.

"Today we are asked whether the land these treaties promised remains an Indian reservation for purposes of federal criminal law," wrote Gorsuch, a Trump appointee. "Because Congress has not said otherwise, we hold the government to its word."

Joining Gorsuch in the majority were Justices Sonya Sotomayor, Elena Kagan, Stephen Breyer and Ruth Bader Ginsburg, while Justices Alito, Kavanaugh, Roberts and Clarence Thomas argued in the minority - siding with the state of Oklahoma.

"A century of practice confirms that the Five Tribes’ prior domains were extinguished," wrote Roberts. "The State has maintained unquestioned jurisdiction for more than 100 years. Tribe members make up less than 10%–15% of the population of their former domain, and until a few years ago the Creek Nation itself acknowledged that it no longer possessed the reservation the Court discovers today."

Roberts added that "The State’s ability to prosecute serious crimes will be hobbled and decades of past convictions could well be thrown out," and that "The decision today creates significant uncertainty for the State’s continuing authority over any area that touches Indian affairs, ranging from zoning and taxation to family and environmental law."

The original case (via the New York Times):

Sharp v. Murphy, No. 17-1107, which arose from the prosecution in state court of Patrick Murphy, a Creek Indian, for murdering George Jacobs in rural McIntosh County, east of Oklahoma City.

After he was sentenced to death, it emerged that the murder had taken place on what had once been Indian land. Mr. Murphy argued that only the federal government could prosecute him and that a federal law barred the imposition of the death penalty because he was an Indian.

Mr. Murphy convinced the United States Court of Appeals for the 10th Circuit, in Denver. But when the case was argued before an eight-member Supreme Court, the justices seemed divided and troubled. (Justice Neil M. Gorsuch, who had served on the 10th Circuit when it ruled on the case, recused himself.)

Instead of issuing a decision before the term ended in June 2019, the court announced it would hear another set of arguments in its current term, which started in October. That was a sign the court had deadlocked, 4 to 4.

But there was no new argument in the Murphy case, probably because it was not clear another hearing would break the deadlock. Instead, the court heard Mr. McGirt’s case, allowing the overarching issue to be settled by a nine-member court.

Muscogee tribal leaders cheered the ruling, vowing to work with state and federal law-enforcement authorities to ensure public safety within the reservation, according to the Times.

"This is a historic day," said Principal Chief David Hill. "This is amazing. It’s never too late to make things right."

 

Forum statistics

Threads
69,893
Messages
1,559,033
Members
165,760
Latest member
ZXVCorneli
 

 

 

Latest profile posts

Alex Sniper wrote on Bynotic's profile.
Good morning. I see that you had a Sauer 202 for sale for $3,000. Did you sell it at that price?
I have one for sale as well. I listed it (on here ) at $3,000 as well. Is the price high, low or right where it should be?

Thanks. Alex. [redacted] in case you want to call me to discuss further. I appreciate your time help and support.
I broke my cherry, August 2026, 41" Cape, hooked for life.
Member of the South African Hunters and Game Conservation Association
supergrizzly wrote on AZDAVE's profile.
Dave, I could use both of them if still available. I just picked up a new .22 mag and a .22 pump that they would be perfect on.
 
Top