Posts by spetznaz

Brevity: Headers | « Text »
  • With Brexit locked in, here are other EU countries that poll high to 'exit'

    06/24/2016 7:00:51 AM PDT · 62 of 66
    spetznaz to exit82; Cowboy Bob

    Why would the Poles want to leave the EU? They are one of the biggest beneficiaries, and probably as a group love the EU more than any other nation.

  • #NeverTrump: The media is using you as pawns. Don't Let Them.

    06/20/2016 3:19:07 AM PDT · 6 of 18
    spetznaz to weston
    It is a big problem, and I don't think people here (and there, in the No Trump movement) fully appreciate what is at stake. The next POTUS will nominate a min,max of 2-4 Supreme Court Justices. Such a shunt is enough to skew the scales of justice for a generation. A whole generation, at the least.

    As things currently stand, the conservative movement (whether it is what we call Conservatism, what Red State calls Conservatism, even what Jeb Bush would call Conservatism) is on its back foot. The Democrats continue to, slowly, crystallize a demographic advantage. Additionally, the country has been, slowly, becoming more liberal (and the part that is not becoming more liberal is definitely becoming more tolerant). A simple look at television will show the profound cultural shift that has occurred, with things that would have been anathema on prime time TV two decades ago (such as homosexual couples) being normal fare in some cartoons. Less than two decades ago, the TV show Ellen www cancelled (at the height of its popularity) simply because ABC was not comfortable with the subject matter post Ellen coming out as gay (in both TV and real life). Now you have Nickelodeon and Disney XD having characters that are gay in programs for children. Even in politics, I have said in the past that someone like JFK was more conservative than most Republicans today.

    Anyway, my two points are as follows. This election will be of supreme importance. Whoever becomes POTUS will have far reaching ramifications, starting with the SCOTUS. That's my first point. My second point is even simpler - Conservatism has different meanings to Free Republic, Red State, Donald Trump, Ted Cruz, Santorum, Christie, Rand, even the Bushes and Romney. Each camp has its own interpretation - some right, some misplaced, some wrong. However, no matter the flavor, the fact remains that a Hillary presidency will destroy (destroy) all of those versions. Even Jeb Bush's and Mitt Romney's understand of 'Conservatism.' And when it comes to the likes of Free Republic and Red State, both camps feeling they have the 'right stuff' when it comes to 'true conservatism,' the fact is even more ironically pertinent. A Hillary presidency will make both sites moot. Yes, they will still exist, and there will always be 'conservatives,' only bereft of power.

    The danger I see is this - the GOP is the stupid party, and it will live up to its name this election season. It will head into the General in a state of schism, and there will be sufficient attrition at the edges to ensure a Hillary win.

    A house divided amongst itself cannot stand.

  • The U.S. Navy's New Long Range Anti-Ship Missile Just Got Even Deadlier

    06/07/2016 2:33:21 AM PDT · 12 of 13
    spetznaz to Lou L

    Stealthier, somewhat smarter, definitely more expensive.

  • John Oliver Buys $15M In Medical Debt, Then Forgives It

    06/06/2016 4:46:58 AM PDT · 12 of 33
    spetznaz to RummyChick; SMGFan

    They don’t have to pay taxes on the forgiven debt - the entity that bought the debt gave it to another one to cancel it in a manner that also eliminates the taxes that would have been triggered by the debt forgiveness.

  • John Oliver Buys $15M In Medical Debt, Then Forgives It

    06/06/2016 3:22:32 AM PDT · 4 of 33
    spetznaz to SMGFan

    Definitely a publicity stunt, but a good one. Good for him

  • Camera Catches Zoo Lion Lunging at Toddler and Face-Planting on Glass Wall

    06/05/2016 12:37:03 AM PDT · 7 of 36
    spetznaz to jonrick46

    Love the story, and I pray we both say ‘good Donald’ later this year.

  • David French: I Will Vote for Donald Trump If He Is the Nominee

    06/02/2016 2:59:30 AM PDT · 6 of 21
    spetznaz to Pinkbell
    The strategy is not to win. It is simply to leach just enough votes from Trump to ensure he does not win. To French, Kristol and the people at Red State, ensuring that Trump does not win trumps the implications of Hillary winning. They do not even care about the implications of a Hillary win on the SCOTUS and such issues - it is simply about Trump not winning.

    The failure of the GOP-e not winning (on the likes of Kristol, the Bushes, Romney), and of Cruz not winning (on the likes of French and the posters at Red State), fried some of their circuitry or something akin to that. Some of them have even said the risk of a Trump presidency is greater than that of a Hillary presidency, and that Conservatism would survive better under a Hillary adminstration. It is quite sad to see people lose it that much.

  • REPORT: More Than 90% Of Marijuana Arrests In NYC Are People Of Color

    06/01/2016 10:09:41 AM PDT · 7 of 55
    spetznaz to Opinionated Blowhard

    I think it is more of an income scale than straight racism. Poor people of any color will always get the full measure of the law, while wealthy people of any color will always get a full measure of ‘understanding.’ A poor black kid with some joints or a poor white kid with a couple tablets of ecstasy will be pounded by the law (and not only get real jail time, by get arrested hard). A rich black kid with heroin or a rich white kid with cocaine will almost always get away with some community service.

  • Beck Shreds Rubio Over Trump Support: ‘You Have No Credibility With Me Any More’

    05/31/2016 5:34:22 AM PDT · 59 of 108
    spetznaz to Pinkbell

    Ah, thank you. More mirth tonight. Thanks.

  • Beck Shreds Rubio Over Trump Support: ‘You Have No Credibility With Me Any More’

    05/31/2016 5:33:52 AM PDT · 58 of 108
    spetznaz to nikos1121

    I feel you. Thing is, as bad as Obama was wait and see what Hillary will do. Especially if she wins and gets to choose up to 3 new SCOTUS replacements. This is the coup de grace the Democrats have been waiting for. After 3 decades of whipping our collective behinds, they are now positioned to deliver the final blow.

  • Beck Shreds Rubio Over Trump Support: ‘You Have No Credibility With Me Any More’

    05/31/2016 5:31:30 AM PDT · 56 of 108
    spetznaz to moovova
    I really thought Obama’s first term would be “a Carter”...but then Zero was re-elected and my theory went right out the window. I realized the USA was well on its way to being destroyed. If Hillary becomes president, it won’t be “a Carter” we’ll be able to come back from. It would simply be the final nail in the coffin.

    100% correct! That is the point that the sad folk at Red State do not understand. That if Hillary wins, there will not be a Plan B 4 years later in 2020. Already the Democrats hold a (growing) demographic advantage, and in terms of culture the pendulum has really moved to their side of things (there are things being shown in cartoons and teen TV today that would not have been found in R-rated movies 2 decades ago). Not to mention the impact on the SCOTUS once Hillary nominates (up to) 3 new Supreme Court Justices. That can have a real impact on things, and seeing how places like San Francisco are working on banning hollow points should provide an indication of the path ahead.

    The Democrats play a long game, they have been winning (yes, we do win some battles, but they have been winning the war - think of it this way, JFK was more conservative than the last 4 Republican candidates), and a Hillary presidency will be major!

    Cruz probably believes that 2016 is a repeat of 1976, and 2020 will be a repeat of 1980. The truth is that if Hillary wins 2016 then she will win 2020, and in 2024 another Democrat will also probably win it.

    But hey - it seems there are many people on our side that prefer to spend time wishing and day-dreaming about delegate switching and the like.

  • Beck Shreds Rubio Over Trump Support: ‘You Have No Credibility With Me Any More’

    05/31/2016 12:04:58 AM PDT · 15 of 108
    spetznaz to Trump20162020
    All these Beck-types are simply going through the phases of denial and acceptance. Whether it is Beck himself, or Bill Kristol, or even the poor deluded souls over at Red State - they are all going through hard acceptance.

    For example, take the sad souls at Red State. Disclaimer: I have to say it gives me perverse pleasure to go there and read their comments. Some of them are still hoping against hope that the delegates will 'vote their conscience' and give it to Ted Cruz. Others are hoping that delegates will be late/get food poisoning/get stuck in traffic/etc, consequently missing the first vote and coming just in time to vote for Ted Cruz in the second vote. Others, however, have opted for the third-party option and are waiting with baited breath for Kristol's 'messiah' (with some hoping it is Ted, which it will not be as I will explain later). Finally, there is a small group that has been honest (insane?) enough to state that they will actually vote for Hillary Clinton, and that a Clinton presidency would be 'better for Conservatism' than a Trump presidency.

    That entire website has gone mad, and I love reading their comments in a bid to see how long it will take them to realize that things did not go their way. I think for some it will take November coming and going for them to realize that things went awry for them months back.

    As for the names people are saying - let us start with Colin Powell. I doubt he would stoop that low, but more importantly (and life is about focusing on what is important rather than mulling over silly things like 'what if Colin runs' or 'can Superman's heat vision melt Captain America's shield) is the fact that even if he ran he wouldn't have an impact.

    Ted Cruz - Ted's strategy now, barring silly wishes on Red State about delegates 'voting their conscience,' is to simply survive to 2020. He probably thinks he can pull a Reagan, with a Hillary president being a Carter. The thing is, for that strategy to work he cannot (absolutely can not) run as a third party spoiler candidate. Ted might be many things to different people, but one thing they all agree on is that he has a working brain (maybe at times too smart for his own good, but definitely smart). There is no way he will risk his 2020 chances by running third-party spoiler, and he has probably ran the math. So, sorry Red State - it will not be Ted either.

    The Admirals and Generals some are talking about. They have the same problem as Colin Powell - impact.

    Romney/Bush et al. While Mitt and Jeb are feeling quite unwell, I doubt they would run. If they did, it would be hilarious to see people who were pro-Ted Cruz actually go an support Romney.

    Whoever it is that Kristol has planned will not have sufficient impact. Now, it is obvious the only person is not to have 'impact' and definitely not to win, but rather to leach off enough votes from Trump to ensure that he does not win (they do not care if Hillary wins). However, there is a big chance that Republican and Conservative voters, especially once Hillary becomes the Democrat nominee, will realize that anyone is better than Hillary and Trump's support will go higher.

    In conclusion, I feel sorry for the Beck's, Kristol's and the various Red State participants. They have been relegated to fantasy land and wishes, and reading their posts and comments is truly a pleasure. Maybe a perverse pleasure, but a pleasure nonetheless. But hey, maybe delegates will 'vote their conscience' and if that does not happen those solid C Conservatives at Red State will show it to everyone by voting Hillary Clinton.

    How very solid C Conservative of them, and I am sure Ted Cruz would be proud. Talking about Ted - what I am waiting for is for Ted to endorse Trump, and you can bet I will be on Red State soaking up their groans and laughing at their exploding heads.

  • NEVER shoot a gun at an angry Russian

    05/26/2016 7:47:54 AM PDT · 8 of 24
    spetznaz to smokingfrog

    Colossus

  • NYPD checking ammo after knifeman’s jacket stops cops’ bullets

    05/25/2016 2:16:07 AM PDT · 74 of 74
    spetznaz to Manly Warrior
    It is indeed interesting to see the hit/miss ration for civilians versus LE, but not that surprising with all honesty. For many cops, a firearm is basically a tool for a job. For many civilians (unfortunately not all), a firearm is basically a tool for a job but also a passion. As it is a passion, they tend to spend a lot of time at the range, or competing at IDPA (and similar) competitions. This basically makes the average practicing civilian much better with a firing iron than the average LEO.

    As for being more shootable - it is true that the 9mm is more shootable than the .40/45, but that is only part of the equation. There is capacity as well, there is also price (much cheaper to shoot 9mm, even if you reload other calibers), and then there is the projectile itself. While it is true that a .45 will 'never shrink,' the fact is that modern 9mm projectiles (like the HST 147gr) have extremely consistent expansion - and what's interesting is that the 147gr HST expands more than most .40 HPs, and bonded rounds like the Critical Duty 135gr outperformed .45 caliber rounds in the FBI protocol. Basically, modern 9mm ammo will match (and even outperform) their larger caliber cousins, not to mention aspects such as cost and speed of shooting (not just shootability, but also the speed of follow-on shots).

    There is a reason teams like Delta moved from their highly customized 1911s chambered in .45 to Glocks chambered in .40 and now to Glocks chambered in 9mm (with the SEALs recently following Delta, SF and MARSOC to Glocks in 9mm). Lighter platform, increased round count, measurably faster follow-up shots, and with modern HPs (and the special unit teams use HPs), the same level of lethality as found in .45s.

    Most importantly, if someone does their job the round will do its job. By this I mean if both you and I are great shots (and I don't just mean putting holes in paper, but dynamic shooting), and I am armed with my Glock 17 (went up from the 19 I had last year) that is loaded with 147gr HSTs, and you are armed with a Kimber 1911 in .45 that is loaded with 230gr Gold Dots.

    Right, so we face off against goblins. As we are both proficient, our shots are going to be accurate, they are going to be quick, the bullets will find their mark.

    There is no way that the goblin you hit with the .45 Gold Dot is going to notice any difference from the goblin I hit with the 9mm HST, and vice versa. That's the wonder of modern ammo - the 'rules of thumb' that made a lot of sense decades ago (.45s don't shrink, Moro Moro Islamic tribesmen needed .45s to put them down, etc etc) do not apply much nowadays.

    If you hit your goblin several times center mass, and I hit my goblin several times center mass, the results will be exactly the same. The only difference is that I will still have more rounds left in my magazine than you had when your magazine was full, and round capacity is important. Why? Please see the excerpt below on a cop who used to carry .45, had an 'interesting' experience, and now carries 9mm.

    But bottom line is this - with modern ammo (modern HPs and not FMJs or old-tech HPs), a 9mm is more than adequate for all homo sapien-related shooting, and may even be better than .40 or .45 for the reasons I listed above. That doesn't mean that .40 and .45 (or even 10mm) are bad rounds, not at all.

    Here's the link of the cop who used to carry .45 and now carries 9mm:

    Why one cop carries 145 rounds on the job

  • How the Pentagon punished NSA whistleblowers

    05/22/2016 11:29:09 PM PDT · 27 of 27
    spetznaz to Nachum

    Very interesting read

  • Washington state GOP convention backs Cruz over Trump

    05/22/2016 9:29:17 AM PDT · 35 of 99
    spetznaz to Flick Lives
    The person stating that he'd rather vote for Hillary than Trump because 'at least with Hillary he knows what he's getting' is like a sot stating that he'd rather step on a live land mine - because he knows what it is - rather than take his chances and step on another area that may/may not contain something harzadous. He'd rather taken a guaranteed bad thing - be it Hillary or explosive - rather than a fair chance at having something that's not bad.

    Which shows two things. First, that a number of Cruz supporters are not rational (and many of the bad things they say about Trump supporters actually apply more to them). Second, that a number of Cruz supporters are not Conservatives. They might CLAIM that they are, but someone willing to vote for Hillary, knowing the impact of any number of things (eg the Supreme Court) is not a Consevative.

    A number of Cruz supporters are simply spoilt children who'd rather destroy everything if they're not given ice cream for breakfast (I would have called them Cruz cultists, but that's more vitriol than logic and I prefer logic, but let's just say that would apply as well). The fact that their man was not supported by most voters made them feel so bad that they'd rather not just let Hillary win by not voting for Trump, but some would even take the active step of actually VOTING for Hillary.

    You shall judge them by their fruits, and if Cruz ever runs again that is an important thing for people to remember. Basically, if his supporters can be 'Never Trump,' then what's good for the goose is good for the gander, and 'never Cruz' is just as apt.

  • NYPD checking ammo after knifeman’s jacket stops cops’ bullets

    05/20/2016 10:21:44 AM PDT · 61 of 74
    spetznaz to spetznaz

    While there is a difference in the bullets I posted above, the size difference is FAR SMALLER in terms of impact than the SKILL difference. Looking at their sizes as well, one can see why wound channels by various HPs of different calibers are difficult to differentiate.

  • NYPD checking ammo after knifeman’s jacket stops cops’ bullets

    05/20/2016 10:18:46 AM PDT · 60 of 74
    spetznaz to spetznaz
  • NYPD checking ammo after knifeman’s jacket stops cops’ bullets

    05/20/2016 10:10:45 AM PDT · 59 of 74
    spetznaz to Reverend Wright
    It is definitely worth thinking about. For me, I have trained with the handgun faithfully for the 4 years I have been a licensed gun owner (in my country it is a process to get licensed, and a 500 Dollar Glock goes for about $2,500 here). I've spent a lot of money getting good training (mostly Israeli based), and on getting good ammo (progressed from S&B 115gr HPs, to a source for 124gr HydraShok, to a major breakthrough in 147gr Ranger Bonded when some MARSOC Marines came over - apparently US Spec Ops units use HPs in case you didn't know - and a few months ago the holy grail when I got 147gr HST). My normal carry load is one magazine filled with HST and two spare mags with Ranger Bonded.

    Now, I train for what I am most likely to meet. While it's possible I can bump into an escaped lion or Cape buffalo, chances are anything that goes bump in the night will be two legged (belonging to Al Shabaab). Chances also are if I shoot the bad guy several times center mass with good quality HPs, that he'll probably decide to go meet his virgins. Additionally, and this is important, I am very good with the 9mm, i am IDPA ranked as a sharpshooter (and I am sure with more practice I can go to Expert), and I love the capacity of the 9mm in a Glock. Also important, if my mate has, say, a 1911 with 7 rounds of .45, and I shoot the terrorist center mass several times with my 9mm Glock and NOTHING happens, then I can assure you my mate with his .45 1911 will also get the same reaction: nothing. We will know we are shooting at a zombie (or a terrorist with body armor), and opt for another approach.

    Bottom line is this - with modern HP ammo, the caliber wars are dead (and the 9mm won). While there is a place for other calibers, and there are many who are deadly accurate and fast with bigger calipers (including 10mm and .45s), for most the 9mm is the perfect equation of penetration, expansion, controllability, capacity and cost! That is hard to beat.

  • NYPD checking ammo after knifeman’s jacket stops cops’ bullets

    05/20/2016 9:47:24 AM PDT · 56 of 74
    spetznaz to spetznaz

    145 grain HST should have been 147 grain HST. Typing on a phone

  • NYPD checking ammo after knifeman’s jacket stops cops’ bullets

    05/20/2016 9:46:08 AM PDT · 55 of 74
    spetznaz to Don W
    If I was in bear country I would carry a large revolver with powerful loads (and if I had to carry a semi it would be a 10mm Glock). Why? I'd require absolute reliability, no buts, hence the revolver or the Glock, and carrying a heavy magnum load for the revolver or in 10mm for the pistol.

    However, if I was more worried about two-legged less-furry critters with opposable thumbs that may be shooting back at me, I would carry a bullet that gives me a high carry capacity but is still good enough to penetrate deep enough, and with modern HP technology, is assured to expand to 0.65 (or even more in the case of the 145gr Federal HST).

    That would be the 9mm.

    Thus, for semis, in bear country 10mm, and in human country 9mm. Why? Because each capitalizes on its specific strengths against specific targets.

  • NYPD checking ammo after knifeman’s jacket stops cops’ bullets

    05/20/2016 9:16:37 AM PDT · 53 of 74
    spetznaz to Reverend Wright
    I hear you, and cougars are used by some as a substitute for humans as they are both thin skinned (others use dogs, while some use boar). The thing is that they are not, and let me quickly explain.

    A cougar is similar in size to a leopard, and in Africa they are considered very difficult to hunt (same thing in India, where man eating leopards are considered worse than tigers). The thing about them is this - and I will delete the fact that they are fast, cunning and sharp of tooth and claw. The thing is they have huge lungs, and their blood is significantly more oxygenated than that of a human. Big game hunters (and leopards are considered big game, which is why it's interesting to me that the hunters consider cougar human-equivalents) have shot right through leopard hearts, and the leopard still has enough moxie to finish the charge and mail them. Big game hunters would often wear 'leopard armor' (a metal or heavy leather neck protector) when tracking leopard spoor in the bush, because at close quarters the brain and blood would be sufficiently oxygenated to finish a charge even when the heart was shredded.

    What does that have to do with Cougars? Similar sized cat, and more importantly, similarly oxygenated blood that is at a level no human ever alive would have. Which is why the cat can be shot, mess up your dogs, and then run off to die. A bigger bullet can do a better job than a 9mm (same reason people hunting leopards never use pistols), but my point is simply that no cat (even house cats) are a comparison to humans no matter how soft the skin is.

    Dogs and boars are another. I've heard about how 'measly' 9mm will at times shatter on their skulls. Thing is their skulls are very different from that of a human, and depending on shot angle the round can be deflected.

    Anyway, for most human beings, a pistol of normal barrel length shooting modern hollow points in 9mm, will be more than enough to ensure they give proper attention. As for those few who seem to shrug 9mm bullets (and we are talking HPs and not FMJs, so no Moro Moro tribesmen), they would similarly shrug off .45s (there are interesting stories of people who have soaked up multiple bullet hits, some eventually dying later and others making it, including .45s)

    A modern hollow point fired by someone who can hit the broad side of a barn more times than not is 100% effective is virtually every situation.

  • NYPD checking ammo after knifeman’s jacket stops cops’ bullets

    05/20/2016 1:56:06 AM PDT · 43 of 74
    spetznaz to Mogger; ButThreeLeftsDo; nonsporting; AlaskaErik; 43north; papertyger; Reverend Wright; StormEye; ..
    If I was a cop in a city, I'd be using Glasers to reduce the chance of harming an innocent.

    The issue with over-penetration is that it is only an issue if someone hits their target, and the bullet makes it through and goes on to hit an innocent. For most modern HP designs, that should not be an issue as the most modern HPs do not clog the hollowpoint with clothing (which would turn them into, basically, FMJs). Modern hollow points like the Federal HST, the Winchester Ranger Bonded, and the likes of Critical Duty, do not clog (especially when compared to older hollow points like Federal HydraShok and Winchester Silver Tip, which often clogged).

    The big issue is this - missing! If a cop misses his target, then even the most advanced HP design can hurt an innocent. Even Glasers (note though that most cops would not use Glasers as most cops require penetration, and glasers don't have that. This is why many PDs use bonded bullets, or non-bonded bullets that hold together well).

    Why is this an important point? Because most police officers are very bad shots (missing most shots taken according to police data). Which means that no matter what type of round they are using, it doesn't mean much if they miss their targets and hit innocents.

    To make matters worse, NYPD guns have very hard triggers (12 pound pull, every pull) which makes accurate shots - especially if they are blasting away quickly - very difficult even for people who are normally good shots. Put such hard triggers in the hands of people who generally don't practice that much on average, and the situation is significantly worse.

    Anyway, the round used by the NYPD is the Speer Gold Dot HP, in 124 grain (and a +P). It is a bonded bullet, which means it holds together very well (even after hitting auto glass, which normally messes up non-bonded bullets). The Gold Dot has a long history of very good performance, and while it is older than more recent bullets like Federal's HST, it is still a very good round that will do its job if you do yours.

    I find it very hard to believe that a bonded bullet was unable to penetrate a jacket, and I suspect that there is something more to this story that is not being reported. Either there was some untruthfulness, or maybe the bullets hit something in the jacket, I do not know. But it is worth noting that the Speer Gold Dot is a bonded bullet with many years of superlative performance.

    As for those who are saying the issue was the cops were issued with 9mm and not 'manly' .45s, the truth is that the 9mm is easier to control, has higher carry capacity, and (with modern HPs) is just as lethal as .40/.45. There are enough studies backing this, ranging from the recent FBI study showing the 9mm as the most effective defense round with modern ammo, to reports from police on their inability to differentiate between wounds caused by 9mm HPs and .45 HPs. Indistinguishable.

  • Why Russia will Never Attack Poland

    05/13/2016 6:17:47 AM PDT · 49 of 49
    spetznaz to Jim Noble
    Suppose Russia found it desirable to invade Poland (after reunification with Belarus). Further suppose Polish armed forces stopped a Russian advance and were inflicting casualties to an intolerable degree. So, to clear lanes for armored columns, the Russians used tactical and small strategic nukes. How on Earth would this lead to bad consequences (never mind "extinction-level" consequences) for Russia? The first thing that would happen would be that Germany, France, and Italy would declare neutrality, and confine US forces to their bases in those countries. The second thing that would happen is that a peace conference would be called by the EU (maybe even in Munich!). By the time that all got underway, the Russians would be on the Oder. They then could put together their offer to Germany at leisure.

    Let me try and answer your question, with the only caveat being that it may be worth exactly what you paid for it.

    Why do I think that it would lead to bad consequences?

    Simple - at a very fundamental level (almost dogma), the use of nuclear weapons, even at the tactical level (especially at the tactical level), would be a major disaster for every single nuclear-armed country.

    Let me explain.

    While it is obvious that a strategic nuclear war would be 'The End,' as there would be absolutely no winners if the major nuclear powers started slinging off atomics, the use of small/tactical weapons would also be a major problem. Why? Well, because the moment one country used tacticals, then the Pandora's box of 'strategic use of tactical weapons' would be thrown wide open. This would mean that lesser nuclear powers like India and Pakistan - and Israel - could also use tactical weapons, especially since the major nuclear powers (in this case the US and Russia) had burned through the resistance barrier to their use.

    This would be a major change in war strategy - the fact that there was an option of tactical nuclear weapons being employed if, say for example, Country A's conventional forces were being overrun by Country B's conventional forces (a good example being the last India-Pakistan war, where use of tactical nuclear weapons came close but, because there was no precedent, were not employed apart as a 'warning.')

    Now, a clever FReeper might say that during the Cold War both NATO and the Warsaw Pact had plans that called for the use of tactical nuclear weapons (including nuclear mines that were kept warm using live chicken ...but that's another story). Israel currently has plans for the use of tactical nuclear weapons. Russia today has the use of tactical weapons as a real option should Siberia get overrun by the Chinese. The French have the first-use of tactical weapons as a part of their nuclear deterrence strategy, which is why they have one of the best air-launched nuclear-tipped cruise missiles (the ASMP-A)on their Rafales and Mirage-2000Ns (I know that many here mock the French, but there's no Western country, apart from Israel, that is as willing to use nuclear weapons than the French are. The only thing weak about those people is their politicians - everything else, from their military to their judges/prisons to their laws against terrorists, are almost Soviet).

    So, there are all those factors - but YET no use of tactical weapons. Because the moment they are used then the barn doors are thrown wide open.

    That is why it would lead to bad consequences. Suddenly their use, in a flash, would be open to all, and once that happens then the likelihood of a larger - more strategic - attack becomes very real.

    Imagine Russia invades Poland (would never happen, as it would be very stupid and even when drunk the Russians have stayed away from stupid decisions since Yeltsin, and every act - be it Georgia or Crimea - was thought out from a cost/return perspective) - but let us assume, for discussion, that Russia invades Poland. The Poles fight back and decimate Russian positions, and (stupidly - again a major level of stupid that I am only applying simply for the purposes of discussion) the Russians use a nuclear tactical missile to liquidate the Polish forces. As a retaliation, the US/NATO uses a CONVENTIONAL weapon to take out the position that launched the tactical weapon, say a Russian Steregushchy class corvette that had launched a KH-37 nuclear-tipped Uran missile. The ship goes down with all hands on deck. At this critical point, the next step is whether there is retaliation for that, or the Russians will be okay with losing a ship in exchange of taking out a Polish position. Or maybe a Russian submarine takes out the American Burke that launched the missiles. A warm war gets hotter, and depending on how the chess pieces move you have a spectral range that spans from a repeat of the Turkish shooting down of a Russian SU-24 (nothing much) to the Russians taking out a small Polish city with a tactical nuclear weapon that invites a retaliation that quickly becomes strategic, especially considering that both NATO (e.g. the Turks) and Russia (there are many there who still want to 'prove points') both have people who may not be fully rational once the shooting starts.

    Bottom line - the use of tactical nuclear weapons would move the nuclear dial so far as to make it irrelevant.

  • Brick thrown from overpass hits trucker in face on Pa. Turnpike

    05/12/2016 8:29:10 PM PDT · 2 of 47
    spetznaz to Tolerance Sucks Rocks

    An utter disregard for human life and wellbeing. Disgusting!

  • Economist/YouGov Poll: Clinton 42 - Trump 40

    05/11/2016 2:18:18 PM PDT · 13 of 19
    spetznaz to usafa92

    Trump is Hillary’s worst nightmare. Attacks don’t work on the man as all his ‘flaws’ (and flaws) are publicly known and publicly internalized, and the man hits back hard! Some Liberals think that Trump is a weak candidate, but what they don’t realize is (1) Hillary has a ton of issues as well, (2) people have real issues they are worried about (eg jobs, politics as usual, etc), (3) Trump is simply the most unconventional candidate in decades. While the election will not be simple, those who think Trump cannot win are quite likely to be very surprised.

  • Why Russia will Never Attack Poland

    05/11/2016 8:17:17 AM PDT · 13 of 49
    spetznaz to SeekAndFind; BenLurkin; KC_Lion; DarthVader; Vigilanteman; Jonty30; Redmen4ever; glorgau
    Impossible, and for myriad reasons. Reasons that range from those listed by the author of the article, to more logical (in my opinion) reasons that have to do with the absolute inability of Russia to attack Poland (short of nuclear weapons, and that would lead to consequences for Russia that are extinction level), to even more real reasons for Russia not attacking Poland (the realest of which being that it would be against Russia's best interest to do so). While Russia is seen as a bogey man, and to be honest it fits the requirements very well (and Cold Warriors, on both sides, seem to like the narrative and thus sustain it), the truth is that Russia is nowhere as powerful as it would want to be seen as (or as some of our side would like it to be seen, for their own reasons that I will not bother getting into apart from saying that for some it is about getting investment Dollars for equipment, for others it is the need to have a defined 'enemy,' while for yet others it is some weird Russophilia. I always find it hilarious that Russophiliacs and Russophobes are actually VERY similar).

    Anyway, the truth of the matter is that Russia is not as strong as some would make it. Yes, it does have very capable nuclear forces. Yes, it also has a capable conventional force that is getting more capable by the year, even though there are some that think it is all about conscripts and 'rusty ships' even though Yeltsin has been out of power for 17 years. However, like virtually all 'major-power' countries with the exception of the US (and even that is debatable, but I don't want to go there), Russian military mighty is best applicable only against countries that are weaker than it. For example, the cruise missiles that it used against Syrian targets (and that was an eye-opener there how small ships based in what amounts to an inland lake, were able to launch missiles a far distance away) would not be effective against a larger country like the US for example. The SU 24s and 34s that were doing a good job against ground targets would have a (much) harder time against NATO. Etc etc etc (by the way, the reason I am saying that applies to all nations, including maybe the US, is that the Tomahawk inventory got depleted simply launching against Libya ...which probably means there would be issues against China and/or Russia, but as I said that is a different conversation ...and a sensitive one that may unnecessarily rile up some people).

    Poland is a member of NATO, and the Poles are a proud people. Even IF Russia could take over Poland conventionally (not possible, but assume it is), it would simply lead to an absolute quagmire. As mentioned, the Poles are a proud and good people, and they are also very good at fighting for their homeland. They are also very capable (Google 'GROM' to see what their tier-1 special forces unit is capable of, and this is a unit that has the respect of Delta and DEVGRU ...which says something). Russia would face absolute HELL attacking Poland. Absolute hell, in a way that even countries like Ukraine could not even dream of. The advantages Russia had in Georgia and in the parts of Ukraine they took over would be absolutely absent in Poland, and it would simply be a strategic and tactical mistake by the Russians.

    Bottom line ...Russia would not attack Poland, and not just because they could/couldn't, but rather because it would be absolutely stupid. Somewhat akin to someone posting articles on why the US cannot attack Russia/China, and I am certain both those countries have such articles as they are great clickbait.

    But realistically speaking, moving away from theoretical war-gaming, one will not see any of the following things as long as all actors are rational.

    (I) A major power attacking another major power (e.g. China will never attack Russia, Russia will never attack the US, the US will never attack China, etc etc etc).

    (II) A regional-power near-peer adversary attacking another regional-power near-peer adversary (e.g. India attacking Pakistan, Israel attacking Iran, North Korea attacking South Korea). Now, this is obviously more (apparently, but not realistically) open to debate as smart FReepers will obviously bring up the various India-Pakistan wars, the shelling of South Korean positions (and even the sinking of a ship) by Pyongyang, or the war drums between Israel and Iran. Even smarter FReepers may even ask what the heck I think Russia's attack of Ukraine was?

    Well, the truth is that the wars between India and Pakistan (then) were not between near-peers. For one, India was more powerful until Pakistan got nuclear weapons, second there was a bit of a Cold War footing (with the Soviets supporting India and the US, and then China, supporting Pakistan), and the more recent Kargill 'war' was more of a skirmish.

    Israel and Iran - well, even on FR people have been saying Israel will bomb Iran 'imminently' for over a decade now. It is actually one of those things I track (and at times laugh at ...the always changing 'timelines' of when Israel will bomb Iran. Currently the ruling thought it when Israel gets its F-35s and 'upgrades' them).

    Seoul vs Pyongyang - skirmish territory only. Why? The North cannot over-provoke the South because it is significantly weaker than South Korea, and should it ever do a real full-blown attack North Korea would be defeated. The South will not over-react to Northern aggression (even when it involves sinking of one ship or shelling of a coastal village) because if it does, and even though the South would win, it would come at the cost of Seoul (and not because of nuclear weapons but simply because North Korea has around 10,000 artillery pieces trained on Seoul that would destroy it in a sea of fire). Thus, like two drunk men holding each other by the balls and shouting insults at one another, nothing more than that will occur.

    Russia and Ukraine? Not near-peer at all, even though some make it seem like they are, and the area that Russia moved into had certain demographic advantages for the Russians.

    Anyway, no major power wars (including skirmishes, which is why the US slapped Turkey for shooting down that 24) and no regional power wars (although skirmishes may happen).

  • Report: Pakistan may have poisoned CIA chief after Bin Laden raid

    05/07/2016 2:08:44 AM PDT · 3 of 6
    spetznaz to ozzymandus

    It is, and has been for quite some time.

  • 12 Free Games to Learn Programming.

    05/02/2016 5:57:13 AM PDT · 23 of 27
    spetznaz to Berlin_Freeper

    Thank you. Bookmarked

  • Jordan Interested in Purchasing Russian Su-34 Bombers

    04/15/2016 5:15:38 AM PDT · 5 of 5
    spetznaz to Forward the Light Brigade

    With westernized avionics it is a good buy, and it appears Russia’s little adventure in Syria was - at least partly - an ad campaign.

  • RAF jets to face US F-22 stealth fighters in mock battles over UK

    04/15/2016 12:25:05 AM PDT · 8 of 12
    spetznaz to Thunder90

    The US is better at jamming technology (I’d also put parts of Europe ahead of Russia), and there’s no such thing as ‘plasma stealth’ outside Internet forums. While plasma state can cause RF not to effectively bounce back (hence the stealth), it is not a viable way of making aircraft stealthy as it exposes them to other forms of detection - hence it only existing in Internet fora.

  • Joao Carvalho: MMA fighter dies from head injuries

    04/12/2016 11:32:37 PM PDT · 23 of 30
    spetznaz to cassiusking

    Roundhouse kicks to the temple can definitely be lethal, but most times they are not (and don’t even cause knockouts among trained competitors, and for that matter most Muay Thai kicks are to the outer thigh since attempting a high kick on a trained opponent is a really stupid move - most times - as it exposes the person attempting it to all sorts of counter attacks). But they are rarely lethal. The issue with boxing is that the padded gloves and multiple rounds lead to repeated head (and also liver) hits, and those add up. To be even more radical, fighting with knuckle dusters would be better as the fight would be over in seconds and only result in a broken nose and lost teeth and such. A multiple round boxing bout, over years, has serious effects

  • Joao Carvalho: MMA fighter dies from head injuries

    04/12/2016 11:27:29 PM PDT · 21 of 30
    spetznaz to E. Pluribus Unum

    Exactly, and perfect example. Rugby, a game I have played (and love), has a lot of superficial injuries (eg the skinned knee, bruised cheek, etc), but has fewer serious injuries compared to the more protected/padded football. Ironically, it’s that protective padding that leads to players making moves most rugby players wouldn’t do.

  • Joao Carvalho: MMA fighter dies from head injuries

    04/12/2016 1:07:50 PM PDT · 3 of 30
    spetznaz to spel_grammer_an_punct_polise

    MMA is actually safer than boxing due to the fact that most fights end either by submission or (quick) TKO/KO. A boxing fight, with its larger gloves, can go on for many rounds with numerous head blows that can lead to repetitive concussions. Which is why the ‘gentler’ boxing ends up with far more serious injuries than MMA.

  • Paul Ryan, a Mirage Candidate, Wages a Parallel Campaign

    04/10/2016 9:04:54 PM PDT · 5 of 13
    spetznaz to detective
    I agree 100%, but permit me to make two changes to what you wrote:

    1) To change 'Ryan is clearly the favorite of the NYT' to 'Ryan is clearly the favorite of the GOPe'

    2) '...and is portrayed as an alternative to Trump' to '...and is portrayed as an alternative to Trump and Cruz.'

    Small changes, sure, but seminal. And unless Trump and Cruz settle their differences now, they will both lose the convention. Unless they join together, it will not matter how many delegates Trump has (as long as he's short of the target), nor what stratagem Cruz works at to try and get an advantage in subsequent convention votes (as sharp as Cruz might think he is, the GOPe is sharper and craftier and nastier and has been doing this for decades). Trump and Cruz will either win together or die separately, and it is up to them to decide what they prefer.

    As for the GOPe ...losing the General is an acceptable loss, and is a few ways preferable to have either Trump or Cruz win. I could explain that sentence, but in the interests of time chose not to. However, when one understands it then it becomes very clear that the purposes and aims of the GOPe are not the same as yours.

  • How the Rest of the Delegate Race Could Unfold

    04/06/2016 4:46:42 AM PDT · 3 of 48
    spetznaz to ctdonath2

    Interesting site. Thanks.

  • Ted Cruz Wins Wisconsin G.O.P. Primary, Pressuring Donald Trump

    04/06/2016 2:16:52 AM PDT · 45 of 63
    spetznaz to Happy Rain
    I hear your point on the percentage pro ratas, and that is why I said it is impossible for Kasich-Cruz to win a direct nomination now, and highly-improbable-to-impossible for Trump to win (as it would require him constantly winning, from now on, percentages that he has not won in the past). thus, I am fully in agreement with you there.

    The issue I have is the expectation that the result of a Brokered Convention will be Cruz coming out on top. the GOPe will never allow that, and unfortunately a good number of delegates have their allegiance to the GOPe. If it even gets to a fourth vote, you can be sure that there will be another person - selected by the GOPe as a 'unifying candidate' - and that person will be the Republican candidate. That candidate will not be Trump, and that candidate will not be Cruz.

    At the Convention, someone like Kasich actually has a better chance than Trump and Cruz. I am not saying it will be Kasich, just saying he has a better chance than the other two at a Convention.

    Anyway, I hope you are correct and that the result of a convention will be a Cruz win (I am one of the few who are okay with Trump or Cruz and has decided not to get involved in stupid anti-Trump/anti-Cruz vitriol).

    Unfortunately, I fully expect that you will be disappointed, and that the GOPe will put one of their own.

    You will be further disappointed in the General Election when Hillary steamrolls the GOP and wins the 270 needed to win the presidency. People are focusing on the 1,243 when they should be looking at the 270, and the result of a Brokered Convention will be many Republican/Conservative voters refusing to vote. Already the Republican Party suffers from a Demographic disadvantage, that only keeps growing every 4 years, and disenfranchised voters simply make it more possible for the Democrats to win.

    Let me stop now and let FR continue with its anti-Trump/anti-Cruz bashing. After all, as members of the 'Stupid Party,' FReepers should have a full opportunity to engage in the self-defeating games the wider party is engaged in.

  • Ted Cruz Wins Wisconsin G.O.P. Primary, Pressuring Donald Trump

    04/06/2016 12:34:23 AM PDT · 20 of 63
    spetznaz to Happy Rain; Berlin_Freeper
    With this win, nobody gets the 1237 so it goes to Cleveland. Where Cruz will win the nomination on the fourth vote. Game set match.

    While I agree that it is becoming unlikely that anyone will get the 1,237. As things currently stand, it is mathematically impossible for Cruz and Kasich, and mathematically highly-improbable-to-the-point-of-being-impossible for Trump. Thus, this means a Contested Convention.

    Where I do not agree is that Cruz will win it. Why? Simply because the GOPe have a strong hold over the Convention process, and they simply do not like Cruz much. While they abhor Trump more, the GOPe has never been enamored of Cruz and prior to Trump's rise Cruz was their public enemy numero uno. The moment the contest now gets to a Brokered Convention, it is over for Cruz. The GOPe will put one of their own, and the chances of them giving it to someone they have hated since he rose to national politics (Cruz) is about the same level as them handing it to Trump.

    Zero chance.

    Think about when Romney was telling people to vote for Cruz where Cruz is ahead, and Kasich/Rubio where they are ahead. He did not come out and say he supported Cruz, or that Cruz was a great candidate and good Conservative, or that he was behind him for president. Not at all. Simply saying that voting for whoever was leading was the best way to 'stop Trump.'

    The GOPe absolutely detests Cruz because he doesn't fit their mold, and an organic way to see this is to note that before the Trump-Cruz fight filtered down to FR, turning brother against brother, Cruz was the clear FR favorite before Trump's rise. There is a reason that he was a favorite, and that reason is anathema to the GOPe.

    Anyway, let me stop writing and simply say this. If Cruz wins the nomination based on the outcome of a Contested/Brokered Convention, I will be extremely surprised and shocked. Happy, since I believe Cruz is better than the GOPe and definitely better than Hillary, but exceedingly shocked. I just don't see how the GOPe could finally manage to get the nomination process 'back in their hands,' and then let it go to Cruz. Impossible, and I almost never use that word.

    Impossible.

  • DUer Questions Integrity of Blog Founder Skinner Over Clinton Payments

    04/03/2016 11:28:03 PM PDT · 17 of 17
    spetznaz to PJ-Comix

    Democrats are always very undemocratic. One has to tow the party line, and not doing so generally attracts negative consequences.

  • The whole media meme that "the race is tightening and Trump is fading"...

    03/29/2016 10:27:26 AM PDT · 64 of 66
    spetznaz to Iowa David
    I hope you are correct, and you might actually be. The only thing I will quickly say is that I am not that focused on the GOP Nominee as I am on the General Election victor. Note my last post, near the end, where I said that a brokered convention will be bad for all three (the GOPe, Trump and Cruz). It will lead to a schism - might be a small one, might be a large one, but definitely big enough to let the Democrats win - and once that happens it is bye bye America. That's my main problem, and the ironic thing is I am not even American (I just understand why a STRONG and GOOD American is something important for the world). My focus is on the General Election and not on who gets the 1237 by either hook or crook. That is just the admission charge to the GE, and the games the Republicans/Conservatives are playing simply make it that much easier for Hillary to win.

    It's not the 1237, but rather about the 270. It is the 270 electoral votes that matter, and considering that the Democrats benefit from a slightly increasing demographic advantage every 4 years, the Republicans/Conservatives need everything they can get. Unfortunately, they have formed a circular firing wagon and are going full blast with abandon.

    Bottom line - if I could vote, 4 months ago I would have voted for Cruz, and right now I would vote for Trump. Either of those two would be better than Hillary ever could be. I wish more people would realize that.

  • The whole media meme that "the race is tightening and Trump is fading"...

    03/29/2016 9:50:27 AM PDT · 62 of 66
    spetznaz to Iowa David
    Salient points. The only thing I would point out is that the GOPe detests Cruz as much as they hate Trump. Cruz is not a liked man in the GOP, and the only reason you see the likes of Jeb and Mitt "supporting" him is simply because they know he is the only chance they have of preventing a Trump nomination, and thus it behooves them to support Cruz. However, at the Convention you can be certain that they will not support Cruz. Think about it. They simply cannot support Cruz, no matter what they say now. Also think about the fact that before Trump's meteoric rise, at the time where Trump was seen as some rich boy who was being a buffoon trying to run for the presidency, Cruz was the man they all loved to hate. Cruz was the number one enemy of the GOPe.

    To the GOPe Cruz is as much anathema to them as Trump is, maybe more so. It's just that the rise of Trump is a more immediate danger, while Cruz is a more mid-term threat that can be taken care off at the convention. This is actually why I believe the whole 'mistress' story was what the GOPe planned to use against Cruz at-or-near the Convention, and what happened is that one way or the other it leaked. This is why people like Rubio, who had aspects of that story, were not successful in fishing it out weeks back.

    However, whatever the case, the fact remains that the GOPe is trying to play Cruz, while Cruz (being an intelligent person) is FULLY AWARE of that, but also realizes that he currently needs the GOPe to get sufficient delegates that may enable him to play the GOPe.

    Thus, it is a game of stratagem and guile, with both the GOPe and Cruz thinking they can play the other. One might be right, both may be right, both may be wrong.

    In my opinion, all of this plays right into Hillary's hands, and the sad thing is that the next president will be in a position to significantly alter/maintain the shape of the US Supreme Court. Unfortunately, those on our side do not seem to care that much about that, and in my opinion they will probably deserve what they get.

    Unfortunately, so will the rest of the country.

    In conclusion, both the GOPe and Cruz need each other to defeat Trump. Unfortunately for ALL THREE, a Brokered Convention will not lead to a unified GOP. It will either lead to a splintered party, a third-party run, or people sitting home and refusing to vote.

    Result? Hillary Rodham Clinton winning the General Election, and the end of America as YOU, the reader of this post, know it.

  • The whole media meme that "the race is tightening and Trump is fading"...

    03/29/2016 2:05:08 AM PDT · 51 of 66
    spetznaz to Iowa David
    I still say Trump leaves the race before it is over, and while he still has delegate lead. He can claim he is a winner, and GOPe is stealing the convention. If he goes to convention without the 1237 delegates he needs, no way does he win. I think he is starting to figure that out.

    Now, anything is possible and what you said might happen. This election has taught people one thing - 'normal' is not an effective operative word this time round, and thus anything is possible.

    However, I personally doubt what you say will happen. Why? Think of it in two ways - (i) Trump is a patriot who's in the race out of love for Country; and (ii) Trump is a narcissist who's in the race purely out of ego.

    If the first is correct, then there's no way Trump will drop out. Absolutely impossible - patriots have died for the Flag, and the current attacks on Trump are nothing (and I'm certain that in the normal course of doing business Trump has come across far more caustic attacks). Over the time-span of almost a year, Trump has been the front runner. Whether one says that he 'didn't have a majority,' the fact still remains that he has been the clear front runner and currently has more delegates than his current two competitors (combined), with it being an ABSOLUTE impossibility for Kasich to win the nomination at the first round, and a NIGH MATHEMATICAL impossibility for Cruz to win the nomination at the first round (while it is still possible, it would require Cruz to basically sweep EVERY state from now on ...possible, in the same way it is possible to win the Lotto, but highly improbable from a mathematical angle). Trump, on the other hand, is at 96% of his target according to 538 (compared to Cruz who is at 52% of where he needs to be), and to assume that Trump would just drop out is difficult to comprehend. Especially if he is a patriot.

    What if he is just some narcissist who is on some ego drive. First of all, virtually everyone who runs for high office has to have some sort of inner-narcissist within him (this include Cruz, Fiorina, Clinton, etc). But let's concentrate on Trump. If all of this was an ego drive, he still would not just drop out. Especially as it stands with him leading in delegates. To drop out now and give Cruz a clear uninterrupted path to the nomination runs counter to anything a narcissist would do. A narcissist would rather stay in the race and act as a spoiler, and if we are seeing people/narcissists with FAR LOWER delegate counts staying in the race and serving as spoilers, it would be a bit ludicrous to assume that (an allegedly) bigger narcissist, who is leading in delegates, would just drop out. That is called wishful thinking, especially if narcissists with lower counts are staying in the race.

    The next contests will clearly show how the lay of the land really is, in particular NY and CA (I believe the two of them add to 300 delegates, which would take Trump to an insurmountable win if he got both, or if Cruz got both would make him basically tied with Trump). However, all we can do is watch and see.

    What I am watching for is (a) how the next elections pan out, (b) if the mistress story gets feet (I seriously hope there's no truth to it because if there is it will STILL come out, and the longest it takes the more it builds momentum), and (c) if we get to a brokered convention, to see what tricks the GOPe pull out to try and defeat Trump AND Cruz. I belong to the camp that believes the mistress story was a GOPe weapon to take Cruz out once he took out Trump, but I could be wrong and I am definitely not a mind reader.

    So, let's see. Next elections are coming soon, and those results will be more impactful than anything I have to say.

  • Developing: Source 'deep inside' Team Cruz: Affairs May be Real; Heidi wants all-male staff

    03/27/2016 3:47:52 AM PDT · 4 of 324
    spetznaz to Bobalu

    I don’t like Cruz. Used to like the man, but some of his antics - or I should say, some of the antics by people associated with his campaign - turned me off the man. With that said, we should not just blindly attack the man based on hearsay. When/if it is proven that’s another case, but for now it is primarily innuendo and thus should be beneath us. Just my 2 cents.

  • Washington Times columnist fired after confirming 2 of the now 8 Cruz mistresses [should be 5]

    03/27/2016 3:38:45 AM PDT · 8 of 128
    spetznaz to Hugin
    As I told another FREEPER, that was the plan all along and why the GOPe has been totally comfortable supporting Cruz as their tool to force a Contested Convention. They had two reasons - (1) Cruz was the only person who could, at whatever level, compete against Trump and (2) at a Contested Convention, they could then release detailed information on the (alleged) affairs and use that to take Cruz out of the running. Consequently, they could then put a third person that is neither Trump nor Cruz.

    In a nutshell, this is why the GOPe were totally comfortable supporting Cruz. They had a poison pill prepared.

    No matter what Romney and Bush might say, there was no way they'd support Cruz all the way. They always planned on having someone else get selected at a Brokered Convention, and thus the story was meant to come out the moment it was for certain that Trump had not breached the minimum cutoff.

    For that matter, the GOPe would probably have blamed the leak on a sour Trump.

  • TV News Caught In Donald Trump Vs Ted Cruz/ National Enquirer Crossfire

    03/26/2016 6:45:32 PM PDT · 136 of 168
    spetznaz to DesertRhino
    That was the plan all along, and why the GOPe has been totally comfortable supporting Cruz as their tool to force a Contested Convention. They had two reasons - (1) Cruz was the only person who could, at whatever level, compete against Trump and (2) at a Contested Convention, they could then release detailed information on the (alleged) affairs and use that to take Cruz out of the running. Consequently, they could then put a third person that is neither Trump nor Cruz.

    In a nutshell, this is why the GOPe were totally comfortable supporting Cruz. They had a poison pill prepared.

  • US court ruling suggests Iranian ties to 9/11 attacks

    03/21/2016 1:02:06 AM PDT · 13 of 32
    spetznaz to Olog-hai
    I wish you could make your point without unnecessary diatribe. Insinuating I am in some way anti-Israel is uncalled for (coming from where I come from, and the level of Israeli links I have, such a statement is asinine), and I did mention that not only is Israel a terror state but that it also deserves sanctions.

    All I said was that I found it totally strange that Shia Iran would be collaborating with Sunni Al Qaeda within Sunni Saudi Arabia. Possible? Anything is possible. Probably? Not to me.

    If my saying that means I am 'anti-Israel' then I wonder what you call people who make a point you disagree with in other matters. I think in FR people are still allowed to have their own opinions, even if they ran contrast to what others think, and in my book countries like Saudi Arabia should be hit hard long before Iran comes into the picture. And I say that with full faith that Iran is no friend to the West, or to Israel.

  • US court ruling suggests Iranian ties to 9/11 attacks

    03/21/2016 12:13:32 AM PDT · 9 of 32
    spetznaz to Olog-hai
    I am sorry, but this is unadulterated BS. Yes, Iran is a terror-state that deserves sanctions, and it is no friend to the West, but I simply find it hard to view that Shia Iran (Shia Iran) coordinated a terror attack on NYC with Al Qaeda (Sunni Al Qaeda). The only think the Sunni hate more than Jews are the Shia.
  • Why Ted Cruz Could Win the GOP Nomination. In 2020.

    03/19/2016 9:06:38 PM PDT · 100 of 102
    spetznaz to Maine Mariner

    That is very true, and something that people are not thinking about. If the Democrats win this year, there will be a far smaller chance of them losing 4 years from now. The demographics are changing, and they are changing to the benefit of the Dems. Love it or hate it, that cannot be denied. We need to take all our victories NOW rather than wait for a later that may never come.

  • BREAKING: Mitt Romney endorses Ted Cruz for President in all remaining primaries

    03/18/2016 1:34:39 PM PDT · 192 of 448
    spetznaz to Jewbacca
    I really don't have a dog in this fight, but let me ask you two questions -

    (1) do you honestly believe the GOPe would let Cruz be the nominee? Especially considering (a) how they hate Cruz and (b) how Romney clearly stated the purpose of his Cruz nomination is simply to get to a open primary and not to give it to Cruz?

    (2) If things were reversed, and Cruz was leading and the GOPe used Rubio against Cruz in the way they're using Cruz against Trump, and it gets to an open Convention and Rubio wins in the second round (even though he had more delegates in the first). Do you think (a) that would be the will of the people or the will of the party, and (b) would it be okay then when it is used against Cruz as it appears okay now when used against Trump?

  • GOP Establishment Elites Discuss How to Stop Trump — ‘All He Has Going for Him Is a Lot of Votes’

    03/13/2016 9:37:13 PM PDT · 8 of 47
    spetznaz to Helicondelta

    The Uniparty is real.