Fetterman

#76
#76
McDad said:
Show your math, Cowboy. How so?
Click to expand...
Missiles and guidance tech, not to mention tactical nukes, will make quick work on anything that moves. It currently takes years to produce a naval ship, so the next war will be fought with what u have. Not to mention, just because you can make a hull, doesnt mean you have everything to go in it on hand.
 
  • Like
Reactions: McDad
#78
#78
Orangeburst said:
Missiles and guidance tech, not to mention tactical nukes, will make quick work on anything that moves. It currently takes years to produce a naval ship, so the next war will be fought with what u have. Not to mention, just because you can make a hull, doesnt mean you have everything to go in it on hand.
Click to expand...
Wars still require boots and equipment on the ground, though. Right?
 
#79
#79
McDad said:
Wars still require boots and equipment on the ground, though. Right?
Click to expand...
Not so sure anymore, but dont see massed armies being necessary in a Pacific War. Everything is going to distribured warfare. A single company of Marines on some far flung island with naval strike missiles, hypersonics, drones, would deny any fleet navigation access for hundereds of miles.
We are down to the smallest army since WW2, but the firepower and precision is/will be unprecedented.
 
  • Like
Reactions: StarRaider and McDad
#80
#80
McDad said:
If there is standing to say a business from another country but with infrastructure in the US cannot sell the business if the US government doesn't approve, then isn't it just as easy to say a business purchased by someone from another country with infrastructure on US soil can have their business confiscated by the US government? If Unkie Sam has complete say on any business with infrastructure in the US even if owned outside the US, then the standing applies to business purchased just as to businesses founded.
Click to expand...

I misunderstood your original scenario. i wouldn’t want a Russian citizen to own a critical pipeline in the us.

I think you’re getting to professorial about this. My position is i wouldn’t have a problem with not allowing foreign ownership of us natural resources. I think it’s pretty straightforward. I haven’t thought through every wrinkle that could come up. But i don’t think it’s an unreasonable opinión.
 
#81
#81
upon further reflection, one does need steel, iron, and alloys for munitions. But I think if it got that far, nationalization and mobilization would be implemented if necessary.
 
#83
#83
McDad said:
Is it fair to say a gradient exists in my mind but I don't have it quantified?

There are nationals from countries where I wouldn't have any concerns whatsoever, even if they wanted to buy something scary like a nuclear power plant; England, Canada, France, Nigeria, South Korea, Japan as examples. On the other end of the spectrum there are nationals from countries that I believe concern is warranted; China, Russia, Saudi Arabia, Afghanistan, Iran, etc.
The business owners and directors should have autonomy to do what they please with their business, though. Perhaps the balance point is this, businesses can be sold to anyone from any country but the purchasers have to be vetted AND the US government can force the sale from the new owners if those new owners pose a credible risk to national security.
Click to expand...

THIS, this kind of thing should not be happening

Foreigners bought 3.4 million acres of U.S. forest, farm land in 2022, Agriculture Dep't says - note, its not all China either. but to me, that doesnt matter. We have no more say over the Canadians buying our forests than we do the Dutch buying farmland or Chinese buying land next to military bases.

Not sure what the Solomonic solution is but we should be working toward one. 21% of Maine private land is owned by foreigners. Almost 13% in Hawaii.
 
  • Like
Reactions: hog88 and davethevol
#87
#87
Handlers are trying to position him as next Sinema/Manchin. Act like you are going to work across the aisle but fall in line once you get $$$$ for home....
 
  • Like
Reactions: LouderVol and hog88
#88
#88
Not sure of this ploy though. There's no scenario the Ds keep the Senate unless Trump becomes more toxic at top of ticket...
 
#92
#92
BigOrangeMojo said:
There's not a seat the Rs should lose. Unless Trump is beyond toxic, they should pick up 3 at a minimum (WV, OH, MT)...
Click to expand...

I'm seeing a massive loss for the Rs regardless whether Trump is on the ticket or not. They might even lose the house.
 
#93
#93
BigOrangeMojo said:
There's not a seat the Rs should lose. Unless Trump is beyond toxic, they should pick up 3 at a minimum (WV, OH, MT)...
Click to expand...
WV for sure but OH is a toss up. Sherrod Brown has held that seat for a long time. It's not easy to oust someone with that many connections
 
#94
#94
hog88 said:
I'm seeing a massive loss for the Rs regardless whether Trump is on the ticket or not. They might even lose the house.
Click to expand...

In the Senate? You crazy. Here are the 11 spots the Rs have to defend to stay where they are at

WY
UT
ND
NE x2
TX
MO
IN
TN
MS
FL

The only one that has any chance to flip is FL and the Rs won that by 16 points in 2022....
 
#95
#95
Sea Ray said:
WV for sure but OH is a toss up. Sherrod Brown has held that seat for a long time. It's not easy to oust someone with that many connections
Click to expand...

In a non Presidential year, I'd agree with you. But Trump won by +8 in 2020 and state has even got redder since then.

Same thing with MT.

The only way the Rs lose these spots is Trump is too toxic or they nominate someone unelectable (which is possible)...
 
#96
#96
BigOrangeMojo said:
In the Senate? You crazy. Here are the 11 spots the Rs have to defend to stay where they are at

WY
UT
ND
NE x2
TX
MO
IN
TN
MS
FL

The only one that has any chance to flip is FL and the Rs won that by 16 points in 2022....
Click to expand...

Maybe I am crazy but November is going to be wild.

Plus, never underestimate the repubs ability to f*** up elections.
 
  • Like
Reactions: LouderVol, 865er and GroverCleveland
#98
#98
hog88 said:
I'm seeing a massive loss for the Rs regardless whether Trump is on the ticket or not. They might even lose the house.
Click to expand...
I am not disagreeing with this take. What you think their kryptonite is?

I think abortion + Trump killed them in the midterms.
 
  • Like
Reactions: EasternVol
New posts
You must log in or register to reply here.

VN Store



Back
Top