3
Judicator 3 points ago +3 / -0

KEK yep

It is funny though; just three months off and it would have been near perfect.

1
Judicator 1 point ago +1 / -0

Yeah, and?

Spitting on every potential ally is how you lose, simple as that.

I'm not asking you to fall in love with them or some shit, I'm just saying that we shouldn't be so hostile towards potential allies. We can't afford to lose to evil over our own stupid pride.

6
Judicator 6 points ago +6 / -0

I don't believe it either but it is remarkable the level of connection between the two.

Trump was born something like six? months after Patton died.

Patton also was apparently quite a strong believer in reincarnation.

Hell they talk in the same kinds of ways too!

13
Judicator 13 points ago +13 / -0

I don't really think we have the luxury of rubbing it in people's faces as they learn we're right the hard way. We should all work to put aside pettiness and come to these peoples' aid. There's strength in numbers, and we need all the people in our camp we can get.

2
Judicator 2 points ago +2 / -0

Eh that's not really judgement.

He didn't say "THEY ALL GO TO HELL" or something, he just said that he doesn't trust any of them. That's kinda stupid but it's not really a sin.

0
Judicator 0 points ago +1 / -1

The fuck you on about?

Categorized forums exist for a reason. Restricting topics to their relevant forms (e.g. sticking to Q things on GreatAwakening) isn't suddenly making us into an "authoritarian cult".

It'd be one thing if this were about researching the reasoning, but this thread appears to just be bait to make people angry and confused and to derail the topic(s) of the forum.

by BQnita
3
Judicator 3 points ago +3 / -0

Games have always had to have alternate Chinese variants, often cutting out any blood and any gore.

Small developers will largely not give a shit, but they're also not the ones promoting LGBT anyway.

1
Judicator 1 point ago +1 / -0

There is still virtually no solid evidence that I have seen that spike proteins can be shedded - especially from a vaccinated person to an unvaccinated employee to their kid.

Even if there were, is it really your responsibility to take care of their child? Isn't this the exact same damn thing in reverse?

by Quelle
1
Judicator 1 point ago +1 / -0

You're 100% right to question it, but the ultimate answer ends up being "what else can they do?"

The thing is, we have immense destructive ability, sure, but that really only has effect on significantly weaker or technologically behind nations. Taiwan is well equipped to counter any delivery China would send; the PATRIOT missile system is designed to defend against both aircraft and missiles, so long-range missile strikes, bombing runs, and cruise missiles would be only marginally effective at best. Combined with whatever sorts of CIWS guns they almost certainly have and ordinance would dramatically lose effectiveness. At the most, long range ordinance operations would become an eye for an eye.

The PLA also has to contend with their propaganda. They've been saying they'll take Taiwan quickly and easily for decades, yet a blockade or a nuke/equivalent would be far from that goal. They need reintegration, not obliteration. Anything short of that and it will be a net propaganda loss for them. You yourself pointed out that.

The thing is, the PLA just hasn't shown the macho or the coordination to pull off effective military operations against opponents with military parody. Their border skirmishes with India were pathetic given the equipment superiority they had in the area. Before that they "won" [most nations say they lost, given they failed their primary objectives a war with Vietnam.

As much as war changes, it really winds up repeating itself. The technology gets more advanced, yet the tactics and overall aims remain the same, which is why we can still use the Art of War thousands of years after its inception.

The best bet China would have at avoiding hundreds of Stalingrads in their invasion would be to have operatives sabotage critical defense facilities simultaneously; something that Taiwan probably knows and works overtime to protect against. And even then, they simply cannot mobilize troops and navy that fast to make that sabotage count.

That leaves two options: no war at all, or attempted subterfuge as they've done in every other nation they bend the knee of. The latter will be astronomically harder on Taiwan, given they would expect that and have tremendous resistance to such a thing.

I think a war with Taiwan should be acknowledged as a last ditch effort of a collapsing CCP. It is such a likely suicidal plan that the CCP would only be executing it if they felt they were going to die within a month to internal uprisings.

by Quelle
1
Judicator 1 point ago +1 / -0

Pretty good video, though it does seem just kinda like arbitrary storytelling at a lot of points. The crucial numbers are in there though and they make the whole difference, really.

by Quelle
1
Judicator 1 point ago +1 / -0

Yeah I knew I was in the right ballpark but couldn't quite remember what it was. Thanks!

3
Judicator 3 points ago +3 / -0

Or just pay state taxes and the state allocates some of their taxation to the feds from there.

This gives bonus incentive for state governments to monitor how much they spend on the federal government, as well, as spending too much would be money lost to them. Of course the incentives extended aren't perfect, but at the least it turns the accountability onto a lower level and more spread out. Instead of just needing to bribe 100 Senators and 435 House reps to control the nation, they'd need to bribe the state senates/house of each state. Sort of like 50x the number of officials, although of course the actual math is a lot more complicated.

But yeah largely cutting federal size astronomically. Some programs might remain out of general utility and being relatively benign but most of the authority really can be transferred to the states. That becomes a proper situation of taxation WITH representation instead of ~600 people deciding how many shits a day an entire country of over 200 million can take.

by Quelle
7
Judicator 7 points ago +7 / -0

Luckily they don't need it, especially if they have help from South Korea and Japan.

by Quelle
48
Judicator 48 points ago +48 / -0

You ready for the breakdown?

This is all according to stats supposedly from multiple militaries, including the PLA [People's Liberation Army]. You'll have to forgive me if I don't have sources all on hand, this has been stuff I've dug around for a long time and very few of my sources are in one place. A lot of it shouldn't be too hard to find, though.

Lets walk through a play-by-play.

The PLA can't just strike Taiwan out of the blue. Troops need to be moved, ships, vehicles, etc. all need to be massed. I suppose the PLA could launch missiles or perform air strikes, but that would be suicidal to do without the full invasion at the ready; Taiwan is equipped with some of the greatest military equipment in the world [thanks to the US], including some of the best air defense systems in the world. Tons of PATRIOT missile launchers and missiles, and so on. Extensive range, potentially even to the mainland.

Taiwan also has long range ordinance that likely could strike the mainland. As another commenter here mentioned, they're almost certainly in striking distance of major targets on the Chinese mainland, including potentially the Three Gorges Dam.

In this sense, Taiwan being smaller is a significant advantage; less ground to protect.

So, we get our major troop and fleet movements, alerting Tiawan and any allies to what is likely about to come. Preparations are made; freighter ships can be sunk to block off major ports, mines are laced around the island by their submarine fleet, and, of course, ground and air forces are on standby.

As soon as the PLA goes seaborne, they have to contend with long range ordinance and air strikes from Taiwan. The PLAAF outnumbers the Taiwanese Air Force significantly, but numbers aren't everything, and the name of the game for Taiwan would more likely be harassment than direct confrontation.

So, the whole way through, Chinese ships are being harassed, bombarded, torpedo'd by Taiwan's submarines, and running into minefields. They will have no harbor to dock in at Taiwan, leaving only the beachheads, of which there are only about 13 viable ones. Again, small size is a major asset for Taiwan.

All of these beachheads have been fortified to all shit. There are bunker networks under them, razor wire is readily available, mines, etc. Oil pipes also are strategically run under the beaches; they can be ruptured in the event of an invasion to turn the beach into a never ending inferno. Chemical plants have been strategically positioned near the beach heads as well; in a life-or-death situation like this, workers can be evacuated and those chemicals can be released onto the beach. We're talking super toxic shit. It'd fuck them up tremendously.

As an aside; consider the Allied invasion of Normandy. It was a bloodbath. If the Germans had exact knowledge of the chosen beaches, they would have completely slaughtered allied troops; the invasion wouldn't have stood a chance.

Now consider that not only would Taiwan know what beaches, they also would have the advantage of decades of fortifications. Do the numbers on that.

If by some incredible feat, the PLA makes it past the beaches, every highway, bridge, etc. has been acknowledged and planned so that transportation of motorized vehicles can be halted every damn step of the way. Bridges can be strategically blown out, leaving troops no easy way across, valleys and gulches laced with traps, the works. Scorched earth is totally viable as well.

Now, getting back to Taiwan's size. The PLA boasts of about two million strong IIRC; Taiwan is really not that far behind, being able to get 1 million. Given the small size of the island, the PLA's number advantage would be almost completely nullified; where can you fit so many soldiers effectively on the front?

Then there's the mountains. Taiwan is longer "north to south" so to speak; the east side is completely mountains. Taiwanese forces and civilians can retreat to the mountains, and the mountains can become another fortress in and of themselves; they can almost certainly extensively bombard the rest of the island, always getting a bead on advancing PLA forces.

Cities would turn into playgrounds for the Taiwanese forces. Steel cables can be strung between buildings to kill any helicopters or planes that attempt to fly low in urban areas. Every tall structure would be a sniper's playground.

Every square foot of Taiwan would be a meat grinder and a half for PLA forces. Could they muster more than their two million? Almost certainly. Would they have the morale to continue? No fucking way. The propaganda is that the PLA would easily crush Taiwanese forces and "reuinify" the country. The reality is that you'd probably see hundreds of thousands of bodybags before they even take the beaches. The Taiwanese would know there is no surrender, they would fight to the absolute bitter end. They would employ whatever tactics work; and given their training and equipment, they'd put up guerilla warfare that would make Vietnam look like a daycare.

The PLA knows this. If they attempt an invasion of Taiwan it will be as a desperate last attempt to hold onto their empire; the invasion would be suicide.

Any questions?

by Quelle
16
Judicator 16 points ago +16 / -0

CCP taking Taiwan by force is a bit laughable to be quite honest.

Taiwan is built to be a fortress, down to every inch.

PLA casualties would be astronomically high per foot; they could probably make a new island with the bodies of the dead.

That's without adding in Japan and South Korea.

16
Judicator 16 points ago +16 / -0

Original US founding documents give a pretty good idea.

One of the biggest wrong turns was the idea that congress can do anything in the name of "interstate commerce".

At this point, I don't think there should be federal income tax, for example. If states want to tax they can vote on that at a much lower local level. Most major decisions should only go as high in government as needed. The Federal government would just be there to help rectify disputes, keep the nation from complete dissolution, and coordinate protection against foreign adversaries.

For about 90% of all political questions, my answer these days is just "let the states decide for themselves". The only exceptions would be in violation of the constitution, so stuff like abortion (murder), gun bans ("shall not be infringed"), slavery, and other similar major issues.

3
Judicator 3 points ago +5 / -2

Isn't this literally the same thing we've been complaining about but in reverse?

With a few exceptions for jobs where it is directly and completely necessarily relevant, you really shouldn't be applying pressure/coercing/forcing people to make a personal health choice by holding their job as collateral.

It may not be as directly or overtly as immoral as coercing people into an experimental treatment [which borders on or is a crime against humanity, depending on situation], but it is still the same kind of thinking that's the problem.

It'd be one thing if you told them what you thought about the vaccine and recommended it, but it's another entirely to threaten firing for it.

The fact that so many people are upvoting this is disturbing to me. I'm used to this kind of hypocrisy from leftists, not people on here.

2
Judicator 2 points ago +2 / -0

I don't expect any one state to remove Joe Biden. Arizona taken out wouldn't remove enough electors. On the other hand, I do expect decertification from enough would be enough to create a sizable constitutional crisis, and spark a power struggle with the Federal government. I don't believe the SCOTUS has ANY place touching this; they certainly do not have authority to remove a sitting president.

If our constitutional roadmap is any guideline, there would be three significant ways of removing Biden.

1.) Congress. Impeachment. HIGHLY doubt that will happen, and if it doesn't it won't be over this.

2.) The rest of the executive branch tossing him out. Not really sure what that would be like, but I can see it happening and making a degree of logic. We're talking about a military usurpation here.

3.) States. Most of the abilities of the legislative branch are also held in some manner by the states themselves, directly. It would not be unreasonable to suppose that they could take action of a variety of kinds to effectively bypass congress and have proper constitutional authority; I mean, at the least (though this is a stretch), they have the power to amend the constitution without congressional involvement.

I don't personally see removal of Biden through de-certification alone either. No way in hell they'd just let it work like that. But that's not really what I want anyway; what I think we need is the power struggle itself; the decertification, the branding of illegitimacy. The value here is almost moreso in the fight than the chance of victory through those means alone.

One thing that is incredibly important to remember for all of us, that is so easily to forget, is that this is just one battle of a much much larger war. Wars aren't one by sending forces to only attack one objective at a time, until they get to the final objective. It's won by coordinating assaults across the front and providing support one battle to another. This is just one front we need to continue pressuring and forcing as much as possible; there are other fronts that need victory as well, and, God willing, by the time they all get to the final objectives, they'll be strong enough and united enough to achieve complete victory.

1
Judicator 1 point ago +1 / -0

It appears this isn't just red flag laws, it's also military budgeting, which explains why they want it gone.

11
Judicator 11 points ago +11 / -0

Some idiot petting a cat on a random video gets better instant viewership than CNN - and rightfully so!

3
Judicator 3 points ago +3 / -0

Unknown. Anyone that says for matter of fact that they know is just guessing.

Most generally described, it would probably fall under the box of "constitutional crisis". It would, near as I'm aware, be unheard of to somehow decertify. Do they even have the authority? Who is the actual authority; federal or the one state? Do they need other states to overrule the Federal? Could a convention of states be called to somehow overrule the results?

So many questions. The best thing that WOULD come out of it WOULD be the escalation of the crisis from something swept under the rug to something that needs to be dealt with.

5
Judicator 5 points ago +6 / -1

Uh, what planet are you living on? Australia has Covid concentration camps, have been taking kids away to vaccinate them, beating peaceful protesters up that defy the mandates, and, in no time at all, will likely start killing conservatives.

EVERYONE should remember Hong Kong, but I aimed this at Australia because the exact same things that happened in Hong Kong are now happening to Australia. They're as we speak being satellited proper and fully by China.

2
Judicator 2 points ago +2 / -0

He used to come across as snarky/superiorist when projecting confidence before. Same way Obama did all the time. You're exactly right; now when he tries to project confidence it's more of him just projecting his own anger about his own decline.

10
Judicator 10 points ago +10 / -0

I don't understand how things have gone this far in these nations that are having the most conflict like this and people don't understand that they need to watch each others' backs.

They should never let each other be arrested if they can help it. They HAVE the power to stop it 9/10 cases. They just don't.

People need to remember that. It will get to a point in no time where the people that get arrested may not ever come back.

People would be a lot less hesitant to join protests too if they knew the crowd would fight to the death to keep them free.

view more: ‹ Prev Next ›