LeadersAtWork

Depends on the size of the wave behind him. Studies have shown a wall alone isn’t as effective at stopping large waves. Now when there are effective and thought out breakers further out, the wave tends to have little effect.

Thankfully, this administration is incompetent. Problem though is the amount of resources they have and a Democratic, and Nationwide resistance, that can’t stop eating their boots for failure of any true effectiveness.

We need a leader. Just like the Republicans, we need a person, or person, we can rally behind. Figureheads that stand as tall as Trump. Until then, what we have are several broken fronts working loosely together against a larger, [mostly] coordinated force.

Let me tell you about the mythical military pair of socks.

Slowly becoming less wannabe and more gonna be.

Patient of a saint right here.

Yeah. I don’t actually remember anything they might have said though that reminds me: Do you have a good spaghetti recipe? Cause I’m somehow seeing a correlation between people being jerks and spaghetti right now.

Don’t worry, everyone else. We will actually return to the original topic in about 15 minutes.

So look, I am not trying to talk down to you or make you feel inferior. The reason I use words with WAY too many syllables tucked into precisely worded sentence structures is because my fucking brain decided it didn’t want to remember the normal damn way of saying it.

Also, our brains glitch. As in it literally feels like some wires crossed. Due to this some situations/days/hours can be torture. Please be kind.

Depends. Are we also depressed? Is there actual anxiety tied in with that flippant apparent physical lethargy? How hot is this fire?

If you want us to do something with some consistency make us feel obligated or change it enough to keep it interesting.

Easy: People within its ranks will begin to make choices. Not necessarily take action, just make choices. If things continue small insubordinations will occur and eventually rifts at nearly every level.

If things got really bad the military would split into three:

1. Pro Trump
2. Pro United States
3. Undecided/Everyone else.

If this happens it will be a test of the quality of leadership on both major sides. A fundamental breaking of the chain. It’s why Trump wants to replace current military leadership: They’ve told him no. A pattern we’ll continue to see for at least two years.

I’m fine with that. Let them remake it worse than the modding team under Rebel. So long as they don’t stop the mod from being released, that is, because that would be a dick move after openly giving it permission to continue.

How?

That’s the danger: We already expect it to be higher and will sit back if it creeps up. All the while saying, “Yeah, that checks out.”

You set a shocking precedent and then write into law that it can never be done again. Pretty much play the Republican game except better. In fact, this could fix pretty much everything. Enact incredible, and sometimes extremely grey, choices and decisions to repair things. Then make sure it could never legally happen again.

The person or people doing this would have to immediately step down. I would prefer if they took a hit for the team to really cement the sacrifice. Alas, we do not live in that sort of world.

I’m expecting Trump to twist this, claim a voluntary recess, and slam through the rest of his preferences.

Assuming I’m not behind and he hasn’t gotten them all through already.

Because this low-cost card also happens to be a powerhouse. Understated and overdelivered. Haven’t seen that for quite some time.

Interesting. ASSUMING all these words in the article aren’t hollow, many colleagues do support AOC. If it wasn’t for ol’ Nancy sticking her finger in the dike this may not have been too controversial.

Problem is this reads, and probably is, a buying time sort of deal. To the old geriatric leadership AOC is a threat to how they do things. More importantly, like with Bernie, she’s a threat due to her supporters.

Thank you for the overview. I wasn’t aware of these nuances. Our system is so damned complicated.

Could you explain what this means? I learned a lot back in 2016, a bit more in 2020, but find I’m still a bit ignorant.

That’s the thing: She was doing fine initially. Not even when you measured her up against Biden, just in general. She came out verbally lashing Trump and challenging everything he and his cronies tried to do. She did exactly what I was hoping she’d do and lean on her experience in law and not tried to be charismatic.

What I suspect happened is she was pulled aside and told it wouldn’t work. Chances are she was made to bend and rather than leverage her position she did bend. Or perhaps she was convinced to do so, I don’t know. After Bernie in 2016 I don’t trust the Dems at all when it comes to elections. Not in the sense of corrupt votes or whatever, in that they’d choose a losing candidate or choose to lose over having to admit they need to step aside and let the energy flow.

She’d had done fine if she did three things:

1. Continued the initial push of laying her foot into the collective asses of the MAGA collective. That first month or so was great and Dems needed that energy.

2. Gone against Biden and condemned the situation in Gaza AND remind everyone that Ukraine is still going.

3. Not listened to the idiot Dem “strategists” who seem so fucking convinced that courting modern Conservatives is a good idea.

Had she done these three things and even the shit communications of the Dems could not have stopped the word of mouth and internet celebrity status she would have had.

About six years ago on Reddit I asked “Why can we not do this thing??” and the response was “because the money will not like you”.

I dunno, guys, seems like we should start wielding the old chaos flames.