Politics

[Brent in Az]

In an interview with Sean Hannity, JD Vance laid things out pretty well in regards to the Zelinskyy visit, and the attempts at a peace deal.

Ukraine does not have an unlimited supply of fighters.
There is not an unlimited supply of ammo
The U.S is not going to keep providing an unending supply of money and military hardware.

Either a cease fire & peace deal needs to be done, or other countries will have to join the fight if they want to save the Ukraine.

 

[Brent in Az]

The one thing the Whitehouse is being tight lipped about, are what concessions can they get Putin to accept in lieu of Ukrainian real estate?

 

[1dirthawker]

interesting DOGE findings at the DOD:

 

[PHOENIX PHIL]

The one thing the Whitehouse is being tight lipped about, are what concessions can they get Putin to accept in lieu of Ukrainian real estate?

I would say it's premature at this point to think they have that in place in regards to concessions from Putin. If they do have a list of those, it would be premature to announce those publicly at this point. One step at a time, impatience could result in a disaster.

 

[Scott CWO]

Could it be that most of said business owners vote Republican?

Or maybe it's because people like having food?

It’s a fallacy that most of our food is produced by illegals. It happens but it’s a minority of our production. My farm in Eastern Colorado is small but produces about 80,000 bushels of corn a year and I have several pastures that I lease out to other ranchers for grazing. None are worked by illegals. Some of the bigger operators use the visa programs to get legal workers from Mexico. I’m sure there are some illegals picking produce in California but the majority is also done by visa workers.

In construction here, most concrete, insulation and drywall workers are Hispanic. Some could be illegal but not all.

And by the way, most business owners are Republicans for various other reasons. Don’t get too caught up in your European media’s narrative about the USA. Inform yourself or come visit. You’re welcome to come to my place and see the truth. I will also show you the environmental destruction caused by wind and solar projects that are inefficient, harmful and without government subsidies, would never be built. It’s a liberal-run industry here with their hands out for government money because the projects don’t make either environmental or fiscal sense otherwise.

 

[Scott CWO]

Laken Riley could not be reached for comment.

OMG this could possibly be the best comeback I have ever read on the internet! Awesome response, Brother!! Love it!

 

[Red Leg]

The one thing the Whitehouse is being tight lipped about, are what concessions can they get Putin to accept in lieu of Ukrainian real estate?

I don't think this administration has been tight lipped about anything. It has signaled it will end sanctions, stop cyber efforts against Russia, it has "paused" military support to Ukraine, "paused" intel sharing with Ukraine, signaled Ukraine will not join NATO, and made no commitment to guaranteeing Ukrainian sovereignty. Indeed, the administration has seemed to imply it is uninterested in doing so.

To go back to Trump's poker analogy, the administration has been discarding every single card it has to play. Why would Putin make a single meaningful concession?

 

[Red Leg]

interesting DOGE findings at the DOD:

With all due respect, this guy is playing his audience as disingenuously as the worst democrat who ever wanted to gut defense in the past (republicans gutting our warfighting capability is a very new thing). He proudly announced the identification of a total of $80 million dollars in wasteful spending. Depending on the party and the subject, this sort of thing sounds awesome to low information voters on either side of the aisle.

However, the fact is that the President, through Hegseth, has ordered an 8% reduction in defense spending each year for the next five years. That will total nearly $300 billion calculated against the current budget. It is far worse when calculated against the services annual planning budgets.

They can righteously claim to be reinvesting in the warfighter, but the only way a third of a trillion dollar reduction will be reached is by taking a meat cleaver to major programs and force structure for which the services have established clear requirements. And just like the universally despised Milley, the service chiefs will put on a brave face to such insanity, salute, and testify before congress what a brilliant idea it is.

Last night, as the President was speaking, the Chinese announced a 7.2% increase in their defense spending.

 

[YancyW]

With all due respect, this guy is playing his audience as disingenuously as the worst democrat who ever wanted to gut defense in the past (republicans gutting our warfighting capability is a very new thing). He proudly announced the identification of a total of $80 million dollars in wasteful spending. Depending on the party and the subject, this sort of thing sounds awesome to low information voters on either side of the aisle.

However, the fact is that the President, through Hegseth, has ordered an 8% reduction in defense spending each year for the next five years. That will total nearly $300 billion.

They can righteously claim to be reinvesting in the warfighter, but the only way a third of a trillion dollar reduction will be reached is by taking a meat cleaver to major programs and force structure for which the services have established clear requirements. And just like the universally despised Milley, the service chiefs will put on a brave face to such insanity, salute, and testify before congress what a brilliant idea it is.

Last night, as the President was speaking, the Chinese announced a 7.2% increase in defense spending.

I understand it doesn't change your point, but do you believe them? And if no, which direction do you think they are misleading?

 

[SaintPanzer]

Thank you, Razorback.....solved the problem!

The whole Apple News thing complicates things. This should be a paywall free link:

Putin Played a Long Game. It’s Starting to Pay Off.

Advisers to the Russian leader have been surprised by the sudden change in tone from the White House in recent weeks.

www.wsj.com

If it's not, WSJ is lying to me...

 

[hyipl]

 

[SaintPanzer]

Get more than fifty miles from the border and you’ll find a lot of Canadians who know what to do with a gun and a knife.

Get more than 100 miles from the border, and you've just passed 90% of the population.

 

[deewayne2003]

Serious question though, why does no one bring up going after business owners who hire illegals? If you remove the reward, the risk of making the trek north seems a lot less appealing.

Seize assets, jail time, throw the book at them. They’re the ones supporting the whole house of cards

Because both Democrat & Republican donors make piles of cash off of illegal labor......

But yes I do believe it is coming and I can assure you there is a difference in enforcement and penalties depending who is in office; and during the first Trump term he didn't pull punches on employers.

Here are 3 examples from 2019.....

ICE Actions Against Companies Harboring Undocumented Workers - HRProfessionalsMagazine

By Bruce E. Buchanan In the past 6 months, owners of companies, who re-hired undocumented workers after an Immigration & Customs Enforcement (ICE) audit of its I-9 forms, have faced federal indictment or criminal forfeiture of assets for their unlawful actions. The common theme in these...

hrprofessionalsmagazine.com

Example #2 is a former employer of mine that was caught in Both Obama's and Trump's tenure

2015(Obama)
Vilhauer construction of Plano TX, was caught with 113 illegals on the payroll with fake SS numbers as well as fake TX Drivers licenses; the company was given a very stern "correct this issue" warning and a $750 fine after promising to terminate these employees.

2018(Trump)
ICE audits this same employers records and finds that 71 of the previously reported 113 illegals are still working for the company but with new fake IDs & fraudulent SS numbers.

ICE seized $1.8Mil in cash from Vilhauer company bank accounts!

Legal basis of seizing those assets - Profits from operating a criminal enterprise!

It's not just the small guys either, Asplundh Tree Experts(One of the largest private companies in the USA) paid $101.5Mil in fines and some of their management was sent to prison.

I 100% support this - Because if your business profit margins are based on illegal labor then by definition you are operating a CRIMINAL ENTERPRISE and per civil forfeiture, your ill gotten gains are subject to seizure.

 

[Red Leg]

With all due respect, this guy is playing his audience as disingenuously as the worst democrat who ever wanted to gut defense in the past (republicans gutting our warfighting capability is a very new thing). He proudly announced the identification of a total of $80 million dollars in wasteful spending. Depending on the party and the subject, this sort of thing sounds awesome to low information voters on either side of the aisle.

However, the fact is that the President, through Hegseth, has ordered an 8% reduction in defense spending each year for the next five years. That will total nearly $300 billion calculated against the current budget. It is far worse when calculated against the services annual planning budgets.

They can righteously claim to be reinvesting in the warfighter, but the only way a third of a trillion dollar reduction will be reached is by taking a meat cleaver to major programs and force structure for which the services have established clear requirements. And just like the universally despised Milley, the service chiefs will put on a brave face to such insanity, salute, and testify before congress what a brilliant idea it is.

Last night, as the President was speaking, the Chinese announced a 7.2% increase in their defense spending.

Just had a interesting dialogue with Elon Musk's AI tool on X about the proposed defense cuts. Its reply is rather enlightening. By the way, note the dialogue - a little scary as well. And yes it "knows" who I am. This really is worth a few minutes to read. To reiterate, this is Elon's AI tool, and it offers some real "transparency."

It’s an honor to discuss this with you, General, given your experience and perspective. You’re absolutely right that a $290 billion cut—roughly a third of the current U.S. defense budget—over five years would have seismic effects. The math checks out: starting from $850 billion, an 8% annual compound reduction lands us at $560 billion by year five. That’s not trimming fat; it’s carving into muscle and bone.

Waste, fraud, and abuse—while real—won’t come close to covering it. GAO reports and Pentagon audits consistently peg inefficiencies at maybe $30-50 billion annually, tops. That’s a fraction of the $58 billion average yearly cut required here. Even aggressive reforms (e.g., streamlining procurement, cutting bloated bureaucracy) might double those savings, but we’re still talking $100 billion over five years, not $290 billion. The shortfall leaves no choice but to hit programs and force structure hard.

On programs, big-ticket items like the F-35, Columbia-class subs, or B-21 bombers would be prime targets. Each runs into the tens of billions over its lifecycle—F-35 alone is projected at $1.7 trillion total. Slashing one outright saves real money but guts capability; spreading cuts across them risks delays, cost overruns, and half-finished systems. Then there’s R&D—$140 billion in FY25—which drives future tech like hypersonics or AI. Cut that, and we’re ceding the edge to China, whose $249 billion budget (up 7.2% this year) is already laser-focused on closing gaps.

Force structure’s the other shoe. A $560 billion budget can’t sustain 1.3 million active-duty troops, 800,000 reservists, and global basing. Back-of-the-envelope: personnel costs (pay, benefits, training) eat up $250-300 billion now. A 34% cut could mean losing 300,000-400,000 troops, shuttering bases, or both. Look at post-Cold War drawdowns—1990s cuts of 30% took the Army from 18 divisions to 10. Today’s threats aren’t shrinking; Russia’s in Ukraine, China’s eyeing Taiwan, and Iran’s proxies are active. Can we afford that?

China’s increase—7.2% to $249 billion—looks modest next to ours, but their opacity hides real spending (some estimate $300-400 billion with off-books items). Their focus is narrow: regional dominance, anti-access/area denial. Our $560 billion would still outpace them, but the gap narrows fast, especially if they keep growing while we shrink. Capability, not just dollars, matters—and cuts here mean less readiness, fewer ships, older planes.

The counterargument’s fiscal: $290 billion redirected could fund domestic priorities or debt reduction. But as you know, DoD doesn’t get to pick its missions. Congress and the White House do. Without a strategic shift—say, abandoning global commitments—these cuts risk a hollow force. Post-Vietnam vibes, but with peer competitors this time.

What’s your take on where the ax falls first—hardware or headcount? And how do you see adversaries exploiting it?

 

[SaintPanzer]

Want to sell me on solar panels? Show me one that doesn't loose efficiency when it gets dirty, or the sun moves, or is easy to recycle. Bonus if the land involved can have multiple uses.

Want to sell me on wind power? Figure out a way to make it where it doesn't slap eagles, falcons, or other birds of prey out of the sky. When I was a child, I remember Burger King (or McDonalds, or some other take out place) had "take home" drink cups with various endangered species on them. I was six, and learned about Florida Panthers, California Condors, et al. So in the '70's we were worried about California Condors going extinct. In the 90s, I remember reading articles in the Los Angeles Times about feeding Condor chicks by hand, using a "puppet" that went over a persons arm so to the bird it "looked" like it was being fed by another Condor. Now we slap Condors out of the sky because wind power is "more important".

And those offshore wind farms aren't destroying whale habitat at all, are they? Recent plunges in whale populations must be because of powerboats, right?

Want to show me you're serious about replacing petroleum with electricity? Show me your plan for rapidly increasing the capability of the grid... including the power in older homes... and show me your plan to include nuclear.

Anything less and you're just posturing.

 

[Tundra Tiger]

The whole Apple News thing complicates things. This should be a paywall free link:

Putin Played a Long Game. It’s Starting to Pay Off.

Advisers to the Russian leader have been surprised by the sudden change in tone from the White House in recent weeks.

www.wsj.com

If it's not, WSJ is lying to me...

They didn't lie to you. Thank you for sharing. That was a combination of sobering and a bit frightening to read, for me anyway.

"Even Putin’s most hawkish advisers have been surprised by the speed with which the tone coming from the White House has changed in recent weeks..."

I can shake a rather ominous feeling that with regards to Russia Trump's ego is going to get us into a crap-ton of trouble. It worries me.

 

[Red Leg]

I understand it doesn't change your point, but do you believe them? And if no, which direction do you think they are misleading?

I thought I was clear the first time. Sure, I believe him. So what? It is clear to me that he is transparently reporting this to offer cover to massive cuts in defense that have already been ordered.

I have yet to see the "transparency" about what is actually being slashed to meet the President's goal.

Read my AI chat on X above.

 

[YancyW]

I thought I was clear the first time. Sure, I believe him. So what? It is clear to me that he is transparently reporting this to offer cover to massive cuts in defense that have already been ordered.

I have yet to see the "transparency" about what is actually being slashed to meet the President's goal.

Read my AI chat on X above.

I was referring to China.

 

[Tubby’s Canteen]

Want to sell me on solar panels? Show me one that doesn't loose efficiency when it gets dirty, or the sun moves, or is easy to recycle. Bonus if the land involved can have multiple uses.

Want to sell me on wind power? Figure out a way to make it where it doesn't slap eagles, falcons, or other birds of prey out of the sky. When I was a child, I remember Burger King (or McDonalds, or some other take out place) had "take home" drink cups with various endangered species on them. I was six, and learned about Florida Panthers, California Condors, et al. So in the '70's we were worried about California Condors going extinct. In the 90s, I remember reading articles in the Los Angeles Times about feeding Condor chicks by hand, using a "puppet" that went over a persons arm so to the bird it "looked" like it was being fed by another Condor. Now we slap Condors out of the sky because wind power is "more important".

And those offshore wind farms aren't destroying whale habitat at all, are they? Recent plunges in whale populations must be because of powerboats, right?

Want to show me you're serious about replacing petroleum with electricity? Show me your plan for rapidly increasing the capability of the grid... including the power in older homes... and show me your plan to include nuclear.

Anything less and you're just posturing.

A few years ago a company proposed a current powered generator which would be placed on the bottom of the bay of fundy and turned by tide going in and out. They wanted a four square nautical mile exclusion zone on fishing gear in some of the most lucrative lobster bottom in the world. Bottom that generations of Nova Scotians have made their living on and then held a town hall meeting and called the local communities unreasonable.

 

[spike.t]

Just had a interesting dialogue with Elon Musk's AI tool on X about the proposed defense cuts. Its reply is rather enlightening. By the way, note the dialogue - a little scary as well. And yes it "knows" who I am. This really is worth a few minutes to read. To reiterate, this is Elon's AI tool, and it offers some real "transparency."

It’s an honor to discuss this with you, General, given your experience and perspective. You’re absolutely right that a $290 billion cut—roughly a third of the current U.S. defense budget—over five years would have seismic effects. The math checks out: starting from $850 billion, an 8% annual compound reduction lands us at $560 billion by year five. That’s not trimming fat; it’s carving into muscle and bone.

Waste, fraud, and abuse—while real—won’t come close to covering it. GAO reports and Pentagon audits consistently peg inefficiencies at maybe $30-50 billion annually, tops. That’s a fraction of the $58 billion average yearly cut required here. Even aggressive reforms (e.g., streamlining procurement, cutting bloated bureaucracy) might double those savings, but we’re still talking $100 billion over five years, not $290 billion. The shortfall leaves no choice but to hit programs and force structure hard.

On programs, big-ticket items like the F-35, Columbia-class subs, or B-21 bombers would be prime targets. Each runs into the tens of billions over its lifecycle—F-35 alone is projected at $1.7 trillion total. Slashing one outright saves real money but guts capability; spreading cuts across them risks delays, cost overruns, and half-finished systems. Then there’s R&D—$140 billion in FY25—which drives future tech like hypersonics or AI. Cut that, and we’re ceding the edge to China, whose $249 billion budget (up 7.2% this year) is already laser-focused on closing gaps.

Force structure’s the other shoe. A $560 billion budget can’t sustain 1.3 million active-duty troops, 800,000 reservists, and global basing. Back-of-the-envelope: personnel costs (pay, benefits, training) eat up $250-300 billion now. A 34% cut could mean losing 300,000-400,000 troops, shuttering bases, or both. Look at post-Cold War drawdowns—1990s cuts of 30% took the Army from 18 divisions to 10. Today’s threats aren’t shrinking; Russia’s in Ukraine, China’s eyeing Taiwan, and Iran’s proxies are active. Can we afford that?

China’s increase—7.2% to $249 billion—looks modest next to ours, but their opacity hides real spending (some estimate $300-400 billion with off-books items). Their focus is narrow: regional dominance, anti-access/area denial. Our $560 billion would still outpace them, but the gap narrows fast, especially if they keep growing while we shrink. Capability, not just dollars, matters—and cuts here mean less readiness, fewer ships, older planes.

The counterargument’s fiscal: $290 billion redirected could fund domestic priorities or debt reduction. But as you know, DoD doesn’t get to pick its missions. Congress and the White House do. Without a strategic shift—say, abandoning global commitments—these cuts risk a hollow force. Post-Vietnam vibes, but with peer competitors this time.

What’s your take on where the ax falls first—hardware or headcount? And how do you see adversaries exploiting it?

So he doesn't listen to his own weird electronic shit ?......that's comforting.....