|
Now that we have a new thread, in order to ensure that this thread continues to meet TL standards and follows the proper guidelines, we will be enforcing the rules in the OP more strictly. Be sure to give them a complete and thorough read before posting! NOTE: When providing a source, please provide a very brief summary on what it's about and what purpose it adds to the discussion. The supporting statement should clearly explain why the subject is relevant and needs to be discussed. Please follow this rule especially for tweets.
Your supporting statement should always come BEFORE you provide the source.If you have any questions, comments, concern, or feedback regarding the USPMT, then please use this thread: http://www.teamliquid.net/forum/website-feedback/510156-us-politics-thread |
On May 13 2026 21:18 oBlade wrote:Show nested quote +On May 13 2026 05:03 Jankisa wrote:On May 13 2026 02:15 oBlade wrote:On May 12 2026 23:08 Jankisa wrote:We can just all remind ourselves of what the newly minted member of resistance and previous Trump campaign surrogate, as well as our very own oBlade's favorite interviewer had to say about Trump during the 2024 campaign: Tom Snyder wasn't alive in 2024. Are you seriously going to pretend like you aren't a huge Tucker Carlson fan now? And your dodge is going to be to pretend like your favorite interviewer is someone who receded their last interview in 1999? The comment where you professed your admiration for Tucker also has no references to Tom Snyder. In fact, when you search your profile for Tucker there's like 10 posts, not a beep about Tom here, curious. Also, I wasn't familiar with that moron at the time, but this is what you had to say about Nick "Ukrainians are using our money on cars" Shirley: Another is Nick Shirley, he's rising. Leans right but doesn't preach. Kind of gonzo? He's young, not as experienced so a bit choppy at times, very respectful and personable and somehow gets people to be honest and open and candid. That whole comment is gold, haven't seen it since then and it's nice to have a reminder how utterly broken your brain is and what your media, or rather, propaganda diet is. Of the 6 posts containing the word Tucker, 2 are me responding to you going "Durr oBlade loves Tucker Carlson bootlicking fascist" and 1 of them is me using his name as a placeholder for a rich guy hypothetical. If you want to have your finger on the pulse of the conservative Zeitgeist, Tucker Carlson's interviews at the time I wrote that were key both in terms of the breadth and caliber of guests, and the candidness and detail of information he's able to exchange with his guests. Which is what the post was about. That was the point of that post. I would not mention Tom Snyder there because it wasn't what the post was about. Shirley was also a great call by me who noticed his promise before you knew him - which you do now. You have politics brain so you don't understand that interviewers are just interviewers and there is a world outside of politics. The forensic post analysis is a waste of time. If I search your profile for Trump there will be a billion posts about Trump, it doesn't mean he's your favorite person in the world. Does it? Now any other stuff you want to dig up from a year ago and continue to misunderstand as part of your "please notice me oBlade senpai" scheme?
Haha, you are really something bud. You go from "I found Nick Shirley before you did" to "You have politics brain" all in one post, amazing!
Above all, I really dislike when people lie for no reason about things that are very easy to check, so any time you try to pretend like you weren't gloriously wrong on things ("Iran doesn't exist") you can bet your sweet bootlicking ass I'll dig up the receipts.
Same thing with you being a superfan of a white replacement theory Christo fascism peddler, you can deny it as much as you'd like while hurling alt-right internet slang from 2010-s, as you tend to do, won't change the fact that your media diet is racist slop.
|
On May 14 2026 21:39 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:Show nested quote +On May 14 2026 21:20 GreenHorizons wrote:On May 14 2026 20:56 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On May 14 2026 20:31 GreenHorizons wrote:On May 14 2026 18:40 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On May 14 2026 16:47 jodljodl wrote:did you guys actually read the 2 thehill articles ( #1 #2)? I just did. Also followed up on some of the mentioned articles in those. Just made me wonder why you would quote this + Show Spoiler +"Trump administration’s public insistence that Iran’s missile capability is all but obliterated was thrown into doubt following assessments from the intelligence community that Iran still has roughly 70 percent of its mobile launchers and 70 percent of its prewar missile stockpile ... " without mentioning this + Show Spoiler +"Asked about the report that Iran has about 70 percent of its mobile launchers and 70 percent of its pre-conflict missile stockpile, Cancian, of CSIS, said those figures are “very difficult to know” and the U.S. “famously got this wrong during” the Gulf War.
“It’s fair to say that Iran may have substantial missile capabilities remaining and U.S. actions have to accommodate that possibility,” he said.
Joel Rayburn, a Middle East expert with the Hudson Institute, was dubious of the figure of 70 percent, telling The Hill that “if anything, Iranian military capabilities overstated systematically for years.”
“When I read that assessment, I thought to myself, 70 percent looks to me like something an intel team would describe as ‘as much as.’”
“I think 70 percent would be an upper limit. What is the lower? ‘We think they could have as little as 40 percent but they might have as much as 70 percent.’ I’m willing to bet that that’s what that assessment said.” Rayburn said.
He also said the Iranians are doing an information operation “to try to convince people that they have hidden strength, that they’ve been holding back. And I just don’t believe that.”
“They don’t have some super secret, hidden weapons that they’re holding back in there. They’re going to unleash those when provoked,” he added. “They will latch on to Times reporting to try to restore a deterrent because their deterrent is gone.” from the same article. Also this + Show Spoiler +"The United States has reportedly burned through thousands of missiles since the Iran war began on Feb. 28, using nearly all of the long-range stealth cruise missiles left in Washington’s stockpile and depleting its stores of Tomahawks, Patriot interceptor missiles, Precision Strike and ATACMS ground-based missiles." when the original NYTimes article i'm guessing they are referring to says this + Show Spoiler +"As The New York Times previously reported, the United States expended roughly 1,100 long-range stealth cruise missiles in the war — close to the total supply that remains in the American stockpile." don't get me wrong. I'm all for trump bashing. but if we do it why don't we do it properly. These articles are just a lot of guess work and quoting without real substance; and - at least it seems this way - bad journalism. To answer your question: I chose the quotes that I did because those figures came from the intelligence community + Show Spoiler +(your first part) and because I think including the percentages of weapons used/depleted is helpful for context (your second part).
I purposely didn't include the reactions of individual Democrats agreeing with the intelligence report and saying this is a problem, + Show Spoiler +nor individual Republicans dismissing the report and saying that this isn't that big of a problem. For example, the Hudson Institute is a right-wing think tank, which is why I didn't include your suggested Rayburn opinions. I don't consider them to be as reliable as the intelligence community's reports. + Show Spoiler +There are several other partisan thoughts also mentioned in the articles, some from other individual Republicans and some from individual Democrats, and you're more than welcome to consider all of them. As always, I've linked the full articles so that you can read them in their entirety. You sure about all that? In reference to the second article, did you see these intelligence reports? Who spoke for "the intelligence community"? The reports are classified and I imagine that the sources are protected, but here is what I found on the topic: + Show Spoiler +According to NYT, citing senior US officials' classified assessments on the matter, around 90 per cent of Iran's underground missile facilities are now considered "partially or fully operational". The intelligence assessments suggest that Iran has retained a substantial portion of its missile infrastructure and military capabilities despite months of claims by the Trump administration that Tehran has lost most of its firepower during the joint US-Israel strikes.
The classified assessments, prepared earlier this month and reviewed by US policymakers, indicate that Iran still possesses nearly 70 per cent of its mobile missile launchers and roughly 70 per cent of its pre-war missile stockpile, including ballistic and cruise missiles, The New York Times reported.
The assessments reportedly found that only three of Iran's 33 missile facilities along the Strait of Hormuz remain completely inaccessible, while the remaining sites have regained varying degrees of operational access, allowing Iran to potentially deploy mobile launchers or launch missiles directly from existing infrastructure.
The report also stated that US military intelligence agencies, citing satellite imagery and surveillance data, assessed that Iran has regained access to nearly 90 per cent of its underground missile storage and launch facilities across the country, NYT reported.
These findings appear to contradict repeated public statements made by Trump and US Secretary of War Pete Hegseth, who had asserted that Iran's military had been "crushed" and rendered ineffective following the joint US-Israel military campaign, Operation Epic Fury, launched on February 28.
Last week, The Washington Post, citing a US official, reported that the Islamic Republic had retained nearly 75 per cent of its pre-war mobile missile launcher inventory and around 70 per cent of its missile stockpile, further noting that Tehran has managed to regain access to almost all of its underground missile storage facilities, repair damaged missiles, and complete the assembly of several missiles that were close to production before the conflict began, as indicated in an intelligence assessment. https://openthemagazine.com/world/us-intel-contradicts-trump-iran-restores-90-missile-site-access So it appears that these assessments and reports are coming from - and being seen by - senior US officials, US policymakers, US military intelligence agencies, satellite imagery, and surveillance data. So no. The descriptions/dissemination of the (classified) assessments could be coming from Democrats. Good on them if this " treason" is true. So because I haven't personally seen the classified documents, I ought to ignore the military intelligence and corroborated reports observed by senior US officials, US policymakers, and US military intelligence agencies, which were based on actual satellite imagery and surveillance data? We'll have to make sure to hold you to the same standard in the future, where every claim you make or article you post should be dismissed unless you've personally read a classified report supporting it.
Trump confirmed it himself. Why would you attack news papers for leaking classified reports and documents, if they just made it up.
What a moron he is.
|
On May 14 2026 21:54 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +On May 14 2026 21:39 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On May 14 2026 21:20 GreenHorizons wrote:On May 14 2026 20:56 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On May 14 2026 20:31 GreenHorizons wrote:On May 14 2026 18:40 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On May 14 2026 16:47 jodljodl wrote:did you guys actually read the 2 thehill articles ( #1 #2)? I just did. Also followed up on some of the mentioned articles in those. Just made me wonder why you would quote this + Show Spoiler +"Trump administration’s public insistence that Iran’s missile capability is all but obliterated was thrown into doubt following assessments from the intelligence community that Iran still has roughly 70 percent of its mobile launchers and 70 percent of its prewar missile stockpile ... " without mentioning this + Show Spoiler +"Asked about the report that Iran has about 70 percent of its mobile launchers and 70 percent of its pre-conflict missile stockpile, Cancian, of CSIS, said those figures are “very difficult to know” and the U.S. “famously got this wrong during” the Gulf War.
“It’s fair to say that Iran may have substantial missile capabilities remaining and U.S. actions have to accommodate that possibility,” he said.
Joel Rayburn, a Middle East expert with the Hudson Institute, was dubious of the figure of 70 percent, telling The Hill that “if anything, Iranian military capabilities overstated systematically for years.”
“When I read that assessment, I thought to myself, 70 percent looks to me like something an intel team would describe as ‘as much as.’”
“I think 70 percent would be an upper limit. What is the lower? ‘We think they could have as little as 40 percent but they might have as much as 70 percent.’ I’m willing to bet that that’s what that assessment said.” Rayburn said.
He also said the Iranians are doing an information operation “to try to convince people that they have hidden strength, that they’ve been holding back. And I just don’t believe that.”
“They don’t have some super secret, hidden weapons that they’re holding back in there. They’re going to unleash those when provoked,” he added. “They will latch on to Times reporting to try to restore a deterrent because their deterrent is gone.” from the same article. Also this + Show Spoiler +"The United States has reportedly burned through thousands of missiles since the Iran war began on Feb. 28, using nearly all of the long-range stealth cruise missiles left in Washington’s stockpile and depleting its stores of Tomahawks, Patriot interceptor missiles, Precision Strike and ATACMS ground-based missiles." when the original NYTimes article i'm guessing they are referring to says this + Show Spoiler +"As The New York Times previously reported, the United States expended roughly 1,100 long-range stealth cruise missiles in the war — close to the total supply that remains in the American stockpile." don't get me wrong. I'm all for trump bashing. but if we do it why don't we do it properly. These articles are just a lot of guess work and quoting without real substance; and - at least it seems this way - bad journalism. To answer your question: I chose the quotes that I did because those figures came from the intelligence community + Show Spoiler +(your first part) and because I think including the percentages of weapons used/depleted is helpful for context (your second part).
I purposely didn't include the reactions of individual Democrats agreeing with the intelligence report and saying this is a problem, + Show Spoiler +nor individual Republicans dismissing the report and saying that this isn't that big of a problem. For example, the Hudson Institute is a right-wing think tank, which is why I didn't include your suggested Rayburn opinions. I don't consider them to be as reliable as the intelligence community's reports. + Show Spoiler +There are several other partisan thoughts also mentioned in the articles, some from other individual Republicans and some from individual Democrats, and you're more than welcome to consider all of them. As always, I've linked the full articles so that you can read them in their entirety. You sure about all that? In reference to the second article, did you see these intelligence reports? Who spoke for "the intelligence community"? The reports are classified and I imagine that the sources are protected, but here is what I found on the topic: + Show Spoiler +According to NYT, citing senior US officials' classified assessments on the matter, around 90 per cent of Iran's underground missile facilities are now considered "partially or fully operational". The intelligence assessments suggest that Iran has retained a substantial portion of its missile infrastructure and military capabilities despite months of claims by the Trump administration that Tehran has lost most of its firepower during the joint US-Israel strikes.
The classified assessments, prepared earlier this month and reviewed by US policymakers, indicate that Iran still possesses nearly 70 per cent of its mobile missile launchers and roughly 70 per cent of its pre-war missile stockpile, including ballistic and cruise missiles, The New York Times reported.
The assessments reportedly found that only three of Iran's 33 missile facilities along the Strait of Hormuz remain completely inaccessible, while the remaining sites have regained varying degrees of operational access, allowing Iran to potentially deploy mobile launchers or launch missiles directly from existing infrastructure.
The report also stated that US military intelligence agencies, citing satellite imagery and surveillance data, assessed that Iran has regained access to nearly 90 per cent of its underground missile storage and launch facilities across the country, NYT reported.
These findings appear to contradict repeated public statements made by Trump and US Secretary of War Pete Hegseth, who had asserted that Iran's military had been "crushed" and rendered ineffective following the joint US-Israel military campaign, Operation Epic Fury, launched on February 28.
Last week, The Washington Post, citing a US official, reported that the Islamic Republic had retained nearly 75 per cent of its pre-war mobile missile launcher inventory and around 70 per cent of its missile stockpile, further noting that Tehran has managed to regain access to almost all of its underground missile storage facilities, repair damaged missiles, and complete the assembly of several missiles that were close to production before the conflict began, as indicated in an intelligence assessment. https://openthemagazine.com/world/us-intel-contradicts-trump-iran-restores-90-missile-site-access So it appears that these assessments and reports are coming from - and being seen by - senior US officials, US policymakers, US military intelligence agencies, satellite imagery, and surveillance data. So no. The descriptions/dissemination of the (classified) assessments could be coming from Democrats. Good on them if this " treason" is true. So because I haven't personally seen the classified documents, I ought to ignore the military intelligence and corroborated reports observed by senior US officials, US policymakers, and US military intelligence agencies, which were based on actual satellite imagery and surveillance data? We'll have to make sure to hold you to the same standard in the future, where every claim you make or article you post should be dismissed unless you've personally read a classified report supporting it. I didn't tell you to ignore anything. I was prodding at the framing. I default to presuming Trump and his administration are lying and braggadocious regarding just about anything, so I don't object to the notion that those braggadocious liars exaggerated their successes in Iran.
In trying to find a way this doesn't just suck I'm hoping that the US's military industrial complex's dependence on China at least leads to me being able to get a relatively inexpensive Chinese electric car.
If my car is going to track everything about me I think I'd rather give that info to the Chinese government than the Musk or Trump/his next iteration.
|
On May 14 2026 21:59 Jankisa wrote:Show nested quote +On May 13 2026 21:18 oBlade wrote:On May 13 2026 05:03 Jankisa wrote:On May 13 2026 02:15 oBlade wrote:On May 12 2026 23:08 Jankisa wrote:We can just all remind ourselves of what the newly minted member of resistance and previous Trump campaign surrogate, as well as our very own oBlade's favorite interviewer had to say about Trump during the 2024 campaign: Tom Snyder wasn't alive in 2024. Are you seriously going to pretend like you aren't a huge Tucker Carlson fan now? And your dodge is going to be to pretend like your favorite interviewer is someone who receded their last interview in 1999? The comment where you professed your admiration for Tucker also has no references to Tom Snyder. In fact, when you search your profile for Tucker there's like 10 posts, not a beep about Tom here, curious. Also, I wasn't familiar with that moron at the time, but this is what you had to say about Nick "Ukrainians are using our money on cars" Shirley: Another is Nick Shirley, he's rising. Leans right but doesn't preach. Kind of gonzo? He's young, not as experienced so a bit choppy at times, very respectful and personable and somehow gets people to be honest and open and candid. That whole comment is gold, haven't seen it since then and it's nice to have a reminder how utterly broken your brain is and what your media, or rather, propaganda diet is. Of the 6 posts containing the word Tucker, 2 are me responding to you going "Durr oBlade loves Tucker Carlson bootlicking fascist" and 1 of them is me using his name as a placeholder for a rich guy hypothetical. If you want to have your finger on the pulse of the conservative Zeitgeist, Tucker Carlson's interviews at the time I wrote that were key both in terms of the breadth and caliber of guests, and the candidness and detail of information he's able to exchange with his guests. Which is what the post was about. That was the point of that post. I would not mention Tom Snyder there because it wasn't what the post was about. Shirley was also a great call by me who noticed his promise before you knew him - which you do now. You have politics brain so you don't understand that interviewers are just interviewers and there is a world outside of politics. The forensic post analysis is a waste of time. If I search your profile for Trump there will be a billion posts about Trump, it doesn't mean he's your favorite person in the world. Does it? Now any other stuff you want to dig up from a year ago and continue to misunderstand as part of your "please notice me oBlade senpai" scheme? Haha, you are really something bud. You go from "I found Nick Shirley before you did" to "You have politics brain" all in one post, amazing! Above all, I really dislike when people lie for no reason about things that are very easy to check, so any time you try to pretend like you weren't gloriously wrong on things ("Iran doesn't exist") you can bet your sweet bootlicking ass I'll dig up the receipts. Same thing with you being a superfan of a white replacement theory Christo fascism peddler, you can deny it as much as you'd like while hurling alt-right internet slang from 2010-s, as you tend to do, won't change the fact that your media diet is racist slop.
You think I am wrong about who my own favorite interviewer is?
On May 14 2026 21:26 LightSpectra wrote:Show nested quote +On May 14 2026 16:42 oBlade wrote:The Secret Service are not ones to wait until someone else gets shot and then either blame the person for bringing it upon themselves and deserving it if they're Republican, or prop up the person as a martyr if they aren't. They just want everyone protected. They want to have funding which doesn't get interrupted for over 2 months by Democrat shutdowns so the agents who protect the most important figures in our government are paid. The price breakdown for each target area of the project area is:
$220 million for White House hardening
$180 million for White House visitor security screening facility
$175 million for Secret Service training
$175 million for enhancements for Secret Service protectees
$150 million for evolving threats and technology
$100 million for events of national significance The $1 billion request is in addition to the annual USSS budget, $3.2 billion in FY 2025. https://abcnews.com/Politics/breakdown-1-billion-request-trumps-white-house-ballroom/story?id=132927177 You're preaching to the wrong crowd here oBlade, you need to convince the Senate to cut more children's cancer research funding to pay for Nero's Palace. Since you said there were world leaders in tents on the White House lawn getting shot to death it should be an easy case to make.
That is not what I said.
What's your opinion on the USSS's already existing $3.2 billion budget? Is that a just right Goldilocks number which is good because all you accept is the status quo, or is that also out of control spending (that allows people within shooting distance of White House Correspondents Dinners) and Republican budgeting should just let these Cole Allens have a free for all, or do you have any opinion on it or knowledge of it besides undirected smartaleck reactionism...?
|
On May 14 2026 22:16 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +On May 14 2026 21:54 GreenHorizons wrote:On May 14 2026 21:39 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On May 14 2026 21:20 GreenHorizons wrote:On May 14 2026 20:56 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On May 14 2026 20:31 GreenHorizons wrote:On May 14 2026 18:40 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On May 14 2026 16:47 jodljodl wrote:did you guys actually read the 2 thehill articles ( #1 #2)? I just did. Also followed up on some of the mentioned articles in those. Just made me wonder why you would quote this + Show Spoiler +"Trump administration’s public insistence that Iran’s missile capability is all but obliterated was thrown into doubt following assessments from the intelligence community that Iran still has roughly 70 percent of its mobile launchers and 70 percent of its prewar missile stockpile ... " without mentioning this + Show Spoiler +"Asked about the report that Iran has about 70 percent of its mobile launchers and 70 percent of its pre-conflict missile stockpile, Cancian, of CSIS, said those figures are “very difficult to know” and the U.S. “famously got this wrong during” the Gulf War.
“It’s fair to say that Iran may have substantial missile capabilities remaining and U.S. actions have to accommodate that possibility,” he said.
Joel Rayburn, a Middle East expert with the Hudson Institute, was dubious of the figure of 70 percent, telling The Hill that “if anything, Iranian military capabilities overstated systematically for years.”
“When I read that assessment, I thought to myself, 70 percent looks to me like something an intel team would describe as ‘as much as.’”
“I think 70 percent would be an upper limit. What is the lower? ‘We think they could have as little as 40 percent but they might have as much as 70 percent.’ I’m willing to bet that that’s what that assessment said.” Rayburn said.
He also said the Iranians are doing an information operation “to try to convince people that they have hidden strength, that they’ve been holding back. And I just don’t believe that.”
“They don’t have some super secret, hidden weapons that they’re holding back in there. They’re going to unleash those when provoked,” he added. “They will latch on to Times reporting to try to restore a deterrent because their deterrent is gone.” from the same article. Also this + Show Spoiler +"The United States has reportedly burned through thousands of missiles since the Iran war began on Feb. 28, using nearly all of the long-range stealth cruise missiles left in Washington’s stockpile and depleting its stores of Tomahawks, Patriot interceptor missiles, Precision Strike and ATACMS ground-based missiles." when the original NYTimes article i'm guessing they are referring to says this + Show Spoiler +"As The New York Times previously reported, the United States expended roughly 1,100 long-range stealth cruise missiles in the war — close to the total supply that remains in the American stockpile." don't get me wrong. I'm all for trump bashing. but if we do it why don't we do it properly. These articles are just a lot of guess work and quoting without real substance; and - at least it seems this way - bad journalism. To answer your question: I chose the quotes that I did because those figures came from the intelligence community + Show Spoiler +(your first part) and because I think including the percentages of weapons used/depleted is helpful for context (your second part).
I purposely didn't include the reactions of individual Democrats agreeing with the intelligence report and saying this is a problem, + Show Spoiler +nor individual Republicans dismissing the report and saying that this isn't that big of a problem. For example, the Hudson Institute is a right-wing think tank, which is why I didn't include your suggested Rayburn opinions. I don't consider them to be as reliable as the intelligence community's reports. + Show Spoiler +There are several other partisan thoughts also mentioned in the articles, some from other individual Republicans and some from individual Democrats, and you're more than welcome to consider all of them. As always, I've linked the full articles so that you can read them in their entirety. You sure about all that? In reference to the second article, did you see these intelligence reports? Who spoke for "the intelligence community"? The reports are classified and I imagine that the sources are protected, but here is what I found on the topic: + Show Spoiler +According to NYT, citing senior US officials' classified assessments on the matter, around 90 per cent of Iran's underground missile facilities are now considered "partially or fully operational". The intelligence assessments suggest that Iran has retained a substantial portion of its missile infrastructure and military capabilities despite months of claims by the Trump administration that Tehran has lost most of its firepower during the joint US-Israel strikes.
The classified assessments, prepared earlier this month and reviewed by US policymakers, indicate that Iran still possesses nearly 70 per cent of its mobile missile launchers and roughly 70 per cent of its pre-war missile stockpile, including ballistic and cruise missiles, The New York Times reported.
The assessments reportedly found that only three of Iran's 33 missile facilities along the Strait of Hormuz remain completely inaccessible, while the remaining sites have regained varying degrees of operational access, allowing Iran to potentially deploy mobile launchers or launch missiles directly from existing infrastructure.
The report also stated that US military intelligence agencies, citing satellite imagery and surveillance data, assessed that Iran has regained access to nearly 90 per cent of its underground missile storage and launch facilities across the country, NYT reported.
These findings appear to contradict repeated public statements made by Trump and US Secretary of War Pete Hegseth, who had asserted that Iran's military had been "crushed" and rendered ineffective following the joint US-Israel military campaign, Operation Epic Fury, launched on February 28.
Last week, The Washington Post, citing a US official, reported that the Islamic Republic had retained nearly 75 per cent of its pre-war mobile missile launcher inventory and around 70 per cent of its missile stockpile, further noting that Tehran has managed to regain access to almost all of its underground missile storage facilities, repair damaged missiles, and complete the assembly of several missiles that were close to production before the conflict began, as indicated in an intelligence assessment. https://openthemagazine.com/world/us-intel-contradicts-trump-iran-restores-90-missile-site-access So it appears that these assessments and reports are coming from - and being seen by - senior US officials, US policymakers, US military intelligence agencies, satellite imagery, and surveillance data. So no. The descriptions/dissemination of the (classified) assessments could be coming from Democrats. Good on them if this " treason" is true. So because I haven't personally seen the classified documents, I ought to ignore the military intelligence and corroborated reports observed by senior US officials, US policymakers, and US military intelligence agencies, which were based on actual satellite imagery and surveillance data? We'll have to make sure to hold you to the same standard in the future, where every claim you make or article you post should be dismissed unless you've personally read a classified report supporting it. I didn't tell you to ignore anything. I was prodding at the framing. I default to presuming Trump and his administration are lying and braggadocious regarding just about anything, so I don't object to the notion that those braggadocious liars exaggerated their successes in Iran. In trying to find a way this doesn't just suck I'm hoping that the US's military industrial complex's dependence on China at least leads to me being able to get a relatively inexpensive Chinese electric car. If my car is going to track everything about me I think I'd rather give that info to the Chinese government than the Musk or Trump/his next iteration.
The Chinese electric vehicles do look pretty interesting and attractive as alternatives to the electric vehicles that currently exist in the United States (not that I'm a fan of any car tracking everything about me, but I'm sure all electric vehicles will end up doing that eventually). Do you think the United States would ever allow Chinese electric vehicles to enter our market?
|
On May 14 2026 22:40 oBlade wrote:
That is not what I said.
What's your opinion on the USSS's already existing $3.2 billion budget? Is that a just right Goldilocks number which is good because all you accept is the status quo, or is that also out of control spending (that allows people within shooting distance of White House Correspondents Dinners) and Republican budgeting should just let these Cole Allens have a free for all, or do you have any opinion on it or knowledge of it besides undirected smartaleck reactionism...?
$3.2 billion is more than the annual military spending of most countries. For reference, Iran, who just won a war over the United States, spends $7.4 billion annually. Pete Hegseth said of them: "They’ve spent that money instead on investing in their people. That’s why you’ve had millions of Iranians protesting because they felt like their quality of life didn’t match what they could be or should be." (For comparison, the USA has about 3.7x the population of Iran, but 128x the military spending.)
There's no way $3.2b isn't enough to prevent even a notorious child molester like Donald Trump from being assassinated. Sounds like they're spending all that money on hookers and blow, when's their next audit?
|
On May 14 2026 22:58 LightSpectra wrote:Show nested quote +On May 14 2026 22:40 oBlade wrote:
That is not what I said.
What's your opinion on the USSS's already existing $3.2 billion budget? Is that a just right Goldilocks number which is good because all you accept is the status quo, or is that also out of control spending (that allows people within shooting distance of White House Correspondents Dinners) and Republican budgeting should just let these Cole Allens have a free for all, or do you have any opinion on it or knowledge of it besides undirected smartaleck reactionism...? $3.2 billion is more than the annual military spending of most countries. For reference, Iran, who just won a war over the United States, spends $7.4 billion annually. Pete Hegseth said of them: "They’ve spent that money instead on investing in their people. That’s why you’ve had millions of Iranians protesting because they felt like their quality of life didn’t match what they could be or should be." There's no way $3.2b isn't enough to prevent even a notorious child molester like Donald Trump from being assassinated. Sounds like they're spending all that money on hookers and blow, when's their next audit?
You know the USSS does more than only physically protect the body of the President?
|
So they need an extra billion per year to do what?
|
On May 14 2026 23:03 LightSpectra wrote:
So they need an extra billion per year to do what?
It's not an annual increase either.
It's a package increase whose funds are available to 2029. Just like last year's OBBBA didn't set an annual budget for DHS. It gave a lump sum to DHS to spend on expansion and weather any shutdown for the next 4 years. It didn't set an annual budget (which you can't do without cloture or filibuster nuking). This is a one time package.
You'd be better off just waiting for the Congressional hearing about this to get more detail because if it takes this long to get you past the sarcasm to the starting point of the breakdown of the funds that I already posted, this level of ignorance has got to be intentional, and at that point, beneath me.
Here is the breakdown in even more detail for anyone who has moved beyond thinking Trump asked the Secret Service to build a $1 billion monument to himself: https://www.politico.com/f/?id=0000019e-1d5b-d83d-abbf-df7fe2b80000
|
On May 14 2026 22:58 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:Show nested quote +On May 14 2026 22:16 GreenHorizons wrote:On May 14 2026 21:54 GreenHorizons wrote:On May 14 2026 21:39 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On May 14 2026 21:20 GreenHorizons wrote:On May 14 2026 20:56 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On May 14 2026 20:31 GreenHorizons wrote:On May 14 2026 18:40 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On May 14 2026 16:47 jodljodl wrote:did you guys actually read the 2 thehill articles ( #1 #2)? I just did. Also followed up on some of the mentioned articles in those. Just made me wonder why you would quote this + Show Spoiler +"Trump administration’s public insistence that Iran’s missile capability is all but obliterated was thrown into doubt following assessments from the intelligence community that Iran still has roughly 70 percent of its mobile launchers and 70 percent of its prewar missile stockpile ... " without mentioning this + Show Spoiler +"Asked about the report that Iran has about 70 percent of its mobile launchers and 70 percent of its pre-conflict missile stockpile, Cancian, of CSIS, said those figures are “very difficult to know” and the U.S. “famously got this wrong during” the Gulf War.
“It’s fair to say that Iran may have substantial missile capabilities remaining and U.S. actions have to accommodate that possibility,” he said.
Joel Rayburn, a Middle East expert with the Hudson Institute, was dubious of the figure of 70 percent, telling The Hill that “if anything, Iranian military capabilities overstated systematically for years.”
“When I read that assessment, I thought to myself, 70 percent looks to me like something an intel team would describe as ‘as much as.’”
“I think 70 percent would be an upper limit. What is the lower? ‘We think they could have as little as 40 percent but they might have as much as 70 percent.’ I’m willing to bet that that’s what that assessment said.” Rayburn said.
He also said the Iranians are doing an information operation “to try to convince people that they have hidden strength, that they’ve been holding back. And I just don’t believe that.”
“They don’t have some super secret, hidden weapons that they’re holding back in there. They’re going to unleash those when provoked,” he added. “They will latch on to Times reporting to try to restore a deterrent because their deterrent is gone.” from the same article. Also this + Show Spoiler +"The United States has reportedly burned through thousands of missiles since the Iran war began on Feb. 28, using nearly all of the long-range stealth cruise missiles left in Washington’s stockpile and depleting its stores of Tomahawks, Patriot interceptor missiles, Precision Strike and ATACMS ground-based missiles." when the original NYTimes article i'm guessing they are referring to says this + Show Spoiler +"As The New York Times previously reported, the United States expended roughly 1,100 long-range stealth cruise missiles in the war — close to the total supply that remains in the American stockpile." don't get me wrong. I'm all for trump bashing. but if we do it why don't we do it properly. These articles are just a lot of guess work and quoting without real substance; and - at least it seems this way - bad journalism. To answer your question: I chose the quotes that I did because those figures came from the intelligence community + Show Spoiler +(your first part) and because I think including the percentages of weapons used/depleted is helpful for context (your second part).
I purposely didn't include the reactions of individual Democrats agreeing with the intelligence report and saying this is a problem, + Show Spoiler +nor individual Republicans dismissing the report and saying that this isn't that big of a problem. For example, the Hudson Institute is a right-wing think tank, which is why I didn't include your suggested Rayburn opinions. I don't consider them to be as reliable as the intelligence community's reports. + Show Spoiler +There are several other partisan thoughts also mentioned in the articles, some from other individual Republicans and some from individual Democrats, and you're more than welcome to consider all of them. As always, I've linked the full articles so that you can read them in their entirety. You sure about all that? In reference to the second article, did you see these intelligence reports? Who spoke for "the intelligence community"? The reports are classified and I imagine that the sources are protected, but here is what I found on the topic: + Show Spoiler +According to NYT, citing senior US officials' classified assessments on the matter, around 90 per cent of Iran's underground missile facilities are now considered "partially or fully operational". The intelligence assessments suggest that Iran has retained a substantial portion of its missile infrastructure and military capabilities despite months of claims by the Trump administration that Tehran has lost most of its firepower during the joint US-Israel strikes.
The classified assessments, prepared earlier this month and reviewed by US policymakers, indicate that Iran still possesses nearly 70 per cent of its mobile missile launchers and roughly 70 per cent of its pre-war missile stockpile, including ballistic and cruise missiles, The New York Times reported.
The assessments reportedly found that only three of Iran's 33 missile facilities along the Strait of Hormuz remain completely inaccessible, while the remaining sites have regained varying degrees of operational access, allowing Iran to potentially deploy mobile launchers or launch missiles directly from existing infrastructure.
The report also stated that US military intelligence agencies, citing satellite imagery and surveillance data, assessed that Iran has regained access to nearly 90 per cent of its underground missile storage and launch facilities across the country, NYT reported.
These findings appear to contradict repeated public statements made by Trump and US Secretary of War Pete Hegseth, who had asserted that Iran's military had been "crushed" and rendered ineffective following the joint US-Israel military campaign, Operation Epic Fury, launched on February 28.
Last week, The Washington Post, citing a US official, reported that the Islamic Republic had retained nearly 75 per cent of its pre-war mobile missile launcher inventory and around 70 per cent of its missile stockpile, further noting that Tehran has managed to regain access to almost all of its underground missile storage facilities, repair damaged missiles, and complete the assembly of several missiles that were close to production before the conflict began, as indicated in an intelligence assessment. https://openthemagazine.com/world/us-intel-contradicts-trump-iran-restores-90-missile-site-access So it appears that these assessments and reports are coming from - and being seen by - senior US officials, US policymakers, US military intelligence agencies, satellite imagery, and surveillance data. So no. The descriptions/dissemination of the (classified) assessments could be coming from Democrats. Good on them if this " treason" is true. So because I haven't personally seen the classified documents, I ought to ignore the military intelligence and corroborated reports observed by senior US officials, US policymakers, and US military intelligence agencies, which were based on actual satellite imagery and surveillance data? We'll have to make sure to hold you to the same standard in the future, where every claim you make or article you post should be dismissed unless you've personally read a classified report supporting it. I didn't tell you to ignore anything. I was prodding at the framing. I default to presuming Trump and his administration are lying and braggadocious regarding just about anything, so I don't object to the notion that those braggadocious liars exaggerated their successes in Iran. In trying to find a way this doesn't just suck I'm hoping that the US's military industrial complex's dependence on China at least leads to me being able to get a relatively inexpensive Chinese electric car. If my car is going to track everything about me I think I'd rather give that info to the Chinese government than the Musk or Trump/his next iteration. The Chinese electric vehicles do look pretty interesting and attractive as alternatives to the electric vehicles that currently exist in the United States (not that I'm a fan of any car tracking everything about me, but I'm sure all electric vehicles will end up doing that eventually). Do you think the United States would ever allow Chinese electric vehicles to enter our market?
Yes. Reluctantly, starting with limited luxury imports and US based manufacturing (probably more like "assembly").
My hope as expressed there is mostly just that between Trump's greed (also his political need to have the strait open), the MIC's dependence on Chinese raw materials, and maybe some spite/disdain/competitive motivation for Musk/other auto companies, we at least get some cool cars out of it.
|
United States43988 Posts
On May 14 2026 22:40 oBlade wrote:Show nested quote +On May 14 2026 21:59 Jankisa wrote:On May 13 2026 21:18 oBlade wrote:On May 13 2026 05:03 Jankisa wrote:On May 13 2026 02:15 oBlade wrote:On May 12 2026 23:08 Jankisa wrote:We can just all remind ourselves of what the newly minted member of resistance and previous Trump campaign surrogate, as well as our very own oBlade's favorite interviewer had to say about Trump during the 2024 campaign: Tom Snyder wasn't alive in 2024. Are you seriously going to pretend like you aren't a huge Tucker Carlson fan now? And your dodge is going to be to pretend like your favorite interviewer is someone who receded their last interview in 1999? The comment where you professed your admiration for Tucker also has no references to Tom Snyder. In fact, when you search your profile for Tucker there's like 10 posts, not a beep about Tom here, curious. Also, I wasn't familiar with that moron at the time, but this is what you had to say about Nick "Ukrainians are using our money on cars" Shirley: Another is Nick Shirley, he's rising. Leans right but doesn't preach. Kind of gonzo? He's young, not as experienced so a bit choppy at times, very respectful and personable and somehow gets people to be honest and open and candid. That whole comment is gold, haven't seen it since then and it's nice to have a reminder how utterly broken your brain is and what your media, or rather, propaganda diet is. Of the 6 posts containing the word Tucker, 2 are me responding to you going "Durr oBlade loves Tucker Carlson bootlicking fascist" and 1 of them is me using his name as a placeholder for a rich guy hypothetical. If you want to have your finger on the pulse of the conservative Zeitgeist, Tucker Carlson's interviews at the time I wrote that were key both in terms of the breadth and caliber of guests, and the candidness and detail of information he's able to exchange with his guests. Which is what the post was about. That was the point of that post. I would not mention Tom Snyder there because it wasn't what the post was about. Shirley was also a great call by me who noticed his promise before you knew him - which you do now. You have politics brain so you don't understand that interviewers are just interviewers and there is a world outside of politics. The forensic post analysis is a waste of time. If I search your profile for Trump there will be a billion posts about Trump, it doesn't mean he's your favorite person in the world. Does it? Now any other stuff you want to dig up from a year ago and continue to misunderstand as part of your "please notice me oBlade senpai" scheme? Haha, you are really something bud. You go from "I found Nick Shirley before you did" to "You have politics brain" all in one post, amazing! Above all, I really dislike when people lie for no reason about things that are very easy to check, so any time you try to pretend like you weren't gloriously wrong on things ("Iran doesn't exist") you can bet your sweet bootlicking ass I'll dig up the receipts. Same thing with you being a superfan of a white replacement theory Christo fascism peddler, you can deny it as much as you'd like while hurling alt-right internet slang from 2010-s, as you tend to do, won't change the fact that your media diet is racist slop. You think I am wrong about who my own favorite interviewer is? Show nested quote +On May 14 2026 21:26 LightSpectra wrote:On May 14 2026 16:42 oBlade wrote:The Secret Service are not ones to wait until someone else gets shot and then either blame the person for bringing it upon themselves and deserving it if they're Republican, or prop up the person as a martyr if they aren't. They just want everyone protected. They want to have funding which doesn't get interrupted for over 2 months by Democrat shutdowns so the agents who protect the most important figures in our government are paid. The price breakdown for each target area of the project area is:
$220 million for White House hardening
$180 million for White House visitor security screening facility
$175 million for Secret Service training
$175 million for enhancements for Secret Service protectees
$150 million for evolving threats and technology
$100 million for events of national significance The $1 billion request is in addition to the annual USSS budget, $3.2 billion in FY 2025. https://abcnews.com/Politics/breakdown-1-billion-request-trumps-white-house-ballroom/story?id=132927177 You're preaching to the wrong crowd here oBlade, you need to convince the Senate to cut more children's cancer research funding to pay for Nero's Palace. Since you said there were world leaders in tents on the White House lawn getting shot to death it should be an easy case to make. That is not what I said. What's your opinion on the USSS's already existing $3.2 billion budget? Is that a just right Goldilocks number which is good because all you accept is the status quo, or is that also out of control spending (that allows people within shooting distance of White House Correspondents Dinners) and Republican budgeting should just let these Cole Allens have a free for all, or do you have any opinion on it or knowledge of it besides undirected smartaleck reactionism...?
Funding should be at a level sufficient to keep the President alive. We don't know where the right number is but we know from the status quo that current funding is excessive. I propose we cut it by 20% each year until we find the sweet spot.
The idea that a thwarted attack is somehow proof that they can't do their jobs at the current funding level is very strange to me. In any event, if the only way to prevent shootings is ballrooms then the priority really should be putting the nation's schools inside a ballroom.
|
On May 14 2026 23:15 oBlade wrote:Show nested quote +On May 14 2026 23:03 LightSpectra wrote:
So they need an extra billion per year to do what? It's not an annual increase either. It's a package increase whose funds are available to 2029. Just like last year's OBBBA didn't set an annual budget for DHS. It gave a lump sum to DHS to spend on expansion and weather any shutdown for the next 4 years. It didn't set an annual budget (which you can't do without cloture or filibuster nuking). This is a one time package. You'd be better off just waiting for the Congressional hearing about this to get more detail because if it takes this long to get you past the sarcasm to the starting point of the breakdown of the funds that I already posted, this level of ignorance has got to be intentional, and at that point, beneath me. Here is the breakdown in even more detail for anyone who has moved beyond thinking Trump asked the Secret Service to build a $1 billion monument to himself: https://www.politico.com/f/?id=0000019e-1d5b-d83d-abbf-df7fe2b80000
The Congressional hearing will no doubt explain why the SS, which continues operating during a government shutdown, will need a lump sum to buy more hookers and blow with their small-nation budget?
|
Northern Ireland26792 Posts
On May 14 2026 23:25 KwarK wrote:Show nested quote +On May 14 2026 22:40 oBlade wrote:On May 14 2026 21:59 Jankisa wrote:On May 13 2026 21:18 oBlade wrote:On May 13 2026 05:03 Jankisa wrote:On May 13 2026 02:15 oBlade wrote:On May 12 2026 23:08 Jankisa wrote:We can just all remind ourselves of what the newly minted member of resistance and previous Trump campaign surrogate, as well as our very own oBlade's favorite interviewer had to say about Trump during the 2024 campaign: Tom Snyder wasn't alive in 2024. Are you seriously going to pretend like you aren't a huge Tucker Carlson fan now? And your dodge is going to be to pretend like your favorite interviewer is someone who receded their last interview in 1999? The comment where you professed your admiration for Tucker also has no references to Tom Snyder. In fact, when you search your profile for Tucker there's like 10 posts, not a beep about Tom here, curious. Also, I wasn't familiar with that moron at the time, but this is what you had to say about Nick "Ukrainians are using our money on cars" Shirley: Another is Nick Shirley, he's rising. Leans right but doesn't preach. Kind of gonzo? He's young, not as experienced so a bit choppy at times, very respectful and personable and somehow gets people to be honest and open and candid. That whole comment is gold, haven't seen it since then and it's nice to have a reminder how utterly broken your brain is and what your media, or rather, propaganda diet is. Of the 6 posts containing the word Tucker, 2 are me responding to you going "Durr oBlade loves Tucker Carlson bootlicking fascist" and 1 of them is me using his name as a placeholder for a rich guy hypothetical. If you want to have your finger on the pulse of the conservative Zeitgeist, Tucker Carlson's interviews at the time I wrote that were key both in terms of the breadth and caliber of guests, and the candidness and detail of information he's able to exchange with his guests. Which is what the post was about. That was the point of that post. I would not mention Tom Snyder there because it wasn't what the post was about. Shirley was also a great call by me who noticed his promise before you knew him - which you do now. You have politics brain so you don't understand that interviewers are just interviewers and there is a world outside of politics. The forensic post analysis is a waste of time. If I search your profile for Trump there will be a billion posts about Trump, it doesn't mean he's your favorite person in the world. Does it? Now any other stuff you want to dig up from a year ago and continue to misunderstand as part of your "please notice me oBlade senpai" scheme? Haha, you are really something bud. You go from "I found Nick Shirley before you did" to "You have politics brain" all in one post, amazing! Above all, I really dislike when people lie for no reason about things that are very easy to check, so any time you try to pretend like you weren't gloriously wrong on things ("Iran doesn't exist") you can bet your sweet bootlicking ass I'll dig up the receipts. Same thing with you being a superfan of a white replacement theory Christo fascism peddler, you can deny it as much as you'd like while hurling alt-right internet slang from 2010-s, as you tend to do, won't change the fact that your media diet is racist slop. You think I am wrong about who my own favorite interviewer is? On May 14 2026 21:26 LightSpectra wrote:On May 14 2026 16:42 oBlade wrote:The Secret Service are not ones to wait until someone else gets shot and then either blame the person for bringing it upon themselves and deserving it if they're Republican, or prop up the person as a martyr if they aren't. They just want everyone protected. They want to have funding which doesn't get interrupted for over 2 months by Democrat shutdowns so the agents who protect the most important figures in our government are paid. The price breakdown for each target area of the project area is:
$220 million for White House hardening
$180 million for White House visitor security screening facility
$175 million for Secret Service training
$175 million for enhancements for Secret Service protectees
$150 million for evolving threats and technology
$100 million for events of national significance The $1 billion request is in addition to the annual USSS budget, $3.2 billion in FY 2025. https://abcnews.com/Politics/breakdown-1-billion-request-trumps-white-house-ballroom/story?id=132927177 You're preaching to the wrong crowd here oBlade, you need to convince the Senate to cut more children's cancer research funding to pay for Nero's Palace. Since you said there were world leaders in tents on the White House lawn getting shot to death it should be an easy case to make. That is not what I said. What's your opinion on the USSS's already existing $3.2 billion budget? Is that a just right Goldilocks number which is good because all you accept is the status quo, or is that also out of control spending (that allows people within shooting distance of White House Correspondents Dinners) and Republican budgeting should just let these Cole Allens have a free for all, or do you have any opinion on it or knowledge of it besides undirected smartaleck reactionism...? Funding should be at a level sufficient to keep the President alive. We don't know where the right number is but we know from the status quo that current funding is excessive. I propose we cut it by 20% each year until we find the sweet spot. The idea that a thwarted attack is somehow proof that they can't do their jobs at the current funding level is very strange to me. In any event, if the only way to prevent shootings is ballrooms then the priority really should be putting the nation's schools inside a ballroom.
Alternatively couldn’t Trump fund his own security privately or via gifts from foreign governments?
I mean it’s been totally fine and with no element of conflicts of interest or potentially being compromising before, and hey save the taxpayer a few bob to boot!
|
He could hock the jumbo jet that Qatar bribed him with. Of course, it defeats the purpose of embezzling the taxpayer's money if you just spend the bribery money out-of-pocket.
|
Northern Ireland26792 Posts
On May 15 2026 00:41 LightSpectra wrote:
He could hock the jumbo jet that Qatar bribed him with. Of course, it defeats the purpose of embezzling the taxpayer's money if you just spend the bribery money out-of-pocket.
It’s deeply unfair to characterise that as a bribe, the state of Qatar obviously just admires the work that the Donald’s been doing that they felt he deserved a jet
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
