Omar: Next president to declare national emergency on climate change ‘on day 1’

[sneakypete]

'Head-on attacks' should not be considered a strength.

@roamer_1

Why?

[sneakypete]

Some folks should really read Sun Tsu.

@Smokin Joe

Why? Sometimes the shortest distance makes the most sense. You can surprise the enemy,and your troops aren't tired when they get there.

[Emjay]

Oh, I do know that Cruz would have been less cooperative with the idiot left.  But yeah, they would have hated Cruz just as much if not more, because of that.

You do not know that @XenaLee   You probably would not have predicted that Ted Cruz would have been as stalwart a supporter of President Trump as he has proven to be.

I admire him even more for not clutching his pearls and doing what is right.

[Emjay]

Also, Cruz had a better working knowledge of the system and how to work around it. I think to Trump's credit though he is much stronger with head on attacks of his opponents.

Trump admitted just today that his initial unfamiliarity with the system and with the various politicians hanging around DC was a difficulty for his administration.  He also says that he's learned a lot since then, and I think he has.

[roamer_1]

@roamer_1

Why?

@sneakypete
Because unless you actually have an army big enough to take the casualties, which is almost never true, abstraction and asymmetry will often prevent that loss.

Have a plan.

 

[XenaLee]

You do not know that @XenaLee   You probably would not have predicted that Ted Cruz would have been as stalwart a supporter of President Trump as he has proven to be.

I admire him even more for not clutching his pearls and doing what is right.

So you presume to tell me what I know or don't know?

Hilarious.

[sneakypete]

@sneakypete
Because unless you actually have an army big enough to take the casualties, which is almost never true, abstraction and asymmetry will often prevent that loss.

Have a plan.

@roamer_1

Sometimes the ONLY viable plan is to run right at the enemy.

[Emjay]

So you presume to tell me what I know or don't know?

Hilarious.

Nobody knows, XenaLee.  I certainly don't.  You may think something, predict something, or have an opinion about something, but you don't know.

[roamer_1]

@roamer_1

Sometimes the ONLY viable plan is to run right at the enemy.

@sneakypete
Then you haven't planned.

[sneakypete]

@sneakypete
Then you haven't planned.

@roamer_1

Never been in the infantry,have you?

Or in a battle,AFATG.  Generally speaking,planning goes all to hell right after the first shot is fired.

[XenaLee]

Nobody knows, XenaLee.  I certainly don't.  You may think something, predict something, or have an opinion about something, but you don't know.

That's really funny coming from you.... considering how "shock sure" you and a few others here have been about Trump.

Again, hilarious.

[roamer_1]

@roamer_1

Never been in the infantry,have you?

Or in a battle,AFATG.  Generally speaking,planning goes all to hell right after the first shot is fired.

@sneakypete
Plans always go to hell upon execution, regardless of the field. If you expect plans to work you don't understand what plans are for.

And no, I am not military. 4F'd.
But I have fought for my life, I have been against unassailable odds. I have fought with weapons (gang style), though not with guns to speak of. Certainly I am not a soldier, but I have seen enough otherwise to have an informed opinion.

And as hunter, as a rule, the front is where the teeth and horns are, and the flank is always tender, and hard to guard.

Risk abatement (planning) dictates that 'head on', while a viable option, is probably nearly always the last option.

[sneakypete]

@sneakypete
Plans always go to hell upon execution, regardless of the field. If you expect plans to work you don't understand what plans are for.

And no, I am not military. 4F'd.
But I have fought for my life, I have been against unassailable odds. I have fought with weapons (gang style), though not with guns to speak of. Certainly I am not a soldier, but I have seen enough otherwise to have an informed opinion.

And as hunter, as a rule, the front is where the teeth and horns are, and the flank is always tender, and hard to guard.

Risk abatement (planning) dictates that 'head on', while a viable option, is probably nearly always the last option.

@roamer_1

If you are not a member of any military unit,the smart thing to do is run like a MoFo at the first opportunity. The best way to survive a gun fight is to not get into one to start with.

BTW,one of the basics of small unit tactics is to charge the enemy while firing your weapon if caught in an ambush. You can't outrun bullets or explosives,but running straight at the enemy reduces the amount of time you are under fire while  causing them to worry more about their own safety that getting a good sight picture on a moving target that is coming at them and firing at the same time.

Your reaction will always depend on that unique situation,and includes issues like terrain,cover,number of the enemy,how many of you were caught in the kill zone,etc,etc,etc. This is why the military is always training, You have to learn to react instinctively and as a unit.

[Weird Tolkienish Figure]

Internet tough guys...

[roamer_1]

The best way to survive a gun fight is to not get into one to start with.

One would think that to be a first principle.

BTW,one of the basics of small unit tactics is to charge the enemy while firing your weapon if caught in an ambush. You can't outrun bullets or explosives,but running straight at the enemy reduces the amount of time you are under fire while  causing them to worry more about their own safety that getting a good sight picture on a moving target that is coming at them and firing at the same time.

Right - similar to a brawl with multiple opponents - way better to go close and switch to elbows and knees - Anything you are hitting is enemy, and they have to be careful not to hit each other... And anything you hit with an elbow is likely to go down... You are going to get your shit beat, but maybe not as badly as if you tried otherwise... And it is the only chance you have left to walk away.

But as I said, it is the last or only option. One would not choose it otherwise.
One does not PLAN to go headlong into a meat grinder.

[Free Vulcan]

As if building a fence compares to some jackboot totalitarian takeover using one of their pet issues as an excuse.

The Dems are telegraphing what they already want to do the minute they think they could get away with it. A 'Trump precedent' is just a flimsy pretense.

[Smokin Joe]

@Smokin Joe

Why? Sometimes the shortest distance makes the most sense. You can surprise the enemy,and your troops aren't tired when they get there.

If that's all you got, use it. However, pinning the enemy down and flanking them usually uses up fewer troops and is better for morale. Even better, take out their logistical support first. It is usually less well defended and limits them to what they have with them (and sometimes you can use their own stuff against them).

[roamer_1]

A 'Trump precedent' is just a flimsy pretense.

Fine, but they don't need much more than flimsy pretense.

[Night Hides Not]

@roamer_1

Sometimes the ONLY viable plan is to run right at the enemy.

Sounds like the Dallas Cowboys' offense. They haven't made the NFC championship game in 23 years.

[Sanguine]

Sounds like the Dallas Cowboys' offense. They haven't made the NFC championship game in 23 years.

A metaphor for "America's Team".

[bilo]

'Head-on attacks' should not be considered a strength.

When the alternative is back stabbing, behind the back surrender it is a strength.

Trump to his credit has done more for conservatives by confronting leftists head on than any POTUS since Reagan.

[bilo]

Some folks should really read Sun Tsu.

Yeah, and all those subtle tactical retreats in the name of victory has really stopped the advance of the all encompassing leftist central govt.

It's time to admit that the old way of doing things has been a terrible failure and a new approach is needed. I advocate a direct frontal assault on the evil of leftism.

[roamer_1]

Yeah, and all those subtle tactical retreats in the name of victory has really stopped the advance of the all encompassing leftist central govt.

It's time to admit that the old way of doing things has been a terrible failure and a new approach is needed. I advocate a direct frontal assault on the evil of leftism.

Revenge is a dish best served cold.

[roamer_1]

When the alternative is back stabbing, behind the back surrender it is a strength.

Trump to his credit has done more for conservatives by confronting leftists head on than any POTUS since Reagan.

Well, while that is a mighty low bar...

What EXACTLY has he done?
What do we get to keep?

[Bill Cipher]

@Bill Cipher

You need remedial 3rd grade math. Once Trump spends the money building the wall,the money is no longer there for the Dims to spend.

AND.....,you are assuming the alleged Republicans will just roll over and play dead to let them get away with stealing more money from the treasury/US taxpayers. By the time Trump leaves office there just MIGHT be a few of them awaken to the idea that they do NOT have to surrender to the Dims and fight the bastards instead.

At most, the 50 miles that were authorized will get built, and the money approved for that spent.  The rest of it will not have been spent for the simple reason that (a) it takes a long time to do the design work, and (b) it will be tied up in litigation, with temporary injunctions in place, so that little to none of that money will have been spent.  That is simple mathematics. 

There will be no Trump wall, ever.  Nothing of any consequence will get built under this phony “emergency” declaration, and Congress will never play nice with Trump for his remaining two years and will not give him any more money for his wall. 

And the emergency declaration itself will simply be yanked by the next president, so Trumps declaration will have no further force or effect. 

That’s a really bigley win there.