Politics US Edition (2021-vol 2)

[Achilles]

9 minutes ago, 213374U said:

Just curious. Graduating from Ranger School doesn't make you a 'Ranger'? Only serving in the Ranger unit does? What if one serves in the unit as enlisted but never completes Ranger School? The Army website does not make it unequivocally clear.

Quoting Gromnir's post above:

Quote

But the Army’s own website makes clear the distinction between joining the 75th Ranger Regiment and taking the U.S. Army Ranger Course. “People often confuse the 75th Ranger Regiment with the U.S. Army Ranger Course,” the regiment’s public affairs office wrote. But to join the Ranger regiment, members of the Army have to pass the “Ranger Assessment Selection Program [RASP] 1, 2, or both.” Cotton did not.

Sounds like you have to pass some version of the course in order to join the regiment.

I didn't follow the military career of my brother in law that closely, but I seem to recall that completing a school seemed to be the thing that unlocked the achievement for most of those things.

2 minutes ago, Guard Dog said:

You can be in a Ranger unit without having the MOS but you’re not a Ranger unless you have the MOS and have been through the school.

I believe this is correct also. Again using my BIL as an example, at one point he was attached to a Green Beret unit, but I don't think he was ever referred to as a Green Beret.

Edited January 25, 2021 by Achilles

[Malcador]

8 minutes ago, 213374U said:

Just curious. Graduating from Ranger School doesn't make you a 'Ranger'? Only serving in the Ranger unit does? What if one serves in the unit as enlisted but never completes Ranger School? The Army website does not make it unequivocally clear.

I think service in the regiment is the way to be a "Ranger", so you can be one without the Tab from the Ranger School. Seems like getting the Tab is an expectation above a certain rank in the regiment.

[Guard Dog]

Exactly. The 82nd airborne is one of the most prestigious units in the US Army. But like every other unit it has sections that are not dedicated to the airborne infantry. It will have an administrative section, intelligence, logistics, special services, it will have medics, armorers, all the personnel needed to run an army division. They are all in the 82nd but not all can call themselves airborne.

[213374U]

17 minutes ago, Guard Dog said:

Exactly. The 82nd airborne is one of the most prestigious units in the US Army. But like every other unit it has sections that are not dedicated to the airborne infantry. It will have an administrative section, intelligence, logistics, special services, it will have medics, armorers, all the personnel needed to run an army division. They are all in the 82nd but not all can call themselves airborne.

What the hell. So being in the 82nd doesn't make you 'airborne' (I guess you need to pass some course or cert for that?). And then passing Ranger School doesn't make you a 'Ranger' but being in the 75th does even if you never went to Ranger School.

Makes zero sense, thanks.

edit: I missed some previous reply. My confusion stems from the fact that apparently, going to Ranger School is not a requirement for serving in the 75th, but passing the selection course is. So graduating Ranger School has actually nothing to do with being a 'Ranger', which seems... odd.

Edited January 25, 2021 by 213374U

[Guard Dog]

6 minutes ago, 213374U said:

What the hell. So being in the 82nd doesn't make you 'airborne' (I guess you need to pass some course or cert for that?). And then passing Ranger School doesn't make you a 'Ranger' but being in the 75th does even if you never went to Ranger School.

Makes zero sense, thanks.

edit: I missed some previous reply. My confusion stems from the fact that apparently, going to Ranger School is not a requirement for serving in the 75th, but passing the selection course is. So graduating Ranger School has actually nothing to do with being a 'Ranger', which seems... odd.

The army is confusing. A specialist is a sergeant but not. Different regiments attached to different divisions but they’re all interchangeable. Their rank structures a mess. And if you think that’s bad look at the rates and ranks of the US Navy. Now there is a hot mess. That’s one thing I loved about the Marine Corps. The rank system is very straightforward. A lance corporal in one unit reach the same as a lance corporal in any other. No special titles, no different uniforms, it very much buys into what they used to say back in my day you’re a marine first everything else comes second

[213374U]

 

33 minutes ago, Achilles said:

35 minutes ago, Guard Dog said:

You can be in a Ranger unit without having the MOS but you’re not a Ranger unless you have the MOS and have been through the school.

I believe this is correct also. Again using my BIL as an example, at one point he was attached to a Green Beret unit, but I don't think he was ever referred to as a Green Beret.

Makes sense. From what (little) I know, the converse is true -- graduating from the SF course earns you a Green Beret, whether or not you serve in a SF Group. Would you be 'Special Forces', though? Not sure I'd go to Salon.com for an authoritative answer...

[Darkpriest]

@Hurlshot

I recall some old joke post. I wonder when such will be made illegal due to 'offensive' words in it. 

8:00 AM - I MADE A SNOW MAN

8:10 AM - A FEMINIST PASSED BY AND ASKED, “WHY DIDN’T YOU MAKE A SNOW WOMEN?!”

8:15 AM - SO, I MADE A SNOW WOMEN

8:17 AM - MY FEMINIST NEIGHBOR COMPLAINED ABOUT THE SNOW WOMEN VOLUPTUOUS CHEST, SAYING “IT WILL OBJECTIFY SNOW WOMEN EVERYWHERE!”

8:20 AM - THE GAY COUPLE LIVING NEAR BY THREW A HISSY FIT AND MAULED, “IT COULD HAVE BEEN TWO SNOW MEN INSTEAD!”

8:22 AM - THE TRANSGENDER MAN WOMEN PERSON ASKED, “WHY DIDN’T YOU CHOSE ONE SNOW PERSON WITH DETACHABLE PARTS?”

8:25 AM - THE VEGANS AT THE END OF THE LANE COMPLAINED ABOUT THE CARROT NOSE SAYING, “EARTH VEGGIES ARE FOR FOOD AND NOT FOR DECORATING SNOW FIGURES!”

8:28 AM - I WAS BEING CALLED A RACIST BECAUSE THE SNOW COUPLE WAS WHITE.

8:32 AM - A MIDDLE EASTERN GENT ACROSS THE STREET TOLD ME, “THE SNOW WOMEN HAD TO BE COVER UP!

8:40 AM - THE POLICE ARRIVED SAYING SOMEONE HAS BEEN OFFENDED.

8:42 AM - FEMINIST NEIGHBOR COMPLAINED AGAIN, “THE BROOM STICK OF THE SNOW WOMEN NEEDED TO REMOVED, BECAUSE IT DEPICTED WOMEN IN A “DOMESTIC ROLE”...!“

8:43 AM - THE COUNCIL OF EQUALITY OFFICER ARRIVED & THREATENED ME WITH EVICTION.

8:45 AM - TV NEWS CREWS FROM ABC STROLLED UP AND ASKED ME, “DO YOU KNOW THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN SNOWMEN AND SNOW WOMEN?” I REPLIED, “SNOW BALLS” AND NOW I’M CALLED A “SEXIST!”

9:00 AM - I WAS ON THE NEWS AS A “SUSPECTED TERRORIST”, “RACIST”, “HOMOPHOBE”, “SENSIBILITY OFFENDER” BENT ON STIRRING UP TROUBLE DURING DIFFICULT WEATHER.

9:10 AM - I WAS ASKED IF I HAD ANY ACCOMPLICES. MY CHILDREN WERE TAKEN AWAY BY SOCIAL SERVICES.

9:29 AM - FAR LEFT PROTESTERS OFFENDED BY EVERYTHING MARCHED TOWARDS MY PROPERTY DEMANDING FOR ME TO BE ARRESTED.

9:30 AM - SNOW MELTED AWAY, WHILE I WAS ARRESTED

 

[Malcador]

23 minutes ago, Guard Dog said:

And if you think that’s bad look at the rates and ranks of the US Navy. Now there is a hot mess.

In some ways it's simpler.  You can tell a SEAL is a a SEAL when he never stops telling you he is a SEAL.

[Hurlshort]

23 minutes ago, Darkpriest said:

*bad joke*

 

[Guard Dog]

7 minutes ago, Malcador said:

In some ways it's simpler.  You can tell a SEAL is a a SEAL when he never stops telling you he is a SEAL.

Sometimes the dog is worthy of the bark. I remember we were coming back from Korea it was either after valiant blitz in 91 or team spirit and 92 I forget. Anyway we are taking a ship back and we were stuck at the port in Naha Okinawa. It was going to be a couple of hours before the trucks come down to get us and all the equipment so we did what any good marine in that situation would do: establish a watch for the equipment and everyone not on watch adjourned to the nearest bar to get a drink. That turned out to be this little crappy open air shed with picnic tables and all they had was Orien beer but that was OK because I was well a custom to it by that time. Anyway A team of Navy SEALs had been on the ship with us and we’re in the same predicament so we hung out there with them for a couple of hours had a few beers and swap stories. I have to say those guys were tough customers and extremely cool to just sit and shoot the breeze with.

[ComradeYellow]

1 hour ago, Guard Dog said:

Exactly. The 82nd airborne is one of the most prestigious units in the US Army. 

But aren't airborne units irrelevant in the 21st century?

[Guard Dog]

1 minute ago, ComradeMaster said:

But aren't airborne units irrelevant in the 21st century?

I don’t know. If creative assembly ever makes total war 2021 I’ll be able to formulate a more intelligent answer.

[Darkpriest]

19 minutes ago, Hurlshot said:

 

Muh Feelz bruh...

[ComradeYellow]

34 minutes ago, Malcador said:

In some ways it's simpler.  You can tell a SEAL is a a SEAL when he never stops telling you he is a SEAL.

The whole prestigious "Seal" reputation has been tainted by Chris Kyle.

 

[Malcador]

I'd say much Kyle did much less than Gallagher or the two that killed a Green Beret.

[ComradeYellow]

Biden Administration Looking to 'Speed Up' Process of Getting Harriet Tubman on the $20 Bill (msn.com)

LOL fascists are gonna rage at this one.

[Gfted1]

Im all mixed up in this nuworld. Is "fascist" the new word for "racist"?

[Zoraptor]

1 hour ago, ComradeMaster said:

But aren't airborne units irrelevant in the 21st century?

Air Cavalry is pretty relevant in most situations. Large scale paratrooping would only be relevant for certain situations, but then it was always only relevant for certain situations.

[ComradeYellow]

2 minutes ago, Gfted1 said:

Im all mixed up in this nuworld. Is "fascist" the new word for "racist"?

Fascism can be loosely attributed to being racialist and nationalist w/o deeply embedded "age old" conservative principles, Mussolini and the Italian conservatives often clashed on such issues, "History goes forwards, not backwards!" Mussolini has said.

[Gromnir]

“Fight for Trump”: Video Evidence of Incitement at the Capitol

"From a legal point of view, the key question any criminal exposure the former president may have turns on his state of mind. In the video, we see many of his followers, who believe they are acting on his orders. But the question a jury would have to decide is what was in Trump’s mind that morning on the Ellipse (and in his previous tweets/statements), not just how people reacted. For instance, in order to prove someone committed the crime of soliciting violence in violation of 18 USC § 373, the government has to establish that the defendant acted, “with intent that another person engage in conduct constituting a felony that has as an element the use, attempted use, or threatened use of physical force against property or against the person of another in violation of the laws of the United States.” In the video, we hear Trump tell the crowd to act “peacefully.” I would expect his lawyers to focus on that. But, he also says “we fight, we fight like hell. If you don’t you’re not going to have a country anymore.” So when we talk about proof in court, prosecutors will have to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that he intended the “fight” part, not the “peaceful” part. Trump’s prior awareness that his followers take him literally and act on his words, as well as his “delight” as opposed to horror when he learned the Capitol was being overrun and failure to do anything to tamp down on the insurrection, suggest prosecutors may have fertile ground to seek evidence in here."

as usual, english definition o' words may be misleading when considering application of law. ordinarily we infer intent from actions 'cause rare does a defendant blurt out their state o' mind bore and/or during the commission of a crime. if the defendant bludgeons another person to death by repeated striking the victim's head with a cast iron frying pan, is gonna be relative simple to infer intent. one may assume the defendant knew that cast iron pans may be deadly when used as a weapon to strike another human being's head. repeated blows undermines possibility o' any kinda accident as explanation for the killing, no?

am predicting the trump defense is gonna be... odd. ordinarily there is no advantage in attempting to convince a finder o' fact that a defendant is impulsive, reckless and indulges in behavior which is flirting with the line 'tween criminal and legal. the reckless buffoons' gambit is not popular with the defense bar. with a cop dead, trying to convince a fact finder that trump has so frequent exhorted crowds to engage in potential illegal behavior would be risky. *understatement* the thing is, there is just such an overabundance o' trump saying terrible things which arguable coulda' been deemed incitement if his followers had acted on such exhortations. 

by the same token, trump were no doubt aware that more than one o' his loyalists ingested bleach after trump suggested internal use o' disinfectant could be a possible remedy for covid-19 sufferers. pretend as if trump didn't know that at least a few o' his loyalists would act badly following his speech will be made more difficult if every stoopid trump statement which led to stoopid trump followers taking literal gets repeated in court. 

criminal omissions is not mentioned often in the trump context. even if you think trump did not incite the crowd, there is an argument that his failure to do anything once the attacks on the Capitol occurred made trump criminal liable. am thinking is tough to argue trump had no duty to quell violence once it began. the numerous phone calls made by Congressmen from both sides o' the aisle imploring trump to do something suggests those Congressmen believed trump had a duty to take action. the timeline o' trump inactivity is stark.

however, am thinking pursuing criminal omission against a former President is exact the kinda precedent the doj would wanna avoid. Presidents make mistakes all the time and we rare second guess the chief executive by means o' criminal prosecution. 'course rare is there such a stark example o' failure to act. weren't just that a President made a bad choice but that for literal hours trump did nothing meaningful while the US Capitol were occupied by a mob with more than a few individuals threatening bloody murder. is a singular event in living memory, but perhaps not so singular if a historian were to go through the rather voluminous annals o' presidential malfeasance. is a valid legal argument for criminal omission if this were a law school exam question and the student were going through issue spotting efforts. nevertheless, am questioning the wisdom o' such an exercise in rl. am suspecting many xPresidents would potential be subject to criminal omission, and the only way we see this working practical w/o causing a truly horrible precedent is if the current administration were o' the same party as the xPresident being indicted. an omission so egregious even his/her own party seeks criminal punishment? maybe. maybe.

as an aside, is good to recall the long list o' individuals who has graced $20 US currency over the years. jackson as the face o' the $20 only happened in the 1920s during a dark period o' us history when nativism were disturbing in vogue. 

our personal choice for the $20, based on those candidates from the unofficial 2015 poll, is wilma mankiller. we know next to nothing about ms. mankiller, but tell us that ain't a kewl name you would wanna see on US legal tender.

HA! Good Fun!

[rjshae]

Has anybody else noticed how much food costs have shot up during the pandemic? I haven't heard of it being a political issue yet, but it wouldn't surprise me to see it come up.

[Gfted1]

^My weekly shopping costs are unchanged. Except when I buy beef jerky...why the hell is that so expensive!

[Achilles]

14 minutes ago, rjshae said:

Has anybody else noticed how much food costs have shot up during the pandemic? I haven't heard of it being a political issue yet, but it wouldn't surprise me to see it come up.

Hmm. Prices feel pretty flat to me. I know meat went up a little.

[Gromnir]

our food bill has actual deceased somewhat but only 'cause we now shop at a supermarket regularly. previous to the pandemic, we rare put foot inside a costco or safeway or raleys.

over the past year have noticed processed meat is more expensive, but we don't personal buy much o' such. 

apples is ordinarily dirt cheap this time o' year and in our neck o' the woods. ain't the case current. we need pick whichever variety is on sale if we wanna avoid $3.97 per pound. is curious which fruits and vegetables has increased in price. did a double-take a day ago when we saw honeydew on sale at $5.19 each. lettuce has stayed constant and avocadoes is extreme inexpensive. 

dunno.

HA! Good Fun!

 

[Guard Dog]

I say no more portraits on money. No more statues either. whoever they are, whatever they’ve done, sooner or later it’s going to piss someone off. Money should be a plain green bill with the value written on it in big black numbers