Krystal and Saagar comment on a segment from Tucker Carlson Tonight featuring a guest who expressed a bloodthirsty desire for ‘Chinese skulls’ and a more masculine military
The guy was too aggressive. I was in the NAVY when a deployment was on the horizon the sudden amount of female sailors that became miraculously pregnant was astounding. (Getting pregnant gets you out of a deployment)
“This segment of the Tucker Carlson Show brought to you by Raytheon, Lockheed Martin, General Dynamics, Boeing, Northrop Grumman, etc.”
He’s not wrong about the pregnant women in the Navy. 🤣🤣
Love how fox news calls every left leaning person extremist but nods and agrees to talks about thrones adorned with skulls.
Does this guy even believe what he’s saying? It’s like some guests think it’s a contest to invent the most over the top rhetoric, with no regard for what it actually means …
“How many of our soldiers…”? Shit, I keep thinking about how many Arab women and CHILDREN were murdered in illegal wars based on lies. Can you imagine losing 10, 21 family members with an overwhelming number of them being children and women… And having that covered up, glossed over and ignored with no-one held accountable…
Brave guy talking a lot a shit about a war he won’t be personally fighting in. Prior service isn’t a pass to advocate for simplistic unquantified dumb shit on a national level.
I don’t disagree with his point about stacking skulls, that’s what the combat arms parts of our military do, and it should be their aggressive mindset. We can still see nuance inside that bubble, but that nuance won’t mean anything if we have to start killing to defend an objective.
I served in the military for 22 years and the last thing you want is people like this. They are far too intolerant to make good leaders or followers. Serving in the military means being able to tolerate others’ differences, otherwise, the unit can’t function as a whole. People like this in the military either learn to STFU or they get drummed out for bad behavior. Either way, they don’t last long.
By the way, we’ve already fought against China- a China that was barely developed- in the Korean War, and look how that went. You think it would go better today?
dude is over-compensating for something deep and personal i suspect… so glad i’m living my life as ME (Taiwanese here) rather than him. i pity him.
You’re giving this guy too much credit to say he’s a war monger. I don’t think he’s even clever enough for that. A better name for him would be provocateur or in street lingo – a shit disturber. He’s also a self promoter.
There are arguments to be made regarding wokeness in the US military. However, our military has a lot of duties/jobs that require many different skill sets. Women and gay people have served selflessly for decades. Obviously he can have his opinion, but comes off is a bit misinformed and lacking some respect. That said — he does a radio show and I’m sure the attention he’ll get from this will only help potentially build his audience, and he knows that I’m sure.
For those of us who have served we can attest that it’s the invincible, alpha-male, in your face macho leaders who are the cause of a lot of the problems (and subsequent woke reactions) that the military currently faces.
The most effective and lethal leaders are those who are humble, decisive, have high integrity, and are accountable to a fault…regardless of background, race, or gender.
First, I love that the length of this video is 5.56. Serendipitous, for sure. Secondly, the role of the military is to kill people and break things. Period. Blood thirst is beat into your head during basic training and during follow up training if your role is direct combat. “Show me your war face” is something that was actually demanded of me in my infantry unit. Though his presentation was crass, I was fully onboard with everything he said until the very end. “We can’t even get women off of Naval vessels, although half of them are already pregnant anyway.” Wow. How is that not the primary focus of this reaction video? Having a desire to sit on a pile of Chinese skulls? That should absolutely be the mindset of a fighting force. The complaint that we shouldn’t want war and we should be aware that a pile of Chinese skulls only comes at the cost of American skulls is exactly correct. But that is the mindset for civilians and their elected representatives to hold. Not the guy whose sole job is to stack up that pile of enemy skulls.
As a Marine vet, ya we talked liked this among the ranks but kept it tight among the civilians. I think he needed to fine-tune his message for the audience he was addressing. Though, wokeness ain’t the reason the military is faltering. It’s overextended and the stuff we’re getting is expensive and it’s fckn crap.
If an Iranian or Taliban media figure had said that about “American skulls,” we’d be there immediately dropping more bombs than Steph Curry
Blind hate of your enemy makes you weak. Only when you respect your opponent do you have a chance of defeating them.
40 years ago it was Russian Skulls. Enemies come and go with political positions.
Remember that ACTUAL warmongers never talk that way… It’s all about “American values” and “protecting our allies”
Maybe we should ramp up domestic manufacturing before we go to war with a country that supplies us with the majority of our goods
Considering America has lost two wars against China by proxy, both Korea and Vietnam, I don’t know I’d be wishing for a conflict as American lol
i feel like you guys should get one person on to talk about financial news or something. i feel like there’s more to news you guys could do and expanding breaking points. would even be more content.
I think the fact that Jesse did serve kind of makes his remarks more damming. Because it sounds like this guy wants to commit war crimes.
I was browsing the internet when I came over this interesting photo. This is a snake that has killed itself by trying to strangle a saw.
Story behind it? This snake accidently cut itself when it encountered the saw. The snake got angry, so it tried to fight back by strangling the saw, which, of course, eventually resulted in its death.
This story has a moral: don’t be vengeful to others because doing so will only result in pain brought to yourself.
Vengeance is not an INTJ trait. It’s stupid and beneath us; playing the getting-even game. INTJ isn’t in competition with everyone else, they just do their own thing their own way. They really don’t pay that much attention to what others are doing, content to let others do their own thing.
However, there is a thing that looks like vengeance but isn’t vengeance with an INTJ. It is requital according to merits or desserts, especially for evil. Others who do the evil—I’ll call them assholes—often see it as vengeance, because they do not believe they did anything wrong to deserve the INTJ requital.
INTJ is firmly grounded in a strong sense of justice—objective justice, which cannot be honestly disputed. That stance of being-in-the-right really pisses the asshole off which, strangely and quite foolishly, makes the asshole escalate against the INTJ.
To INTJ, assholes are stupid for not backing off, and deserve what they get.
When objectively wronged, INTJ will walk away until it becomes evident that walking away will not end what is being done to them. INTJ will tolerate a lot, much more than most people will tolerate. Stupid people mistake that tolerance for weakness. Evil people try to exploit that tolerance. Not a good idea.
Then, INTJ will warn. Smart people heed the warning and back off.
Then. . .
INTJ will act. It will be done without further warnings, and they will act without any threats or announcements.
The acts of requital INTJ performs will be like a weapon of mass destruction was unleashed on the asshole, leaving them as nothing more than a pile of dust.
The requital will be highly creative, and precisely targeted to the most vulnerable aspects of the asshole, until there is nothing left to dick with the INTJ any more. This will be done in a manner that is completely legal, leaving the asshole with no legal remedies against the INTJ. If the asshole tries anything illegal (yes, they are often that stupid), INTJ will have anticipated it and the asshole will be nailed in the act.
Then, INTJ will walk away and leave the asshole alone as long as the asshole leaves them alone.
The take-away from this is, INTJ is really a very tolerant and gentle person, until someone crosses their line in the sand. Then they are as cold-blooded and precise as executioners. By then, their target has lost any right to forbearance or mercy in the INTJ court of justice.
Acquitted of impeachment charges, Trump goes after those who defied him.
- John Bolton,
- Joe Manchin,
- Adam Schiff,
- Hunter Biden,
- Doug Jones,
- Gordon Sondland,
- Alexander Vindman,
- Yevgeny Vindman,
- Mitt Romney,
- Nancy Pelosi,
- Chuck Schumer,
- Jerry Nadler,
- Debbie Dingell,
- New York air travelers,
- federal prosecutors,
- the F.B.I.
It’s been a mere week since Senate Republicans acquitted President Trump in his impeachment trial — assuring him once and for all that he needn’t fret about congressional accountability — but he has already made significant progress on his enemies list.
Members of Congress, administration officials, law enforcement officials, residents of blue states — anyone who has ever displeased Mr. Trump is a potential target. Heads may not wind up on literal pikes, but the president is already neck-deep into his reprisal tour.
The president’s targets can be sorted into multiple different categories, some better equipped than others to endure his wrath. Democratic senators such as Mr. Jones of Alabama and Mr. Manchin of West Virginia, both of whom have drawn Trumpian ire for their votes to convict the president, understand that politics is a blood sport. Ditto House members like Ms. Dingell, whom Mr. Trump randomly attacked again over the weekend, and Mr. Schiff, who was the point person on impeachment. These professionals know how to brush off — or brush back — the taunts.
After a particularly childish screed, in which Mr. Trump called Mr. Manchin “Joe Munchkin,” the West Virginia lawmaker returned fire Monday on CNN: “I guess he’s confused on that, because I am a little bigger than him. He’s got me about 30 pounds on weight. But I am a little taller than him.”
And the House speaker, Nancy Pelosi, can certainly hold her own against a presidential tantrum.
Mr. Romney, the lone Republican to vote to convict Mr. Trump of abuse of power, is more exposed. It’s not just the president mocking him and denigrating his religious faith. The White House also blasted out nasty talking points for surrogates to disseminate. Title: “Romney (Once Again) Ditches Principles to Seek Far Left’s Adulation.”
That said, Mr. Romney is a former presidential combatant. He knows how to take a punch. He also isn’t up for re-election until 2024, plenty of time for all this to pass. In the meantime, he’ll enjoy some brand burnishing in non-Trump circles for having followed his conscience.
Mr. Trump is also grumpy with Mr. Bolton, the former national security adviser who, The Times reported, wrote in his forthcoming memoir that the president told him that there was a link between Ukraine aid and the announcement of investigations of Joe Biden and his son. In addition to calling Mr. Bolton a liar, Mr. Trump has sought to block the release of his book, and there is talk of stripping him of his security clearance.
But Mr. Bolton, too, is nobody’s victim. He is a seasoned Washington knife-fighter who played his own coy game with impeachment investigators.
It’s also hard to feel too sorry for Gordon Sondland, the ambassador to the European Union whom Mr. Trump fired last week. Mr. Sondland essentially bought his diplomatic post with fat donations to Mr. Trump’s inauguration. He changed his testimony mid-impeachment, rendering him a less than exemplary witness. He is, above all, a cautionary tale for those willing to sell their souls for power and prestige.
Far more troubling is the assault on not-so-political public servants, such as Lt. Col. Alexander Vindman, a key impeachment witness. On Friday, Colonel Vindman was ousted from his post on the National Security Council.
Creepier still, the president also fired Colonel Vindman’s twin brother, Yevgeny, a lawyer at the National Security Council who was not an impeachment witness. Such gratuitous score-settling carries a whiff of the Cosa Nostra, in which talking to the feds results in one’s family being targeted — in part to send a message to other potential rats.
Mr. Trump is making perfectly clear the high cost of questioning his questionable behavior or cooperating with Congress.
Also this week, federal prosecutors are back in the president’s cross hairs. On Monday, prosecutors recommended sentencing Roger Stone, Mr. Trump’s longtime political fixer who was convicted in November on charges stemming from Robert Mueller’s investigation of Russian influence, to seven to nine years behind bars. This did not sit well with the president, who was up in the wee hours on Tuesday tweeting his displeasure. “Disgraceful!” he erupted shortly before 1 a.m. Not quite an hour later, he elaborated: “This is a horrible and very unfair situation. The real crimes were on the other side, as nothing happens to them. Cannot allow this miscarriage of justice!”
By Tuesday afternoon, the Justice Department had dutifully announced it would revisit the “grossly disproportionate” sentencing recommendation. All four prosecutors handling the case promptly withdrew.
Far from denying Operation Vengeance, the White House has been justifying it. In the run-up to the president’s acquittal address last Thursday, the White House press secretary, Stephanie Grisham, assured Fox News viewers that he would be talking about “just how horribly he was treated and, you know, that maybe people should pay for that.”
Mr. Trump is now hard at work making that happen. And who’s to stop him?
The goal was to prove American resolve in the face of Iranian attacks. Now, American officials have no doubt the Iranians will respond — but they don’t know how quickly, or how furiously.
President Trump’s decision to strike and kill the second most powerful official in Iran turns a slow-simmering conflict with Tehran into a boiling one, and is the riskiest move made by the United States in the Middle East since the invasion of Iraq in 2003.
The calculus was straightforward: Washington had to re-establish deterrence, and show the Iranian leadership that missiles fired at ships in the Persian Gulf and at oil facilities in Saudi Arabia, along with attacks inside Iraq that cost the life of an American contractor, would not go without a response.
But while senior American officials have no doubt the Iranians will respond, they do not know how quickly, or how furiously.
For a president who repeated his determination to withdraw from the caldron of the Middle East, the strike that killed Maj. Gen. Qassim Suleimani, who for two decades has led Iran’s most fearsome and ruthless military unit, the Quds Force, means there will be no escape from the region for the rest of his presidency, whether that is one year or five. Mr. Trump has committed the United States to a conflict whose dimensions are unknowable, as Iran’s supreme leader, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, seeks vengeance.
“This is a massive walk up the escalation ladder,” wrote Charles Lister of the Middle East Institute. “With Suleimani dead, war is coming — that seems certain, the only questions are where, in what form and when?”
Bruce Riedel, the former C.I.A. officer who spent his life studying the Middle East, and is now at the Brookings Institution, said, “The administration is taking America into another war in the Middle East, bigger than ever.”
Yet it may not be a conventional war in any sense, since the Iranians’ advantage is all in asymmetric conflict.
Their history suggests they will not take on the United States frontally. Iranians are the masters of striking soft targets, starting in Iraq, but hardly limited to that country. In the past few years, they have honed an ability to cause low-level chaos, and left no doubt that they want to be able to reach the United States.
For now, they cannot — at least in traditional ways.
But they have tried terrorism, including an abortive effort nine years ago to kill a Saudi ambassador in Washington, and late Thursday, the Department of Homeland Security was sending out reminders of Iran’s past and current efforts to attack the United States in cyberspace. Until now, that has been limited to breaches on American banks and scrutiny of dams and other critical infrastructure, but they so far have not shown they have the abilities of the Russians or the Chinese.
Their first escalation may well be in Iraq, where they back pro-Iranian militias. But even there, they are an unwelcome force. It was only a few weeks ago when people took to the streets in Iraq to protest Iranian, not American, interference in their politics. Still, there are soft targets throughout the region, as the attacks on the Saudi oil facilities showed.
Complicating the management of a perilous moment is the president’s impeachment and the revival of Iran’s nuclear program.
Here’s how the situation developed over the last eight days.
It is only a matter of time before there are questions about whether the strike was meant to create a counternarrative, one of a conflict with a longtime adversary, while a Senate trial to determine whether to remove Mr. Trump begins. And already there are charges that the president overstepped, and that the decision to kill General Suleimani — if it was a decision, and the Iranian leader was not simply in the wrong convoy at the wrong moment — required congressional approval.
“The question is this,” Senator Christopher S. Murphy, Democrat of Connecticut, asked on Twitter as news of the strike spread. “As reports suggest, did America just assassinate, without any congressional authorization, the second most powerful person in Iran, knowingly setting off a potential massive regional war?”
Mr. Trump will argue that he was well within his rights, and that the strike was an act of self-defense. And he will have a strong argument: General Suleimani was responsible for the deaths of hundreds, if not thousands, of Americans in Iraq over the years, and doubtless was planning more.
The American announcement, from Defense Secretary Mark T. Esper, cited the general’s plans — which were not specified — as a justification for the action. If there was real intelligence of impending strikes, then the longtime principles of pre-emption, enshrined anew in American policy by President George W. Bush, would apply.
Mr. Trump walked away from the 2015 nuclear agreement more than a year ago, over the objections of many of his own aides and almost all American allies.
At first, the Iranians reacted coolly, and stayed within the limits of the accord. That ended last year, as tensions escalated.
Before the strike, they were expected to announce, in the next week, their next nuclear move — and it seemed likely to be a move closer to enrichment of bomb-grade uranium. That seems far more likely now, and poses the possibility of the next escalation, if it prompts American or Israeli military or cyberaction against Iran’s known nuclear facilities.
Once it buries General Suleimani, the Islamic Revolutionary Guards Corps — which oversaw the secret projects to build nuclear weapons two decades ago — may well determine that it is time to surge ahead. There is little question the United States is far less likely to challenge a country with an existing nuclear arsenal. The Iranians, like the North Koreans and the Pakistanis, could well take General Suleimani’s death as a warning about what happens to countries with no nuclear options.
Even those critical of the president’s nuclear move said they understood why the Iranian general was such a target.
“These guys are the personification of evil,” David H. Petraeus, the retired general who was an architect of the surge in Iraq, said in an interview Thursday night. “We calculated they were responsible for at least 600 deaths” of American soldiers.”
But Mr. Petraeus offered a caution.
“There will be an escalation,” he said. “I assume they have to do something. And the only question is, over time, have we created more deterrence than if we had not acted.”
Historic Jacobite and anti-Jacobite alternative verses
Around 1745, anti-Jacobite sentiment was captured in a verse appended to the song, with a prayer for the success of Field Marshal George Wade‘s army then assembling at Newcastle. These words attained some short-term use, although they did not appear in the published version in the October 1745 Gentleman’s Magazine. This verse was first documented as an occasional addition to the original anthem by Richard Clark in 1822, and was also mentioned in a later article on the song, published by the Gentleman’s Magazine in October 1836. Therein, it is presented as an “additional verse… though being of temporary application only… stored in the memory of an old friend… who was born in the very year 1745, and was thus the associate of those who heard it first sung”, the lyrics given being:
Lord, grant that Marshal Wade,
May by thy mighty aid,
May he sedition hush,
and like a torrent rush,
Rebellious Scots to crush,
God save the King.
The 1836 article and other sources make it clear that this verse was not used soon after 1745, and certainly before the song became accepted as the British national anthem in the 1780s and 1790s. It was included as an integral part of the song in the Oxford Book of Eighteenth-Century Verse of 1926, although erroneously referencing the “fourth verse” to the Gentleman’s Magazine article of 1745.
On the opposing side, Jacobite beliefs were demonstrated in an alternative verse used during the same period:
In May 1800, following an attempt to assassinate King George III at London’s Drury Lane theatre, playwright Richard Sheridan immediately composed an additional verse, which was sung from the stage the same night:
From every latent foe
From the assassin’s blow
God save the King
O’er him Thine arm extend
For Britain’s sake defend
Our father, king, and friend
God save the King!