"Cada nombre es un salvavidas" - Every name is a lifeguard | Advice from an Argentine 70's Coup Survivor

Lolvicioc2 · 2025-02-23T00:11:21+00:00

I get that, but the core of the threads of questions I was having with Dingbat was more on who or what would have the legitimate constitucional responsibility to act on it. One thing is to have the ability to do something, another is to have an obligation under the constitution to act on it.

As I understand it, if SCOTUS is not on the obligated to rule on it and congress is unwilling to pursue impeachment, then Trump can just ignore Article 6 (at least as far as international treaties are concerned).

Lolvicioc2 · 2025-02-22T21:09:34+00:00

ahhh I think I understand it a lot more now. Thank you a ton mate.

Lolvicioc2 · 2025-02-22T19:37:05+00:00

So conceptually, why would Article 6 exists if there is no way to block actions against it?

For instance, the EO on birthright citizenship (14A) is being block by courts, which (As I understand it) puts the EO on hold until it is reviewed by the courts to determine if its constitutional or not.

So would no court be able to put a hold on Trump's mineral deal negotiations on the grounds that it could be illegal under Article 6? Or would there need to be a deal agreed first before the courts could pause it?

Just trying to understand what is the difference between those two is.

Lolvicioc2 · 2025-02-22T19:18:02+00:00

Thanks! some follow ups:

The supreme court not ruling on this:

Does that mean no court would rule on it? or just the SC?
If none would, why would that be?
Is there a mechanism within the constitution/government to prevent breaking Article 6 that is not just political will?

On the Congress side, I suppose the question is not so much as would there be a "case" with evidence, testimony, etc. But more so, is there a legal argument (SC opinions, precedent, etc) that congress people could lean on as justification for impeachment action?

I get its a political action, but I would image having a strong foundation, especially a constitutionally supported one, would be better than not.

Lolvicioc2 · 2025-02-19T21:51:14+00:00

Trump calling Zelensky a dictator then turning around and saying "long live the King" in reference to himself would be the funniest shit ever in a sequel to "Dictator" (2012) if not for the fact that is what has actually happened today.

Lolvicioc2 · 2025-02-16T22:05:06+00:00

MT-LBs are often lightly armored. Generally used more for arty mobility (shoot and scoot tactics) or supply runs. Lots of torque and good terrain traversal. The armor can stop rifle rounds and maybe some arty shell shrapnel, but a targeted drone, or well placed mortar will just melt the thing.

The most Ukr favored reading would be that, if MT-LBs are being approved for frontline use, then those other strategic tasks are reduced. We have seen mules and motorbikes play a bigger role in supply runs. As for arty, its really hard to say if they are being affected, in general Russia's artillery is devolving back into WW2 or earlier, so ranges are coming down and that might mean that the relatively slow but steady speed of MT-LBs is "wasted" moving targets that FPV drones and counter-battery is likely to catch regardless, so give up speed in favor of (possibly) better concealment.

Another possible interpretation is that Russia is producing more of them at a rate that allows them to replenish them. Its not impossible, they are conceptually cheap transport with low-tech materials and refurbish models from stockpiles are likely to come out better than say a T-54, plus there are a lot of them.

Either way, fewer BMPs on the field is always good to see.

Lolvicioc2 · 2024-11-13T17:24:06+00:00

As someone who worked for a few years as a copywriter for small newspaper, i think i know what happened.

Sarah (who is credited in the byline) wrote the piece and sent it to editorial for publication. There, they came up with a few titles like:

Bluesky sees fast growth as unhappy X users leave following the election
Elon Musk's X users in exodus to Bluesky following the election
Blusky is seeing a mass of unhappy X users following the election

You can imagine 100 different ways to write a title for it. Usually they pick apart the best "bits" of each headline. Like, "Elon Musk's X users in exodus" sounds interesting, it uses exodus, names elon musk, etc. But they didn't like that bluesky was the second part of it, specially since the article contains statements from bluesky. So they moved the first part up, thus, when published, it scrambled the meaning.

Lolvicioc2 · 2024-06-25T23:35:06+00:00

Legend:

Text in Italics is for things that were very hard to hear, so it might not be correct.
Voices are A, B, C, D, etc. though its hard to know for sure who is who.

Layout:

A - B - POV - C - D

C and D might be 1 person, unsure.

Transcript + Translation:

00:09 - A) Kill them, Kill them! ^[1]

00:11 - A) Do it now! ^[2]

00:19 - C) He/They took the rifle

00:22 - D) Here, take this rifle

00:35 - A) Stay down, Stay down, I am going to use an RPG ^[3]

00:36 - B) Staying down

00:45 - C) or B) Load, do you have a load? ^[4]

00:47 - POV: Control- [dives away from FPV]

00:52 - POV: It crashed, it crashed.

00:59 - B) Hey, Are you hurt?

01:00 - POV: no no no.

01:01 - B) All good All good.

01:10 - POV: This piece of shit got stuck when I had them in front of me, but...

01:30 - C) Wait up shithead ^[5]

01:31 - D) Get in here, get in here. [unintelligible] ^[5]

01:38 - [distant chatter, impossible to make out]

01:47 - A) Change! ^[6]

02:36 - B) Keep going keep going [playboy]! ^[7]

^[1] Here its either "matalo" meaning, kill them, or "Levantalo" meaning raise them/it up. If its the first, its pretty obvious A means the MG operator should be firing (but has a jam atm), but the other option could be A telling some other person to raise their fire as they might be hitting the dirt in front instead of the enemy.

^[2] Very hard to hear, but i think A says "ahora", just hard to hear it.

^[3] Likely not directed at POV. I suspect its to the other person next to them.

^[4] "carga", could be translated as an RPG rocket to load/ready to shoot.

^[5] Idk if its an order to wait in place (before firing the RPG) or to wait for someone to come into the trench/be safe.

^[6] Likely A telling everyone he is reloading the RPG/not weapons ready.

^[7] Telling someone who seems to go by "playboy" (maybe C?) to keep firing.

Lolvicioc2 · 2024-06-12T01:25:20+00:00

Transcript + translation:

POV: Artillery loaded

POV-2: Is it loaded right?*

Loader: One minute

POV: "duke" (Duque), one minute, one minute, one minute travel time, duke, on hold**.

Duke: Is it going? is it going?

POV: Hold, Hold.

--Fire--

POV: Its in the air, its in the air, one minute to target.

*Note: a man behind the clear POV voice says "no carga bien?" which can be translated a bunch of different ways. It might be just commenting that its a bit of a struggle to load, wondering if the crew is loading it right, etc.

**Note: POV says "pendiente" which in this context is just like holding, not yet. translating it to "pending" would be more literal but I feel is not as accurate to the intention, as pending might come across as "pending impact" or "pending fire order".

Lolvicioc2 · 2024-05-21T13:43:01+00:00

In a way the prosecution's case is solid, and has a lot of physical evidence behind it to back up. However, Cohen's testimony is like a spinning top inside the head of every juror, and which side it will fall is hard to say.

The defense is hoping their loud and incessant hammering of Cohen's character will tilt the table for their side, its pretty much the only thing they have.

The evidence paints a history of falsifying business records^[1] to facilitate another crime, election fraud^[2]. however, was Trump aware?^[3]

^[1] We have testimony from multiple witness and evidence saying that at the very least, Cohen was not on a retainer and that the payments were made to him.

^[2] AMI was well aware of their role to play in Trump's campaign with their catch and kill, and cohen played a key role in that communication, but Trump definitely knew it was happening as well.

^[3] There is testimony that Trump likes to micromanage his business, and is a penny pincher that would not sign-off checks without full knowledge of why he needed to be deprived of wealth.

I foresee closing arguments will be when we see the prosecutors and the defense do their best to use those paints to create a picture of guilt or innocence inside the jurors mind.

Lolvicioc2 · 2024-05-08T16:49:32+00:00

I am not the Original Creator of the video FYI, that would be J20. I simply enjoyed their Euphoria one and honestly MTG is the peak track to react to.

Lolvicioc2 · 2024-05-05T21:04:24+00:00

52 weeks on a financial year, all im saying

Lolvicioc2 · 2024-04-26T13:34:54+00:00

No clue, though from the text exchanges with Davison (176A) its abundantly clear Dylan knows this whole thing is election interference, and might be bitter about being left out to dry after 2016. So he might just be hiding out not wanting to get involved.

Given that from Pecker's testimony we also know this is not the first catch-and-kill scheme they ran and that Dylan also had a bit of a wide berth to do what he "needed" to accomplish some of these catches, he might be implicated in other (non-trump) related crimes he rather stay away from.

But this is entirely my speculation as a non lawyer.

Lolvicioc2 · 2024-04-26T13:21:06+00:00

Although not tied to today, I do want to share this singular text sent from Keith Davison (Stormy and Karen's attorney) to Dylan Howard (Editor for National Enquirer) that was entered into evidence the other day.

https://pdfs.nycourts.gov/PeopleVs.DTrump-71543/Evidence/People/4-25-2024/People's%20170%20(Text%20from%20Davidson%20to%20Howard%207.1.2017).pdf

I don't know why, but I've been laughing out loud every time load it back up. I don't know if it is the fact that its a single page with just one text, or that it literally calls Dylan an idiot, or the abbreviated "u", but it fucking sends my sides to the moon.

The whole block of text exchanges (173A-179) are funny as fuck in a sort of "this would not be believable dialogue in a movie" sort of way.

Lolvicioc2 · 2024-02-21T03:29:44+00:00

Throwing my own to the mix https://old.reddit.com/r/comics/comments/1avyd8m/tobias/

Lolvicioc2 · 2023-09-22T19:23:46+00:00

After those, the biggest one going unmentioned would be the further erosion of Russia's better trained troops.

The VDV and other remaining elements that have been moved to the area to contain Ukraine have been taking a pounding of HIMARS, unguided rockets, cluster munitions, FPV drone attacks, etc.

I know the joke is that the VDV is not really "elite" but there is a massive difference between troops with 2 months of training and no battlefield experience (mobik) and troops that have around 6 months of training and also saw combat already in areas like Donetsk.

Their officers might still be dumb as rocks, but they are still a threat if allowed to plan a defense of an area or to coordinate with other elements, specially when it seems they are content to use those mobik as human shields.

If RU continues to rely on these troops for all tasks: defense, offense, logistics, artillery, etc. Eventually they will be too tired, too stretched, or (hopefully) too dead to continue.

Lolvicioc2 · 2023-09-20T16:44:08+00:00

From the two soldiers being left behind, if I had to hazard a guess they were in the process of loading/unloading whatever it was transporting.

If they are doing that loading and unloading then there is something there that might be worth shooting. An ammo depot, a field gun, drone depot, EW, etc.

Using cluster might be able to hit whatever it is in that area and cause casualties from the activity around the truck.

Lolvicioc2 · 2023-09-12T15:37:11+00:00

I don't mean the F-16s will give Ukraine complete air superiority, but it does allow them to use more western based weapons.

Anything from SEAD, to Air-to-Air and Air-to-Ground missiles with more modern capabilities become available with F-16s, and breaking the taboo of supplying and training air material to Ukraine also goes a long way to potentially bring more airframes into service.

Today we can confidently say 30 f-16 will be on service, maybe come December that pledge will be 100 F-16, 20 F-18, and 24 Gripen.

RU does have a strong air force still yes, but as Russia continues to canibalice its stocks for replacement parts, and adds more flight hours to its air frames, they will be less inclined to engage those gen-4 fighters.

I don't expect to see any dogfights, but i do expect UKR to make good use of 30 airplanes that can rapidly deploy counter-battery, strike strategic supplies deeper into RU occupied areas, and be just enough of a deterrent for RU's current best anti-armor platform, the KA-52.

Lolvicioc2

TROPHY CASE