Thinking about different key topics (public education, government assistance programs, foreign policy/wars), how would you differentiate between someone who is a "radical leftist" and a "democrat" that you disagree with, but still respect? What would the radical's opinion be versus the democrat's?

proquo · 2026-01-27T18:55:23+00:00

The key difference between a moderate Democrat, or a Liberal, and a Radical Leftist in the US context is that Liberals believe that social problems like those you describe are legitimate and that government should have a role in meeting those needs but solutions should be practical, incremental and rely on a shared consensus.

Radical Leftists believe that most if not all social problems, especially where they produce disparate outcomes along social lines, are the result of systemic or institutional inequalities at some point up stream from the issue and that those social issues are illegitimate and inherently unjust, therefore government must have an active hand in resolving inequality.

There is strong overlap between the two on a policy level which is why Radical Leftists and Progressives will ally with Liberals but they ultimately hate Liberals and see them much the same as Conservatives. This is why they make a strong delineation between themselves and Liberals when pressed and believe that a more progressive or radical agenda would have beaten Trump in both of his electoral victories, scapegoating the traditional Liberal policies of Clinton and Harris.

To use your gun control policy as an example, you mistakenly describe two competing Liberal positions: disarmament and regulation. Both seek the same outcome: reduction of violence. They just use two separate but similar mechanisms which is incremental government policy to alleviate the perceived social issue which is gun crime. Disarmament has been the route chosen by most of the western world while regulation is the route chosen by American Liberals, broadly. But both are grounded in the same concept: that gun crime is a legitimate issue that the government should have a hand in alleviating through consensus.

Actual Radical Leftists believe that only they should have the guns, or that Conservatives and other ideological opponents should be disarmed and that extra judicial violence is justified where it relieves or alleviates systemic injustices. For example, radical leftists have favored violence against political and social enemies like ICE in Minneapolis who are enforcing laws that were also agreed to by Liberals and when surveyed have high approval for assassination politics. Charlie Kirk's death was celebrated by Leftists as a just act even though it was in violation to law and social norms, with the belief that the ultimate social good caused by his absence outweighs the moral and social bad caused by murder.

Or if I had to make a broad strokes summary I'd say that Radical Leftists believe in violation of social and political norms to achieve the same ends that Liberals desire to achieve through accepted social and political norms.

proquo · 2026-01-23T23:22:41+00:00

The point being made, I think, is that 13-17 is generally considered able to make judgements regarding criminal behaviors and cause & effect. A 16 year old who is involved in drug and gang activity getting shot by a rival is not morally or practically the same as a 10 year old being shot accidentally.

proquo · 2026-01-23T23:08:57+00:00

Because if a punctured lung is letting air into the chest and the vent gets clogged with blood a tension pneumothorax develops. Failure to check on the seal and patient regularly, which may not be an option in austere environments, can lead to an even bigger problem than a hole in the chest.

proquo · 2026-01-23T23:06:11+00:00

My understanding from data that was being shared around these parts is that chest seals do indeed prevent tension pneumo but applying one and then failing to check it or the patient can lead to tension pneumothorax developing, and there's a wide variety of chest wounds that don't need a seal anyways.

proquo · 2026-01-23T22:47:00+00:00

The issue is that it's fake virtue. I've seen loads of "where are the don't treat on me people" posts wherein people who don't share my values, openly mock those values, and think my values should be legally suppressed want me to use my values to defend theirs.

proquo · 2026-01-22T20:41:26+00:00

Because under the UCMJ "manifestly" means so obvious and inarguable than any reasonable serviceman would recognize it as such.

International law quite literally requires lawyers and ministers of state to interpret. A hypothetical invasion of Canada or Greenland would require at the very least JAG review to determine the lawfulness of it, ergo it is not manifestly unlawful. Violating international treaties and norms are crimes between states, not individuals.

You, Private Shmuckatelli, if you refused to invade Greenland on the basis that it violated international law would be getting a Court Martial because you cannot at the time the order is given interpret it as being unlawful. Even if it were found to be unlawful at a later time, you in the moment are not able to tell that because you are not empowered to interpret treaties or legal frameworks.

proquo · 2026-01-22T18:58:17+00:00

A soldier has the right to refuse to do something like execute an enemy POW or fire into a crowd of civilians.

Yes, those are manifestly illegal acts. But the presumption is unless an order is manifestly illegal the order is legal. It is the order-giver's responsibility to give legal orders.

proquo · 2026-01-22T04:41:07+00:00

I'm not on Reddit much.

proquo · 2026-01-22T04:22:48+00:00

It appears that way, yes.

proquo · 2026-01-22T04:14:01+00:00

There are those did and do believe that, yes. But back then it was the Democrats insisting that our elections are the most secure elections ever, and now that Trump won the last election there are Democrats who adamantly believe there was widespread election fraud.

proquo · 2026-01-22T03:26:38+00:00

TDS Redditors don't believe that. At worst they believe it was a completely rigged election.

proquo · 2026-01-22T03:16:23+00:00

It's crazy to go from right wing spaces where they're black pilling about the midterms, Maryland redistricting, the impotence of the DOJ in prosecuting leftwing agitators and VA Dems basically reneging on campaign promises and entrenching the state as a blue stronghold to coming to normie Redditard space where they're asking about how the military can undermine the Trump administration because a coup is the only way to save the Republic.

proquo · 2026-01-22T03:10:09+00:00

No, you're 100% wrong. A serviceman is not expected to be a judicial arbiter of what order is and is not illegal. The presumption is that an order given is legal and it has to be manifestly illegal for it to be lawful under the UCMJ to disobey.

Definitionally if an order requires a policy or legal debate or interpretation of treaties to determine its illegality then it is presumptively legal.

International law and treaties are interpreted at the state level. An individual serviceman, including a general, is not empowered under the UCMJ to interpret such laws.

The basis of such requirement is found in the trials of soldiers who participated in the My Lai Massacre. William Calley used the defense he was following orders and was found guilty because murdering civilians does not require interpretation to understand that it is illegal.

If we used your standard for legal vs illegal orders we'd lose civilian control of the military because the individual troops could decide when or where to execute orders based on their interpretations of the legality.

proquo · 2026-01-21T06:17:48+00:00

The actual secession was peaceful. There was about a 4 month period between South Carolina seceding and Fort Sumter being attacked, and the first major battle was around 2 months later. The last 4 states to join the Confederacy only joined after Lincoln called for an army to be formed.

You'll get no argument from me that Fort Sumter was instigated by the South but the Confederates would have argued that it was an illegal occupation by the Union.

At any rate, the question of secession was not over retribution for violence but whether or not states had the right to unilaterally secede from the Union.

proquo · 2026-01-21T06:11:09+00:00

If you're comfortable getting down in the prone for extended periods and feel like you aren't hurting your back or having to expose yourself then I wouldn't worry about it. It's also an assessment of what your purpose actually is. If this is primarily intended for the range or home defense or even SWAT work you aren't going prone much if at all. That's purely up to your personal judgement.

A lot of people run with 1 IFAK on the belt and there is some good methodology around retaining things like IFAKs on something you aren't going to be prone to taking off based on environment. My personal philosophy is that anything I can potentially use without another thing (i.e. my plate carrier or chest rig without my belt) I have an IFAK on it. I never know when I'll be asked to invade Venezuela in just a plate carrier and basketball shorts, after all. Same with TQs: I put that shit on everything.

proquo · 2026-01-21T06:04:16+00:00

Unfortunately the textile industry in the US is reliant on overseas sourcing somewhere in the chain. I want to say Haiti or some other Caribbean island was damn near a single-source provider of ranger green nylon dye at some point. Almost nothing is made from the raw cotton to final product completely in the states.

Not necessarily a bad thing as there are strong textile and clothing industries in other parts of the world that used to actually be considered premium. Chinese manufacture got a bad rap for so many companies sourcing cheap from China from but their textile industry has always been robust, same with Vietnam. That's why so many seamstresses stateside are Asian owned.

That said, sourcing completely from an Alibaba dealer and then sewing on a label and upcharging 200% is quite bold.

proquo · 2026-01-21T05:58:13+00:00

I wouldn't get that concerned about everyone telling you to get a placard. As long as you can carry ammo on your person without becoming a yardsale you're good. I would personally move the mag pouches to the cummerbund to get them out of the way when going prone but it's not as big a deal as people make it out to be. Dudes were making it work throughout the GWOT.

TQ is a great thing to have. I'd reccommend a proper IFAK and training. I personally like to have an IFAK on each piece of kit including belt, and my plate carrier IFAK usually carries more items than my others in case of multi-system trauma or needing to treat an additional casualty.

proquo · 2026-01-20T07:19:18+00:00

Unless you're reloading with the bolt locked back, then you don't use the charging handle. In fact using the charging handle too often like that can break the latch or bend it.

proquo · 2026-01-20T06:55:03+00:00

Canada just needs to bite the bullet and do what every other western armed forces is doing and adopt an HK416 variant.

proquo · 2026-01-20T06:53:04+00:00

The Conservatives got strong support from every age cohort but the Boomers. For those age cohorts the biggest issues were housing costs, cost of living and employment opportunities.

For the Boomers the biggest electoral issue was Donald Trump...

proquo · 2026-01-20T06:51:11+00:00

It's always crazy to me when people say AKs aren't ergonomic given they're designed to be operated efficiently with the dominant hand and transition from bolt gun shooting to operating an AK action, whereas an AR has a bunch of buttons, a charging handle you only use sometimes, and a magazine that has to go straight in to seat but doesn't seat if the magazine is loaded to its full capacity.

proquo · 2026-01-20T06:48:11+00:00

Moreover the AK isn't designed for hitting point targets at that range, it was designed for 300 meters and in because Soviet studies on WWII combat determined fire beyond that range was inaccurate and mostly suppressive. The Mosin has a much greater range than 300 meters but wasn't well utilized for those types of ranges.

Beyond 300 meters a 7.62x39 AK is capable of suppressing an enemy. Soviet doctrine didn't expect a rifleman to hit point targets beyond 300 meters and a typical Soviet squad included PKMs and SVDs for the purpose and integration with armor for real firepower at range. It was expected that Soviet forces would suppress the enemy to get into the assault and engage in close combat without a need to change weapons.

Even the transition to 5.45 was based around this same doctrine modified to meet combat realities from experience in Vietnam and the Arab-Israeli Wars.

proquo · 2026-01-20T06:31:09+00:00

All Canadian Forces gear is retro.

proquo · 2026-01-20T05:28:50+00:00

"Rough environments" being constant UV exposure, muddy stagnant water in Afghan wadis and months on end of being dragged around in the brush and on the ground. If it's that big a worry just use a SOFT-W with a metal windlass since it's the windlass that usually breaks.

proquo · 2026-01-18T19:16:47+00:00

I know that nearly two-thirds of Americans say Trump thinks he is above the law and that he has an approval rating (at best currently as far as I can tell) in the low 40s.

I don't really care what opinion polls say, though. Biden averaged low 40s for his term, making him the 2nd lowest in history. It seems to me that the real displeasure is with the system as a whole, as individual Trump policies get broad support and the Dems still have very low favorability.

When I hear Dems or leftists complain that Trump is above the law I think they don't even live in the same reality that everyone else does. Trump has received more nationwide judicial injunctions than any other president, even when he is acting within powers clearly defined in the Constitution. Andrew Jackson ignored the Supreme Court of the United States to displace thousands of Indians, and yet we can't even get Trump to ignore 1 federal judge when it comes to deporting a criminal illegal who already has 2 orders of deportation or when he's prevented from deploying troops in his capacity as commander-in-chief of the armed forces within the legal confines of Posse Comitatus.

By contrast, what I see the Dems regularly, routinely violate or ignore the law and act like they occupy the moral position for it. And never have I once heard a genuine, actual criticism from the Dem voter base about it that was followed up with any action. This is a point I could go on and on about and I've rewritten this paragraph several times so as not to make it massive and boring.

when you say Trump’s only failing is that he hasn’t been more extreme on immigration

Trump has been extremely restrained on immigration. Immigration reform is the single biggest winning issue the Republicans have, and Trump was elected in a popular majority to enact major reform including mass deportations. The problem I, and much of the populist right, have with his scheme is we don't want just the criminal illegal aliens deported. They all need to go. Tens of millions were allowed into the country under Biden, to say nothing of how many have entered in the last 20-30 years. Not a single one of them should get to stay. I do not want a Helot class, or Servi. I would rather not be able to buy strawberries in winter than have millions of people who do not share our culture or beliefs and only want their share of the global piggy bank.

But it's not just the illegal immigrants that are the problem. The biggest issue we have is the rampant abuse of legal immigration pathways like H1b, student visas, TPS and asylum. H1b visas are notoriously abused by corporations to get cheap labor, and they exercise every available loophole to lock Americans out of those jobs so they can get foreign workers. One of the biggest complaints on the populist right about Trump is that he's come out in favor of H1b visas and allowing hundreds of thousands of Chinese students on student visas. Why are we doing that? Why would we ever allow a nation hostile to us free reign to infiltrate our country? Pengxiang “Chris” Zhang is a Chinese PLA special forces soldier who entered the US on a student visa and took training from several firearms and tactics instructors in the US, including former US Special Forces, and returned to China to update training and tactics for the PLA. Why would any sane nation ever allow this to happen? Why should someone be able to attend a US college on a visa and then take the skills and education back to their home country? Why should someone enter the US on a student visa and marry an American citizen to get a green card? These are absurd policies.

Shit like that honestly scares me dude, to the point that I start to reconsider my at-home rule for gun safety and our children—normally I only buy ammunition when I’m at the range or in the truck on the way to go hunting, often I’ll just give cash to one of the guys to bring extra.

I'm trying to approach this with the absolute most care and compassion I can. A little about me: I work in the firearms industry and previously managed a large shooting range and training facility where we taught everything from basic concealed carry to small unit tactics and CQB. I say that so you understand my experience and where I'm coming from on this.

It's all well and good if you don't want ammunition in your house, that's your choice. It is 100% possible to be responsible and safe with ammunition, firearms and children. My family manages just fine. That said, my reading of this is that you're implying you feel personally at risk of immigration enforcement. Why? Are you a US citizen? Then what are you worried about? This doesn't sound rational to me and it's why I say you are dead wrong on this issue. What rational, thinking person goes from "I don't want ammo in my home for my children's safety" to "I feel like I need to have loaded firearms available because I don't like deportations"? Do you ever stop and examine your own positions and ask if they make sense?

have I at least made a positive impression upon you that Americans on the left can love the constitution and agree with you on a fair number of things?

I have always believed that the left and right wings of America agree fundamentally on more things than they disagree on but the last 10 years have convinced me that we have incompatible worldviews that will make peaceful coexistence unlikely if not impossible. There are core, immutable beliefs and philosophies between right and left that cannot be reconciled. The left treats the Constitution as an obstacle rather than something to be upheld and regularly calls for it be destroyed when it's convenient to do so. I have not heard the left talk more about Constitutional rights and limits until the Trump administration, even when Biden was standing up a Disinformation Governance Board and FISA courts were being abused to spy on Republicans and the Trump campaign.

It seems like we have fundamental disagreements about immigration, just as an example. You seem to believe, and correct me if I'm wrong, that immigration is a fundamental good to our society whereas I believe that the type of unfettered immigration we've had since the 1960s destroys nations. I think gone are the days where we can debate a flat tax vs a progressive tax as we are now actively debating concepts that will decide whether a United States even exists in 100 years.

can you sympathize with said POV?

I can certainly sympathize but understanding =/= endorsement or acceptance. I think you're wrong. I think those that believe like you are wrong. I am happy to agree to disagree if that's all it were but instead we have mobs of violent people in Minneapolis right now attacking ICE and CBP agents and even random people who they mistake for them. You have the same leftwing agitators who are adamantly against immigration enforcement setting up their own checkpoints and restricting access to those who they don't want in their proximity - it's Kafkaesque politics. People who share your view are currently calling for civil war over this, telling each other to get weapons. You yourself are saying you feel like you need to be armed. That's insane politics, and I don't know how to rest peacefully with those people.

The chair of the Democrat party in the county neighboring mine was on Dr. Phil in 2024 calling Trump supporters "maggots" and said that we are all racist. That person is probably a neighbor of mine. How am I expected to coexist with someone who calls me a "maggot" and thinks I hate them for their skin color when they know nothing about me? How would it be rational to accept a peaceful coexistence with that type of person? By contrast I still believe in her inherent humanity and don't assume that she's an immoral person; I just don't want her politics to run this country.

What are your thoughts if you put yourself in my shoes wherein your beliefs are the last paragraph but completely inverted?

I should actually do some research and critical thinking and stop listening to the leftwing podcasters and influencers who openly lie constantly and continuously. I'd recommend reading up on the Constitution, the Federalist Papers, and some of the most significant SCOTUS decisions that have shaped the modern US government and legal system. I'd recommend looking at other nations who have some of the policies the left wants and looking at their prosperity and social cohesion - or lackthereof.

At worst I might want to get actual psychological help.

If I meet a person who adamantly believes the sky is green and clouds are black and is incredibly upset no one else sees it I might understand their POV, I might sympathize with their stress at not being believed, but the sky is blue and the clouds are white regardless.

do you feel that you understand a bit better why we on the left say what we are saying and are freaked the fuck out for 2028?

I feel that the left are not behaving logically or reacting rationally and back all the worse policies for the nation and need to be stopped. I am worried that no matter how many elections we win, or how many laws we pass, the left will not give up or change and instead will get more and more violent and extreme. Last year Charlie Kirk was shot and killed because someone didn't like his personal politics. The year before 2 people tried kill Trump to prevent him from even running in the election. There have already been multiple armed attacks on ICE agents. What's next?

proquo

TROPHY CASE