Tommy Robinson: London Freedom Rally Triumph!

but yesterday we learned that there are limitations to this capability.

As in the number of planes they can get in the sky at any time they want?

https://www.michaelsmithnews.com/2024/10/the-disgrace-that-was-stephen-miles.html

I saw a clip on YouTube labelled ‘Beyonce Endorses Kamala Harris as Candidates Descend on Texas’. It was an ABC clip.

Against my natural aversion to anything ABC I girded my loins (and I bought brand new girdings and loins because I didn’t want to risk ‘loin-fatigue’ – many a man has been undone thus) to see if they were going to gloss over something worth noting: That while Kamala’s team had promoted the idea of a mini-concert at the rally, all Beyonce did was introduce Kamala. No singing. No wiggling her bott. Just introducing Kamala.

The ABC was thereby were able to ignore rally-goers leaving when they realised there was no show.

You would think people would be more circumspect after being duped by the promise that Taylor Swift would perform at a rally and she did not even turn up. But they are Democrat supporters after all, so smart does not really appear anywhere on their resumes – unless it is the name of a font.

They then characterised Trump’s rally as somewhere he was going to try a new tactic to exploit anger at the border crisis.

And absolutely no mention of the fact that more than just a rally, Trump’s sit down with Joe Rogan currently stands at 23.8 million views at just YouTube to this moment, and that is not counting all the videos that legions of commentators have put up containing clips on this bit or other of the whole.

The ABC would have you think Harris is in a good, at least competitive, position making it seem she is attracting excitement and Trump is just trying his same boring tricks.

And, of course, being an ABC story the comments where all this might come out have been turned off.

Breaking — Michigan Muslims endorse Donald J. Trump for president: “He promises peace not war!”

I just don’t get it! We’ve got a situation with Israel vs Iran, and Iran’s attack dogs. Between the two options, Kamaltoe would actually throw a slightly warmer smile towards the Arabs than Trump.He’s got a real soft spot for Israel and a serious case of mullah-mania. Sure, I know Iran is Shi’a, but still, it’s a head-scratcher!

Amazing.

Your dude reckons they’re the best tank ever, whereas this dude reckons they’re pretty useless.

How do Russian tanks, such as the T-series and Armata, compare in combat performance to Western tanks like the Abrams and Challenger?

I could say poorly, but that demands poorly to do more heavy lifting than it should ever be asked to do. Truth is they don’t.

To the best of my knowledge there hasn’t been a single Abrams or Challenger lost in a tank dual with a Russian tank. Some have been lost in combat, but they have been taken out by air strikes, artillery or mines, not tanks. In fact as I understand it the Abrams outranges the best Russian gun by over half a mile and the Challenger still holds the longest ever single shot kill (on the move) at over 5000 mtrs, and that was against a T72.

What I think many including the Russians think losses of NATO equipment proves it is not as good as it really is. Unfortunately (or fortunately from the Russian perspective) Ukraine has only been supplied with pieces of the NATO Combined Arms ‘umbrella’ and has had restrictions placed on their use. If Russia was fighting NATO their air and artillery cover would be stripped away from them and I suspect Russian tanks would fair as well as they did in GWs1&2. Those that survived air attack would be cut to pieces before the range closed to where they could offer effective return fire.

Russia really only has 1 ace card, nukes, and they come with a whole nation and maybe civilisation ending bag of return whoop arse attached to them.

Interesting that you mentioned Laffer, as he actually commented on what some perceive as the inflationary impact of tariffs.
He argued that inflation isn’t a guaranteed result when considering the complexity of imported goods—unlike basic raw materials, such as steel, where the impact might be more direct.
One reason he cited was that import quantities would likely decrease following a tariff hike, but exports could also drop, leading to an increased supply of goods and services within the economy. He makes a strong point here.
Let’s face it: if any country could operate independently from international trade, it would be the U.S. Over the medium term, the U.S. doesn’t necessarily need to rely on trade with others.
However, the issue I see is that if relations with China deteriorate significantly, we could be in trouble. A serious slowdown in China would negatively impact us, especially given the large trade surplus we currently enjoy with them.

There’s a vid with Laffer actually talking about this.

My honest take is that if Trump wins, he’ll likely implement a broad-based tariff on imports. While there may be some retaliation, it probably won’t be severe. Trump would use the revenue to lower the corporate tax rate to 15% and solidify the previous tax cuts set to expire in 2026.
The savings that figures like Vivek, Musk, and others could generate would then be used to help reduce the deficit. He’s hoping that the economic growth resulting from these changes will also contribute to debt reduction.
Trump isn’t planning to deport 15 million undocumented immigrants and has partially walked back on that. He has stated he’ll build the wall to stem the flow of illegal entry. Additionally, he’s open to allowing those without a criminal record to stay, though they wouldn’t receive citizenship. However, he intends to take a firm stance against undocumented immigrants who have committed crimes. He’s also aware that if the economy becomes more domestically focused, it may pressure the workforce and, in turn, wage rates, given the current low unemployment.

My concern is how Trump’s approach to China might impact us. However, Trump being Trump, there’s a possibility that he could actually achieve a breakthrough in relations, potentially establishing a firmer and more honest foundation.

BTW, who’s ‘this dude’ in your quotation? Reads like he’s coping re the Challenger 2, Abrams, and Leo 2.

Who’s your “guy” then? I suspect the only person “coping” here is you because if there’s any slop that’s offered fitting into your bias, you become very giddy with excitement.
Here’s some more analysis on this subject.

1. Armor and Protection

The Abrams tank boasts advanced composite armor, often reinforced with depleted uranium, which significantly enhances its protection against various types of rounds and projectiles. This armor can withstand hits from many anti-tank weapons that would penetrate a T-72’s armor.

The T-72, while also equipped with composite armor, is generally lighter and lacks the same degree of reinforced protection. In combat, T-72s have shown vulnerability to modern anti-tank weapons and are less resilient against high-impact rounds.

2. Firepower

The Abrams uses a 120mm smoothbore cannon capable of firing a wide variety of advanced munitions, which is more powerful and accurate than the 125mm gun on most T-72 models. Western munitions designed for the Abrams, including armor-piercing fin-stabilized discarding sabot (APFSDS) rounds, offer higher penetration capabilities.

The T-72’s gun, while still effective, has fewer modern ammunition options and generally produces less muzzle energy, leading to lower penetration compared to the Abrams.

3. Mobility and Powertrain

The Abrams is powered by a gas turbine engine, providing high horsepower and smooth acceleration, which is advantageous in maneuvering across difficult terrain. However, this engine consumes more fuel, making the Abrams more logistically demanding.

The T-72’s diesel engine is simpler and more fuel-efficient, making it easier to maintain and better suited for prolonged operations in areas with limited fuel supplies. The trade-off, though, is that the T-72 generally offers lower mobility and power-to-weight ratio.

4. Technological Advantages

The Abrams is equipped with advanced targeting and sensor systems, including thermal imaging, which enhances accuracy and operational capability in low-visibility conditions. This technology provides the Abrams with a significant edge in detecting and engaging targets before the enemy.

While the T-72 has undergone modern upgrades, its technology lags in comparison. Early T-72 models, which are still widely used, lack advanced targeting and night-vision systems found on the Abrams, reducing their effectiveness in modern combat settings.

In short, the Abrams outclasses the T-72 in terms of protection, firepower, and technology, but the T-72 is simpler, cheaper, and easier to produce and maintain. These qualities make the Abrams particularly effective in engagements with heavily armored opponents, while the T-72’s simplicity and efficiency have made it a widely used tank in various conflicts.

But the Russian tank is the best in the world.

I suspect that the Abrams is what a rich country would have as a tank and the T72 is the best that a relatively poor country came up with.

Ah…takes me back to the good old days of Trucks v. Trains.

Simpler times. Better times.

More peaceful times.

It’s interesting analysis. He’s basically saying that the adaptability, simplicity, reliability, and ease of maintenance make it a better tank overall compared to the Abrams in combat situations where (1) you can improve the weaknesses he identified of the T-72 through upgrades, and (2) other platforms (drones, artillery, and the like) are involved which mitigate the advantages of the Abrams.

That’s how you read the piece? Really.

It’s like saying the Abrams is the luxury SUV of tanks, while the Russian one is your old, reliable beater that just won’t die.

The Abrams is the rich man’s tank while the Russian is a poor man’s.

Great piss taking by dickless:

I am heartily sick of people assuming Trump won’t use the powers of the Presidency to do what he says he will do in a second term. This is magical thinking, the sort of wishcasting that got those Weimar dummkopfs in the scheisse.

What a classy way of saying Trump is Hitler which can’t be right because unlike Hitler and all leftoids Trump has functioning genitalia:

Hitler has only got one ball, Göring has two but very small, Himmler is rather sim’lar, But poor old Goebbels has no balls at all.

And:

Don’t fall into the trap of working overtime to paint his prosaic dementia-fuelled narcissism as genius.

You mean what you and every other leftoid did with biden and now cackles. Good old dickless: the self awareness of a fart.

Trump, Musk, and Starmer: Unveiling the FIGHT for Information Control

Wilders delivering. Will be interesting to see.

Every European leader is Wilders now.

Except Starmer.

Took….

@VigilantFox

This is the best thing you will see on the internet all day.

A Trump hater infiltrated Elon Musk’s rally, but Musk gracefully schooled him with an epic mic drop moment.

TRUMP HATER: “Trump did not and has not accepted the results of the 2020 election, one which has been called the most secure in the nation’s history by the former president’s own Department of Homeland Security. Similarly, I saw the violent disruption of the electoral vote count on the news during January 6th.

“So, I ask this as a first-time voter who wants to discern the truth. What would you say to comfort the concerns of young voters like me who are worried that voting for a second Trump presidency will lead to democratic backsliding?

@ElonMusk: “The media tries to characterize January 6th as some sort of violent insurrection, which is simply not the case. That is false … There have to be a lot of guns for it to be a violent insurrection.”

“It’s not as though the January 6th protesters had no merit. They had some merit. I disagree with the magnitude of what they did. But it’s not as though there were no issues [with the election].”

“Almost every country on Earth has voter ID requirements, but we don’t. Why? And why do the same people who demanded vaccine IDs for you to do anything say no ID for voting? Something doesn’t add up. It doesn’t add up. My firm opinion is that those who say Trump is a threat to democracy are themselves the threat to democracy.”

@TuckerCarlson

When Amaryllis Fox Kennedy says the intel agencies are a threat to our country, she’s not guessing. She spent ten years as a CIA officer before running Bobby Kennedy Jr.’s presidential campaign. She’s now campaigning for Trump.

(0:00) The Ukraine War Scam
(9:50) Why Washington Doesn’t Care About Domestic Policy
(14:13) Intel Agencies Operating Within the Media
(19:48) How America’s War on Iraq Caused the Fall of Europe
(27:43) The Classified Documents About 9/11
(33:20) The Kennedy Assassinations
(36:21) Intel Agencies Working with Drug Cartels
(43:49) Our Politicians Are Controlled by the Intel Agencies
(57:12) The Impending EMP Crisis
(1:14:20) Why Biden Reversed Trump’s EMP Preparedness Measures
(1:26:31) The Media Blackout of Kennedy’s Campaign
(1:37:41) Bobby Kennedy Endorsing Trump