Bob Reisner

[Bob Reisner @BobReisner]

Zack, we will have to just disagree. But I think you are wrong. We can see the devastation in Russia from the restrictions put in place because of the Ukraine war. Most people I talk with and from what I see, today's Russia is just a year or so away from 1990 conditions!
I think there are more tools to constrain today than ever. Computers are so much more effective today.

[Bob Reisner @BobReisner]

Zack, we kept the USSR in a box and after 45 years or so, it collapsed. It had rockets, radar and science. But it failed. Because the USA forced it to live within the boundary of their permanent failed economy.

Same for Iran. Noise and irritation but no impact of significance to the USA. Today's war is just adjusting the box boundary and taking away decades of internal gain. This is the strategy of empire for thousands of years because it works.

[Bob Reisner @BobReisner]

@TokyoTom2020 @RubinReport And you have no comment on the 30,000 Iranian civilians killed by their government in January! You should at least try to have some semblance of balance. Your comment thoroughly discredits your voice. Well done.

[Bob Reisner @BobReisner]

"South Vietnam obviously had no will” is a lie. This small country had an army over a million in the years 1972-1975! That is the very definition of will. They held on until the Democrats cut off supplies after the 1974 election. The "no will" was the USA not meeting their supply obligations.

[Bob Reisner @BobReisner]

@yooper1952 @johnkonrad "Nobody ever won a war with aerial bombing alone."

Linebacker I & II. Look it up.
Hiroshima and Nagasaki. Look it up.

[Bob Reisner @BobReisner]

Todd, the issue is that the prompt was just 5 simple words. I understand that it's a statistical process at the core but once words or phrases (meaning) are identified there should be a better process for creating understanding.

"Count to 10 from 11".
1. Count - an action. Clearly understood as seen when examining answers. All answers had counting.

2. Four words left "to 10 from 11". Most 8 year olds would parse this as 'end at 10' and 'start at 11'. Simple.

I have used many LLMs. A lot. Great tools and more than a few issues. But I did not see this coming. An inability to parse 5 words.

I didn't mention that I gave Gemini a different clearer instruction (see image) and Gemini got it right on the first try.

5 words stumps a 'quality' LLM repeatedly. I suspect that larger analysis projects are very sub-optimal, especially less structured ones. It's not data, it's the size and quality of the prompt.

[Bob Reisner @BobReisner]

@elonmusk Every successful charity finds a way to overcome success. https://t.co/W6w3OzZRo8 founded 1938 to cure polio. Still around today but of course no mention of polio.

[Bob Reisner @BobReisner]

B52s were used in Johnson years in S Vietnam and Laos. Most of N Vietnam was off limits officially and the rest just didn't have the value. Using carrier jets for sustained land bombing is beyond stupid and that was the policy then.

Linebacker I & II proved the war could have been over 5 or 6 years earlier.

[Bob Reisner @BobReisner]

I do remember the Vietnam War. During the Johnson administration we did not carpet bomb. It was policy to NOT bomb most of North Vietnam.

Nixon changed the policy, he ran 2 major B52 campaigns called Linebacker I and Linebacker II. Look it up. The outcome of a few weeks of carpet bombing was the Paris Accords / Peace Treaty. In this Treaty, North Vietnam agreed to leave the South and to recognize South Vietnam an independent country under it's current government. Look it up.

I truly hate that history is so widely unknown. It is impossible to have fact based conversation when one side has no facts or, worse, only has fallacy and falsehoods.

[Bob Reisner @BobReisner]

Yes, NATO did show support post 911. It was a good thing. The actual support in Afghanistan did involve some very fine men doing their best under the ROEs of their countries. But 911 showed the deterioration of European militaries in size and breath of equipment and logistics tail since the 1960s. And it got worse in the years that followed. Western European countries do not have functioning militaries. None of these could put three brigades into a conflict 400 miles away and sustain it for a year. These countries need to be able to individually put multiple divisions into conflict and sustain them indefinitely while they ramp up a real army.

NATO is not a serious organization.

[Bob Reisner @BobReisner]

To test your absolutely wrong answer, you only need to ask 2 questions.

1. Could NATO x/USA put 200,000 troops in the field more than 200 miles from the home country for 6 months to a year in continuous combat? Of course, the answer is no.

2. Could NATO x/USA defend European shipping from piracy and other foreign attacks. Of course, the answer is no.

Europe exists only because of the USA defense umbrella. Prove me wrong.

[Bob Reisner @BobReisner]

Quite simply, an ally is someone who is in the fight with you. NATO isn't and hasn't been an ally since the late 1980s. NATO countries don't contribute anything of consequence to the defense of Europe and even less for maritime 'freedom of the seas'.

It's time to exit NATO and to toll maritime traffic. The free lunch needs to end.

[Bob Reisner @BobReisner]

@BasedMikeLee I wrote about this a year ago:
https://t.co/gNO3E8H1be

Read it. The court is currently acting way beyond it's constitutional authority. Trump can fix it unilaterally.

Right after the November election would be a good time.

[Bob Reisner @BobReisner]

This post outlines a strategy intended to address the perceived overreach of the judicial branch and restore a balance of power with the Executive branch.

The issue of nationwide injunctions against the Executive branch requires a direct approach, rather than relying solely on traditional court appeals. Many commentators suggest that President Trump should address these injunctions through standard legal processes. However, this approach is insufficient, as it leaves the final decision-making power within a system that appears to favor judicial supremacy over the Executive. A more effective solution involves reaffirming constitutional principles and asserting the Executive branch's co-equal status.

Proposed Recommendations:

1. Executive Notification: When a district judge issues a nationwide injunction or similar order, the Department of Justice (DOJ) should issue a formal notice to the judge, declaring the order non-binding and invalid. Simultaneously, the DOJ should notify the Supreme Court of this action.

2. Supreme Court Engagement: The notice to the Supreme Court should request their opinion on the district judge's ruling, aiming to initiate a direct review and collaborative resolution between the President/Executive branch and the Supreme Court.

3. Executive Branch Directive: The President/Executive branch should issue a directive to all executive agencies, instructing them to disregard any court orders related to the matter unless explicitly authorized in writing by the DOJ.

4. Employee Protection: The President should issue a blanket protective pardon to all executive government employees involved in the case, extending this protection to those who might be compelled by judicial orders to act under threat of arrest.

Rationale:

A. Co-Equal Branch: The Executive branch is a co-equal branch of government, not subordinate to the Judiciary.

B. Limiting Judicial Overreach: These actions demonstrate that the Executive branch will not comply with lower court orders that exceed the judges' lawful authority, particularly those related to nationwide injunctions, which lack explicit legal basis.

C. Constitutional Interpretation: While the Supreme Court interprets the Constitution, so do the Congress and the Executive. The Executive branch's interpretation holds its own weight.

D. Peer-Level Negotiation: These actions compel the Supreme Court to engage in negotiations with the Executive branch as a peer, not as a superior.

E. Supreme Court Oversight: By challenging these injunctions, the Executive forces the Supreme Court to actively manage lower court actions. If the Supreme Court fails to do so, they risk being overwhelmed by a proliferation of similar challenges.

[Bob Reisner @BobReisner]

@Tra296 @kamas716 @VigilantFox Does 40 years of death to America not mean anything? Assassination attempts? Nuclear program?

[Bob Reisner @BobReisner]

Why is Fernandina spending $2.1M on a crumbling warehouse when we already hold the keys to a superior solution? 🗝️🏗️

We have a common-sense plan to stop the waste:

📍 Use What We Own: Build on existing city land (like a Main Beach site) to save $2.1M in acquisition costs immediately. 💰 Cash In: Sell the current water-view City Hall on Ash St. to inject an additional $2M+ into our budget. 📈 Tax Revenue: Turning both sites into private commercial property generates millions in tax revenue for generations. 🚗 Parking Relief: Moving city offices out of the core frees up vital downtown parking for shoppers and visitors.
It’s time to choose a path that maximizes our revenue and preserves our capital.
Read the full plan:
https://t.co/UNE6F0W1kM
#FernandinaBeach #AmeliaIsland #FBFL #Fernandina #FBCC #FernandinaObserver #AmeliaIslandLiving #NassauCountyFL #NassauFL #SaveFernandina #DowntownFernandina

[Bob Reisner @BobReisner]

https://t.co/ecW2KMs1bU

[Bob Reisner @BobReisner]

https://t.co/ecW2KMs1bU

[Bob Reisner @BobReisner]

Received this request to send money to Republicans from @newtgingrich . No. Newt was my congressman in the 90s. Did good stuff. I've been a regular Republican contributor for a very long time. No more.

John Thune @johnthune needs to end the fake filibusters and the probably unconstitutional blue slip process. There is a republican Senate control and they just sit on their hand doing nothing. Enough. I will continue to directly contribute to Trump but no to national Republicans. They are collectively useless.

[Bob Reisner @BobReisner]

Your vision of AI-driven UBI and UHI provides a hopeful framework, but I believe it suffers from an "Abundance" blind spot: it assumes a global rising tide while ignoring that the "economic ladder" itself is being dismantled.

While the U.S. can theoretically afford a UBI-buffered transition, we must recognize that this is a "Fortress America" solution, not a global one. The "Utopia" you describe is likely to be geographically gated for three brutal reasons:

1. The Destruction of the Global Ladder

We are witnessing the end of the "Emerging Market" growth model. The 3rd world is losing the first rung of the ladder—entry-level labor. When a 24/7 robot can do light assembly or warehousing for near-zero cost in a 1st world hub, the developing world loses its only competitive advantage. They aren't "leapfrogging"; they are being locked out. The 2nd world is even worse off; as middle-income service jobs vanish, they face a 1930s-style decline that most lack the fiscal resources to buffer.

2. UBI as a Nationalist Protection, Not a Human Right

A viable U.S. UBI requires a closed system. At less than 5% of the world's population, we cannot offer a cash-based floor while maintaining open borders to the 60% of the world that will be motivated to come here—legally or otherwise—as their own nations fail. UBI will only succeed if it is restricted to U.S. nationals, replaces the current disjointed bureaucracy, and is protected by the reindustrialization and tariff policies currently bringing net jobs back to our shores.

3. The "Spectacular Failure" of the Uncompetitive

Even within the "First World," the "Great Sorting" is beginning. Nations that cannot secure cheap energy or safe environments (like Germany with its 3x energy costs) will not survive the transition. The future belongs to those who can maintain a stable population and high-value IP—like the Netherlands—while the rest of the world likely devolves into "sustenance economies" or total failure.

Abundance for some may require a hard pragmatic realism about the "spectacular failure" of the many and the need to protect the USA from a 1930s world.

[Bob Reisner @BobReisner]

Find me a woman in the video who doesn't have a head scarf on her head or shoulder. Repression is often minutes away and putting the scarf on the head is a good response.

For extra points, show me a video from a town around 100,000 people. Like 1978, Tehran is not the Iran norm.