EPTTrump "let's have an arms race."
Staff "he doesn't want an arms race. He is anti proliferation! He just wants to update some stuff with the money we don't have! Damn dirty media."
US Politics Mega-thread - Page 6471
| Forum Index > Closed |
Read the rules in the OP before posting, please. In order to ensure that this thread continues to meet TL standards and follows the proper guidelines, we will be enforcing the rules in the OP more strictly. Be sure to give them a re-read to refresh your memory! The vast majority of you are contributing in a healthy way, keep it up! NOTE: When providing a source, explain why you feel it is relevant and what purpose it adds to the discussion if it's not obvious. Also take note that unsubstantiated tweets/posts meant only to rekindle old arguments can result in a mod action. | ||
|
On_Slaught
United States12190 Posts
Trump "let's have an arms race." Staff "he doesn't want an arms race. He is anti proliferation! He just wants to update some stuff with the money we don't have! Damn dirty media." | ||
|
Noidberg
United States17 Posts
On December 23 2016 21:36 {CC}StealthBlue wrote: Heres my take on this. Russia has expanded their first strike capabilities to even bypass a modern nuclear defense umbrella as mentioned today by Putin at an annual q/a. Whether or not this was intended for sinister reasons it doesnt matter. Russia built the nukes and Obama surrounded Russia with military presence. Both are equally to blame here. Now what Trumps implying is if Putin wont scale back his arsenal we will out race them and win. It's easy to blame Trump here so instead look at the facts and hope for non-proliferation instead of arms race. | ||
|
On_Slaught
United States12190 Posts
Ofc this once again ignores the fact that this will only encourage other non-Russian countries to seek out or expand their own arsenals. | ||
|
Danglars
United States12133 Posts
On December 23 2016 21:00 Biff The Understudy wrote: It's very fashionable to "blame the DNC" "blame the elites", "blame the establishment", what about starting with the people who voted for him? Guys lies every other sentence, has a xenophobic proto-fascist post-truth contradictory piece of garbage as a platform and one of the most obnoxious, bombastic and immature personality ever seen at that level of politics. If people think it's a great idea to give him the keys of the white house, i would be encline to blame them. Because it's simply shameful. And here is the thing, people voted for him to say "fuck you" to those well educated, coastal cosmopolite folks they resent. I believe most Trump voters knew perfectly he was a really bad choice, and i suspect that's partly why they voted for him. The irony is that it's not New York university professors and californians hipsters who are now going to suffer immensely. It's mainly Joe Noone, Mississipi. And who knows, maybe in the long run it might be a good thing that people start again to realize that they do have something to lose after all. If you're willing to believe all this about the electoral majority that sent him to the White House, the blame is entirely on you. Frankly, I can't think of a better reason for your posited "fuck you": you really seek to demean the positive and numerous reasons to vote for Donald Trump over Hillary Clinton. You are legitimately making your own poison. It's very fashionable to hate on dumb suburbanites and flyover country hicks and rednecks. Many of them just found their voice. You typify that great, shameful response of blaming xenophobia and gullibility for never having understood people that think differently than you, preferring the more religious judgments of evil ... defended by trying to prove they're evil. | ||
|
zlefin
United States7689 Posts
Please state 5 of them. | ||
|
LegalLord
United Kingdom13775 Posts
On December 23 2016 21:36 {CC}StealthBlue wrote: https://twitter.com/KatyTurNBC/status/812266558345150464 Let's be real: there is only one country that is in a position to have an "arms race" because there are exactly two countries in the world that take nukes seriously. This would end stupidly, though I doubt Russia would really choose to go along with it. The recent strategy has simply been to create high-impact, low-cost upgrades to the nuclear arsenal. | ||
|
LegalLord
United Kingdom13775 Posts
On December 23 2016 23:39 Noidberg wrote: Heres my take on this. Russia has expanded their first strike capabilities to even bypass a modern nuclear defense umbrella as mentioned today by Putin at an annual q/a. Whether or not this was intended for sinister reasons it doesnt matter. Russia built the nukes and Obama surrounded Russia with military presence. Both are equally to blame here. Now what Trumps implying is if Putin wont scale back his arsenal we will out race them and win. It's easy to blame Trump here so instead look at the facts and hope for non-proliferation instead of arms race. Here's the story according to Putin himself: the US built a missile shield. They claim it's not against Russia. Russia says, fine, it's not against us, then our upgrades in our strike capabilities are not against you. About missile defense shields. They don't work. They have never worked. There is pretty much no prospect for them working. I have talked before about the difficulties of nuclear defense, and you can search it if you want but I won't bring it up again. The missile shield is nothing more than a provocative boondoggle that wouldn't even work against North Korea, much less a country with advanced launch capabilities like Russia. Russia knows this, but their approach is basically, "on the off chance that this system could be effective, we need to improve our strike capabilities." Which is a pretty smart, low-cost approach to keeping nukes effective. About first strike: the US has spent unfortunate amounts of money on trying to be able to first strike Russia. Also a project with just about zero hope of success. It might have been a pie in the sky possibility 10 years ago when people thought Russia wouldn't upgrade its nukes again, it definitely isn't true now. In short: attempts to end MAD have ended in miserable expensive failure, and missile shields and the like are provocations above all else. A nuclear arms race would end up being unilateral stupidity. But improved strike capability would be a rather effective way forward if Trump actually wants to do something with nukes. | ||
|
On_Slaught
United States12190 Posts
We a know the only reason he said anything was because he had to show up Putin. Just dangle something else in front of him and maybe he'll forget all about nukes. | ||
|
Biff The Understudy
France7890 Posts
On December 23 2016 23:59 Danglars wrote: If you're willing to believe all this about the electoral majority that sent him to the White House, the blame is entirely on you. Frankly, I can't think of a better reason for your posited "fuck you": you really seek to demean the positive and numerous reasons to vote for Donald Trump over Hillary Clinton. You are legitimately making your own poison. It's very fashionable to hate on dumb suburbanites and flyover country hicks and rednecks. Many of them just found their voice. You typify that great, shameful response of blaming xenophobia and gullibility for never having understood people that think differently than you, preferring the more religious judgments of evil ... defended by trying to prove they're evil. I won't start with the fact that Clinton won the electoral majority because that's not the point. You know, I just love it when the champions of political incorrecness gets all whiny when being told that their dude got elected by resentful, uneducated, white people. You are the first to throw all the venom at the "SJW", "feminazis" and generally the liberal elite, but when someone makes a comment at a rust belt electorate that apparently feeds on biggotry and ignorance suddenly one has to understand people who think differently, and don't judge people, etc etc. Well that's amusing. Now, my point is simple. Being a citizen is a responsibility. It's a right but it's serious stuff. When i hear people who say that their vote is a fuck you to the "establishment" (which is an empty word that designate people who have done better than you i guess) it makes me want to puke. You guys have put a guy in that office that has strictly nothing to do there, ignoring the fact that he was clearly bullshitting everyone, that his temperament is the one of a spoiled, egomaniac twelve years old and that his platform was made of conspiracy theories, bullshit promesses, ridiculous claims and utter biggotry. We are all going to suffer from that. So you had a right to vote for whoever you want, and other folks have the right to confront you with wgat you have done. Considering how it's looking we are all in for a real joyride. | ||
|
Doodsmack
United States7224 Posts
On another note, it is officially time to set up notifications for Trump's tweets and play the stock market accordingly. Shares of uranium producers and a nuclear fuel technology company have jumped on Trump's comments with Uranium Resources Inc, Uranium Energy Corp, Cameco Corp and Lightbridge Corp all trading higher on Friday. MSN | ||
|
Doodsmack
United States7224 Posts
On December 24 2016 00:43 Biff The Understudy wrote: I won't start with the fact that Clinton won the electoral majority because that's not the point. You know, I just love it when the champions of political incorrecness gets all whiny when being told that their dude got elected by resentful, uneducated, white people. You are the first to throw all the venom at the "SJW", "feminazis" and generally the liberal elite, but when someone makes a comment at a rust belt electorate that apparently feeds on biggotry and ignorance suddenly one has to understand people who think differently, and don't judge people, etc etc. Well that's amusing. Now, my point is simple. Being a citizen is a responsibility. It's a right but it's serious stuff. When i hear people who say that their vote is a fuck you to the "establishment" (which is an empty word that designate people who have done better than you i guess) it makes me want to puke. You guys have put a guy in that office that has strictly nothing to do there, ignoring the fact that he was clearly bullshitting everyone, that his temperament is the one of a spoiled, egomaniac twelve years old and that his platform was made of conspiracy theories, bullshit promesses, ridiculous claims and utter biggotry. We are all going to suffer from that. So you had a right to vote for whoever you want, and other folks have the right to confront you with wgat you have done. Considering how it's looking we are all in for a real joyride. Yeah that's the thing, you just can't say "Trump is a voice for his supporters and he represents change for them and that's the only reason they voted for him" while not addressing Trump's various egregious quotes that indicate misogyny and xenophobia. Your rationale for voting Trump is not honest and unbiased unless it takes into account his prominent downsides. You need to own him saying "there's something going on with Obama and the terrorists", and him being the birther king. You need to own him being so sensitive that he can't let any critical words stand. Trump's egregious words are remarkable in and of themselves, and you can't lump them into "oh liberals just blame racism and xenophobia all the time". | ||
|
Doodsmack
United States7224 Posts
| ||
|
RvB
Netherlands6210 Posts
On December 23 2016 22:57 Thieving Magpie wrote: If they're paid to keep people out of prisons why rehabilitate at all? Revolving door that shit and maximize profits Then increase the amount they get for every year they are out? For example 100k in total with 5k first year, 10 2nd, 20 3rd year etc. It's not 100% thought out but I'm sure there are plenty of solutions for such a thing. | ||
|
Doodsmack
United States7224 Posts
Billionaire Carl Icahn shared his views in a wide-ranging interview Thursday with CNBC's Scott Wapner on topics such as government regulation, the economy, ETFs and his new Donald Trump administration advisory role on regulation. But the most important thing may not be what the investor said explicitly, but what he implied about the market risk of a trade war with China under Trump. "If you have a trade war with China, by definition, I remember the days something like that would really knock the hell out of the market, but maybe if you're going to do it, you should get it over with, right? So that's a consideration, you have to just make up your mind, if that's what you're going to do, you go do it," Icahn said. Most telling is how Icahn ended the interview, unprompted. "If you're asking me am I concerned about the market on the short term. Yeah I'm concerned about it," he said. "You can look at so many factors here that you have to worry about. Obviously, if you get into a trade war with China, sooner or later, I think we're going to have to come to grips with that, maybe it's better to do it sooner, but that's not my decision at all. I don't get involved with that." To be sure, Icahn said he is not "involved" in the transition team's China trade policy discussions. However, the fact that he, as one of Trump's closest confidants, repeatedly brought up the stock market risk of a trade war with China during the 40-minute interview speaks to how an aggressive trade policy with the Asian country is likely being considered by the president-elect. Yahoo | ||
|
TheTenthDoc
United States9561 Posts
People will complain, of course. And there are logistics to consider. But at least from a market perspective it (generally) works provided the readmissions are fairly frequent. | ||
|
Acrofales
Spain17992 Posts
On December 23 2016 23:39 Noidberg wrote: Heres my take on this. Russia has expanded their first strike capabilities to even bypass a modern nuclear defense umbrella as mentioned today by Putin at an annual q/a. Whether or not this was intended for sinister reasons it doesnt matter. Russia built the nukes and Obama surrounded Russia with military presence. Both are equally to blame here. Now what Trumps implying is if Putin wont scale back his arsenal we will out race them and win. It's easy to blame Trump here so instead look at the facts and hope for non-proliferation instead of arms race. Your very first assumption is wrong. "Modern nuclear defense umbrellas" didn't work when Reagan started the Star Wars program, don't work now, and they will never work (assuming a roughly symmetrical force), because it is far easier and far cheaper to make a piece of metal containing a nuclear bomb than it is to make sophisticated devices that have to find, target, and stop that piece of metal without detonating the nuclear bomb somewhere equally dangerous as its destination. And unsurprisingly if in a MAD situation you tell your opponent that you're going to build an umbrella so that you will no longer be assuredly destroyed, they are going to get pissed off and figure out a way to destroy you any way, whether they actually ever want to pull the trigger or not. That doesn't mean a new arms race is the correct response. The correct response is to realize these two facts, and toss your umbrella in the trash where it belongs, and sit down to discuss disarming more nukes. | ||
|
LegalLord
United Kingdom13775 Posts
The problem is that it was a stupid idea from the start that will never work. | ||
|
Doodsmack
United States7224 Posts
For years, Donald Trump has used a powerful tool when dealing with bankers: his personal guarantee. Now that guarantee -- employed to extract better terms on hundreds of millions of dollars of loans to the Trump Organization -- is at the center of a delicate loan-restructuring discussion at Deutsche Bank AG, which is under investigation on several fronts by the U.S. Department of Justice. The bank is trying to restructure some of Trump’s roughly $300 million debt as part of an attempt to reduce any conflict of interest between the loan and his presidency, according to a person familiar with the matter. Normally, the removal of a personal pledge might lead to more-stringent terms. But there is little normal about this interaction. Trump’s attorney general will inherit an investigation of Deutsche Bank related to stock trades for rich clients in Russia -- where Trump says he plans to improve relations -- and may have to deal with a possible multibillion-dollar penalty to the bank related to mortgage-bond investigations . Whatever terms a restructured loan might include, they will reflect the complex new relationship spawned between Germany’s largest bank and its highest-profile client. Ethicists say this concerns them. “When you have political appointees making decisions about banks that the president owes a lot of money to, it looks terrible,” said Richard Painter, a law professor at the University of Minnesota who was the chief ethics lawyer for President George W. Bush. “The U.S. government is dealing with regulatory and criminal issues with the big banks all the time, and if he owes them a lot of money, there might be an incentive to favor less regulation and less enforcement for the banks.” Yahoo | ||
|
Gorsameth
Netherlands21687 Posts
On December 24 2016 01:28 RvB wrote: Then increase the amount they get for every year they are out? For example 100k in total with 5k first year, 10 2nd, 20 3rd year etc. It's not 100% thought out but I'm sure there are plenty of solutions for such a thing. And how do you manage this without being more expensive then public prisons? And lets not forget that this will mean that such private parties will start putting pressure on police departments to keep ex-convincts on the street even if they commit another crime. Can you make it work? Maybe but it would be a hell of a nightmare to do so. Much easier to leave prisons to the public sector who have less worry about profit or incentives. | ||
|
Danglars
United States12133 Posts
On December 24 2016 00:43 Biff The Understudy wrote: I won't start with the fact that Clinton won the electoral majority because that's not the point. You know, I just love it when the champions of political incorrecness gets all whiny when being told that their dude got elected by resentful, uneducated, white people. You are the first to throw all the venom at the "SJW", "feminazis" and generally the liberal elite, but when someone makes a comment at a rust belt electorate that apparently feeds on biggotry and ignorance suddenly one has to understand people who think differently, and don't judge people, etc etc. Well that's amusing. Now, my point is simple. Being a citizen is a responsibility. It's a right but it's serious stuff. When i hear people who say that their vote is a fuck you to the "establishment" (which is an empty word that designate people who have done better than you i guess) it makes me want to puke. You guys have put a guy in that office that has strictly nothing to do there, ignoring the fact that he was clearly bullshitting everyone, that his temperament is the one of a spoiled, egomaniac twelve years old and that his platform was made of conspiracy theories, bullshit promesses, ridiculous claims and utter biggotry. We are all going to suffer from that. So you had a right to vote for whoever you want, and other folks have the right to confront you with wgat you have done. Considering how it's looking we are all in for a real joyride. You may want to look up who electors are if you think Clinton won it. Even easier instead of whining is to send Trump to the White House to provoke people like you to hate on the citizens of the country. You're sending a lot of blame around and chose your words that show your disrespect. If you don't like how free citizens vote in a fair election, your argument is against the capacity of people to elect their leaders. Your double standard comes out as clear as day. First you accuse your opponents of being whiny and obsessed with political incorrectness, then you grandstand with your notions of what it means to be a citizen and how citizens should vote. I repeat myself but you again show you have no understanding of how people different than you think and vote. I could just as well say that you have shown ignorance at writing rules meant for others without considering their perspective. You disrespect citizenship by wanting open borders and amnesty citizenship at intervals. That you feed on bigotry and ignorance and love elites in DC writing laws that apply for the whole country ... while at the same time deliberately ignoring that this is the essence of fighting "the establishment." The bigotry is all yours. But then it's just a shouting match at which side is right and wrong. We could go back and forth for hours or days on the basics of you're bigoted and strawman my SJWs ... you're bigoted and strawman the midwest/rural America. The fact remains these are two sides of the same coin and can't both be face-up at once. Either Trump is a symptom of "resentful, uneducated, white people" or "disconnected big-city elites, race-card playing, intolerant leftists." And, trust me, we both will say the facts support our side. And think our facts are better. And think all the opposing arguments are rubbish. And it may take four more years of Republican wins to knock some people on the sides of the heads to realize, "Hey, maybe all this talk about Americans being so xenophobic to elect a xenophobe means our political correctness has stunted dialogue on foreign policy and immigration." So pardon me, but being a citizen is a responsibility, so you can leave your spoiled, egomaniac opinions about his platform and drives wherever the 9/11 truthers and ridiculous left-wing wackos are setting up camp. We'll just have to elect a couple more people that give you an irrational reaction and proceed to govern the country while you come to terms with not knowing a country beyond how a couple of coasts and cities think it should be run and their crazy definitions of justice and equality. It might have been possible to confront your viewpoint in Bush or Clinton years, but now I think you're a little too wrapped up and insulated to see things as the 2016 Trump voters did. The sheer amount of deliberate disinterest in what the two sides think and believe is shocking. Maybe in four years you can see how counterproductive all this "country's going to hell" rhetoric is (but it is!! suffer immensely!! nuclear war!!). It's just the presidency, he's made mostly smart or boring cabinet picks thus far, no need to go full Al Gore on Trump Armageddon ... it's embarrassing. | ||
| ||
