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.
Republicans should probably not overpromise on healthcare. This stuff could go south for them quickly. They will blame Democrats, despite having control of the federal government. The onus is on them in a huge way.
With the election of Donald Trump as president, Republican lawmakers finally have a repeal of the Affordable Care Act, the healthcare law better known as Obamacare, in their sights.
But while Republicans control the presidency and both houses of Congress, a repeal of Obamacare may not come as soon as "day one" the way leaders like Paul Ryan and Mitch McConnell have said.
According to Bloomberg's Sahil Kapur, there is no consensus among Republicans as to when a repeal should take place, but GOP staffers are floating the idea of waiting until after the 2020 presidential election.
Several plans put forth by Republicans would feature a "repeal and delay" mechanism, in which a law is passed that "repeals" the ACA but goes into effect only after a given period of time. This, the thinking goes, would give lawmakers enough time to craft a replacement and also avoid possible political fallout from potentially leaving some people without health insurance.
With over 20 million people having gotten health insurance through various provisions of the ACA, pulling the rug out from under these Americans could be politically dangerous for Republicans.
The original repeal-and-delay plan that was floated in November would have delayed the repeal date until 2019, after the first midterm election.
This move would carry significant risks. Politically, Trump could lose his reelection bid, thus costing the GOP its chance at repealing the law. From the market side, a long delay could cause insurers to pull out of the individual insurance market in anticipation of the move, destabilizing coverage for millions and causing prices in the market to soar.
On December 30 2016 04:39 Doodsmack wrote: Sanctions on Russia incoming...the Trump Org and Exxon have immediate interest in them being lifted. How will this play out?
Obama does, Trump fiddles with Congress for a year or so to undo - or changes his mind.
Far as I'm concerned it's a symbolic measure of disapproval at this point.
On December 30 2016 04:03 On_Slaught wrote: I can't recall which company it was (Raytheon or Lockheed maybe), but I remember reading that every single aircraft or new tech in R&D was unmanned or related to unmanned aircraft. Likely this is the case at all the big boys, like Boeing and Northrup Grumman, as well.
And yes, I see them replacing all planes eventually.
I definitely agree costs are out of control in general.
That sounds like Raytheon, since LM has F-35s, Northrop has B-2's, and Raytheon has pie-in-the-sky fantasy projects like this:
I mean, drones have their place, but they are also vulnerable to electronic warfare which makes them more vulnerable to being owned en masse and then having their technology be commandeered by foreign foes. They do quite goodly for espionage and they aren't terrible for combat purposes but I don't think they're replacing humans, at all. They're good for spying, for shooting from a good distance (there are some hypersonic nuke drones that are pretty cool for example), and for various other reasons. But "all combat is BVR" is hyperbolic, to say the least.
F35 and B2s are not "R&D." The b2 is decades old and the 35 is basically in production. Iirc, the new stealth bomber Northrup is working on is unmanned.
As for drones, it's simple numbers. We can mass produce aircraft which are just as good at killing enemy aircraft as any modern fighter (a byproduct of the missile loadout) for a fraction of the cost and without risking airmen lives. The calculus is obvious. I also think you are overstating the risk of hacking to them. I'd contend that any program powerful enough to fuck with our drones is also powerful enough to fuck with manned fighters, which are basically flying computers.
And I don't think it's hyperbolic to note the change in combat to bvr. This trend started back in the gulf where we were literally shooting down Saddams aircraft as soon as they took off from out of nowhere.
Why wounldnt this trend continue? Again it's simple math. Why risk our expensive planes by getting close when we can design missles which can kill the enemy without them even knowing we were in the air?
Same with ground. We are seeing new gun systems which can fire without line of sight. New artillery which are so effective you wonder if it will ever be possible again to send out masses of troops in groups, less they all die.
The simple logic to these trends are exactly the sort of things military leaders love and will jump all over.
Funny thing about Raytheons pie in the sky projects. They have put work into Iron Man style suits. :p
On December 29 2016 13:34 Mohdoo wrote: As a chemical physicist, fuck yeah nuclear modernization. Give me and my national labs that sweet moolah and watch us wreck shit. We and our physicist colleagues laid the smack down on Hiroshima and we'll do whatever the fuck you want if you just give us grants.
I have always held the belief that technological advancements in all directions and applications is ultimately inevitable and that our country should thus rush to be the first ones there.
Give us enough time and money and we'll find something better than nukes, whether it be less messy or more explosive. Trump plz.
isn't 'extinguish nearly all life on earth' sufficient in this particular technological branchout? Can't the upgrade wait until we have interplanetary opposition? Like, I get the 'technological advancement is never bad only the application can be bad and then we, being good, should try to achieve the technological advancement before bad people do' attitude, that makes sense. In a way, updating nuclear arsenal in terms of speed of response etc also makes sense - so working on ballistic tech or whatever doesn't sound too stupid.
But there's no point in creating a more powerful bomb.
On December 29 2016 11:31 Tachion wrote: I was thinking it would be nice if the GOP could put up a respectable contender to Trump in the next primary election, and then I read that the last time a sitting president has lost his parties nomination for a second term was back in the 1800's. I'm really not looking forward to another general election with Trump in it. This whole last election cycle has been so vulgar and divisive. I'm constantly reminded of what USA today's editorial board wrote about Trump when they took sides in an election for the first time.
He has coarsened the national dialogue. Did you ever imagine that a presidential candidate would discuss the size of his genitalia during a nationally televised Republican debate? Neither did we. Did you ever imagine a presidential candidate, one who avoided service in the military, would criticize Gold Star parents who lost a son in Iraq? Neither did we. Did you ever imagine you’d see a presidential candidate mock a disabled reporter? Neither did we. Trump’s inability or unwillingness to ignore criticism raises the specter of a president who, like Richard Nixon, would create enemies’ lists and be consumed with getting even with his critics.
I just really, really hope that Trump is an outlier, and not some new norm for political discourse. While I may not have agreed with policies from past presidents, they always seemed to at the very least try to put on airs of being dignified, sophisticated, and most of all, respectable. I don't get that from Trump, I'm just left with disdain and vicarious embarrassment when i hear him talk or tweet. I honestly don't understand how anyone can be proud to have a man who acts in such a way lead and represent your country unless you're equally uncouth.
Trump will only have a primary challenge if he's deeply unpopular, and still he'd most likely win.
I think it's more likely that he decides not to run again, which is totally something I could see him doing.
it seems plausible that he would decide not to run again and endorse ivanka as the nominee. ivanka could then be first female president and piggyback on trump's incumbent position.
On December 29 2016 11:31 Tachion wrote: I was thinking it would be nice if the GOP could put up a respectable contender to Trump in the next primary election, and then I read that the last time a sitting president has lost his parties nomination for a second term was back in the 1800's. I'm really not looking forward to another general election with Trump in it. This whole last election cycle has been so vulgar and divisive. I'm constantly reminded of what USA today's editorial board wrote about Trump when they took sides in an election for the first time.
He has coarsened the national dialogue. Did you ever imagine that a presidential candidate would discuss the size of his genitalia during a nationally televised Republican debate? Neither did we. Did you ever imagine a presidential candidate, one who avoided service in the military, would criticize Gold Star parents who lost a son in Iraq? Neither did we. Did you ever imagine you’d see a presidential candidate mock a disabled reporter? Neither did we. Trump’s inability or unwillingness to ignore criticism raises the specter of a president who, like Richard Nixon, would create enemies’ lists and be consumed with getting even with his critics.
I just really, really hope that Trump is an outlier, and not some new norm for political discourse. While I may not have agreed with policies from past presidents, they always seemed to at the very least try to put on airs of being dignified, sophisticated, and most of all, respectable. I don't get that from Trump, I'm just left with disdain and vicarious embarrassment when i hear him talk or tweet. I honestly don't understand how anyone can be proud to have a man who acts in such a way lead and represent your country unless you're equally uncouth.
Trump will only have a primary challenge if he's deeply unpopular, and still he'd most likely win.
I think it's more likely that he decides not to run again, which is totally something I could see him doing.
it seems plausible that he would decide not to run again and endorse ivanka as the nominee. ivanka could then be first female president and piggyback on trump's incumbent position.
The child of a pop culture star...that's even worse than pop culture stars themselves being elected.
I'm certain she'd be a better President than Trump. She has shown a level of intelligence and control he has not.
Having said that her odds are tied directly to Trumps. If he fucks up, or fails to Make America Great Again, then she is unelectable as she is just seen as more of the same, fair or not.
And how far is the bump from having the pilot in some sort of cockpit to having the pilot sitting in the middle of a base in kansas where he can get dinner at home with his family? Both situations are going to be susceptible to cyber warfare, ones just a lot cheaper to fail with and you get to keep your vetrency with it (which Vietnam showed is the real value to fighter pilots)
On December 30 2016 05:37 On_Slaught wrote: I'm certain she'd be a better President than Trump. She has shown a level of intelligence and control he has not.
Having said that her odds are tied directly to Trumps. If he fucks up, or fails to Make America Great Again, then she is unelectable as she is just seen as more of the same, fair or not.
Considering what his platform has been, Trump has absolutely 0 chance of succeeding, as far as his key electorate is concerned. He won't bring back manufacturing jobs to the mid west and it's a bit too late to make america white and male again.
On December 30 2016 05:41 Sermokala wrote: And how far is the bump from having the pilot in some sort of cockpit to having the pilot sitting in the middle of a base in kansas where he can get dinner at home with his family? Both situations are going to be susceptible to cyber warfare, ones just a lot cheaper to fail with and you get to keep your vetrency with it (which Vietnam showed is the real value to fighter pilots)
On December 30 2016 05:44 Mohdoo wrote: I wonder if the Russian hack skeptics will be convinced now?
Based on what? There hasn't been any given proof or evidence of any sort. And we all know that anything Obama does to russia now will be lifted in less then a month so whats the point?
dems not really making an integrated case on the russian thing. draw on the kleptocratic angle and stand up for freedom, or it's not going to gain traction with the brain addled progressive left.
On December 30 2016 05:53 oneofthem wrote: dems not really making an integrated case on the russian thing. draw on the kleptocratic angle and stand up for freedom, or it's not going to gain traction with the brain addled progressive left.
what are you talking about? what does making a case about kleptocratic russian interference in the election have to do with the "brain-addled" left?
On December 30 2016 05:53 oneofthem wrote: dems not really making an integrated case on the russian thing. draw on the kleptocratic angle and stand up for freedom, or it's not going to gain traction with the brain addled progressive left.
what are you talking about? what does making a case about kleptocratic russian interference in the election have to do with the "brain-addled" left?
Democrats have to feel like they are standing up for justice and human rights to want to act.
On December 29 2016 13:34 Mohdoo wrote: As a chemical physicist, fuck yeah nuclear modernization. Give me and my national labs that sweet moolah and watch us wreck shit. We and our physicist colleagues laid the smack down on Hiroshima and we'll do whatever the fuck you want if you just give us grants.
I have always held the belief that technological advancements in all directions and applications is ultimately inevitable and that our country should thus rush to be the first ones there.
Give us enough time and money and we'll find something better than nukes, whether it be less messy or more explosive. Trump plz.
isn't 'extinguish nearly all life on earth' sufficient in this particular technological branchout? Can't the upgrade wait until we have interplanetary opposition? Like, I get the 'technological advancement is never bad only the application can be bad and then we, being good, should try to achieve the technological advancement before bad people do' attitude, that makes sense. In a way, updating nuclear arsenal in terms of speed of response etc also makes sense - so working on ballistic tech or whatever doesn't sound too stupid.
But there's no point in creating a more powerful bomb.
I would be exaggerating only slightly if I said that scientists are mercenaries whose loyalty lies first and foremost with those who would give them grant money.
On December 29 2016 13:34 Mohdoo wrote: As a chemical physicist, fuck yeah nuclear modernization. Give me and my national labs that sweet moolah and watch us wreck shit. We and our physicist colleagues laid the smack down on Hiroshima and we'll do whatever the fuck you want if you just give us grants.
I have always held the belief that technological advancements in all directions and applications is ultimately inevitable and that our country should thus rush to be the first ones there.
Give us enough time and money and we'll find something better than nukes, whether it be less messy or more explosive. Trump plz.
isn't 'extinguish nearly all life on earth' sufficient in this particular technological branchout? Can't the upgrade wait until we have interplanetary opposition? Like, I get the 'technological advancement is never bad only the application can be bad and then we, being good, should try to achieve the technological advancement before bad people do' attitude, that makes sense. In a way, updating nuclear arsenal in terms of speed of response etc also makes sense - so working on ballistic tech or whatever doesn't sound too stupid.
But there's no point in creating a more powerful bomb.
I would be exaggerating only slightly if I said that scientists are mercenaries whose loyalty lies first and foremost with those who would give them grant money.
On December 30 2016 05:17 On_Slaught wrote: F35 and B2s are not "R&D." The b2 is decades old and the 35 is basically in production. Iirc, the new stealth bomber Northrup is working on is unmanned.
As for drones, it's simple numbers. We can mass produce aircraft which are just as good at killing enemy aircraft as any modern fighter (a byproduct of the missile loadout) for a fraction of the cost and without risking airmen lives. The calculus is obvious. I also think you are overstating the risk of hacking to them. I'd contend that any program powerful enough to fuck with our drones is also powerful enough to fuck with manned fighters, which are basically flying computers.
And I don't think it's hyperbolic to note the change in combat to bvr. This trend started back in the gulf where we were literally shooting down Saddams aircraft as soon as they took off from out of nowhere.
Why wounldnt this trend continue? Again it's simple math. Why risk our expensive planes by getting close when we can design missles which can kill the enemy without them even knowing we were in the air?
Same with ground. We are seeing new gun systems which can fire without line of sight. New artillery which are so effective you wonder if it will ever be possible again to send out masses of troops in groups, less they all die.
The simple logic to these trends are exactly the sort of things military leaders love and will jump all over.
Funny thing about Raytheons pie in the sky projects. They have put work into Iron Man style suits. :p
Even WVR fighting would benefit from the switch to unmanned. You are not limiting the performance of your aircrafts with the need to keep your meatbags conscious as you are maneuvering through the air. No offense to our current crop of meatbag fighter jocks.
On December 29 2016 13:34 Mohdoo wrote: As a chemical physicist, fuck yeah nuclear modernization. Give me and my national labs that sweet moolah and watch us wreck shit. We and our physicist colleagues laid the smack down on Hiroshima and we'll do whatever the fuck you want if you just give us grants.
I have always held the belief that technological advancements in all directions and applications is ultimately inevitable and that our country should thus rush to be the first ones there.
Give us enough time and money and we'll find something better than nukes, whether it be less messy or more explosive. Trump plz.
isn't 'extinguish nearly all life on earth' sufficient in this particular technological branchout? Can't the upgrade wait until we have interplanetary opposition? Like, I get the 'technological advancement is never bad only the application can be bad and then we, being good, should try to achieve the technological advancement before bad people do' attitude, that makes sense. In a way, updating nuclear arsenal in terms of speed of response etc also makes sense - so working on ballistic tech or whatever doesn't sound too stupid.
But there's no point in creating a more powerful bomb.
I would be exaggerating only slightly if I said that scientists are mercenaries whose loyalty lies first and foremost with those who would give them grant money.
Just look at the climate change research
Notice he did not say the science would not be sound.
EPT
