|
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. |
It takes a very special brain to call the democrats hyprocits for this, while Republicans are suddenly fine with a president that has clear (Business and other) ties to russia, that attacks the press (and with this free speach) at every step, that got elected with help from Russia, is openly using his Position to help with his (and his families) Business, takes a Holiday every weekend... Well, that list is not even nearly complete, but whats the point because clearly the democrats are the bigger "hypocrits" here...
Yes, the left's "we love the CIA now" 180 is one of the biggest idiocies I have seen in a while.
Electing someone like Trump "trumps" that easily.
|
On February 28 2017 01:08 LegalLord wrote:Show nested quote +On February 28 2017 01:07 Danglars wrote:On February 28 2017 00:17 LegalLord wrote:On February 27 2017 16:31 Madkipz wrote:On February 27 2017 14:59 ChristianS wrote:
At no point did I equate the two, so I think you might be reading more hysteria into my tone than I'm actually experiencing. Russia hacked the election. Not in the sense of directly hacking voting machines. But it did influence the result, quite possibly singlehandedly changing the outcome. That's not liberal hysteria, it's just a thing that happened.
That it was the candidate I supported that was hurt by this is a bit difficult to separate from the fact that even if it wasn't, I'd still feel this type of intervention was unacceptable and that every measure should be taken to prevent it in the future, and find and punish any Americans that might have colluded with the Russians on this operation. I'm not losing sleep over it though. There are aspects of Trump's presidency that I legitimately think could be a threat to our democracy, but this isn't one of them. It's just a bad thing that happened, and I'd expect the party that made months of ruckus about Obama's hot mic with Putin in 2012 to take this a little more seriously instead of letting their eyes get wide thinking how many policies they could get through in the chaos. says who? + Show Spoiler +Wikileaks seems to claim that their intel came from a disgusted democrat who wanted bernie sanders to win the primary. The CIA claims that John Podesta falling for a phishing scam? The CIA certainly can't be trusted and the DNC have a vested interest in saying that Russia is the badguy. Earlier I made a point about saying that I'm not necessarily sure it was Russia. I thought it was prudent to stop using the qualifier because I still thought it was most likely Russia, and it wouldn't really add much to the discussion to say otherwise. But I think it's worth briefly mentioning. On the surface, the circumstantial evidence seems to line up quite well. And below that, it has a few key elements that look a lot like a Russian intelligence operation. So it's fair to say it was probably Russia. The motive and opportunity are there, and a few bits of evidence are available. But what concerns me is that the people pushing the case most strongly - the intelligence community - both have a vested interest in the outcome and conducted themselves in bad faith. That unclassified release was poorly conceived and quite unconvincing, to the point that I wonder why they even bothered. The leaks to the media - the "CIA figured out that Russia hacked to get Trump elected" moment - not one of the finest works of the IC. And the aftermath shows that people within intelligence are really unhappy to have Trump around. The signs mostly point to Russia, yes - but the IC has acted in bad faith and that makes me a little suspicious. The modern left and intelligence agencies make very funny bedfellows. You have concerns? You mean besides this breathtaking Russian involvement in hacks undermining the fabric of our Democracy? Clearly, you're a Russophile partisan Trump lover. We should welcome the CIA voice in public policy! Yes, the left's "we love the CIA now" 180 is one of the biggest idiocies I have seen in a while.
One can both appreciate the leaks in the absence of a Congressional investigation and not "love the CIA".
|
U.S. President Donald Trump said on Monday he is seeking a "historic increase" in military spending to be funded by cuts elsewhere in government.
Trump will seek to boost Pentagon spending by $54 billion in his first budget proposal and slash the same amount from non-defense spending, including a large reduction in foreign aid, a White House budget official said.
"This budget will be a public safety and national security budget," Trump told state governors at the White House. "It will include an historic increase in defense spending to rebuild the depleted military of the United States of America at a time we most need it," he said.
The U.S. military is already the world's most powerful fighting force and the United States spends far more than any other country on defense.
The White House will send Trump's proposal to federal departments on Monday as he gears up for budget negotiations with Congress that often take months to play out. Congress, controlled by Trump's fellow Republicans, has the final say on federal spending.
In a speech to conservative activists on Friday, Trump promised "one of the greatest military buildups in American history."
[...]
www.reuters.com
Bannon really is dead serious with his "war with China in 5-10 years" oO
|
On February 28 2017 01:47 Toadesstern wrote:Show nested quote +U.S. President Donald Trump said on Monday he is seeking a "historic increase" in military spending to be funded by cuts elsewhere in government.
Trump will seek to boost Pentagon spending by $54 billion in his first budget proposal and slash the same amount from non-defense spending, including a large reduction in foreign aid, a White House budget official said.
"This budget will be a public safety and national security budget," Trump told state governors at the White House. "It will include an historic increase in defense spending to rebuild the depleted military of the United States of America at a time we most need it," he said.
The U.S. military is already the world's most powerful fighting force and the United States spends far more than any other country on defense.
The White House will send Trump's proposal to federal departments on Monday as he gears up for budget negotiations with Congress that often take months to play out. Congress, controlled by Trump's fellow Republicans, has the final say on federal spending.
In a speech to conservative activists on Friday, Trump promised "one of the greatest military buildups in American history."
[...] www.reuters.comBannon really is dead serious with his "war with China in 5-10 years" oO
Isn't foreign aid one of the biggest tools the US has on effecting changes in other countries? Sending money with strings attached when necessary. It also is the best combatant against immigration if you are serious about decreasing that.
|
I can’t wait to see how Trump gets that increased military spending through congress. Making sure that is not part of any budget will be the one thing that democrats and the freedom caucus agree on.
|
United Kingdom13775 Posts
On February 28 2017 01:47 Toadesstern wrote:Show nested quote +U.S. President Donald Trump said on Monday he is seeking a "historic increase" in military spending to be funded by cuts elsewhere in government.
Trump will seek to boost Pentagon spending by $54 billion in his first budget proposal and slash the same amount from non-defense spending, including a large reduction in foreign aid, a White House budget official said.
"This budget will be a public safety and national security budget," Trump told state governors at the White House. "It will include an historic increase in defense spending to rebuild the depleted military of the United States of America at a time we most need it," he said.
The U.S. military is already the world's most powerful fighting force and the United States spends far more than any other country on defense.
The White House will send Trump's proposal to federal departments on Monday as he gears up for budget negotiations with Congress that often take months to play out. Congress, controlled by Trump's fellow Republicans, has the final say on federal spending.
In a speech to conservative activists on Friday, Trump promised "one of the greatest military buildups in American history."
[...] www.reuters.comBannon really is dead serious with his "war with China in 5-10 years" oO
We always want more military, even if we don't know what the hell we want to do with it.
|
If he wants to find 54billion to give to the military, he should look to get it from decreasing waste and fraud within the military itself. Could make up a lot more than 54 billion then.
But yeah the fight in Congress over this will be epic as plenty of Republicans will be against it. Let's not forget we still need to fund the new healthcare system and his 1 trillion dollar infrastructure plan...
|
United Kingdom13775 Posts
And I know just the $32 billion project we could cancel to fund 2/3 of that military expansion...
|
|
|
Invade the country that can’t beat you in a straight fight, steal their national resources and claim it is for their own good because you are improving their nation. We have never seen this plan before.
|
Here's hoping the GOP remembers it's supposed to be fiscally conservative and budget hawkish, instead of passing Trump's budget like a bunch of spineless cowards.
The US can recover from a lot of stupid shit, but I don't know if bankruptcy because of war with China/Iran/North Korea is it.
|
The senate exists and they need 60 votes to get something to Trumps desk. He isn’t going to get a tax overhaul and replacement to the ACA through in two years. It will be shocking if one of those even exists the House.
|
On February 28 2017 01:08 LegalLord wrote:Show nested quote +On February 28 2017 01:07 Danglars wrote:On February 28 2017 00:17 LegalLord wrote:On February 27 2017 16:31 Madkipz wrote:On February 27 2017 14:59 ChristianS wrote:
At no point did I equate the two, so I think you might be reading more hysteria into my tone than I'm actually experiencing. Russia hacked the election. Not in the sense of directly hacking voting machines. But it did influence the result, quite possibly singlehandedly changing the outcome. That's not liberal hysteria, it's just a thing that happened.
That it was the candidate I supported that was hurt by this is a bit difficult to separate from the fact that even if it wasn't, I'd still feel this type of intervention was unacceptable and that every measure should be taken to prevent it in the future, and find and punish any Americans that might have colluded with the Russians on this operation. I'm not losing sleep over it though. There are aspects of Trump's presidency that I legitimately think could be a threat to our democracy, but this isn't one of them. It's just a bad thing that happened, and I'd expect the party that made months of ruckus about Obama's hot mic with Putin in 2012 to take this a little more seriously instead of letting their eyes get wide thinking how many policies they could get through in the chaos. says who? + Show Spoiler +Wikileaks seems to claim that their intel came from a disgusted democrat who wanted bernie sanders to win the primary. The CIA claims that John Podesta falling for a phishing scam? The CIA certainly can't be trusted and the DNC have a vested interest in saying that Russia is the badguy. Earlier I made a point about saying that I'm not necessarily sure it was Russia. I thought it was prudent to stop using the qualifier because I still thought it was most likely Russia, and it wouldn't really add much to the discussion to say otherwise. But I think it's worth briefly mentioning. On the surface, the circumstantial evidence seems to line up quite well. And below that, it has a few key elements that look a lot like a Russian intelligence operation. So it's fair to say it was probably Russia. The motive and opportunity are there, and a few bits of evidence are available. But what concerns me is that the people pushing the case most strongly - the intelligence community - both have a vested interest in the outcome and conducted themselves in bad faith. That unclassified release was poorly conceived and quite unconvincing, to the point that I wonder why they even bothered. The leaks to the media - the "CIA figured out that Russia hacked to get Trump elected" moment - not one of the finest works of the IC. And the aftermath shows that people within intelligence are really unhappy to have Trump around. The signs mostly point to Russia, yes - but the IC has acted in bad faith and that makes me a little suspicious. The modern left and intelligence agencies make very funny bedfellows. You have concerns? You mean besides this breathtaking Russian involvement in hacks undermining the fabric of our Democracy? Clearly, you're a Russophile partisan Trump lover. We should welcome the CIA voice in public policy! Yes, the left's "we love the CIA now" 180 is one of the biggest idiocies I have seen in a while.
"The left" doesn't love the CIA. It just trusts what it says.
The cia has done horrendous things and I din't trust their agenda (and the FP of the US generally) but I trust and have always trusted the intelligence they provide. I don't see where the contradiction lies.
|
On February 28 2017 03:06 Biff The Understudy wrote:Show nested quote +On February 28 2017 01:08 LegalLord wrote:On February 28 2017 01:07 Danglars wrote:On February 28 2017 00:17 LegalLord wrote:On February 27 2017 16:31 Madkipz wrote:On February 27 2017 14:59 ChristianS wrote:
At no point did I equate the two, so I think you might be reading more hysteria into my tone than I'm actually experiencing. Russia hacked the election. Not in the sense of directly hacking voting machines. But it did influence the result, quite possibly singlehandedly changing the outcome. That's not liberal hysteria, it's just a thing that happened.
That it was the candidate I supported that was hurt by this is a bit difficult to separate from the fact that even if it wasn't, I'd still feel this type of intervention was unacceptable and that every measure should be taken to prevent it in the future, and find and punish any Americans that might have colluded with the Russians on this operation. I'm not losing sleep over it though. There are aspects of Trump's presidency that I legitimately think could be a threat to our democracy, but this isn't one of them. It's just a bad thing that happened, and I'd expect the party that made months of ruckus about Obama's hot mic with Putin in 2012 to take this a little more seriously instead of letting their eyes get wide thinking how many policies they could get through in the chaos. says who? + Show Spoiler +Wikileaks seems to claim that their intel came from a disgusted democrat who wanted bernie sanders to win the primary. The CIA claims that John Podesta falling for a phishing scam? The CIA certainly can't be trusted and the DNC have a vested interest in saying that Russia is the badguy. Earlier I made a point about saying that I'm not necessarily sure it was Russia. I thought it was prudent to stop using the qualifier because I still thought it was most likely Russia, and it wouldn't really add much to the discussion to say otherwise. But I think it's worth briefly mentioning. On the surface, the circumstantial evidence seems to line up quite well. And below that, it has a few key elements that look a lot like a Russian intelligence operation. So it's fair to say it was probably Russia. The motive and opportunity are there, and a few bits of evidence are available. But what concerns me is that the people pushing the case most strongly - the intelligence community - both have a vested interest in the outcome and conducted themselves in bad faith. That unclassified release was poorly conceived and quite unconvincing, to the point that I wonder why they even bothered. The leaks to the media - the "CIA figured out that Russia hacked to get Trump elected" moment - not one of the finest works of the IC. And the aftermath shows that people within intelligence are really unhappy to have Trump around. The signs mostly point to Russia, yes - but the IC has acted in bad faith and that makes me a little suspicious. The modern left and intelligence agencies make very funny bedfellows. You have concerns? You mean besides this breathtaking Russian involvement in hacks undermining the fabric of our Democracy? Clearly, you're a Russophile partisan Trump lover. We should welcome the CIA voice in public policy! Yes, the left's "we love the CIA now" 180 is one of the biggest idiocies I have seen in a while. "The left" doesn't love the CIA. It just trusts what it says. The cia has done horrendous things and I din't trust their agenda (and the FP of the US generally) but I trust and have always trusted the intelligence they provide. I don't see where the contradiction lies.
So you would have gone to war in iraq after the CIA told you that there were Nuclear WMD's in saddams hands?
|
On February 28 2017 01:20 Velr wrote:It takes a very special brain to call the democrats hyprocits for this, while Republicans are suddenly fine with a president that has clear (Business and other) ties to russia, that attacks the press (and with this free speach) at every step, that got elected with help from Russia, is openly using his Position to help with his (and his families) Business, takes a Holiday every weekend... Well, that list is not even nearly complete, but whats the point because clearly the democrats are the bigger "hypocrits" here... Show nested quote +
Yes, the left's "we love the CIA now" 180 is one of the biggest idiocies I have seen in a while.
Electing someone like Trump "trumps" that easily.
Clearly we're still in the mode of Trump being just so bad, everything is peachy. Listen, if you're content slipping just under Trump level because you like Trump so much, then just move over and support him. You might as well.
Nice laundry list though.
|
the question assumes war is(was) the only possible follow up.
|
On February 28 2017 03:24 Sermokala wrote:Show nested quote +On February 28 2017 03:06 Biff The Understudy wrote:On February 28 2017 01:08 LegalLord wrote:On February 28 2017 01:07 Danglars wrote:On February 28 2017 00:17 LegalLord wrote:On February 27 2017 16:31 Madkipz wrote:On February 27 2017 14:59 ChristianS wrote:
At no point did I equate the two, so I think you might be reading more hysteria into my tone than I'm actually experiencing. Russia hacked the election. Not in the sense of directly hacking voting machines. But it did influence the result, quite possibly singlehandedly changing the outcome. That's not liberal hysteria, it's just a thing that happened.
That it was the candidate I supported that was hurt by this is a bit difficult to separate from the fact that even if it wasn't, I'd still feel this type of intervention was unacceptable and that every measure should be taken to prevent it in the future, and find and punish any Americans that might have colluded with the Russians on this operation. I'm not losing sleep over it though. There are aspects of Trump's presidency that I legitimately think could be a threat to our democracy, but this isn't one of them. It's just a bad thing that happened, and I'd expect the party that made months of ruckus about Obama's hot mic with Putin in 2012 to take this a little more seriously instead of letting their eyes get wide thinking how many policies they could get through in the chaos. says who? + Show Spoiler +Wikileaks seems to claim that their intel came from a disgusted democrat who wanted bernie sanders to win the primary. The CIA claims that John Podesta falling for a phishing scam? The CIA certainly can't be trusted and the DNC have a vested interest in saying that Russia is the badguy. Earlier I made a point about saying that I'm not necessarily sure it was Russia. I thought it was prudent to stop using the qualifier because I still thought it was most likely Russia, and it wouldn't really add much to the discussion to say otherwise. But I think it's worth briefly mentioning. On the surface, the circumstantial evidence seems to line up quite well. And below that, it has a few key elements that look a lot like a Russian intelligence operation. So it's fair to say it was probably Russia. The motive and opportunity are there, and a few bits of evidence are available. But what concerns me is that the people pushing the case most strongly - the intelligence community - both have a vested interest in the outcome and conducted themselves in bad faith. That unclassified release was poorly conceived and quite unconvincing, to the point that I wonder why they even bothered. The leaks to the media - the "CIA figured out that Russia hacked to get Trump elected" moment - not one of the finest works of the IC. And the aftermath shows that people within intelligence are really unhappy to have Trump around. The signs mostly point to Russia, yes - but the IC has acted in bad faith and that makes me a little suspicious. The modern left and intelligence agencies make very funny bedfellows. You have concerns? You mean besides this breathtaking Russian involvement in hacks undermining the fabric of our Democracy? Clearly, you're a Russophile partisan Trump lover. We should welcome the CIA voice in public policy! Yes, the left's "we love the CIA now" 180 is one of the biggest idiocies I have seen in a while. "The left" doesn't love the CIA. It just trusts what it says. The cia has done horrendous things and I din't trust their agenda (and the FP of the US generally) but I trust and have always trusted the intelligence they provide. I don't see where the contradiction lies. So you would have gone to war in iraq after the CIA told you that there were Nuclear WMD's in saddams hands?
The White House told us about the WMDs after receiving the CIA briefs on the subject. They made the call to take the case to the public to go to war, not the CIA.
If you read accounts of what Chaney and Bush were doing right after 9/11, they were very interested in receiving briefs that conformed with their views on terrorism. And a lot of the times, Chaney just asked for the raw intelligence and reviewed it himself, rather than accepting a brief. Heaping the entire war at the CIA’s feet cuts out the part where the White House was invested in making that case.
|
The CIA has to show me convincing evidence before I'll believe what they say without a doubt. Too often they just use circumstantial evidence to back up their claims. As they did with Iraq, where they basically went "Well, the surrounding nations all say that Iraq has WMDs."
Aside from that, I'll eat my shoes before I'll trust "an unnamed CIA official" in the Washington Post.
|
NATO allies very clearly don't care about the costs. I wonder what standing armies would look like if NATO collapsed? Interesting question. It might cut into one or two welfare states.
|
On February 28 2017 03:28 brian wrote:
the question assumes war is(was) the only possible follow up.
So you have another follow up to a dictator that had previously used Chemical WMD's on his people and had been the aggressor against his neighbor states in an attempt to become the majority world supplier of oil suddenly having nuclear weapons?
On February 28 2017 03:30 Plansix wrote:Show nested quote +On February 28 2017 03:24 Sermokala wrote:On February 28 2017 03:06 Biff The Understudy wrote:On February 28 2017 01:08 LegalLord wrote:On February 28 2017 01:07 Danglars wrote:On February 28 2017 00:17 LegalLord wrote:On February 27 2017 16:31 Madkipz wrote:On February 27 2017 14:59 ChristianS wrote:
At no point did I equate the two, so I think you might be reading more hysteria into my tone than I'm actually experiencing. Russia hacked the election. Not in the sense of directly hacking voting machines. But it did influence the result, quite possibly singlehandedly changing the outcome. That's not liberal hysteria, it's just a thing that happened.
That it was the candidate I supported that was hurt by this is a bit difficult to separate from the fact that even if it wasn't, I'd still feel this type of intervention was unacceptable and that every measure should be taken to prevent it in the future, and find and punish any Americans that might have colluded with the Russians on this operation. I'm not losing sleep over it though. There are aspects of Trump's presidency that I legitimately think could be a threat to our democracy, but this isn't one of them. It's just a bad thing that happened, and I'd expect the party that made months of ruckus about Obama's hot mic with Putin in 2012 to take this a little more seriously instead of letting their eyes get wide thinking how many policies they could get through in the chaos. says who? + Show Spoiler +Wikileaks seems to claim that their intel came from a disgusted democrat who wanted bernie sanders to win the primary. The CIA claims that John Podesta falling for a phishing scam? The CIA certainly can't be trusted and the DNC have a vested interest in saying that Russia is the badguy. Earlier I made a point about saying that I'm not necessarily sure it was Russia. I thought it was prudent to stop using the qualifier because I still thought it was most likely Russia, and it wouldn't really add much to the discussion to say otherwise. But I think it's worth briefly mentioning. On the surface, the circumstantial evidence seems to line up quite well. And below that, it has a few key elements that look a lot like a Russian intelligence operation. So it's fair to say it was probably Russia. The motive and opportunity are there, and a few bits of evidence are available. But what concerns me is that the people pushing the case most strongly - the intelligence community - both have a vested interest in the outcome and conducted themselves in bad faith. That unclassified release was poorly conceived and quite unconvincing, to the point that I wonder why they even bothered. The leaks to the media - the "CIA figured out that Russia hacked to get Trump elected" moment - not one of the finest works of the IC. And the aftermath shows that people within intelligence are really unhappy to have Trump around. The signs mostly point to Russia, yes - but the IC has acted in bad faith and that makes me a little suspicious. The modern left and intelligence agencies make very funny bedfellows. You have concerns? You mean besides this breathtaking Russian involvement in hacks undermining the fabric of our Democracy? Clearly, you're a Russophile partisan Trump lover. We should welcome the CIA voice in public policy! Yes, the left's "we love the CIA now" 180 is one of the biggest idiocies I have seen in a while. "The left" doesn't love the CIA. It just trusts what it says. The cia has done horrendous things and I din't trust their agenda (and the FP of the US generally) but I trust and have always trusted the intelligence they provide. I don't see where the contradiction lies. So you would have gone to war in iraq after the CIA told you that there were Nuclear WMD's in saddams hands? The White House told us about the WMDs after receiving the CIA briefs on the subject. They made the call to take the case to the public to go to war, not the CIA. If you read accounts of what Chaney and Bush were doing right after 9/11, they were very interested in receiving briefs that conformed with their views on terrorism. And a lot of the times, Chaney just asked for the raw intelligence and reviewed it himself, rather than accepting a brief. Heaping the entire war at the CIA’s feet cuts out the part where the White House was invested in making that case.
I didn't lay the blame at the CIA's feet I simply stated that the CIA said that there was probably WMD's in iraq. If the left (and him) trusted the CIA then I asked if he now supported the war in iraq as he would have done the same in their position.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
