|
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 March 20 2017 08:52 Nevuk wrote:
So, I've noticed a trend in a lot of mainstream media outlets. They refer to Trump as "far-right". However, they refer to mainstream GOP people like Paul Ryan or even Mike Pence as merely conservative, very conservative, or at worst, arch-conservative. What makes Trump far-right but Paul Ryan not? Paul Ryan seems further right on almost every issue to me.
I haven't noticed; I'll try t okeep an eye out and see if I notice that too.
It does seem odd to me, as trump is a strange blend of things, some of them far-right, some of them not so.
|
On March 20 2017 09:12 Danglars wrote:Show nested quote +On March 20 2017 08:57 Introvert wrote:On March 20 2017 08:52 Nevuk wrote:
So, I've noticed a trend in a lot of mainstream media outlets. They refer to Trump as "far-right". However, they refer to mainstream GOP people like Paul Ryan or even Mike Pence as merely conservative, very conservative, or at worst, arch-conservative. What makes Trump far-right but Paul Ryan not? Paul Ryan seems further right on almost every issue to me. Because they need an ambiguous insult and calling him "conservative" or "ultra-conservative" is clearly asinine. Crafting insults for people that they don't like, but not in the same way they dislike Trump, is a tough business. They'll trial it first and see what happens. Which is why I suspect they wish Clinton's alt-right Pepe campaign push had stuck, so Trump could be an alt-right radical and they could keep right-wing for conservatives, RINOs, and policy mismatches.
What did Clinton have to do with that?
|
United Kingdom13775 Posts
On March 20 2017 09:27 Gahlo wrote:Show nested quote +On March 20 2017 09:12 Danglars wrote:On March 20 2017 08:57 Introvert wrote:On March 20 2017 08:52 Nevuk wrote:
So, I've noticed a trend in a lot of mainstream media outlets. They refer to Trump as "far-right". However, they refer to mainstream GOP people like Paul Ryan or even Mike Pence as merely conservative, very conservative, or at worst, arch-conservative. What makes Trump far-right but Paul Ryan not? Paul Ryan seems further right on almost every issue to me. Because they need an ambiguous insult and calling him "conservative" or "ultra-conservative" is clearly asinine. Crafting insults for people that they don't like, but not in the same way they dislike Trump, is a tough business. They'll trial it first and see what happens. Which is why I suspect they wish Clinton's alt-right Pepe campaign push had stuck, so Trump could be an alt-right radical and they could keep right-wing for conservatives, RINOs, and policy mismatches. What did Clinton have to do with that?
She made a push for labeling the alt-right as a dangerous party and briefly joined the anti-Pepe train before she realized no one gave a fuck.
|
United States42782 Posts
On March 20 2017 07:07 Artisreal wrote:
idk what you know about the Germany military, but it is rather underfunded and stretched pretty thin already. Ministry of defence have been calling for more funds for years on end and if some big machinery is being developed, well the Elbphilharmonie and Berlin's airport are prime examples of what happens with giant projects here at the moment.
So about stepping in or being too god for something is not really the case here. VS Russia, how do you defend yourself vs nukes though if you don't have em yourself? If a country could it'd be the UK and France. Germany doesn't even have an aircraft carrier.
By choice though. That's the point. Germany is still in many ways disarmed from WWII. If the US pulled back from Europe then it would signal an end to that policy. Germany would get nukes etc. But the world has pretty much collectively decided against that happening.
|
On March 20 2017 09:38 KwarK wrote:Show nested quote +On March 20 2017 07:07 Artisreal wrote:
idk what you know about the Germany military, but it is rather underfunded and stretched pretty thin already. Ministry of defence have been calling for more funds for years on end and if some big machinery is being developed, well the Elbphilharmonie and Berlin's airport are prime examples of what happens with giant projects here at the moment.
So about stepping in or being too god for something is not really the case here. VS Russia, how do you defend yourself vs nukes though if you don't have em yourself? If a country could it'd be the UK and France. Germany doesn't even have an aircraft carrier. By choice though. That's the point. Germany is still in many ways disarmed from WWII. If the US pulled back from Europe then it would signal an end to that policy. Germany would get nukes etc. But the world has pretty much collectively decided against that happening.
In what "ways" is germany still disarmed? And more importantly, what "policy" are you talking about?
edit:
To cut to the chase, there's only one thing correct in your statement. By choice.
Germany ruled out constitutionally nuclear weapons/nuclear reactors other than for civil use. There's your "they don't have aircraft carriers". If germany would change the constitution, which they won't, they certainly could produce carriers. Many reasons why they don't, none of which is "because other countries don't agree", most of which are in the region of "won't fit conceptional".
Germany has free hands in whatever they'd like to produce, there's only a "Obergrenze der Friedensstärke des Militärs", which regulates how many active soldiers we have in peace times. Which is arguable, since one of our allies is officially "at war" and already revoked article 5 once.
Other than that, there's zero restrictions in germany. That all ended in 1990, which i assume is "the policy" you're talking about. Since 1990, germany has full sovereignty over internal and external matters, including military.
Ministry of defence have been calling for more funds for years on end and if some big machinery is being developed, well the Elbphilharmonie and Berlin's airport are prime examples of what happens with giant projects here at the moment.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Puma_(IFV)
Germany certainly still knows how to make state of the art war machines, it's just that the government decided to not get enough of them.
|
In what "ways" is germany still disarmed? And more importantly, what "policy" are you talking about?
"Although this is not explicitly spelled out in the Basic Law, a number of Constitutional Court cases in the 1990s established that the military may not be deployed by the government outside of NATO territory without a specific resolution of parliament, which describes the details of the mission and limits its term. There are also strict restrictions on the intervention of the military within Germany (i.e. a ban of the military being used for police-type duties), which generally only allow the military to act in unarmed roles within Germany (such as disaster relief)."
direct quote from wikipedia
edit: Basic Law for the Federal Republic of Germany: II. The Federation and the Länder
Article 26
[Securing international peace]
(1) Acts tending to and undertaken with intent to disturb the peaceful relations between nations, especially to prepare for a war of aggression, shall be unconstitutional. They shall be made a criminal offence.
(2) Weapons designed for warfare may be manufactured, transported or marketed only with the permission of the Federal Government. Details shall be regulated by a federal law.
|
Good god this lady is a reprehensible human being.
Donna Brazile on The Daily Show
A completely fake woman, has learned absolutely nothing, dances around giving questions to Hillary, blame some millennials. Gross.
|
On March 20 2017 14:27 thePunGun wrote:Show nested quote +In what "ways" is germany still disarmed? And more importantly, what "policy" are you talking about? "Although this is not explicitly spelled out in the Basic Law, a number of Constitutional Court cases in the 1990s established that the military may not be deployed by the government outside of NATO territory without a specific resolution of parliament, which describes the details of the mission and limits its term. There are also strict restrictions on the intervention of the military within Germany (i.e. a ban of the military being used for police-type duties), which generally only allow the military to act in unarmed roles within Germany (such as disaster relief)."direct quote from wikipedia
That has, again, zero relation to what is argued, or where germany would be limited by "policies". Germany by design has a "Verteidigungsarmee", a defense army. "May not be deployed by the government outside NATO" literally only means that the government can't start a war without approval. It certainly didn't limit the german army in afghanistan or elsewhere (where they btw are to this day).
The latter part means that german soldiers are not allowed to do "police duty", like they do for example in france. That has even less connection to what is argued.
|
I added Article 26 for clarification. I also fixed a minor index copy paste fuck up. ^^
|
On March 20 2017 14:30 OuchyDathurts wrote:Good god this lady is a reprehensible human being. Donna Brazile on The Daily ShowA completely fake woman, has learned absolutely nothing, dances around giving questions to Hillary, blame some millennials. Gross.
roflmao "We haven't seen you for a while", Maybe because she was fired from CNN for (being caught) cheating? That will eat into your face time for sure.
|
On March 20 2017 14:34 thePunGun wrote:
I added Article 26 for clarification.
Clarification? I don't even know what you're arguing for/against, since Article 26 has nothing to do with anything that was argued here. Of course a war of aggression is illegal in germany. A war of aggression is also called "war of conquest". Wanna explain how that ties into NATO, defense spending and restrictions/policies in regards to weaponry?
|
I really hope that Trump's behaviour will eventually prompt the American military to move out of Europe. Perhaps then we can restructure NATO to be a partnership of two equals rather than being dominated by the US, similarly to how the EU provided Europe with more leverage in trade. Hopefully this will come paired with a vastly reduced American military that stays on their own continent unless there's a reason to leave and a slightly increased but mostly simply more streamlined European military.
Of course, there's the problem of "no matter what happens, the US will invest more than anyone else in military spending". How much of the 400 billion that the US holds over Europe in terms of 'defense' spending goes into their nuclear arsenal?
|
United Kingdom13775 Posts
Unless you have all manage to make the European Army a reality, it would be quite difficult to get what you want there.
|
On March 20 2017 08:52 Nevuk wrote:
So, I've noticed a trend in a lot of mainstream media outlets. They refer to Trump as "far-right". However, they refer to mainstream GOP people like Paul Ryan or even Mike Pence as merely conservative, very conservative, or at worst, arch-conservative. What makes Trump far-right but Paul Ryan not? Paul Ryan seems further right on almost every issue to me.
Because while many Republicans seem to not like immigrants they atleast somewhat try to appear neutral, while Trump just goes full racist.
I assume that is the reason.
(its also why he did so well in the primary, his less educated followers like that he is so open about it)
|
|
|
United States42782 Posts
My main take away from that is that Trump thinks there is an individual called Potus.
|
Does he even know that he is the Potus? Is that actually a confession that he colluded with Russia? Will the real Potus please stand up?
|
Well, he's literally referred to himself in the third person before during the debates. So actually calling himself "Potus" isn't a stretch.
|
I feel like a lot of Trump’s confusion about the White House could have been solved by forcing him to watch the first 4 seasons of the West Wing.
|
Trump's back to tweeting seemingly baseless conspiracy theories. 20 min ago asked if the DNC and Clinton colluded with Russians and covered it up by stopping an FBI investigation. Just in time for him to get embarrased about his last conspiracy theory, we start a new one!
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
