|
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. |
Any time before 2008 mostly. More so the farther back you get. I think Obama is the first one to not accept federal assistance because they were raising more money through small donations. Like a lot in elections, the internet changed how they were funded. But I think the growth in money being spent on elections was on the rise in the 1990s.
On October 24 2017 03:08 Slaughter wrote:Show nested quote +On October 24 2017 03:00 Plansix wrote:
Remember the good old days when candidates had to struggle to get money to run for president and needed federal assistance? And they barely made it past the finish line while going deep into the red. If only we just removed money from the equation all together. Would make it simple to see if someone was getting shady money because any money would be illegal.
Come up with a system that can’t be easily abused by the party/people in power and folks would likely sign up. But the point of money being involved is that people are supposed to be able to fund their own candidates and parties without the assistance of the state. It is a really hard problem to solve if the goal is to remove all money. Might be impossible.
|
http://www.defenseone.com/threats/2017/10/exclusive-us-preparing-put-nuclear-bombers-back-24-hour-alert/141957/
BARKSDALE AIR FORCE BASE, La. — The U.S. Air Force is preparing to put nuclear-armed bombers back on 24-hour ready alert, a status not seen since the Cold War ended in 1991.
That means the long-dormant concrete pads at the ends of this base’s 11,000-foot runway — dubbed the “Christmas tree” for their angular markings — could once again find several B-52s parked on them, laden with nuclear weapons and set to take off at a moment’s notice.
I really hope this isn't the case.
The last time this happened was when Soviet Union was a nuclear armed superpower doing the same thing.
Brinksmanship is a scary thing, and it's probably worse when I believe that Trump is less sane than Kim.
|
Vice News just quoted the Air Force saying reporting by that publication isn’t accurate. Lets hope that is the case.
|
In an interview with C-SPAN about the Vietnam War that ran over the weekend, Sen. John McCain said this:
"One aspect of the conflict, by the way, that I will never, ever countenance is that we drafted the lowest income level of America, and the highest income level found a doctor that would say they had a bone spur. That is wrong. That is wrong. If we are going to ask every American to serve, every American should serve."
www.cnn.com
|
United Kingdom13775 Posts
On October 24 2017 03:16 Lmui wrote:http://www.defenseone.com/threats/2017/10/exclusive-us-preparing-put-nuclear-bombers-back-24-hour-alert/141957/ Show nested quote +BARKSDALE AIR FORCE BASE, La. — The U.S. Air Force is preparing to put nuclear-armed bombers back on 24-hour ready alert, a status not seen since the Cold War ended in 1991.
That means the long-dormant concrete pads at the ends of this base’s 11,000-foot runway — dubbed the “Christmas tree” for their angular markings — could once again find several B-52s parked on them, laden with nuclear weapons and set to take off at a moment’s notice. I really hope this isn't the case. The last time this happened was when Soviet Union was a nuclear armed superpower doing the same thing. Brinksmanship is a scary thing, and it's probably worse when I believe that Trump is less sane than Kim.
Frankly this looks more like ego than about addressing any real threat. No particular reason to be worried about MAD now more so than a month ago or a year ago. Seems mostly in line with the Trumpian “we need to expand our nuclear arsenal” pointlessness.
Edit: and claimed to be inaccurate. Go figure.
|
On October 24 2017 03:16 Lmui wrote:http://www.defenseone.com/threats/2017/10/exclusive-us-preparing-put-nuclear-bombers-back-24-hour-alert/141957/ Show nested quote +BARKSDALE AIR FORCE BASE, La. — The U.S. Air Force is preparing to put nuclear-armed bombers back on 24-hour ready alert, a status not seen since the Cold War ended in 1991.
That means the long-dormant concrete pads at the ends of this base’s 11,000-foot runway — dubbed the “Christmas tree” for their angular markings — could once again find several B-52s parked on them, laden with nuclear weapons and set to take off at a moment’s notice. I really hope this isn't the case. The last time this happened was when Soviet Union was a nuclear armed superpower doing the same thing. Brinksmanship is a scary thing, and it's probably worse when I believe that Trump is less sane than Kim.
I might trust Trump’s sanity above yours if you think Kim Jong-Un profits by the comparison. No death camps yet for Trump, but Kim on the other hand...
But I think people say this because it’s trendy to brinkmanship the “literally Hitler” train of thought. He made I’ll advised comments on the NFL ... is he Hitler, Stalin, or worse?
|
|
|
On October 24 2017 03:32 Danglars wrote:Show nested quote +On October 24 2017 03:16 Lmui wrote:http://www.defenseone.com/threats/2017/10/exclusive-us-preparing-put-nuclear-bombers-back-24-hour-alert/141957/ BARKSDALE AIR FORCE BASE, La. — The U.S. Air Force is preparing to put nuclear-armed bombers back on 24-hour ready alert, a status not seen since the Cold War ended in 1991.
That means the long-dormant concrete pads at the ends of this base’s 11,000-foot runway — dubbed the “Christmas tree” for their angular markings — could once again find several B-52s parked on them, laden with nuclear weapons and set to take off at a moment’s notice. I really hope this isn't the case. The last time this happened was when Soviet Union was a nuclear armed superpower doing the same thing. Brinksmanship is a scary thing, and it's probably worse when I believe that Trump is less sane than Kim. I might trust Trump’s sanity above yours if you think Kim Jong-Un profits by the comparison. No death camps yet for Trump, but Kim on the other hand... But I think people say this because it’s trendy to brinkmanship the “literally Hitler” train of thought. He made I’ll advised comments on the NFL ... is he Hitler, Stalin, or worse?
In what way do you regard his comments regarding the NFL I'll advised? What would've been good for him to say in your opinion?
|
|
|
On October 24 2017 03:52 Artisreal wrote:Show nested quote +On October 24 2017 03:32 Danglars wrote:On October 24 2017 03:16 Lmui wrote:http://www.defenseone.com/threats/2017/10/exclusive-us-preparing-put-nuclear-bombers-back-24-hour-alert/141957/ BARKSDALE AIR FORCE BASE, La. — The U.S. Air Force is preparing to put nuclear-armed bombers back on 24-hour ready alert, a status not seen since the Cold War ended in 1991.
That means the long-dormant concrete pads at the ends of this base’s 11,000-foot runway — dubbed the “Christmas tree” for their angular markings — could once again find several B-52s parked on them, laden with nuclear weapons and set to take off at a moment’s notice. I really hope this isn't the case. The last time this happened was when Soviet Union was a nuclear armed superpower doing the same thing. Brinksmanship is a scary thing, and it's probably worse when I believe that Trump is less sane than Kim. I might trust Trump’s sanity above yours if you think Kim Jong-Un profits by the comparison. No death camps yet for Trump, but Kim on the other hand... But I think people say this because it’s trendy to brinkmanship the “literally Hitler” train of thought. He made I’ll advised comments on the NFL ... is he Hitler, Stalin, or worse? In what way do you regard his comments regarding the NFL I'll advised? What would've been good for him to say in your opinion?
Nothing
|
Thanks for linking. I suspected you had commented on that but searching on mobile is a pain
|
On October 24 2017 03:11 Plansix wrote:Any time before 2008 mostly. More so the farther back you get. I think Obama is the first one to not accept federal assistance because they were raising more money through small donations. Like a lot in elections, the internet changed how they were funded. But I think the growth in money being spent on elections was on the rise in the 1990s. Show nested quote +On October 24 2017 03:08 Slaughter wrote:On October 24 2017 03:00 Plansix wrote:
Remember the good old days when candidates had to struggle to get money to run for president and needed federal assistance? And they barely made it past the finish line while going deep into the red. If only we just removed money from the equation all together. Would make it simple to see if someone was getting shady money because any money would be illegal. Come up with a system that can’t be easily abused by the party/people in power and folks would likely sign up. But the point of money being involved is that people are supposed to be able to fund their own candidates and parties without the assistance of the state. It is a really hard problem to solve if the goal is to remove all money. Might be impossible.
In Europe parties are funded by the state based on their results on previous elections, with a very strict process. Campaigns are extremely regulated. And it works perfectly. French election are nowhere near the corrupt clownshow that we painfully witness every 4 years in the US. They are comparatively modest in scale and infinitely fairer.
The us campaign process makes the system inherently corrupt (if we define corruption as the act of buying what - or who is supposed to be serving the public); and i think american democracy is inherently fucked. If private donors fund elections, and if election are fueled by gigantic money (as they are), elected officials mechanically owe loyalty to their donors above everyone else. And if you can give a virtually unlimited amount of money to a candidate (which is batshit crazy), you are worth as much as your wealth in the democratic process. Meaning your democracy is no democracy at all.
It's never gonna change (especially with the GOPstealing the supreme court), and I think it dooms the country in the long term (think historically).
|
On October 24 2017 03:32 Danglars wrote:Show nested quote +On October 24 2017 03:16 Lmui wrote:http://www.defenseone.com/threats/2017/10/exclusive-us-preparing-put-nuclear-bombers-back-24-hour-alert/141957/ BARKSDALE AIR FORCE BASE, La. — The U.S. Air Force is preparing to put nuclear-armed bombers back on 24-hour ready alert, a status not seen since the Cold War ended in 1991.
That means the long-dormant concrete pads at the ends of this base’s 11,000-foot runway — dubbed the “Christmas tree” for their angular markings — could once again find several B-52s parked on them, laden with nuclear weapons and set to take off at a moment’s notice. I really hope this isn't the case. The last time this happened was when Soviet Union was a nuclear armed superpower doing the same thing. Brinksmanship is a scary thing, and it's probably worse when I believe that Trump is less sane than Kim. I might trust Trump’s sanity above yours if you think Kim Jong-Un profits by the comparison. No death camps yet for Trump, but Kim on the other hand... But I think people say this because it’s trendy to brinkmanship the “literally Hitler” train of thought. He made I’ll advised comments on the NFL ... is he Hitler, Stalin, or worse?
Well, for all his awfulness, Kim is at least ruthlessly rational. Now you can't compare the two because they rule completely different countries in completely different contexts; and comparing Trump to Hitler (or Kim) makes as much sense as comparing Obama to Alexander the Great.
Trump is fucking awful on every level, and probably about the worst the US could get. There is no need to compare with historical figures, it's enough to state the obvious, which is that he has the temperament of an angsty child, no morality whatsoever, a very limited intelligence, no curiosity, no decency, no respect for anything but himself (if so) and no understanding betond spite and his ludicrously fragile ego of anything his task requires.
Worst than Hitler? Makes 0 sense. A fucking clown and a historical disaster? Sure.
But hey you voted for that, and you'll do it again, so i don't know why i bother.
|
eh. i think kim is probably a more 'rational' actor, but the difference b/w him and trump comes down to norms. we expect kim to do and say all sorts of crazy things because he's a north korean dictator. otoh, there is a different sort of standard set by previous presidents of the united states.
|
On October 24 2017 03:32 Danglars wrote:Show nested quote +On October 24 2017 03:16 Lmui wrote:http://www.defenseone.com/threats/2017/10/exclusive-us-preparing-put-nuclear-bombers-back-24-hour-alert/141957/ BARKSDALE AIR FORCE BASE, La. — The U.S. Air Force is preparing to put nuclear-armed bombers back on 24-hour ready alert, a status not seen since the Cold War ended in 1991.
That means the long-dormant concrete pads at the ends of this base’s 11,000-foot runway — dubbed the “Christmas tree” for their angular markings — could once again find several B-52s parked on them, laden with nuclear weapons and set to take off at a moment’s notice. I really hope this isn't the case. The last time this happened was when Soviet Union was a nuclear armed superpower doing the same thing. Brinksmanship is a scary thing, and it's probably worse when I believe that Trump is less sane than Kim. I might trust Trump’s sanity above yours if you think Kim Jong-Un profits by the comparison. No death camps yet for Trump, but Kim on the other hand... But I think people say this because it’s trendy to brinkmanship the “literally Hitler” train of thought. He made I’ll advised comments on the NFL ... is he Hitler, Stalin, or worse?
Kim-Jong Un is very simple to understand. He wishes to stay in power. He keeps those camps around in order to stay in power. He keeps his people hungry so that they lack energy to mount resistance. He tells them the reason they are hungry is that the US could invade at any given moment so they also lack the will to resist. For those who do he locks not only them away but 3 generations away so that they fear resisting because it would harm those they care about. The man who desires power is the simplest man to understand and the easiest to predict.
Trump is much less simple to define. He desires to be loved and adored and thought of as amazing and possesses an incredibly fragile ego that cannot even handle a perceived slight. Quick to anger and lash out at others and unable to accept responsibility for his own mistakes mean that while you can predict his reaction you cannot predict the degree to which he will react such as what is going on now with the soldier issue.
Both are technically sane but Kim is easier to understand and thus work with because his motivations are purely selfish and self serving and a man who serves only himself can be negotiated with on that front if he believes he is more likely to stay in power without nukes then with them. I believe he saw what happened in Libya and that makes him believe he needs nukes in order to stay in power and he sees Trump as a man who is quick to go back on his word or the word of the country. That means he has likely calculated that having nukes and the ability to nuke the US is the best way to make sure that he remains in power.
|
On October 24 2017 04:43 Biff The Understudy wrote:Show nested quote +On October 24 2017 03:32 Danglars wrote:On October 24 2017 03:16 Lmui wrote:http://www.defenseone.com/threats/2017/10/exclusive-us-preparing-put-nuclear-bombers-back-24-hour-alert/141957/ BARKSDALE AIR FORCE BASE, La. — The U.S. Air Force is preparing to put nuclear-armed bombers back on 24-hour ready alert, a status not seen since the Cold War ended in 1991.
That means the long-dormant concrete pads at the ends of this base’s 11,000-foot runway — dubbed the “Christmas tree” for their angular markings — could once again find several B-52s parked on them, laden with nuclear weapons and set to take off at a moment’s notice. I really hope this isn't the case. The last time this happened was when Soviet Union was a nuclear armed superpower doing the same thing. Brinksmanship is a scary thing, and it's probably worse when I believe that Trump is less sane than Kim. I might trust Trump’s sanity above yours if you think Kim Jong-Un profits by the comparison. No death camps yet for Trump, but Kim on the other hand... But I think people say this because it’s trendy to brinkmanship the “literally Hitler” train of thought. He made I’ll advised comments on the NFL ... is he Hitler, Stalin, or worse? Well, for all his awfulness, Kim is at least ruthlessly rational. Now you can't compare the two because they rule completely different countries in completely different contexts; and comparing Trump to Hitler (or Kim) makes as much sense as comparing Obama to Alexander the Great. Trump is fucking awful on every level, and probably about the worst the US could get. There is no need to compare with historical figures, it's enough to state the obvious, which is that he has the temperament of an angsty child, no morality whatsoever, a very limited intelligence, no curiosity, no decency, no respect for anything but himself (if so) and no understanding betond spite and his ludicrously fragile ego of anything his task requires. Worst than Hitler? Makes 0 sense. A fucking clown and a historical disaster? Sure. But hey you voted for that, and you'll do it again, so i don't know why i bother.
If you're responding to a comparison of figures by saying you can't compare the two, and no need to compare to historical figures ... then proceed to make asides comparing them, I think you should re-look at your argument.
|
On October 24 2017 05:02 ticklishmusic wrote:
eh. i think kim is probably a more 'rational' actor, but the difference b/w him and trump comes down to norms. we expect kim to do and say all sorts of crazy things because he's a north korean dictator. otoh, there is a different sort of standard set by previous presidents of the united states.
What about a narcissist with braggadocio that habitually lies? He has a rational interest in using low media credibility to defend his ego. He was elected to cause chaos within his own party, for it's wrongs, so he rationally takes them apart. He's known for his reality tv and NY playboy persona, so he argues with his own staff (homage to You're Fired) and lunges from one corner of the political battlefield to the other ruffling feathers. You give Kim too much credit.
|
United States42772 Posts
On October 24 2017 05:16 Danglars wrote:Show nested quote +On October 24 2017 04:43 Biff The Understudy wrote:On October 24 2017 03:32 Danglars wrote:On October 24 2017 03:16 Lmui wrote:http://www.defenseone.com/threats/2017/10/exclusive-us-preparing-put-nuclear-bombers-back-24-hour-alert/141957/ BARKSDALE AIR FORCE BASE, La. — The U.S. Air Force is preparing to put nuclear-armed bombers back on 24-hour ready alert, a status not seen since the Cold War ended in 1991.
That means the long-dormant concrete pads at the ends of this base’s 11,000-foot runway — dubbed the “Christmas tree” for their angular markings — could once again find several B-52s parked on them, laden with nuclear weapons and set to take off at a moment’s notice. I really hope this isn't the case. The last time this happened was when Soviet Union was a nuclear armed superpower doing the same thing. Brinksmanship is a scary thing, and it's probably worse when I believe that Trump is less sane than Kim. I might trust Trump’s sanity above yours if you think Kim Jong-Un profits by the comparison. No death camps yet for Trump, but Kim on the other hand... But I think people say this because it’s trendy to brinkmanship the “literally Hitler” train of thought. He made I’ll advised comments on the NFL ... is he Hitler, Stalin, or worse? Well, for all his awfulness, Kim is at least ruthlessly rational. Now you can't compare the two because they rule completely different countries in completely different contexts; and comparing Trump to Hitler (or Kim) makes as much sense as comparing Obama to Alexander the Great. Trump is fucking awful on every level, and probably about the worst the US could get. There is no need to compare with historical figures, it's enough to state the obvious, which is that he has the temperament of an angsty child, no morality whatsoever, a very limited intelligence, no curiosity, no decency, no respect for anything but himself (if so) and no understanding betond spite and his ludicrously fragile ego of anything his task requires. Worst than Hitler? Makes 0 sense. A fucking clown and a historical disaster? Sure. But hey you voted for that, and you'll do it again, so i don't know why i bother. If you're responding to a comparison of figures by saying you can't compare the two, and no need to compare to historical figures ... then proceed to make asides comparing them, I think you should re-look at your argument.
I think you need to read what he wrote again. He didn't compare either with historical figures, or each other.
|
I think it's important to keep in mind the difference between rational actors and predictable actors. I think the main issue many see with Trump is that he is only predictable if you know everything he's being told and watching on T.V., but everyone telling him things has their own unique motivations and they rise and fall based upon unpredictable factors.
I don't think, for example, anyone predicted a multiple-weeks-long spat with NFL players in part because a basketball player declined an invitation to go to the White House.
This can be especially troublesome with foreign policy because he whiplashes between isolationism and adventurism seemingly at the drop of a hat based on who told him what about a given issue.
|
On October 24 2017 05:19 Danglars wrote:Show nested quote +On October 24 2017 05:02 ticklishmusic wrote:
eh. i think kim is probably a more 'rational' actor, but the difference b/w him and trump comes down to norms. we expect kim to do and say all sorts of crazy things because he's a north korean dictator. otoh, there is a different sort of standard set by previous presidents of the united states. What about a narcissist with braggadocio that habitually lies? He has a rational interest in using low media credibility to defend his ego. He was elected to cause chaos within his own party, for it's wrongs, so he rationally takes them apart. He's known for his reality tv and NY playboy persona, so he argues with his own staff (homage to You're Fired) and lunges from one corner of the political battlefield to the other ruffling feathers. You give Kim too much credit.
you're arguing that trump can/ should/ does act like a realty tv show guy. i'm arguing he's supposed to act like a president in the mold of the ones who came before him.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
