|
Now that we have a new thread, 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 complete and thorough read before posting! NOTE: When providing a source, please provide a very brief summary on what it's about and what purpose it adds to the discussion. The supporting statement should clearly explain why the subject is relevant and needs to be discussed. Please follow this rule especially for tweets.
Your supporting statement should always come BEFORE you provide the source.If you have any questions, comments, concern, or feedback regarding the USPMT, then please use this thread: http://www.teamliquid.net/forum/website-feedback/510156-us-politics-thread |
On June 22 2018 11:46 Nyxisto wrote:Nothing more mature and fit for the highest office in your entire country than taunting messages on the back of discounter jackets. But we already had Trump throwing candy at Merkel so not even sure if that's the new low.
“Don’t say I never gave you anything!” - Trump to Merkel. That was the quote of the starburst from the one that described the exchange. Now, Merkel’s has some dry witty lines in the past so I wonder if she got him back somehow.
Remember Melania’s pussy bow? Or inauguration getup? She certainly has fun with her outfits.
|
It is odd that Trump feels the need to lie about what the message meant (as does Melania's spokesperson who said something completely different than Trump). Clearly the message is in reference to family separation, and there's no indication that it's just a joke. Since Trump isn't willing to admit that, one can only assume that it's a dog whistle.
|
United States43448 Posts
Well it is notoriously cold by the Mexican border this time of year. Maybe it's coat weather. And maybe that's just the only coat she had to hand. Ex-models are notoriously lacking in the wardrobe department.
|
On June 22 2018 12:17 KwarK wrote:Show nested quote +On June 22 2018 05:11 ThunderJunk wrote:
That's completely false. Most people found it completely bananas to consider that the earth might not be flat. Whether or not an opinion is correct objectively has nothing to do with peoples' knee-jerk reactions. That's completely false. Everyone always knew that the world was round. Eratosthenes even calculated the circumference pretty accurately. But the whole horizon thing was pretty much enough for people to get the principle. Your opinion is objectively incorrect.
You are joking right? Beacuse otherwise its just plainly wrong. This statment --> "Everyone always knew that the world was round" is objectively and demonstrably false.
|
On June 22 2018 17:12 Silvanel wrote:Show nested quote +On June 22 2018 12:17 KwarK wrote:On June 22 2018 05:11 ThunderJunk wrote:
That's completely false. Most people found it completely bananas to consider that the earth might not be flat. Whether or not an opinion is correct objectively has nothing to do with peoples' knee-jerk reactions. That's completely false. Everyone always knew that the world was round. Eratosthenes even calculated the circumference pretty accurately. But the whole horizon thing was pretty much enough for people to get the principle. Your opinion is objectively incorrect. You are joking right? Beacuse otherwise its just plainly wrong. This statment --> "Everyone always knew that the world was round" is objectively and demonstrably false.
I think the problem is people aren't settling their time periods.
The Greeks - which is pretty much where modern thinking begins in the west - more or less figured out the world was round, but after the Dark Ages things were a bit different.
I found this twitter chain from an immigration lawyer re: Obama detaining children. The replies are interesting as well.
https://twitter.com/ImmCivilRights/status/1008902662828511232?ref_src=twsrc^tfw&ref_url=http://nymag.com/daily/intelligencer/2018/06/trumps-immigration-policies-highlight-obamas-missteps.html
From this larger article addressing the same issue: http://nymag.com/daily/intelligencer/2018/06/trumps-immigration-policies-highlight-obamas-missteps.html
Seems Obama laid the groundwork as far as I can tell.
Of course, that means Trump proved once again Republicans are incapable of taking the moral action and reversing a genuine Democrat misstep without first being far worse than they ever imagined.
|
On June 22 2018 17:12 Silvanel wrote:Show nested quote +On June 22 2018 12:17 KwarK wrote:On June 22 2018 05:11 ThunderJunk wrote:
That's completely false. Most people found it completely bananas to consider that the earth might not be flat. Whether or not an opinion is correct objectively has nothing to do with peoples' knee-jerk reactions. That's completely false. Everyone always knew that the world was round. Eratosthenes even calculated the circumference pretty accurately. But the whole horizon thing was pretty much enough for people to get the principle. Your opinion is objectively incorrect. You are joking right? Beacuse otherwise its just plainly wrong. This statment --> "Everyone always knew that the world was round" is objectively and demonstrably false.
lol. Well sorta. I mean there's probably more flat earthers today both numerically and per capita than there was 1000 years ago.
In other news, while passing legislation to save oppressed people's lives couldn't get bipartisan support if we named it "Only Satan would vote against this Bill" more money to kill them could barely get much more.
While the world continues to be transfixed over the gruesome images coming from the border, business went on as usual in Washington. Earlier this week, the Senate quietly passed the $716 billion "John S. McCain National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2019."
The bill, which passed 85-10 in a massive show of bipartisan support, represents a considerable boost in defense spending across the board – roughly $82 billion just for next year.
The annual increase by itself is bigger than the annual defense budget of Russia ($61 billion) and the two-year jump of over $165 billion eclipses the entire defense budget of China ($150 billion).
The bill is a major win for Trump, who has made no secret about his desire to push through giant increases in military spending. The legislation even sends the U.S. down the road to meeting the Trump administration’s lunatic goal of developing smaller, more "flexible" (read: usable) nuclear weapons, as it includes $65 million for the development of a new, lower-yield, submarine-launched nuke.
But the problem with the defense bill, at least in terms of attracting coverage, is that it's also a big win for almost every other major political constituency in Washington.
Spending on defense lobbying has actually been dropping slightly in recent years, but that may only be because the opposition to defense spending has become so anemic that lobbyists don’t really need to bother anymore. Historically, both parties reflexively vote to increase the defense budget, and there was not much #resistance in Congress on this issue.
www.rollingstone.com
|
I don't understand the US's blindness when it comes to defense spending. Every single time I hear one party or other whinging about not having enough money for something, I think 'can't you just knock a billion off your defense spending?'
That is just grotesque. Is America literally planning to invade earth? Who is America defending against?
I understand the financial incentives and the like, because there's so many other businesses that benefit. But don't the American people recognise that this is just a stupidly pointless waste of money?
|
On June 22 2018 19:19 iamthedave wrote:
I don't understand the US's blindness when it comes to defense spending. Every single time I hear one party or other whinging about not having enough money for something, I think 'can't you just knock a billion off your defense spending?'
That is just grotesque. Is America literally planning to invade earth? Who is America defending against?
I understand the financial incentives and the like, because there's so many other businesses that benefit. But don't the American people recognise that this is just a stupidly pointless waste of money?
Some people see reducing the spending as asking to be invaded. They want to take on the world because they are insecure.
Then there's the complication of being World Police as an expensive venture and the military not being able to fucking stop fighting somewhere.
|
On June 22 2018 19:19 iamthedave wrote:
I don't understand the US's blindness when it comes to defense spending. Every single time I hear one party or other whinging about not having enough money for something, I think 'can't you just knock a billion off your defense spending?'
That is just grotesque. Is America literally planning to invade earth? Who is America defending against?
I understand the financial incentives and the like, because there's so many other businesses that benefit. But don't the American people recognise that this is just a stupidly pointless waste of money?
America trusts much more power to agencies around the government than we do. If the CIA, the NSA and the military are all telling the government they need more money to complete whatever objectives they have given themselves, then they will get it.
Its one of those systems that is good for democracy but has obvious blind spots and drawbacks.
|
On June 22 2018 19:33 Jockmcplop wrote:Show nested quote +On June 22 2018 19:19 iamthedave wrote:
I don't understand the US's blindness when it comes to defense spending. Every single time I hear one party or other whinging about not having enough money for something, I think 'can't you just knock a billion off your defense spending?'
That is just grotesque. Is America literally planning to invade earth? Who is America defending against?
I understand the financial incentives and the like, because there's so many other businesses that benefit. But don't the American people recognise that this is just a stupidly pointless waste of money? America trusts much more power to agencies around the government than we do. If the CIA, the NSA and the military are all telling the government they need more money to complete whatever objectives they have given themselves, then they will get it. Its one of those systems that is good for democracy but has obvious blind spots and drawbacks.
I'm not sure mentioning the NSA and 'good for democracy' together really holds water after the NSA leaks a few years ago...
|
On June 22 2018 19:19 iamthedave wrote:
I don't understand the US's blindness when it comes to defense spending. Every single time I hear one party or other whinging about not having enough money for something, I think 'can't you just knock a billion off your defense spending?'
That is just grotesque. Is America literally planning to invade earth? Who is America defending against?
I understand the financial incentives and the like, because there's so many other businesses that benefit. But don't the American people recognise that this is just a stupidly pointless waste of money?
no, many of the american people don't recognize it's unnecessary. They feel afraid and think it's necessary; and that they'll be vulnerable if spending is cut.
and some politicians stoke that fear for their own political gain.
|
On June 22 2018 20:47 iamthedave wrote:Show nested quote +On June 22 2018 19:33 Jockmcplop wrote:On June 22 2018 19:19 iamthedave wrote:
I don't understand the US's blindness when it comes to defense spending. Every single time I hear one party or other whinging about not having enough money for something, I think 'can't you just knock a billion off your defense spending?'
That is just grotesque. Is America literally planning to invade earth? Who is America defending against?
I understand the financial incentives and the like, because there's so many other businesses that benefit. But don't the American people recognise that this is just a stupidly pointless waste of money? America trusts much more power to agencies around the government than we do. If the CIA, the NSA and the military are all telling the government they need more money to complete whatever objectives they have given themselves, then they will get it. Its one of those systems that is good for democracy but has obvious blind spots and drawbacks. I'm not sure mentioning the NSA and 'good for democracy' together really holds water after the NSA leaks a few years ago...
Yeah I used the wrong terminology. Its good as a safeguard against absolute power being wielded in a tyrannical way. Obviously it all went wrong but that has as much to do with secret courts as it does the existence and power of agencies like the NSA.
|
On June 22 2018 21:18 Jockmcplop wrote:Show nested quote +On June 22 2018 20:47 iamthedave wrote:On June 22 2018 19:33 Jockmcplop wrote:On June 22 2018 19:19 iamthedave wrote:
I don't understand the US's blindness when it comes to defense spending. Every single time I hear one party or other whinging about not having enough money for something, I think 'can't you just knock a billion off your defense spending?'
That is just grotesque. Is America literally planning to invade earth? Who is America defending against?
I understand the financial incentives and the like, because there's so many other businesses that benefit. But don't the American people recognise that this is just a stupidly pointless waste of money? America trusts much more power to agencies around the government than we do. If the CIA, the NSA and the military are all telling the government they need more money to complete whatever objectives they have given themselves, then they will get it. Its one of those systems that is good for democracy but has obvious blind spots and drawbacks. I'm not sure mentioning the NSA and 'good for democracy' together really holds water after the NSA leaks a few years ago... Yeah I used the wrong terminology. Its good as a safeguard against absolute power being wielded in a tyrannical way. Obviously it all went wrong but that has as much to do with secret courts as it does the existence and power of agencies like the NSA.
I feel the Trump administration has thrown up a colossal warning flag about how fragile those safeguards are. As it stands they rely upon the people in power ruling with good faith. Trump is unimpeachable not because he doesn't deserve to be impeached, but because the Republicans simply won't ever allow it to happen.
Some of those safeguards need to become civilian, I think. Non-political (as best as can be possibly achieved), independent, solely there to hold government and officials to certain standards of behaviour, and to act if they slip below.
|
On June 22 2018 21:55 iamthedave wrote:Show nested quote +On June 22 2018 21:18 Jockmcplop wrote:On June 22 2018 20:47 iamthedave wrote:On June 22 2018 19:33 Jockmcplop wrote:On June 22 2018 19:19 iamthedave wrote:
I don't understand the US's blindness when it comes to defense spending. Every single time I hear one party or other whinging about not having enough money for something, I think 'can't you just knock a billion off your defense spending?'
That is just grotesque. Is America literally planning to invade earth? Who is America defending against?
I understand the financial incentives and the like, because there's so many other businesses that benefit. But don't the American people recognise that this is just a stupidly pointless waste of money? America trusts much more power to agencies around the government than we do. If the CIA, the NSA and the military are all telling the government they need more money to complete whatever objectives they have given themselves, then they will get it. Its one of those systems that is good for democracy but has obvious blind spots and drawbacks. I'm not sure mentioning the NSA and 'good for democracy' together really holds water after the NSA leaks a few years ago... Yeah I used the wrong terminology. Its good as a safeguard against absolute power being wielded in a tyrannical way. Obviously it all went wrong but that has as much to do with secret courts as it does the existence and power of agencies like the NSA. I feel the Trump administration has thrown up a colossal warning flag about how fragile those safeguards are. As it stands they rely upon the people in power ruling with good faith. Trump is unimpeachable not because he doesn't deserve to be impeached, but because the Republicans simply won't ever allow it to happen. Some of those safeguards need to become civilian, I think. Non-political (as best as can be possibly achieved), independent, solely there to hold government and officials to certain standards of behaviour, and to act if they slip below.
Absolutely.
I'm probably wrong (I'm uneducated on US history) but I'm sure there were some agencies that were originally conceived to operate this way. I think the court system in the US is intended to some degree to be a safeguard - as we saw with Trump's Muslim ban. Then you see things like the secret courts involved in the NSA spying and you realize that they can't possibly be working as intended.
I think safeguards are the kind of thing that need constantly updating and renewing so they don't become corrupt and counter-productive.
|
United States43448 Posts
The civilian constitutional remedy to Trump has always been the 2nd amendment, as the founders intended.
|
On June 22 2018 19:19 iamthedave wrote:
I don't understand the US's blindness when it comes to defense spending. Every single time I hear one party or other whinging about not having enough money for something, I think 'can't you just knock a billion off your defense spending?'
That is just grotesque. Is America literally planning to invade earth? Who is America defending against?
I understand the financial incentives and the like, because there's so many other businesses that benefit. But don't the American people recognise that this is just a stupidly pointless waste of money?
While I'd agree that defense spending is too high, defense spending is typically viewed in % of GDP terms. 2% is the NATO min target IIRC. Raw $$ matter too, but it's not odd that a large economy like the US outspends smaller economies.
![[image loading]](https://i.imgur.com/XxqaAHt.png)
Long-term, defense is a shrinking part of the budget. Typically people use past spending as a reference point to gauge if spending is 'high' or 'low'. In that context it's not hard to see why a lot of people would see current spending as 'low'.
|
On June 22 2018 22:17 Jockmcplop wrote:Show nested quote +On June 22 2018 21:55 iamthedave wrote:On June 22 2018 21:18 Jockmcplop wrote:On June 22 2018 20:47 iamthedave wrote:On June 22 2018 19:33 Jockmcplop wrote:On June 22 2018 19:19 iamthedave wrote:
I don't understand the US's blindness when it comes to defense spending. Every single time I hear one party or other whinging about not having enough money for something, I think 'can't you just knock a billion off your defense spending?'
That is just grotesque. Is America literally planning to invade earth? Who is America defending against?
I understand the financial incentives and the like, because there's so many other businesses that benefit. But don't the American people recognise that this is just a stupidly pointless waste of money? America trusts much more power to agencies around the government than we do. If the CIA, the NSA and the military are all telling the government they need more money to complete whatever objectives they have given themselves, then they will get it. Its one of those systems that is good for democracy but has obvious blind spots and drawbacks. I'm not sure mentioning the NSA and 'good for democracy' together really holds water after the NSA leaks a few years ago... Yeah I used the wrong terminology. Its good as a safeguard against absolute power being wielded in a tyrannical way. Obviously it all went wrong but that has as much to do with secret courts as it does the existence and power of agencies like the NSA. I feel the Trump administration has thrown up a colossal warning flag about how fragile those safeguards are. As it stands they rely upon the people in power ruling with good faith. Trump is unimpeachable not because he doesn't deserve to be impeached, but because the Republicans simply won't ever allow it to happen. Some of those safeguards need to become civilian, I think. Non-political (as best as can be possibly achieved), independent, solely there to hold government and officials to certain standards of behaviour, and to act if they slip below. Absolutely. I'm probably wrong (I'm uneducated on US history) but I'm sure there were some agencies that were originally conceived to operate this way. I think the court system in the US is intended to some degree to be a safeguard - as we saw with Trump's Muslim ban. Then you see things like the secret courts involved in the NSA spying and you realize that they can't possibly be working as intended. I think safeguards are the kind of thing that need constantly updating and renewing so they don't become corrupt and counter-productive.
FISA courts aren't Article III courts, so they aren't intended to operate as the same kind of check on the other two branches. The law regarding Article I courts is a fascinating and rapidly changing area, but to the extent that even their Article III counterparts are dropping the ball, I think you're right to point out that courts generally are not the safeguard they once were. That can change, but it'll take a lot of work undoing all the damage done by garbage "pretend my politics are just a legalism" organizations like the Federalist Society.
|
United States43448 Posts
On June 22 2018 17:12 Silvanel wrote:Show nested quote +On June 22 2018 12:17 KwarK wrote:On June 22 2018 05:11 ThunderJunk wrote:
That's completely false. Most people found it completely bananas to consider that the earth might not be flat. Whether or not an opinion is correct objectively has nothing to do with peoples' knee-jerk reactions. That's completely false. Everyone always knew that the world was round. Eratosthenes even calculated the circumference pretty accurately. But the whole horizon thing was pretty much enough for people to get the principle. Your opinion is objectively incorrect. You are joking right? Beacuse otherwise its just plainly wrong. This statment --> "Everyone always knew that the world was round" is objectively and demonstrably false.
No. Flat-earthism is a really recent phenomenon. My use of the word everyone may have been hyperbolic because of the disabled etc but the consensus among the common people was that the earth was round and the consensus among the people who had an education was that it was round and they knew the curvature, diameter, circumference etc.
Hell, if you look up at the moon at night you'll see a shape that is being hit by a light source and yet is not fully illuminated. It is visibly a spherical object. The conclusion that all celestial objects are spheres is only natural.
For flat-earthism you first need the idea that there is a secret government conspiracy to tell you the earth is round which you're too smart to fall for, and for that you need modern central governments. Back when you could just see that it was round because there was a horizon there was no conspiracy to try and outsmart.
|
On June 22 2018 22:17 Jockmcplop wrote:Show nested quote +On June 22 2018 21:55 iamthedave wrote:On June 22 2018 21:18 Jockmcplop wrote:On June 22 2018 20:47 iamthedave wrote:On June 22 2018 19:33 Jockmcplop wrote:On June 22 2018 19:19 iamthedave wrote:
I don't understand the US's blindness when it comes to defense spending. Every single time I hear one party or other whinging about not having enough money for something, I think 'can't you just knock a billion off your defense spending?'
That is just grotesque. Is America literally planning to invade earth? Who is America defending against?
I understand the financial incentives and the like, because there's so many other businesses that benefit. But don't the American people recognise that this is just a stupidly pointless waste of money? America trusts much more power to agencies around the government than we do. If the CIA, the NSA and the military are all telling the government they need more money to complete whatever objectives they have given themselves, then they will get it. Its one of those systems that is good for democracy but has obvious blind spots and drawbacks. I'm not sure mentioning the NSA and 'good for democracy' together really holds water after the NSA leaks a few years ago... Yeah I used the wrong terminology. Its good as a safeguard against absolute power being wielded in a tyrannical way. Obviously it all went wrong but that has as much to do with secret courts as it does the existence and power of agencies like the NSA. I feel the Trump administration has thrown up a colossal warning flag about how fragile those safeguards are. As it stands they rely upon the people in power ruling with good faith. Trump is unimpeachable not because he doesn't deserve to be impeached, but because the Republicans simply won't ever allow it to happen. Some of those safeguards need to become civilian, I think. Non-political (as best as can be possibly achieved), independent, solely there to hold government and officials to certain standards of behaviour, and to act if they slip below. Absolutely. I'm probably wrong (I'm uneducated on US history) but I'm sure there were some agencies that were originally conceived to operate this way. I think the court system in the US is intended to some degree to be a safeguard - as we saw with Trump's Muslim ban. Then you see things like the secret courts involved in the NSA spying and you realize that they can't possibly be working as intended. I think safeguards are the kind of thing that need constantly updating and renewing so they don't become corrupt and counter-productive.
The NSA and secret courts aside(which are the least of the problems with the NSA), the three branches of government check each other. Congress controls the money, the courts control the law and what is and isn’t allowed under it and the executive branch manages the agencies/military. But it is hard to undo the will of the US voter and normally takes an election to get that done. The US system is designed to endure through bad presidents, not remove them.
Also, as much at Trump has been a problem, the court system has really reigned him in on several key issues.
|
On June 22 2018 22:33 JonnyBNoHo wrote:Show nested quote +On June 22 2018 19:19 iamthedave wrote:
I don't understand the US's blindness when it comes to defense spending. Every single time I hear one party or other whinging about not having enough money for something, I think 'can't you just knock a billion off your defense spending?'
That is just grotesque. Is America literally planning to invade earth? Who is America defending against?
I understand the financial incentives and the like, because there's so many other businesses that benefit. But don't the American people recognise that this is just a stupidly pointless waste of money? While I'd agree that defense spending is too high, defense spending is typically viewed in % of GDP terms. 2% is the NATO min target IIRC. Raw $$ matter too, but it's not odd that a large economy like the US outspends smaller economies. Long-term, defense is a shrinking part of the budget. Typically people use past spending as a reference point to gauge if spending is 'high' or 'low'. In that context it's not hard to see why a lot of people would see current spending as 'low'. Very biased graph there.
Ignore everything before 1990. Ofcourse spending is high during the Cold war, its not a reference point you want to use.
So the much shorter graph now has a spike for when the US was engaged in 2 wars in Afghanistan and Iraq and you get the current point which is about normal for a non war period (based on the other non war period, prior to 2005
And one can very much argue that the US's normal non war spending is way higher then it needs to be.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
