US Politics: 2017 Edition

Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you:

No adverts like this in the forums anymore.
Times and dates in your local timezone.
Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance.
Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely.
Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net.

If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

**Peregrine**

{citation needed}

Seriously, you provide no evidence at all for any of your claims. A vague reference to "I met a guy one time" is not at all credible, and the obvious conclusion here is that this is more of your hyperbolic panic-mode misunderstandings of science. You know, kind of like your thread about how we aren't alarmed enough about the potential to destroy the entire universe by going too fast.

**Witzkatz**

Let me get this straight, you're highly concerned about the extinction of our species in the next 50 years, based on a guy you talked to and a "brief explanation" somewhere - and you never felt the urge to look up the research and science behind it in more detail yourself?

**Pouncey**

Witzkatz wrote:
Let me get this straight, you're highly concerned about the extinction of our species in the next 50 years, based on a guy you talked to and a "brief explanation" somewhere - and you never felt the urge to look up the research and science behind it in more detail yourself?

I wouldn't understand it.

Why would I look up something I know I wouldn't understand?

**Crazyterran**

Im lretty sure a guy told us the mayans predicted the world would end a couple eyars ago, and he provided more priof then you are right now...

**Pouncey**

Also, I'm not concerned about it.

To me, it's just a grim fact about the future.

I can't do anything to alter the outcome.

Why would I be concerned about something I can't control?

Trump has control though.

If he dissolves the Environmental Protection Agency, life dies faster. If he doesn't, the EPA can do their thing more.

**Witzkatz**

Pouncey wrote:
Witzkatz wrote:
Let me get this straight, you're highly concerned about the extinction of our species in the next 50 years, based on a guy you talked to and a "brief explanation" somewhere - and you never felt the urge to look up the research and science behind it in more detail yourself?

I wouldn't understand it.

Why would I look up something I know I wouldn't understand?

So you have inherent trust in this brief explanation and the guy you talked to about this event happening - but on the other hand, you dismiss doubt and criticism that this'll happen from half a dozen people in this thread alone?

**Peregrine**

Pouncey wrote:
I wouldn't understand it.

Why would I look up something I know I wouldn't understand?

So let me get this straight: you don't understand the subject enough to read anything about it, yet you're very sure about your claim that humanity is going to be extinct within 50 years. These two aren't really compatible, you know. If you understand so little that you can't even do basic research to learn about the science behind all of this then it should be a giant red flag that none of your opinions here should be trustworthy. None of us should give them any credit, and you shouldn't give them any credit. If you don't have the ability to understand anything then the only opinion you should have is "the scientific consensus is probably correct".

**Pouncey**

Crazyterran wrote:
Im lretty sure a guy told us the mayans predicted the world would end a couple eyars ago, and he provided more priof then you are right now...

I really would rather you didn't believe me at this point.

I'm... gonna go to other threads.

Bye for now. I might drop in later if I want to talk about US politics again.

**Peregrine**

Pouncey wrote:
Also, I'm not concerned about it.

To me, it's just a grim fact about the future.

I can't do anything to alter the outcome.

Why would I be concerned about something I can't control?

Trump has control though.

If he dissolves the Environmental Protection Agency, life dies faster. If he doesn't, the EPA can do their thing more.

You missed the point of the question. It's not about whether or not you can do anything, it's about whether anyone can do anything. You simultaneously claimed that "everything that can be done is already being done" and "Trump can change the situation". These two positions are not compatible. If everything is already being done and there's no point in saying "hey guys, extinction is coming if we don't do X/Y/Z" then Trump's actions can't change this. By saying that Trump's actions matter you're implicitly stating that we aren't doing everything we can yet.

Automatically Appended Next Post:

Pouncey wrote:
I really would rather you didn't believe me at this point.

I'm... gonna go to other threads.

Bye for now. I might drop in later if I want to talk about US politics again.

I'll take this as your concession that you made another poor argument, failed to defend it, and couldn't face the prospect of admitting that you were wrong.

**Pouncey**

Peregrine wrote:
Pouncey wrote:
Also, I'm not concerned about it.

To me, it's just a grim fact about the future.

I can't do anything to alter the outcome.

Why would I be concerned about something I can't control?

Trump has control though.

If he dissolves the Environmental Protection Agency, life dies faster. If he doesn't, the EPA can do their thing more.

You missed the point of the question. It's not about whether or not you can do anything, it's about whether anyone can do anything. You simultaneously claimed that "everything that can be done is already being done" and "Trump can change the situation". These two positions are not compatible. If everything is already being done and there's no point in saying "hey guys, extinction is coming if we don't do X/Y/Z" then Trump's actions can't change this. By saying that Trump's actions matter you're implicitly stating that we aren't doing everything we can yet.

You're right.

Doesn't make sense, does it.

I think I messed up.

Sorry for wasting everyone's time with that stuff.

**jmurph**

Frazzled wrote:

I have a kid interviewing for Stanford and another accepted to U of Illinois Comp Sci PhD. I'll take a Texas education over a NY public education any day of the week pal.

You mean the same Texas that consistently rates in the bottom of education standards? 43 out of 50 here (considerably worse than NY, but hey, at least we aren't Mississippi!)

Your daughter is smart and you probably helped her out by being an involved parent. but don't pretend that Texas has a good system. Most of the South and Southwest has crappy public educational systems.

Texas has a tremendous problem with religious agendas and revisionists pushing political curriculum while the leg. holds the purse strings tight to uphold the sacred cow of low property taxes. Couple that with administrative corruption in the larger districts and low tax bases in both rural and many urban areas, and you have a real problem. The wealthiest districts are the only ones that can hang on. So you get areas like Allen and Frisco that can afford gonzo college stadiums while Dallas is shutting down schools. Meanwhile, the teen pregnancy rate is back on the upswing, with the state ranking 3rd in the nation (California during the same period actually cut their rate by 2/3rds).

So maybe the current system isn't the greatest.

**d-usa**

jmurph wrote:
Frazzled wrote:

I have a kid interviewing for Stanford and another accepted to U of Illinois Comp Sci PhD. I'll take a Texas education over a NY public education any day of the week pal.

You mean the same Texas that consistently rates in the bottom of education standards? 43 out of 50 here (considerably worse than NY, but hey, at least we aren't Mississippi!)

Your daughter is smart and you probably helped her out by being an involved parent. but don't pretend that Texas has a good system. Most of the South and Southwest has crappy public educational systems.

Texas has a tremendous problem with religious agendas and revisionists pushing political curriculum while the leg. holds the purse strings tight to uphold the sacred cow of low property taxes. Couple that with administrative corruption in the larger districts and low tax bases in both rural and many urban areas, and you have a real problem. The wealthiest districts are the only ones that can hang on. So you get areas like Allen and Frisco that can afford gonzo college stadiums while Dallas is shutting down schools. Meanwhile, the teen pregnancy rate is back on the upswing, with the state ranking 3rd in the nation (California during the same period actually cut their rate by 2/3rds).

So maybe the current system isn't the greatest.

That's not to say that the Frazzled kids aren't smart cookies and are well deserving of the admissions into prestigious programs.

But yeah, success in spite of the system doesn't mean that the system is great.

**Pouncey**

jmurph wrote:
Frazzled wrote:

I have a kid interviewing for Stanford and another accepted to U of Illinois Comp Sci PhD. I'll take a Texas education over a NY public education any day of the week pal.

You mean the same Texas that consistently rates in the bottom of education standards? 43 out of 50 here (considerably worse than NY, but hey, at least we aren't Mississippi!)

Your daughter is smart and you probably helped her out by being an involved parent. but don't pretend that Texas has a good system. Most of the South and Southwest has crappy public educational systems.

Texas has a tremendous problem with religious agendas and revisionists pushing political curriculum while the leg. holds the purse strings tight to uphold the sacred cow of low property taxes. Couple that with administrative corruption in the larger districts and low tax bases in both rural and many urban areas, and you have a real problem. The wealthiest districts are the only ones that can hang on. So you get areas like Allen and Frisco that can afford gonzo college stadiums while Dallas is shutting down schools. Meanwhile, the teen pregnancy rate is back on the upswing, with the state ranking 3rd in the nation (California during the same period actually cut their rate by 2/3rds).

So maybe the current system isn't the greatest.

Mind if I rant a bit more generally while doing a tangent off your final sentence?

Well, no, of course it's not the greatest. It's a type of democracy, which is when you run your government as a popularity contest. And then Republic part basically serves to make the popularity contest work by requiring fewer people to be part of most popularity contests while everyone is invited to participate in the popularity contest to decide who those few people will be who are allowed to participate in the popularity contests for a while.

It's an absolutely terrible and atrocious form of government, horrible and awful.

But... all the other options are even worse, so that's what we have to go with.

Would you guys stop espousing the virtues of democracy so hard? It's terrible. It's just the best of a bad set of options.

What was it that one guy said? Something like, "Democracy is the worst form of government imaginable, except for all the others." That's not saying democracy is good. That's saying it's awful but all of the alternatives are even worse.

**whembly**

Since we've been yammering about NATO for a bit... did anyone see this?
Defense Secretary Mattis issues new ultimatum to NATO allies on defense spending

BRUSSELS — Defense Secretary Jim Mattis issued an ultimatum Wednesday to allies in the North Atlantic Treaty Organization, warning that if they do not boost their defense spending to goals set by the alliance, the United States may alter its relationship with them.

“I owe it to you all to give you clarity on the political reality in the United States and to state the fair demand from my country’s people in concrete terms,” Mattis said. “America will meet its responsibilities, but if your nations do not want to see America moderate its commitment to the alliance, each of your capitals needs to show its support for our common defense.”

The statements came during a closed-doors meeting with defense ministers from other NATO countries and were provided to reporters traveling with the defense secretary to Brussels. It marks an escalation in Washington’s long-running frustration that many NATO countries do not spend at least 2 percent of their gross domestic product as they have pledged. President Trump often made that point during his upstart run for the White House, at various times calling the alliance “obsolete” while grousing that its 28 members need to pay “their fair share.”

Mattis, a retired Marine general, recalled Wednesday that when he was NATO’s supreme allied commander of transformation from November 2007 to September 2009, he watched as then-Defense Secretary Robert Gates warned NATO nations that Congress and the American people “would lose their patience for carrying a disproportionate burden” of the defense of allies.

That impatience, Mattis said, is now a “governmental reality.”

“No longer can the American taxpayer carry a disproportionate share of the defense of Western values,” Mattis said. “Americans cannot care more for your children’s security than you do. Disregard for military readiness demonstrates a lack of respect for ourselves, for the alliance and for the freedoms we inherited, which are now clearly threatened.”

Currently, just five of NATO’s 28 countries spend at least 2 percent on defense: the United Kingdom, Estonia, Poland, Greece and the United States. Major members of the alliance that do not include France (1.78 percent), Turkey (1.56), Germany (1.19), Italy (1.11) and Canada (.99), according to NATO figures. Others have pledged to do so but not until 2024.

Mattis said Washington needs the help of other nations already spending 2 percent to urge the others to do so. Those already with a plan to boost spending must accelerate it, and countries without one must establish one soon, he said.

The remarks come as NATO nations confront how to handle Russia following its 2014 annexation of Ukraine’s Crimean Peninsula and U.S. intelligence assessments that Russia hacked Democratic Party officials during the presidential campaign last year. Retired Lt. Gen. Michael Flynn, resigned under pressure Monday night as Trump’s national security adviser after revelations that he misled Vice President Pence about secret communications with Sergey Kislyak, the Russian ambassador to the United States, regarding sanctions imposed by the Obama administration in response to the alleged hacking.

“Fellow ministers, when the Cold War ended, we all had hopes,” Mattis said. “The year 2014 awakened us to a new reality: Russia used force to alter the borders of one of its sovereign neighbors, and on Turkey’s border [the Islamic State] emerged and introduced a ruthless breed of terror, intent on seizing territory and establishing a caliphate. While these events have unfolded before our eyes, some in this alliance have looked away in denial of what was happening.”

NATO Secretary General Jens Stoltenberg sought to downplay any suggestion that Mattis’s message constituted a threat, saying that the United States was simply pressing its allies to live up to their own commitments.

“This is not the U.S. telling Europe to increase defense spending,” Stoltenberg said at a news conference after the tough meeting. “This is 28 allies, heads of state, that all were sitting around the same table in 2014, and looking into each other’s eyes and agreeing that we shall increase defense spending.

“I welcome all pressure, all support to make sure that happens,” Stoltenberg said, adding that Lithuania and Romania have pledged to reach 2 percent soon.

Others in the room when Mattis spoke saw his message differently.

“If you pardon my French, we got the message. Pay up or be” pushed, one European diplomat said, using a more vulgar term for what the United States might do to its allies. “If you take him literally, then the message is indeed that there’s no unconditional guarantee of security any more,” the diplomat said, speaking on condition of anonymity to speak openly about the reaction.

But not every leader felt that the message was a major departure from longtime U.S. policy to ratchet up its allies’ defense spending.

“It’s nothing new, to be honest,” Dutch Defense Minister Jeanine Hennis-Plasschaert said in an interview. “Mattis asked for milestones, so all of us will go home and work on them.”

Public opinion in the Netherlands – which currently spends 1.17 percent of its annual economic output on defense – is in favor of spending increases, she said.

“Public support has increased because it’s a rough world out there and people have noticed,” she said. “Europe and also the Netherlands for way too long were accustomed to peace and American leadership.”

Mattis’s ultimatum could have the largest effect for Germany. If it were to meet the 2 percent bar, it would boost its defense spending to about $75 billion per year, resulting in a military larger than Britain’s. That would be a profound shift for a country that has long had a pacifist tradition that held it back from embracing a global defense presence as great as its economic might.

Mattis’s demands were echoed by British Defense Secretary Michael Fallon, who met head-to-head with the U.S. defense chief before the main NATO conclave. Fallon said that Britain — which spends the second-largest amount on defense in the alliance — is proposing that countries that spend less than NATO guidelines commit to an annual defense budget increase.

“An annual increase would at least demonstrate good faith,” Fallon told a small group of reporters in Brussels. Fallon said that Mattis had underlined a “100 percent commitment” to NATO.

Britain has generally tried to ally itself with the Trump administration as London negotiates an exit from the European Union. But British leaders have urged Trump to maintain his military commitment to NATO and to Europe.

What a world of difference having Mattis giving blunt and clear messaging...

Also, to my UK/EU dakkaroos... what do you think of the blurb about Germany above? With what they need to do to get it up to the 2% threshold??

**d-usa**

There are too many people making money off our military for me to believe that we are ever going to pull back on our NATO support. Decreasing our support of NATO would be political suicide for politicians.

**AlmightyWalrus**

I'd like to argue that Trump isn't defending "Western values" in the first place anyway, but...

**Kanluwen**

d-usa wrote:
There are too many people making money off our military for me to believe that we are ever going to pull back on our NATO support. Decreasing our support of NATO would be political suicide for politicians.

Ding ding ding.

Not only are there too many people making money off our military, the Republicans have pushed themselves so far into the "We need the military to defend ourselves against EVERYTHING! AND EVERYONE!" corner that they cannot retract any support for the military as if they do...they're seen to be weakening the nation.

They totally can screw over veterans though, so long as they do it quietly and by defunding agencies and programs that help them.

**infinite_array**

I'm sure this won't have any implications for potential conflicts of interest with SCOTUS and Trump's actions:

http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2017/02/16/leaked-emails-show-justice-clarence-thomas-s-wife-pushing-travel-ban.html

Leaked Emails Show Justice Clarence Thomas’s Wife Pushing Travel Ban

Justice Clarence Thomas’s wife is organizing in support of President Donald Trump’s agenda. And it might make her husband’s life a little complicated.

In an email sent to a conservative listserv on Feb. 13 and obtained by The Daily Beast, Ginni Thomas asked an interesting question: How could she organize activists to push for Trump’s policies?

“What is the best way to, with minimal costs, set up a daily text capacity for a ground up-grassroots army for pro-Trump daily action items to push back against the left’s resistance efforts who are trying to make America ungovernable?” she wrote.

“I see the left has Daily Action @YourDailyAction and their Facebook likes are up to 61K,” she continued.

She then linked to a Washington Post story about the group.

“But there are some grassroots activists, who seem beyond the Republican party or the conservative movement, who wish to join the fray on social media for Trump and link shields and build momentum,” she wrote. “I met with a house load of them yesterday and we want a daily textable tool to start… Suggestions?”

Neither Ginni nor Clarence Thomas returned requests for comment. The group she referred to, Daily Action, encourages people who oppose Trump’s agenda to make a phone call every day on relevant issues—including the travel ban. Thomas, on the other hand, has characterized former acting Attorney General Sally Yates as part of a “subversive alt-government” trying to undermine the president and make America “ungovernable” in a recent Daily Caller article. Yates drew ire from the right when she refused to have DOJ lawyers defend the president’s travel ban.

And that travel ban could end up before the Supreme Court. Last week, the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals in San Francisco ruled against Trump’s travel ban. And a federal judge in Virginia on Monday issued a preliminary injunction against the ban, blocking its enforcement in the Commonwealth.

It isn’t clear yet if the Justice Department lawyers defending Trump’s ban will appeal the 9th Circuit ruling to the Supreme Court. But if that happens, then Thomas’s activism could be an issue, according to legal experts.

**AllSeeingSkink**

d-usa wrote:
There are too many people making money off our military for me to believe that we are ever going to pull back on our NATO support. Decreasing our support of NATO would be political suicide for politicians.

I never really got the impression the US considered insane amounts of military spending a burden, more like a mark of pride

**kronk**

"We spend more on port-a-potty rentals at our nation's air shows at Air Force Bases across the country than Italy's entire military budget!"

feth yeah!

**whembly**

AllSeeingSkink wrote:
d-usa wrote:
There are too many people making money off our military for me to believe that we are ever going to pull back on our NATO support. Decreasing our support of NATO would be political suicide for politicians.
I never really got the impression the US considered insane amounts of military spending a burden, more like a mark of pride

Well... we are a nations that has conversations of ditching the Boeing 747 plans for Air Force One in favor of a modified B-21 stealth bomber platform:
http://ameriforce.net/presidential-bomber-report-touts-b-21-air-force-one/

Can't see how that can ever be pragmatic... but, it's a hell of an entrance to foreign nations... BOO! We're HERE!

**reds8n**

We'd know in advance thanks to Twitter

**kronk**

reds8n wrote:
We'd know in advance thanks to Twitter

Our only weakness!

Loose lips sink ships!

**Pouncey**

I'm... scared.

The US is pushing for other NATO countries to spend more on their militaries as a direct response to Russia being aggressive. And if we don't, the US is threatening to not defend us anymore.

This is just Trump trying to make Americans calm down about how disproportionately high US military spending is compared to other NATO countries, because they don't remember why the US' military is the world police, right?

**Dreadclaw69**

Pouncey wrote:
I'm... scared.

The US is pushing for other NATO countries to spend more on their militaries as a direct response to Russia being aggressive. And if we don't, the US is threatening to not defend us anymore.

This is just Trump trying to make Americans calm down about how disproportionately high US military spending is compared to other NATO countries, because they don't remember why the US' military is the world police, right?

The US would like her allies to spend what they agreed to as part of NATO membership. This should not be a controversial idea that if you do not pay your membership to what is essentially a military club that your membership may be called into question.

**djones520**

Dreadclaw69 wrote:
Pouncey wrote:
I'm... scared.

The US is pushing for other NATO countries to spend more on their militaries as a direct response to Russia being aggressive. And if we don't, the US is threatening to not defend us anymore.

This is just Trump trying to make Americans calm down about how disproportionately high US military spending is compared to other NATO countries, because they don't remember why the US' military is the world police, right?

The US would like her allies to spend what they agreed to as part of NATO membership. This should not be a controversial idea that if you do not pay your membership to what is essentially a military club that your membership may be called into question.

As a member of the US Military, I for one am on board with my NATO allies carrying the weight that THEY agreed to carry.

**Witzkatz**

Coming from a nation not spending the agreed-upon amount, I agree with you people. Members of an alliance should all be held up to the same standard and not try to get away with less. However, sebster's point of view also has some merit - the result of the money spent should probably also account for something. I'm not saying that Germany is so efficient right now that we don't need to spend more, but that it makes sense to factor in the result of military spending, too.

PS: A friend of mine was in the Bundeswehr for some time, working with helicopters mostly. One time, high officers of the helicopter corps were supposed to meet for a NATO council/congress in the Netherlands, and of course, the officers of other nations all arrived in helicopters. Only the German guys had to be driven there in cars - there was not a single, active, flight-worthy transport helicopter for that duty available at that point in time. Stuff like that is ridiculous and shouldn't happen at all, and I'm very much on board with spending a few more bucks to have our little army at least mobile, active and competent.

**d-usa**

This is all just an elaborate attempt to delegitimatize the "we spend more than our allies combined" argument.

**Pouncey**

djones520 wrote:
Dreadclaw69 wrote:
Pouncey wrote:
I'm... scared.

The US is pushing for other NATO countries to spend more on their militaries as a direct response to Russia being aggressive. And if we don't, the US is threatening to not defend us anymore.

This is just Trump trying to make Americans calm down about how disproportionately high US military spending is compared to other NATO countries, because they don't remember why the US' military is the world police, right?

The US would like her allies to spend what they agreed to as part of NATO membership. This should not be a controversial idea that if you do not pay your membership to what is essentially a military club that your membership may be called into question.

As a member of the US Military, I for one am on board with my NATO allies carrying the weight that THEY agreed to carry.

Yeah, it's not that I have a problem with paying our dues.

It's that there's another possible purpose for this that could be true. That's the part I'm scared of.

Specifically the part where this... erm... ultimatum? is coming as a direct response to Russia being aggressive recently.

Because of the US and Russia's nuclear arsenals, I don't think there should be any worry of Russia attacking the US and her allies, but again, this means no one can attack Russia either because of their nukes...

So... how does increasing NATO military spending help the world be safer from a country which can't go to war with NATO or vice-versa without starting a global nuclear war in the process?

I'm a little worried that maybe the plan is to build up the overall NATO military until they can take out Russia with such overwhelming force that they hope to pre-empt the nukes?

I'm really confused and scared about the part where they said this is because Russia is being aggressive, because that makes me scared WW3 might start.

And that's why I asked if Trump is doing this ultimatum just to get us to spend enough on our militaries that Americans feel satisfied. Because that's the good option that makes sense and isn't scary and I have no issue with fulfilling.

Some of my comments in my earlier post is because in other conversations, some Americans have expressed dissatisfaction with how high the US military budget is compared to her allies, that has nothing to do with this specific pledge.

**Witzkatz**

I'm a little worried that maybe the plan is to build up the overall NATO military until they can take out Russia with such overwhelming force that they hope to pre-empt the nukes?

I think we can be sure that there's no secret long-term master-plan of actually invading Russia in such a lightning strike that they are not able to fire their nukes. That stuff is just not happening. NATO has no interest in occupying Russia either, I'm rather sure of that.