US Politics

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.

**gorgon**

Co'tor Shas wrote:
This is the problem when people get greedy for power, and can't accept when the lose. It's also the reason why I scoff when people say we should leave things to the states. As bad as the federal government can be at times, state governments are almost assured to be worse.

Yes, if those people actually spent any time around state government...they'd be horrified.

**NuggzTheNinja**

ScootyPuffJunior wrote:
Frazzled wrote:
Its also stupid and an attempt to link Trump to a terrorist. Seriously, I don't vote for this guy, but the constant drumbeat of "RACIST! FASCIST!" is just off the charts now. You've finally gone to the edge of the bell curve on that.

Okay, well that pretty much confirms that you didn't understand the article. I guess we can move on now.

It also proves that you don't understand the difference between cause and comparison. Nothing in Frazz's OP implied causality.

**ScootyPuffJunior**

NuggzTheNinja wrote:
ScootyPuffJunior wrote:
Frazzled wrote:
Its also stupid and an attempt to link Trump to a terrorist. Seriously, I don't vote for this guy, but the constant drumbeat of "RACIST! FASCIST!" is just off the charts now. You've finally gone to the edge of the bell curve on that.

Okay, well that pretty much confirms that you didn't understand the article. I guess we can move on now.

It also proves that you don't understand the difference between cause and comparison. Nothing in Frazz's OP implied causality.

No, it really doesn't because nothing in that article compares Trump to Roof, but thanks for your input. I'll promptly place it into my "things to not care about" file.

**Frazzled**

ScootyPuffJunior wrote:
NuggzTheNinja wrote:
ScootyPuffJunior wrote:
Frazzled wrote:
Its also stupid and an attempt to link Trump to a terrorist. Seriously, I don't vote for this guy, but the constant drumbeat of "RACIST! FASCIST!" is just off the charts now. You've finally gone to the edge of the bell curve on that.

Okay, well that pretty much confirms that you didn't understand the article. I guess we can move on now.

It also proves that you don't understand the difference between cause and comparison. Nothing in Frazz's OP implied causality.

No, it really doesn't because nothing in that article compares Trump to Roof, but thanks for your input. I'll promptly place it into my "things to not care about" file.

Its saying they are both poisonous fruit from the same tree.

Roof’s violence and Trump’s demagoguery flow from a shared swamp of resentment.

These ideas were once marginal. But in the past year, they’ve been pulled into the mainstream by Trump and his presidential campaign.

**reds8n**

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-asia-china-38347221

The US has issued a formal request to China to deliver an unmanned underwater drone that was seized in international waters, US officials say.
The Chinese navy seized the US underwater research vessel in the South China Sea on Thursday, the US alleges.
The incident took place just as the USNS Bowditch, an oceanographic survey ship, was about to retrieve it.
The device, dubbed a "naval glider", was used to test water salinity and temperature, officials say.
The data was part of an unclassified programme to map underwater channels, the official added, speaking on condition of anonymity.
"It was taken" by China, a US official told the media.
"The UUV [unmanned underwater vehicle] was lawfully conducting a military survey in the waters of the South China Sea," the official said.
"It's a sovereign immune vessel, clearly marked in English not to be removed from the water - that it was US property."
The unnamed official added that the encounter occurred about 50 miles (80km) northwest of Subic Bay in the South China Sea.

.. oh good.

just what the world needs right now.

**squidhills**

We really need to start fitting our drones with self-destruct mechanisms to prevent tech from falling into enemy (or frienemy in China's case) hands. It would make a situation like this a non-issue.

"Sir, the Chinese captured one of our research drones"
*click* KABOOM!
"No they didn't, son."

**Frazzled**

Agreed actually. I'm surprised it doesn't now.

**infinite_array**

squidhills wrote:
We really need to start fitting our drones with self-destruct mechanisms to prevent tech from falling into enemy (or frienemy in China's case) hands. It would make a situation like this a non-issue.

"Sir, the Chinese captured one of our research drones"
*click* KABOOM!
"No they didn't, son."

Because I'm sure it wouldn't touch off an international incident when a drone blows up and injures/kills a number of civilian and military personnel - or when they open it up and see a bomb inside. Because these drones aren't exactly the little toys you see for sale on Amazon. They're going to need a hefty explosion if you really want to prevent other powers from capturing them.

**Frazzled**

infinite_array wrote:
squidhills wrote:
We really need to start fitting our drones with self-destruct mechanisms to prevent tech from falling into enemy (or frienemy in China's case) hands. It would make a situation like this a non-issue.

"Sir, the Chinese captured one of our research drones"
*click* KABOOM!
"No they didn't, son."

Because I'm sure it wouldn't touch off an international incident when a drone blows up and injures/kills a number of civilian and military personnel - or when they open it up and see a bomb inside. Because these drones aren't exactly the little toys you see for sale on Amazon. They're going to need a hefty explosion if you really want to prevent other powers from capturing them.

Stealing someone else's property in international waters is not an international incident? Sounds like a cause for war to me.

**CptJake**

squidhills wrote:
We really need to start fitting our drones with self-destruct mechanisms to prevent tech from falling into enemy (or frienemy in China's case) hands. It would make a situation like this a non-issue.

"Sir, the Chinese captured one of our research drones"
*click* KABOOM!
"No they didn't, son."

Several reasons not to do so. Explosives and detonators take up volume and add weight which takes away from volume and weight you can allocate to sensors or fuel/batteries. It also requires a data link, and drones like this may not have a continuous data link. Even if it did, once captured there is no guarantee the link is not severed by the capturing party. It would also weaponize what in this case was probably a research drone, which is going to cause other issues.

**Ustrello**

squidhills wrote:
We really need to start fitting our drones with self-destruct mechanisms to prevent tech from falling into enemy (or frienemy in China's case) hands. It would make a situation like this a non-issue.

"Sir, the Chinese captured one of our research drones"
*click* KABOOM!
"No they didn't, son."

Because that won't fail spectacularly

**jreilly89**

infinite_array wrote:
squidhills wrote:
We really need to start fitting our drones with self-destruct mechanisms to prevent tech from falling into enemy (or frienemy in China's case) hands. It would make a situation like this a non-issue.

"Sir, the Chinese captured one of our research drones"
*click* KABOOM!
"No they didn't, son."

Because I'm sure it wouldn't touch off an international incident when a drone blows up and injures/kills a number of civilian and military personnel - or when they open it up and see a bomb inside. Because these drones aren't exactly the little toys you see for sale on Amazon. They're going to need a hefty explosion if you really want to prevent other powers from capturing them.

Agreed, this seems like a bad idea waiting to happen.

**A Town Called Malus**

squidhills wrote:
We really need to start fitting our drones with self-destruct mechanisms to prevent tech from falling into enemy (or frienemy in China's case) hands. It would make a situation like this a non-issue.

"Sir, the Chinese captured one of our research drones"
*click* KABOOM!
"No they didn't, son."

Because that is a huge waste of money. It is a research drone, if you destroy it you lose all the data it collected.

The Chinese will give it back.

**Frazzled**

A Town Called Malus wrote:
squidhills wrote:
We really need to start fitting our drones with self-destruct mechanisms to prevent tech from falling into enemy (or frienemy in China's case) hands. It would make a situation like this a non-issue.

"Sir, the Chinese captured one of our research drones"
*click* KABOOM!
"No they didn't, son."

Because that is a huge waste of money. It is a research drone, if you destroy it you lose all the data it collected.

The Chinese will give it back.

Like they gave back the stealth helicopter right ?

**Sarouan**

So, how much time before the Trump administration starts a war? Your bets?

Since things go so fast even when President-elect isn't officially into office, I'm afraid my expectations are far below what could happen.

**Spinner**

Frazzled wrote:
infinite_array wrote:
squidhills wrote:
We really need to start fitting our drones with self-destruct mechanisms to prevent tech from falling into enemy (or frienemy in China's case) hands. It would make a situation like this a non-issue.

"Sir, the Chinese captured one of our research drones"
*click* KABOOM!
"No they didn't, son."

Because I'm sure it wouldn't touch off an international incident when a drone blows up and injures/kills a number of civilian and military personnel - or when they open it up and see a bomb inside. Because these drones aren't exactly the little toys you see for sale on Amazon. They're going to need a hefty explosion if you really want to prevent other powers from capturing them.

Stealing someone else's property in international waters is not an international incident? Sounds like a cause for war to me.

What happened to 'we can't afford the blood and treasure'?

You don't firebomb your neighbor's house because he's being a douche about giving back your frisbee when it goes over the fence, and you absolutely don't tape razors to it just in case he picks it up.

**Frazzled**

You don't firebomb your neighbor's house because he's being a douche about giving back your frisbee

Wait, when did that rule change?

EDIT: This is very Cold War esque. Time to start clearing the toys out of the bunker/playroom I guess.
The fact this is in international waters is a big deal.

**feeder**

Frazzled wrote:

Its saying they are both poisonous fruit from the same tree.

Roof’s violence and Trump’s demagoguery flow from a shared swamp of resentment.

These ideas were once marginal. But in the past year, they’ve been pulled into the mainstream by Trump and his presidential campaign.

While Slate is Fox for the left, the fact remains that Trump and his circle of friends have brought an air of legitimacy to ideas that were previously considered fringe lunacy.

Ridiculous nonsense like #pizzagate and similar wouldn't have the legs it does without Trump and friend's twitter accounts.

**Frazzled**

While Slate is Fox for the left, the fact remains that Trump and his circle of friends have brought an air of legitimacy to ideas that were previously considered fringe lunacy.

Mayhaps to your circle of friends. To others linking a President to a terrorist is considered bad form.
As the last KKK member in Congress was a Democrat, it would be more appropriate to argue HRC and this guy spring from the same tree.

After all who called a a specific group "super predators" again? Oh yea HRC.

Ridiculous nonsense like #pizzagate and similar wouldn't have the legs it does without Trump and friend's twitter accounts.

Please cite where Trump tweeted anything about that?

**Crazy_Carnifex**

Spinner wrote:
Frazzled wrote:
infinite_array wrote:
squidhills wrote:
We really need to start fitting our drones with self-destruct mechanisms to prevent tech from falling into enemy (or frienemy in China's case) hands. It would make a situation like this a non-issue.

"Sir, the Chinese captured one of our research drones"
*click* KABOOM!
"No they didn't, son."

Because I'm sure it wouldn't touch off an international incident when a drone blows up and injures/kills a number of civilian and military personnel - or when they open it up and see a bomb inside. Because these drones aren't exactly the little toys you see for sale on Amazon. They're going to need a hefty explosion if you really want to prevent other powers from capturing them.

Stealing someone else's property in international waters is not an international incident? Sounds like a cause for war to me.

What happened to 'we can't afford the blood and treasure'?

You don't firebomb your neighbor's house because he's being a douche about giving back your Frisbee when it goes over the fence, and you absolutely don't tape razors to it just in case he picks it up.

Well, this isn't the Frisbee going in his yard. This is your neighbor grabbing the Frisbee off the street in front of his house, while giving you a look that says he wants to see what you do.

**Spinner**

Crazy_Carnifex wrote:
Spinner wrote:
Frazzled wrote:
infinite_array wrote:
squidhills wrote:
We really need to start fitting our drones with self-destruct mechanisms to prevent tech from falling into enemy (or frienemy in China's case) hands. It would make a situation like this a non-issue.

"Sir, the Chinese captured one of our research drones"
*click* KABOOM!
"No they didn't, son."

Because I'm sure it wouldn't touch off an international incident when a drone blows up and injures/kills a number of civilian and military personnel - or when they open it up and see a bomb inside. Because these drones aren't exactly the little toys you see for sale on Amazon. They're going to need a hefty explosion if you really want to prevent other powers from capturing them.

Stealing someone else's property in international waters is not an international incident? Sounds like a cause for war to me.

What happened to 'we can't afford the blood and treasure'?

You don't firebomb your neighbor's house because he's being a douche about giving back your Frisbee when it goes over the fence, and you absolutely don't tape razors to it just in case he picks it up.

Well, this isn't the Frisbee going in his yard. This is your neighbor grabbing the Frisbee off the street in front of his house, while giving you a look that says he wants to see what you do.

I'm not saying it's not a gakhead thing to do; wouldn't be all that surprised if it was a passive-aggressive retaliation for the whole Taiwan call. What I'm saying is that I don't want to go to war over a freakin' research drone.

Ideally, we'll be able to get our diplomats together and the next president can talk things through tactfully and ahahahahahah I couldn't even finish that thought. The next four years are going to suck.

Please cite where Trump tweeted anything about that?

Are you saying that Trump doesn't tweet conspiracy theories? Or that he, personally, did not tweet anything specific about 'pizzagate?' Is this about to descend into the semantical rabbit hole? Trump supporters certainly tweeted about it. People on Trump's staff tweeted about it. It's an administration very friendly to blaring out internet garbage across social media. Can we all agree on that?

**Frazzled**

Are you saying that Trump doesn't tweet conspiracy theories? Or that he, personally, did not tweet anything specific about 'pizzagate?' Is this about to descend into the semantical rabbit hole? Trump supporters certainly tweeted about it. People on Trump's staff tweeted about it. It's an administration very friendly to blaring out internet garbage across social media. Can we all agree on that?

So again, you can't cite anything Trump tweeted to support this. Sounds like you're relying on fake news.

**whembly**

feeder wrote:
Frazzled wrote:

Its saying they are both poisonous fruit from the same tree.

Roof’s violence and Trump’s demagoguery flow from a shared swamp of resentment.

These ideas were once marginal. But in the past year, they’ve been pulled into the mainstream by Trump and his presidential campaign.

While Slate is Fox for the left, the fact remains that Trump and his circle of friends have brought an air of legitimacy to ideas that were previously considered fringe lunacy.

Ridiculous nonsense like #pizzagate and similar wouldn't have the legs it does without Trump and friend's twitter accounts.

eh?

You mean things like Dan Rather's Memogate?

Or Brian William's fabulist's past?

Or Rolling Stone's UVA rape story?

#FakeNews isn't a new phenomenon.

**Ustrello**

There is a difference between bad reporting and outright fake news that has been spread by the right recently

**Spinner**

I never claimed he did. Actually, neither did feeder. The argument is that, because the next President of the United States uses his Twitter account as a platform to blare evidenceless conspiracy theories, this has been normalized. Without him, it wouldn't have gained the traction it did.

Frazz, I know you're smarter than the argument you're taking.

**wuestenfux**

A president with an active twitter account.
An absolute no go.

**Frazzled**

wuestenfux wrote:
A president with an active twitter account.
An absolute no go.

Agreed but remember he's no President yet.
Obama had an active Twitter account as well, its just that no one cared.

**A Town Called Malus**

Frazzled wrote:
A Town Called Malus wrote:
squidhills wrote:
We really need to start fitting our drones with self-destruct mechanisms to prevent tech from falling into enemy (or frienemy in China's case) hands. It would make a situation like this a non-issue.

"Sir, the Chinese captured one of our research drones"
*click* KABOOM!
"No they didn't, son."

Because that is a huge waste of money. It is a research drone, if you destroy it you lose all the data it collected.

The Chinese will give it back.

Like they gave back the stealth helicopter right ?

Again, a stealth helicopter is not the same as a geological research submersible. This is not cutting edge military tech, it is a scientific instrument. It measures the salinity and temperature of the ocean, not block radar signals and allow covert surveillance and black ops.

Stop reading "drone" and assuming that this is something more than what it is. Is it bad that China is interfering in scientific research outside its waters? Yes. Is it likely that China will refuse to return this submersible which, whilst being a reasonable investment in terms of money, will not give them any access to military technology but instead some nice data on how salty their neighbouring ocean is? No.

**Spinner**

Frazzled wrote:
wuestenfux wrote:
A president with an active twitter account.
An absolute no go.

Agreed but remember he's no President yet.
Obama had an active Twitter account as well, its just that no one cared.

He also didn't use it to publicly cry about getting a bad restaurant review

Do you really think Trump's going to stop Tweeting after the inauguration? But that would go against the dark bargain he struck with Tw'Tahr, the writhing, mindless nascent god-thing from which he derives his power...

**Frazzled**

Ustrello wrote:
There is a difference between bad reporting and outright fake news that has been spread by the right recently

Thats a statement of opinion.

Do you really think Trump's going to stop Tweeting after the inauguration? But that would go against the dark bargain he struck with Tw'Tahr, the writhing, mindless nascent god-thing from which he derives his power...

Excellent!

He also didn't use it to publicly cry about getting a bad restaurant review

He's a whiny bully. this is what happens when you don't spank your children or send them off to the mines when they are eight.

Again, a stealth helicopter is not the same as a geological research submersible. This is not cutting edge military tech, it is a scientific instrument. It measures the salinity and temperature of the ocean, not block radar signals and allow covert surveillance and black ops.

And it was done in international waters. Its part and parcel of their advancing aggression to claim a large part of the Pacific.

What would Britain do if France claimed the Northern Atlantic was their home waters? That is the question facing the Pacific nations.