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.

Keeping the Marines actually makes a lot of sense in a policy plan to scale back the US military. They're trained to work with the Navy (who should stay somewhere up where they are imo, because lets face it carriers are bad ass as weapons of war or angels of humanitarian aid ), and they have their own mini airforce and naval elements. Keeping them floating while reducing the Army to a reserve force would be cost efficient. The Air Force is a bit more complicated than the Army because you know... jets are expensive as feth.

Rent the Air Force out as a self-funding mercenary force, ready to be recalled for US service at any time?

 d-usa wrote:
Rent the Air Force out as a self-funding mercenary force, ready to be recalled for US service at any time?

The American Foreign Air Legion? XD

I guess the rich Saudis would be immediate customers of having the USAF throw their high-tech weaponry at a few people in their neighborhood...

 Pouncey wrote:

 BigWaaagh wrote:
And continuing along the classic authoritarian maneuver of undermining the press...


http://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics/trump-tweets-the-media-is-the-enemy-of-the-american-people/ar-AAn42dE?ocid=ASUDHP


People actually voted for this man...

He's right though.

The American media is the enemy of the American people.

They tell so much BS that people believe them about that there's no way they're moral.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 LordofHats wrote:

 Pouncey wrote:
They're entertainers.

I think some are entertainers engaging in something that people find fun.

Some are predators who prey on depressed and naive people for profit, and that's not entertainment. It's just sleaze.

I agree.

But you're okay with the lottery, which is doing the same thing you're calling sleaze.

"He's right though." Erm, no, he isn't, not by a long shot and certainly not with the intent with which he made that declaration...or was it Bannon making that statement with his hand up Trump's ass, I can't distinguish anymore.

You've made a ridiculously shallow and sweeping statement that is a akin to "All doctors are bad." due to an example here, or there, of malpractice. The Press is what it is and acts as a check on political power. If certain outlets are going to be less than reputable in the way they deliver their product, then it's up the public to shun them for better sources. If they, the public, choose to follow alt/fake/garbage news sites then it's on them for being too lazy to seek out the truth of a story from multiple, or more impartial and reputable, sources and not just settle down for a daily spoon feeding of their partisan rage.

 BigWaaagh wrote:
The Press is what it is and acts as a check on political power.

Except of course for the parts of it owned by political power.

Rosebuddy wrote:

 BigWaaagh wrote:
The Press is what it is and acts as a check on political power.

Except of course for the parts of it owned by political power.

Explain.

Like Breitbart, owned by Steve Bannon.

One of the beauties of a free press is that anyone can set up a newspaper, etc, and publishing is cheaper and easier than ever now, thanks to digitalisation. The citizen journalist, and so on...

Who cares if a political party has a newspaper and a website? The other parties also can have their papers and sites.

Trump's tirade isn't against "the mainstream media", it is against the parts of the media that question and criticise his actions. Which shows the press is working properly. The media are questioning Trump's actions because they are highly questionable.

Rosebuddy wrote:

 BigWaaagh wrote:
The Press is what it is and acts as a check on political power.

Except of course for the parts of it owned by political power.

What does that even mean? State media?

I think it is very clear that by The Press, he is referring to a free press. The demonization of media by political figures typically indicates a desire to be get away from accountability and transparency. "Media bias" is a just doublespeak meant to undermine any reports they don't like. Many conservatives have bought into a view that "the media" favors Democrats and skewers Republicans despite most major media outlets having corporate ownership, being profit driven, and firmly in line with corporate and capitalist interests. However, this is completely consistent with the abandonment of rationality and facts for outrage, feelings, and a persecution complex that has been adopted by the American political right and ties deeply in with other racial and cultural issues. It's why the alt-right is hijacking the political right to the dismay of intellectual conservatives and has culminated with a bombastic narcissist as our highest executive cozying up to reprehensible ideaologies and burning legitimate conservative leaders. But that's what happens when you get in bed with vipers.

 Kilkrazy wrote:
Like Breitbart, owned by Steve Bannon.

One of the beauties of a free press is that anyone can set up a newspaper, etc, and publishing is cheaper and easier than ever now, thanks to digitalisation. The citizen journalist, and so on...

Who cares if a political party has a newspaper and a website? The other parties also can have their papers and sites.

Trump's tirade isn't against "the mainstream media", it is against the parts of the media that question and criticise his actions. Which shows the press is working properly. The media are questioning Trump's actions because they are highly questionable.

Bannon is a top political advisor. Check. He has some political power. Check. He isn't, however, a political power in the sense that he isn't an elected offical, so I don't know if I'm with the OP on this, hence my request for an explanation.

 BigWaaagh wrote:

Explain.

Corporate media is owned by groups that own other companies, do a lot of work to sponsor candidates and generally be a part of politics. Their media outlets won't be given to critical examination of their owners.

Rosebuddy wrote:

 BigWaaagh wrote:

Explain.

Corporate media is owned by groups that own other companies, do a lot of work to sponsor candidates and generally be a part of politics. Their media outlets won't be given to critical examination of their owners.

Yes, major news outlets are owned by corporations. They're businesses. So what? That's related to your comment of them being owned by a "political power" how?

 BigWaaagh wrote:

 Kilkrazy wrote:
Like Breitbart, owned by Steve Bannon.

One of the beauties of a free press is that anyone can set up a newspaper, etc, and publishing is cheaper and easier than ever now, thanks to digitalisation. The citizen journalist, and so on...

Who cares if a political party has a newspaper and a website? The other parties also can have their papers and sites.

Trump's tirade isn't against "the mainstream media", it is against the parts of the media that question and criticise his actions. Which shows the press is working properly. The media are questioning Trump's actions because they are highly questionable.

Bannon is a top political advisor. Check. He has some political power. Check. He isn't, however, a political power in the sense that he isn't an elected offical, so I don't know if I'm with the OP on this, hence my request for an explanation.

Bannon has the ear of the president. He has a seat on the national security council. He very clearly has political power regardless of whether he has been elected or appointed. In fact being unelected means he can't lose his position in an election, making him in some sense more secure and unaccountable than an elected official.

 Kilkrazy wrote:

 BigWaaagh wrote:

 Kilkrazy wrote:
Like Breitbart, owned by Steve Bannon.

One of the beauties of a free press is that anyone can set up a newspaper, etc, and publishing is cheaper and easier than ever now, thanks to digitalisation. The citizen journalist, and so on...

Who cares if a political party has a newspaper and a website? The other parties also can have their papers and sites.

Trump's tirade isn't against "the mainstream media", it is against the parts of the media that question and criticise his actions. Which shows the press is working properly. The media are questioning Trump's actions because they are highly questionable.

Bannon is a top political advisor. Check. He has some political power. Check. He isn't, however, a political power in the sense that he isn't an elected offical, so I don't know if I'm with the OP on this, hence my request for an explanation.

Bannon has the ear of the president. He has a seat on the national security council. He very clearly has political power regardless of whether he has been elected or appointed. In fact being unelected means he can't lose his position in an election, making him in some sense more secure and unaccountable than an elected official.

No, because he's totally dependent on that elected sponsor for his position and said power.

 d-usa wrote:
If the only reply to anything the GOP does is "herp derp the Democrats do it herp derp" then what's the point of posting in this thread? Lets just lock this thread, post a sticky saying "both sides are bad" in the OT, and it would be the same as what we got now.

Coming from the person who posted this on the same page above;

 d-usa wrote:
Pruit also used private email accounts to conduct official business, so naturally conservatives are outraged and opposing his nomination. In addition to waiting what the court ordered compliance with the FOIA requests might reveal about potential communication with fossil fuel businesses when suing the EPA. I'm glad we have the party of transparency and accountability in charge now.

What's the point of posting in this thread if the only reply to anything the Dems does is "herp derp Republicans do it herp derp"? If you want to point out the double standards of one party don't be surprised if people point out the double standards from their counter parts. If you don't want this to happen then don't do it yourself.

 BigWaaagh wrote:

Rosebuddy wrote:

 BigWaaagh wrote:

Explain.

Corporate media is owned by groups that own other companies, do a lot of work to sponsor candidates and generally be a part of politics. Their media outlets won't be given to critical examination of their owners.

Yes, major news outlets are owned by corporations. They're businesses. So what? That's related to your comment of them being owned by a "political power" how?

Because corporations fund the two political parties and the two political parties represent the corporations. The individuals in those groups are largely from the same social class.

 Gordon Shumway wrote:
Holy turd buckets. Props to yo for taking the initiative. Don't think you really put more thought into it than the last night talk shows, but at least you tried. You are at least honest in your beliefs and is can respect that delusion. Thanks for posting the stupidity of the Trump wagon ffor posterity at least.. im glad I sponsored that stupidity. Now we can all look back at it and think how nice of times those were. Hashtag emails and some such nonesones of equality of stupidity.

Not a Trump supporter, but thank you for putting in less thought to your argument than the last night talk shows

Rosebuddy wrote:

 BigWaaagh wrote:

Rosebuddy wrote:

 BigWaaagh wrote:

Explain.

Corporate media is owned by groups that own other companies, do a lot of work to sponsor candidates and generally be a part of politics. Their media outlets won't be given to critical examination of their owners.

Yes, major news outlets are owned by corporations. They're businesses. So what? That's related to your comment of them being owned by a "political power" how?

Because corporations fund the two political parties and the two political parties represent the corporations. The individuals in those groups are largely from the same social class.

Really? A class argument? C'mon Karl, put away the manifesto. You're conveniently blending corporations with political entities and while one has always supported and sought influence with the other, they are separate. And circling back to the "social class" nonsense, those same corporations typically rely upon the "other classes" for their bottom line, which acts like a nice check in-and-of itself.

 Kilkrazy wrote:
Trump's tirade isn't against "the mainstream media", it is against the parts of the media that question and criticise his actions. Which shows the press is working properly. The media are questioning Trump's actions because they are highly questionable.

To believe that you have to suspend your disbelief that traditional press outlets did not overstep their bounds from being journalists and reporting facts to being political activists;
- CNN staff leaking questions to Hilary
- CNN staff claiming that information abouit Hilary from Wikileaks could not be read by the public, but it was fine for journalists to read it and pass along the important parts
- CNN planting a cameraman in a protest, and then interviewing him so he could repeat Democrat talking points
- Rachel Maddow and her "no you haven't died, and you haven't gone to Hell" speech when Hilary lost
- CNN host characterizing Trump's win as a "white lash"

And many other examples aside. When the media reveals itself to be partisan it opens itself up to partisan attacks. Case in point Fox News.

 BigWaaagh wrote:
Really? A class argument? C'mon Karl, put away the manifesto. You're conveniently blending corporations with political entities and while one has always supported and sought influence with the other, they are separate.

They are made up of much the same people. You greatly overestimate the degree of separation between economic and political power.

 BigWaaagh wrote:
And circling back to the "social class" nonsense, those same corporations typically rely upon the "other classes" for their bottom line, which acts like a nice check in-and-of itself.

It is one of the classical contradictions of capitalism that the main customers and the labour force often overlap. It does not act as a check on anything. It presents a problem.

 Nostromodamus wrote:
Did Whembly set a "longest post on Dakka" record there?

Heh.. maybe?



Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Compel wrote:
As someone outside America, I'd actually like to thank Whembly for his reply. I strongly, strongly disagree with his opinions on a significant portion of it but thanks all the same.

Thanks mang!

Rosebuddy wrote:

 BigWaaagh wrote:
Really? A class argument? C'mon Karl, put away the manifesto. You're conveniently blending corporations with political entities and while one has always supported and sought influence with the other, they are separate.

They are made up of much the same people. You greatly overestimate the degree of separation between economic and political power.

 BigWaaagh wrote:
And circling back to the "social class" nonsense, those same corporations typically rely upon the "other classes" for their bottom line, which acts like a nice check in-and-of itself.

It is one of the classical contradictions of capitalism that the main customers and the labour force often overlap. It does not act as a check on anything. It presents a problem.

No, you're just falling into your typical class struggle argument garbage. You didn't even understand my last statement which had nothing to do with labor, but had to do with the fact that our economies, and the corporations reliant thereof, are dependent on CONSUMERS, because the world's economies are now primarily CONSUMER DRIVEN and those CONSUMERS can make their displeasure with a corporation felt very directly with how they spend their discretionary funds. Enough with the class/labor nonsense...it's tired, old and irrelevant.

 BigWaaagh wrote:

No, you're just falling into your typical class struggle argument garbage. You didn't even understand my last statement which had nothing to do with labor, but had to do with the fact that our economies, and the corporations reliant thereof, are dependent on CONSUMERS, because the world's economies are now primarily CONSUMER DRIVEN and those CONSUMERS can make their displeasure with a corporation felt very directly with how they spend their discretionary funds. Enough with the class/labor nonsense...it's tired, old and irrelevant.

So where do "consumers" get the money to purchase goods?

Rosebuddy wrote:

 BigWaaagh wrote:

No, you're just falling into your typical class struggle argument garbage. You didn't even understand my last statement which had nothing to do with labor, but had to do with the fact that our economies, and the corporations reliant thereof, are dependent on CONSUMERS, because the world's economies are now primarily CONSUMER DRIVEN and those CONSUMERS can make their displeasure with a corporation felt very directly with how they spend their discretionary funds. Enough with the class/labor nonsense...it's tired, old and irrelevant.

So where do "consumers" get the money to purchase goods?

They are EVERYONE, EVERYWHERE and they work for their income and come in all shapes, sizes and salaries and are totally regardless of your attempted "class" delineation. Please keep the facetiously rhetorical questions from the conversation.

 Dreadclaw69 wrote:

 d-usa wrote:
If the only reply to anything the GOP does is "herp derp the Democrats do it herp derp" then what's the point of posting in this thread? Lets just lock this thread, post a sticky saying "both sides are bad" in the OT, and it would be the same as what we got now.

Coming from the person who posted this on the same page above;

 d-usa wrote:
Pruit also used private email accounts to conduct official business, so naturally conservatives are outraged and opposing his nomination. In addition to waiting what the court ordered compliance with the FOIA requests might reveal about potential communication with fossil fuel businesses when suing the EPA. I'm glad we have the party of transparency and accountability in charge now.

What's the point of posting in this thread if the only reply to anything the Dems does is "herp derp Republicans do it herp derp"? If you want to point out the double standards of one party don't be surprised if people point out the double standards from their counter parts. If you don't want this to happen then don't do it yourself.

Because pointing out that people suddenly don't give a gak anymore after years of holding investigations and making it the single most important issue in this election is exactly the same as saying "I don't care because the other guys did it too."

But thanks for making a "it's okay because X does it too" post to show why "it's okay because X does it too" posts are stupid.

 d-usa wrote:

 Dreadclaw69 wrote:

 d-usa wrote:
If the only reply to anything the GOP does is "herp derp the Democrats do it herp derp" then what's the point of posting in this thread? Lets just lock this thread, post a sticky saying "both sides are bad" in the OT, and it would be the same as what we got now.

Coming from the person who posted this on the same page above;

 d-usa wrote:
Pruit also used private email accounts to conduct official business, so naturally conservatives are outraged and opposing his nomination. In addition to waiting what the court ordered compliance with the FOIA requests might reveal about potential communication with fossil fuel businesses when suing the EPA. I'm glad we have the party of transparency and accountability in charge now.

What's the point of posting in this thread if the only reply to anything the Dems does is "herp derp Republicans do it herp derp"? If you want to point out the double standards of one party don't be surprised if people point out the double standards from their counter parts. If you don't want this to happen then don't do it yourself.

Because pointing out that people suddenly don't give a gak anymore after years of holding investigations and making it the single most important issue in this election is exactly the same as saying "I don't care because the other guys did it too."

But thanks for making a "it's okay because X does it too" post to show why "it's okay because X does it too" posts are stupid.

Agreed on the irony. Pointing out that Republicans don't care about email servers aside from Clintion's isn't saying 'look the other side does it too' it's highlighting a double standard. No one is trying to excuse Clinton's behavior here.

 thekingofkings wrote:

 Gordon Shumway wrote:
If it were really about self defense, couldn't we just scrap all branches and make a "nuclear missle" branch? Has a nuclear power ever been invaded by another country?

Yes, in the Kargil war of 1999. It was a limited invasion that never escalated into an existential threat to either combatant, both of which are nuclear powers.

Wait, when did Israel get nukes? wasn't that before one of those invasions?

 cuda1179 wrote:

 thekingofkings wrote:

 Gordon Shumway wrote:
If it were really about self defense, couldn't we just scrap all branches and make a "nuclear missle" branch? Has a nuclear power ever been invaded by another country?

Yes, in the Kargil war of 1999. It was a limited invasion that never escalated into an existential threat to either combatant, both of which are nuclear powers.

Wait, when did Israel get nukes? wasn't that before one of those invasions?

1967 is 'a' year that is touted when Israel had active nuclear weapons.

 BigWaaagh wrote:

They are EVERYONE, EVERYWHERE and they work for their income and come in all shapes, sizes and salaries and are totally regardless of your attempted "class" delineation. Please keep the facetiously rhetorical questions from the conversation.

You're being awfully demanding for someone who outright rejects material analysis of the global system of resource distribution. But you do you, I suppose.

 BigWaaagh wrote:

 Kilkrazy wrote:

 BigWaaagh wrote:

 Kilkrazy wrote:
Like Breitbart, owned by Steve Bannon.

One of the beauties of a free press is that anyone can set up a newspaper, etc, and publishing is cheaper and easier than ever now, thanks to digitalisation. The citizen journalist, and so on...

Who cares if a political party has a newspaper and a website? The other parties also can have their papers and sites.

Trump's tirade isn't against "the mainstream media", it is against the parts of the media that question and criticise his actions. Which shows the press is working properly. The media are questioning Trump's actions because they are highly questionable.

Bannon is a top political advisor. Check. He has some political power. Check. He isn't, however, a political power in the sense that he isn't an elected offical, so I don't know if I'm with the OP on this, hence my request for an explanation.

Bannon has the ear of the president. He has a seat on the national security council. He very clearly has political power regardless of whether he has been elected or appointed. In fact being unelected means he can't lose his position in an election, making him in some sense more secure and unaccountable than an elected official.

No, because he's totally dependent on that elected sponsor for his position and said power.

He's not answerable to you, though.