Switch Theme:

US & NA Politics Thread  [RSS] Share on facebook Share on Twitter Submit to Reddit
»
Author Message
Advert


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.




Made in au
The Dread Evil Lord Varlak





 ProtoClone wrote:
Going off of Trump's statement that America needs more military presence in space.

Can we talk about the logistics of a space military? What would actually need to be done in order to have what could conceivably be a presence in space beyond satellites.

Seeing as no one has claimed space could this lead to an arms race for territories in our solar system?

I jest but I actually do wonder.


There is already an arms race for space. It's not an active race yet, instead it is all about having the infrastructure in place so that if (when) it does take off the US will be in place to quickly secure its satellites and threaten enemy satellites.

Thing is, before 9/11 the US had an infrastructure to dominate space that no other country could match. But as the US space program is under the air force, then following 9/11 all projects got focused around anti-terror operations. The Chinese and to a much lesser extent the Russians were able to do a lot of catch up - both have specialist space agencies already.

And the US is more vulnerable than anyone to the loss of its space assets, because the US is the highest tech military going around. So having a dedicated branch of the military defending space assets makes of a lot of sense. But of course when Trump announced it he spent the whole time bragging about how he came up with the name so we all just laughed. But the actual idea is good.

“We may observe that the government in a civilized country is much more expensive than in a barbarous one; and when we say that one government is more expensive than another, it is the same as if we said that that one country is farther advanced in improvement than another. To say that the government is expensive and the people not oppressed is to say that the people are rich.”

Adam Smith, who must have been some kind of leftie or something. 
   
Made in us
Fixture of Dakka





Denison, Iowa

I think there is truth to both sides of the story. Yes, the law was all ready on the books. Trump just made them enforce it with not a lot of wiggle room.

Kind of like the unofficial rule that cops don't hand out speeding tickets to anyone going less than 10mph over the limit. For many they don't, but sometimes during the year they do crack down with zero tolerance policy.
   
Made in us
Humming Great Unclean One of Nurgle






 NinthMusketeer wrote:
 cuda1179 wrote:
 NinthMusketeer wrote:
 cuda1179 wrote:
 Ouze wrote:
 cuda1179 wrote:
On the other hand, certain posters here will tell you that there isn't a concerted effort to get people!e to vote that shouldn't.


Yes? Because there isn't?

In-person voter fraud has no tangible benefits and enormous penalties, along with a very vocal lobby to ensure they are prosecuted. That's why statistically it does not exist. These aren't difficult concepts, just simply math.



When some states have policies that basically mean "don't ask, don't tell, and that they won't proactively investigate, then there really is no penalty. The law becomes a paper tiger. That's not a difficult concept either.
Voter fraud only exists as an issue to help Republicans suppress voters who tend to vote Democrat. There is essentially zero voter fraud, the number amounts to less than a rounding error. Again, it only exists to suppress voters who trend towards Democrat voters. There is no other logical explanation, and to suggest otherwise is to support suppressing voters because you disagree with them. I cannot stress this enough.


In-person voter fraud (As in John Doe shows up to vote and states he's Jim Jones) is fairly rare. Being John Doe, and showing up voting as John Doe might not be that rare. There are some studies that show that not only are illegals voting, but they may have swung some key elections.

https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0261379414000973

George Mason University estimated 6.4 percent of noncitizens voted illegally in the 2008 presidential election

Then there was the National Hispanic Survey from a few years back that estimated 13% of Illegal aliens of voting age were registered to vote.


Catching people that vote illegally (whether because of immigration status, renounced citizenship, felon status, etc.) isn't exactly a real tight net.

One source I can't read without a subscription isn't anything I can respond to.
Funny thing, after doing about 5 minutes of research I found a follow up study that states:
...is not only wrong, it is irresponsible social science and should never have been published in the first place. There is no evidence that non-citizens have voted in recent U.S. elections... It is bad research, because it fails to understand basic facts about the data it uses. Indeed, it took me and my colleagues only a few hours to figure out why the authors’ findings were wrong and to produce the evidence needed to prove as much. The authors were essentially basing their claims on two pieces of data associated with the large survey—a question that asks people whether they are citizens and official vote records to which each respondent has been matched to determine whether he or she had voted. Both these pieces of information include some small amounts of measurement error, as is true of all survey questions. What the authors failed to consider is that measurement error was entirely responsible for their results. In fact, once my colleagues and I accounted for that error, we found that there were essentially zero non-citizens who voted in recent elections.

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2018/06/19 04:14:15


Road to Renown! It's like classic Path to Glory, but repaired, remastered, expanded! https://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/778170.page

I chose an avatar I feel best represents the quality of my post history.

I try to view Warhammer as more of a toolbox with examples than fully complete games. 
   
Made in au
The Dread Evil Lord Varlak





 Disciple of Fate wrote:
Of course, its existed for a good while now, but its catching a lot of attention due to what the administration is doing, honestly before we got Sessions making the bible comment it was just a low rumble.


It really started with the pictures of crying kids in prison cells. That's the reason that past admins accepted catch and release - that policy had a political cost but the only alternative was putting the kids in prison, so every president before now was sensible enough to just accept catch and release. Not Donald.

Donald didn't just change policy, he changed it now, with immediate effect, because Donald made the judgement that he is better off fighting political battles on immigration than on his tax cut or anything else.

I'm not certain Donald is wrong. I mean sure this is getting lots of angry headlines now, but are any of the people who outraged by it not already committed to voting against Trump?


Automatically Appended Next Post:
 A Town Called Malus wrote:
Putting military personnel in space is pointless. They are incredibly vulnerable whilst they're up there, sustaining their presence would cost a fortune, they wouldn't be able to deploy to earth discreetly (their orbit would be known and so the point at which they'd need to begin reentry to arrive at a set location would be calculable) and there is no point in having any non WMD weapon in orbit and WMDs are banned and we seriously don't want nuclear proliferation into earth orbit.


The stuff about putting soldiers in space was just the internet riffing on Trump bragging about it being called space force. The actual program would be about protecting US satellites while blowing up Chinese/whoever satellites.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
 NinthMusketeer wrote:
It's also the most morally disgusting action the US has taken this century...


Dude. Iraq. The torture sites. Locking up kids is bad, but this has not been a good twenty years for you guys on the morality front.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
 cuda1179 wrote:
However...….. Immigrant activists have been stating for years that those that are caught crossing the border illegally should be treated the same as any other suspect being processed through the system (as in they should get lawyers). Be careful what you ask for. Now you are being treated like any other detainee, as I can think of no other person being processed for a crime that gets to keep their children with them, especially if they were potentially putting their children at risk.


Wrong. People who've committed non-violent crimes are almost always granted bail, and this is even more true when they have children.

Trump's zero tolerance position is basically mandating imprisonment before a legal hearing, regardless of circumstance. It is not like the rest of the legal process at all.

This message was edited 3 times. Last update was at 2018/06/19 04:46:31


“We may observe that the government in a civilized country is much more expensive than in a barbarous one; and when we say that one government is more expensive than another, it is the same as if we said that that one country is farther advanced in improvement than another. To say that the government is expensive and the people not oppressed is to say that the people are rich.”

Adam Smith, who must have been some kind of leftie or something. 
   
Made in us
Fixture of Dakka





Denison, Iowa

 sebster wrote:
[
Wrong. People who've committed non-violent crimes are almost always granted bail, and this is even more true when they have children.

Trump's zero tolerance position is basically mandating imprisonment before a legal hearing, regardless of circumstance. It is not like the rest of the legal process at all.


And if they did grant bail, how many of these detainees would happen to have thousands of dollars on them for bail money?
   
Made in au
The Dread Evil Lord Varlak





 Tannhauser42 wrote:
So, how about that trade war? $50B not enough? How about another $200B on Chinese imports? Does Trump really not understand that this really only hurts the average American?


I think Trump might be genuinely unable to pick up the basic pattern of a trade war.

Trade war according to reality;
Trump applies tariffs.
China retaliates.
Trump applies more tariffs.
China applies more tariffs.
Repeat until depression/world war.

Trade war according to Trump;
Trump applies tariffs.
China retaliates.
Trump applies more tariffs.
China realises they've been masterfully outplayed by Donald and they go to him begging to be released from this trade war, which Donald grants with a wave of his magnanimous, totally normal sized hand.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
 Ouze wrote:
Yes? Because there isn't?


The fundamental difference on this issue is Democrats are convinced Republicans are undermining Democracy because of the laws they pass, whereas Republicans are convinced Democrats are undermining Democracy because of the things Republicans make up in their own heads.

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2018/06/19 05:02:08


“We may observe that the government in a civilized country is much more expensive than in a barbarous one; and when we say that one government is more expensive than another, it is the same as if we said that that one country is farther advanced in improvement than another. To say that the government is expensive and the people not oppressed is to say that the people are rich.”

Adam Smith, who must have been some kind of leftie or something. 
   
Made in us
Fixture of Dakka





Denison, Iowa

 sebster wrote:
 Tannhauser42 wrote:
So, how about that trade war? $50B not enough? How about another $200B on Chinese imports? Does Trump really not understand that this really only hurts the average American?


I think Trump might be genuinely unable to pick up the basic pattern of a trade war.

Trade war according to reality;
Trump applies tariffs.
China retaliates.
Trump applies more tariffs.
China applies more tariffs.
Repeat until depression/world war.

Trade war according to Trump;
Trump applies tariffs.
China retaliates.
Trump applies more tariffs.
China realises they've been masterfully outplayed by Donald and they go to him begging to be released from this trade war, which Donald grants with a wave of his magnanimous, totally normal sized hand.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
 Ouze wrote:
Yes? Because there isn't?


The fundamental difference on this issue is Democrats are convinced Republicans are undermining Democracy because of the laws they pass, whereas Republicans are convinced Democrats are undermining Democracy because of the things Republicans make up in their own heads.


I will say that Republicans do vastly overestimate illegal voting. On the other hand Democrats drastically overreact to many laws Republicans use to combat it.
   
Made in us
Humorless Arbite





Maine

 d-usa wrote:
So just to be clear, the (actually very well covered) cases of unaccompanied minors were instances of minors being separated from the parents that didn't actually accompany them?

And detaining a teenager that is actually serving as a smuggler and who crosses the border without a parent is the same as separating infants, toddlers, and grade-school age children from their parents?



Yes, but those minors aren't only unaccompanied, it's how the system operated. They can't have children staying with adults, boys with girls, violent offenders mixed with non violent. They categorized and housed them separately splitting brother from sister and mother from son. The same way you and your family would be processed if you were all charged with a crime and incarcerated.

Voxed from Salamander 84-24020
 
   
Made in au
The Dread Evil Lord Varlak





 whembly wrote:
Enforcing the law of the land...

Imagine that.


A small fraction of people accused of a crime are held before trial. This hasn't produced some lawless hellscape of unenforced laws.

But here the divine orange one mandates that all people accused of this one particular crime must be held before trial regardless of their record, their personal circumstances or the specifics of the allegation against them, and watch as all you guys fall in to line pretending this is the only possible way the law can managed.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
 cuda1179 wrote:
I think there is truth to both sides of the story. Yes, the law was all ready on the books. Trump just made them enforce it with not a lot of wiggle room.


Except the 'wiggle room' was the wiggle room granted to all people accused of non-violent crimes. Trump just ruled, quite arbitrarily, that this one crime now must be treated unlike any other crime, with none of the usual allowances granted to the accused.

Now maybe there are circumstances where a crime might have reached such a scale that it really does need to be treated totally differently. Illegal immigration is on a long term decline but lots of voters believe otherwise so I guess they could argue that this crime needs to be treated differently. Whatever.

But if that's what people believe, then just admit it you know? Just say 'Trump changed the policy so now parents are automatically held, and while they're held we put their kids in cages in an old Walmart. We think this will stop illegal immigration.'

Instead we just get lie after lie. Trump says they're doing it but only because Democrats are making them. Kirstjen Nielsen says there's no policy to do it. Jeff Sessions says it is the law of the land, and ignores the Trump memo that Sessions himself signed to change how this is now treated differently. Meanwhile Stephen Miller is saying it was his policy that he got Trump to agree to.

Stephen Miller is the most honest person on this issue. Stephen Miller. I mean come on kids in cages is bad, but when Stephen Miller is the guy to listen to for the truth?


Automatically Appended Next Post:
 cuda1179 wrote:
And if they did grant bail, how many of these detainees would happen to have thousands of dollars on them for bail money?


Bail values are set according to the financial circumstance of the accused.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
 cuda1179 wrote:
I will say that Republicans do vastly overestimate illegal voting. On the other hand Democrats drastically overreact to many laws Republicans use to combat it.


I think that's fair. While the Republican strategies have been plainly cynical and motivated by nothing but protecting their own power, it's also true that they haven't actually worked that well. Efforts that have gone the other way, like postal voting, have expanded participation far more than any Republican voter ID law has reduced it.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
 Insurgency Walker wrote:
Yes, but those minors aren't only unaccompanied, it's how the system operated. They can't have children staying with adults, boys with girls, violent offenders mixed with non violent. They categorized and housed them separately splitting brother from sister and mother from son. The same way you and your family would be processed if you were all charged with a crime and incarcerated.


If Dad committed murder to try and cover up Mom's arson spree, then yeah. But if Mum and Dad were caught shoplifting, then you'd all be bailed and back home before you had to worry about having your shoes stolen while you slept.

What's changed is that before now illegal entry was treated like non-violent crime, largely on account of it being a non-violent. Trump's changed that, and ordered that anyone accused of it must be held, regardless of personal circumstance like having dependents.

This message was edited 4 times. Last update was at 2018/06/19 05:47:48


“We may observe that the government in a civilized country is much more expensive than in a barbarous one; and when we say that one government is more expensive than another, it is the same as if we said that that one country is farther advanced in improvement than another. To say that the government is expensive and the people not oppressed is to say that the people are rich.”

Adam Smith, who must have been some kind of leftie or something. 
   
Made in fi
Locked in the Tower of Amareo





 Disciple of Fate wrote:
 ProtoClone wrote:
Well, I should clarify, he said America needs a "space force" and the military needs to get on to making that branch of the military.

But that's Trump being Trump, as for now he has to get rid off the treaty and then there are still huge technological and financial obstacles to anything effective.


Trump being Trump he'll just say America is out of it.

And now he's adding yet more tariffs to China and says if China responds in kind he'll add more. Lol. "We can do this but you can't respond in kind". Guess there's soon 500% tariff on each other products and rising.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
 A Town Called Malus wrote:
 ProtoClone wrote:
Well, I should clarify, he said America needs a "space force" and the military needs to get on to making that branch of the military.


Putting military personnel in space is pointless. They are incredibly vulnerable whilst they're up there, sustaining their presence would cost a fortune, they wouldn't be able to deploy to earth discreetly (their orbit would be known and so the point at which they'd need to begin reentry to arrive at a set location would be calculable) and there is no point in having any non WMD weapon in orbit and WMDs are banned and we seriously don't want nuclear proliferation into earth orbit.

Basically, Trump is an idiot and doesn't understand the first thing about space exploration/travel. He probably just watched Starship Troopers or something before his speech.


We are talking about guy who claimed nukes should already have been used...You SURE he doesn't want nuclear proliferation? He's talking in favour of more countries having nukes. The guy is a warhawk.

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2018/06/19 05:59:53


2024 painted/bought: 109/109 
   
Made in us
The Conquerer






Waiting for my shill money from Spiral Arm Studios

 Ustrello wrote:
What voter ID laws are unconstitutional? I never would of guessed

http://thehill.com/homenews/state-watch/392893-judge-rules-against-kobach-in-voter-registration-case

A federal judge on Monday permanently struck down Kansas's proof-of-citizenship voter registration law, handing down a blistering ruling against Kansas Secretary of State Kris Kobach, one of the country's most vocal advocates of voter-ID laws.

In the 118-page ruling, U.S. District Judge Julie Robinson wrote that the state’s requirement that voters show proof of citizenship during registration violated both the Constitution and the National Voter Registration Act.

Robinson struck down the stringent law, and ordered Kobach to take six additional hours of continuing legal education that “pertain to federal or Kansas civil rules of procedure or evidence.”

Robinson wrote that the law, championed by Kobach, prevented “tens of thousands of eligible citizens” from registering to vote before she issued a preliminary injunction, and that “the process of completing the registration process was burdensome for them.”
According to the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU), Kobach’s law blocked some 35,000 Kansans from being able to register to vote.

In an earlier court order, Robinson had held Kobach in contempt for skirting court orders related to the law and failing to send postcards confirming registration for thousands of voters.


Well if its Unconstitutional to be forced to prove you have the right to vote, then it should also be Unconstitutional to need to prove you are allowed to practice any other right.

So logically nobody should have to show any ID to, say, purchase a firearm for example.

Self-proclaimed evil Cat-person. Dues Ex Felines

Cato Sicarius, after force feeding Captain Ventris a copy of the Codex Astartes for having the audacity to play Deathwatch, chokes to death on his own D-baggery after finding Calgar assembling his new Eldar army.

MURICA!!! IN SPESS!!! 
   
Made in us
Humming Great Unclean One of Nurgle






 sebster wrote:
 NinthMusketeer wrote:
It's also the most morally disgusting action the US has taken this century...


Dude. Iraq. The torture sites. Locking up kids is bad, but this has not been a good twenty years for you guys on the morality front.
I responded to a similar post earlier in more detail but in summary; I was aware of the torture sites when I said that. I view this as worse.

Road to Renown! It's like classic Path to Glory, but repaired, remastered, expanded! https://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/778170.page

I chose an avatar I feel best represents the quality of my post history.

I try to view Warhammer as more of a toolbox with examples than fully complete games. 
   
Made in au
The Dread Evil Lord Varlak





tneva82 wrote:
We are talking about guy who claimed nukes should already have been used...You SURE he doesn't want nuclear proliferation? He's talking in favour of more countries having nukes. The guy is a warhawk.


Yeah, Trump at one point was talking about lots of other countries getting their own nukes, but I don't think that really makes him a warhawk. A warhawk has an ideology or a POV that leads to a pattern of behaviour that is predominantly aggressive foreign policy.

Trump just says stuff, sometimes he's lying and sometimes it's something he actually believes, but either way he'll probably say the exact opposite at some point later on, and probably forget he ever made either comment.

Trump isn't a hawk or a dove. He's a drunk in a bar at 2am.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
 Grey Templar wrote:
Well if its Unconstitutional to be forced to prove you have the right to vote, then it should also be Unconstitutional to need to prove you are allowed to practice any other right.

So logically nobody should have to show any ID to, say, purchase a firearm for example.


1) In the last thread you claimed that California had laws in place to remove people form the roll if they missed the last few elections. I pointed out this was completely false. It wasn't just a bit wrong, it was the exact opposite of the rules in CA, where a person will not be removed from the role unless they die, ask to be removed, or the post office informs CA the person has moved (and even then there's an extensive process to confirm). You didn't address that you made that plainly false claim. Would you like to address that now? Maybe talk about why you posted something that wasn't even close to accurate, and what you're going to do to try and post more accurate statements in future?

2) It's completely false to claim all rights are treated in exactly the same way all the time. It's not even a thing that remotely makes sense. Because each right is different, and so what must be done to preserve it is totally different. I mean, by your logic if ID must be shown before voting, then ID can be demanded before asserting your right to privacy. It's gibberish.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
 NinthMusketeer wrote:
I responded to a similar post earlier in more detail but in summary; I was aware of the torture sites when I said that. I view this as worse.


Yeah, I thought by adding Iraq my post was sufficiently different. Anyhow, maybe my post wasn't that different, thinking about it now. My bad.

Anyhow, I don't agree it's worse, but I guess it doesn't really matter which recent acts by GW Bush or Trump were objectively greater breaches of human rights. Jesus, what a conversation.

This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2018/06/19 07:31:10


“We may observe that the government in a civilized country is much more expensive than in a barbarous one; and when we say that one government is more expensive than another, it is the same as if we said that that one country is farther advanced in improvement than another. To say that the government is expensive and the people not oppressed is to say that the people are rich.”

Adam Smith, who must have been some kind of leftie or something. 
   
Made in gb
Longtime Dakkanaut





 AlmightyWalrus wrote:
 Whirlwind wrote:


What advantage could be gained from a Space Force right now? Orbit seems both very well covered, and a remarkably dangerous place to put troops.


It's also relatively pointless. Give a soldier any type of ballistic weapon (say an M16) and they might be able to shoot one person before they are spinning uncontrollably or flying off at a fair rate of knots in the opposite direction because of physical conservation laws.


Do recoilless rifles not work in space?


All that recoilless rifles do is dispate the force in a manner that ensures you can keep the rifle pointed at the same target on the earth. You still can't get round the physical laws that is for every action there is an equal and opposite action. That still applies whether you have a recoilless rifle or not.

If for example a rifle fires a bullet with a force of 10 Newtons 'forwards' then the same force applies to you but 'backwards'. On the earth that force transfers through you onto the earth through friction and because of the high mass of the earth is effectively negligible. In space there is no friction or mass to compensate that reaction hence in this example a 100kg person will end up accelerating themselves backwards away from the direction of the bullet by about 0.1ms-2. Now imagine you point the gun in a slightly different direction per shot. That means that you move backwards at a slightly different angle each time. At 100s of bullets per second then you have just spun yourself up completely uncontrollably and will now be moving away from your target at approx 10metres per second (assuming you've not spun yourself so wildly that you are still pointing roughly in the same direction). You will then continue onto that trajectory until you hit something to transfer that energy to something else (in practice assuming low earth orbit then the gravity of the moon/sun/earth will also have an effect and change your trajectory but we will ingore this for the moment as these are fixed effects).

You can mitigate this somewhat ny firing from a more massive object. Say you were standing on an object of a one tonne as the acceleration you recieve will be less but that is countered by the fact that to stop that object spinning you will need the same force and eventually you will spin it up. It just takes more shots. (We also have to take into account that unless you are centrally located in that mass then each shot will impart angular momentum into the object and start it spinning.

Guns in space are really impractical except when used on a solid body - so the moon would be OK (which is why a lot of Sci-fi use lasers as the forces being applied then are a lot less, although not zero)

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2018/06/19 07:47:01


"Because while the truncheon may be used in lieu of conversation, words will always retain their power. Words offer the means to meaning, and for those who will listen, the enunciation of truth. And the truth is, there is something terribly wrong with this country, isn't there? Cruelty and injustice, intolerance and oppression. And where once you had the freedom to object, to think and speak as you saw fit, you now have censors and systems of surveillance coercing your conformity and soliciting your submission. How did this happen? Who's to blame? Well certainly there are those more responsible than others, and they will be held accountable, but again truth be told, if you're looking for the guilty, you need only look into a mirror. " - V

I've just supported the Permanent European Union Citizenship initiative. Please do the same and spread the word!

"It's not a problem if you don't look up." - Dakka's approach to politics 
   
Made in us
Longtime Dakkanaut





North Carolina

 AdeptSister wrote:
I do think it is funny/sad that there has been a concentrated movement to make it harder to vote in the US.




Nobody has yet to convince me that being required to show a driver's license, military ID, or State identification card is an infringment on anybody's rights. Maybe on the voting rights of people now residing in my local graveyard perhaps. But not among living, citizens that haven't lost the right due to disqualifying categories (such as convicted felons).


Automatically Appended Next Post:
 Ustrello wrote:
 cuda1179 wrote:
 Ustrello wrote:
 AdeptSister wrote:
I do think it is funny/sad that there has been a concentrated movement to make it harder to vote in the US.


Make it hard for one demographic to vote, but certain posters here would tell you otherwise


On the other hand, certain posters here will tell you that there isn't a concerted effort to get people!e to vote that shouldn't.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
 BaronIveagh wrote:
 cuda1179 wrote:
The thing is, that the longer we go the easier it will be for people that are legal citizens to prove their legality. The time might not be now, but at some point in the future this really won't be that burdensome


And then steal that legality and take out loans in their name. The more you depend on a piece of plastic, the easier it is to steal soemone's identity.


Actually, isn't it technically harder to steal someone's identity now than it was 40 years ago?


I think it has been pretty much proven that voter id laws specifically target minorities and every time that is brought up the same half dozen or so posters bring up the same hand waving points like you just did




Which is utter nonsense. That's why we keep saying it. On the other hand, parroting the talking points of the anti-ID crowd and media as "facts" doesn't automatically make it correct.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
 ProtoClone wrote:
Going off of Trump's statement that America needs more military presence in space.

Can we talk about the logistics of a space military? What would actually need to be done in order to have what could conceivably be a presence in space beyond satellites.

Seeing as no one has claimed space could this lead to an arms race for territories in our solar system?

I jest but I actually do wonder.




We already have the USAF Space Command. Which is good enough, considering our current mission, operational needs, and technology level. There is no need for space fighters and space marines yet. The President has watched Starship Troopers, Votoms, and Macross one time too many.

This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2018/06/19 08:25:23


Proud Purveyor Of The Unconventional In 40k 
   
Made in us
Douglas Bader






 Whirlwind wrote:
Bad physics.


Gah. Bad physics, using different units interchangeably, etc. Let's do this correctly:

A 5.56mm bullet is about 4g and 850m/s. That's 3.4 kg*m/s. By conservation of momentum a 100kg person would be propelled backwards at 0.034m/s. For comparison, average walking speed is about ~1.5m/s, or about 44 times faster. So yes, firing a rifle in space will add non-trivial velocity, but it's hardly going to throw wildly off into space if you fire a burst or two. Fire your maneuvering thrusters to counter that (low) velocity, something that can probably be done automatically by a computer and acceleration sensors, and you'll easily remove the problem.

A recoilless rifle is called that because it eliminates recoil by using a counter mass and/or propellant gas that is thrown out the back of the weapon to balance the projectile. The net momentum between the two is close to zero so the shooter feels nearly zero recoil force, assuming everything is working properly. Note that "rifle" does not mean something like an M16, recoilless rifles are heavy anti-tank weapons much more comparable to an RPG. Using a properly designed recoilless rifle in space would work just fine as long as you don't mind the backblast issue.

The whole space force thing is stupid. Drones and anti-satellite missiles already have the whole thing covered, and are an extreme niche role at best. The most useful thing that will come out of any of this is the space marine memes.

There is no such thing as a hobby without politics. "Leave politics at the door" is itself a political statement, an endorsement of the status quo and an attempt to silence dissenting voices. 
   
Made in us
Shas'ui with Bonding Knife






 oldravenman3025 wrote:
 AdeptSister wrote:
I do think it is funny/sad that there has been a concentrated movement to make it harder to vote in the US.




Nobody has yet to convince me that being required to show a driver's license, military ID, or State identification card is an infringment on anybody's rights. Maybe on the voting rights of people now residing in my local graveyard perhaps. But not among living, citizens that haven't lost the right due to disqualifying categories (such as convicted felons).


IIRC it's a violation of the 14th amendment's Equal Protection Clause where even minor burdens have to be "sufficiently weighty to justify the limitation."

 oldravenman3025 wrote:

Which is utter nonsense. That's why we keep saying it. On the other hand, parroting the talking points of the anti-ID crowd and media as "facts" doesn't automatically make it correct.


Then I'm sure you'll be happy to provide proof right? I suppose it's more accurate to say "it overburdens the poor" rather than "minorities" (even though minorities make up more of the poor), along with the fact most states in the country require an address to get ID, which obviously immediately excludes the homeless from voting.

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2018/06/19 08:40:11


DQ:90S++G++M----B--I+Pw40k07+D+++A+++/areWD-R+DM+


bittersashes wrote:One guy down at my gaming club swore he saw an objective flag take out a full unit of Bane Thralls.
 
   
Made in us
Douglas Bader






 oldravenman3025 wrote:
Nobody has yet to convince me that being required to show a driver's license, military ID, or State identification card is an infringment on anybody's rights. Maybe on the voting rights of people now residing in my local graveyard perhaps. But not among living, citizens that haven't lost the right due to disqualifying categories (such as convicted felons).


It's an infringement because of the reasons for those requirements. The only form of voting fraud that they can even in theory prevent* has not been demonstrated to occur at any meaningful level. IIRC we're talking about single digit cases proved to have happened, in all of recent history, and there is certainly no evidence that it happens often enough to make any difference in the outcome of elections. So, if the requirements have no practical purpose we have to look at the other potential motivations for imposing them. And we see two very illegitimate ones: preventing the "wrong" people from voting by making it more difficult to vote, and making campaign speeches about how much election fraud you're preventing. The courts don't look kindly upon restrictions that have no legitimate purpose, so this one gets thrown out.

*An illegal voter voting under the name of someone who is registered to vote in that precinct. That is a high-risk thing to do, and likely leads to getting arrested if the legitimate person voted previously. Dead people voting is an entirely separate problem: voter registration lists not being accurate. But ID requirements don't prevent people from getting on the list when they shouldn't be.

There is no such thing as a hobby without politics. "Leave politics at the door" is itself a political statement, an endorsement of the status quo and an attempt to silence dissenting voices. 
   
Made in gb
Longtime Dakkanaut





 Peregrine wrote:


Gah. Bad physics, using different units interchangeably, etc. Let's do this correctly:

A 5.56mm bullet is about 4g and 850m/s. That's 3.4 kg*m/s. By conservation of momentum a 100kg person would be propelled backwards at 0.034m/s. For comparison, average walking speed is about ~1.5m/s, or about 44 times faster. So yes, firing a rifle in space will add non-trivial velocity, but it's hardly going to throw wildly off into space if you fire a burst or two. Fire your maneuvering thrusters to counter that (low) velocity, something that can probably be done automatically by a computer and acceleration sensors, and you'll easily remove the problem.


Lol - Nope that's incorrect. Force is mass * acceleration not as your units, mass * velocity. A unit of Force is a Newton which is the same as kgms-2, hence there is no confusion with units. It is the mass of the body and acceleration that is important *not* the speed of the resulting projectile. Conservation of momentum is a similar but different law. You've also considered only one bullet. If we are assuming a traditional rifle that fires 10's or 100's of projectiles per second then you have to multiply the duration of the acceleration appropriately.

A recoilless rifle is called that because it eliminates recoil by using a counter mass and/or propellant gas that is thrown out the back of the weapon to balance the projectile. The net momentum between the two is close to zero so the shooter feels nearly zero recoil force, assuming everything is working properly. Note that "rifle" does not mean something like an M16, recoilless rifles are heavy anti-tank weapons much more comparable to an RPG. Using a properly designed recoilless rifle in space would work just fine as long as you don't mind the backblast issue.


I won't say I know much about weapons, but I was considering recoiless rifles in terms of M16 type weapons with integrated systems to control the internal recoil. If we are talking about rockets then yes these are different. The propellant is forced out of the rocket and that imparts an opposite force onto the rocket itself. As such little force is applied to the holding mechanism, but is unlikely to be zero.


"Because while the truncheon may be used in lieu of conversation, words will always retain their power. Words offer the means to meaning, and for those who will listen, the enunciation of truth. And the truth is, there is something terribly wrong with this country, isn't there? Cruelty and injustice, intolerance and oppression. And where once you had the freedom to object, to think and speak as you saw fit, you now have censors and systems of surveillance coercing your conformity and soliciting your submission. How did this happen? Who's to blame? Well certainly there are those more responsible than others, and they will be held accountable, but again truth be told, if you're looking for the guilty, you need only look into a mirror. " - V

I've just supported the Permanent European Union Citizenship initiative. Please do the same and spread the word!

"It's not a problem if you don't look up." - Dakka's approach to politics 
   
Made in us
Douglas Bader






 Whirlwind wrote:
Lol - Nope that's incorrect. Force is mass * acceleration not as your units, mass * velocity. A unit of Force is a Newton which is the same as kgms-2, hence there is no confusion with units. It is the mass of the body and acceleration that is important *not* the speed of the resulting projectile. Conservation of momentum is a similar but different law. You've also considered only one bullet. If we are assuming a traditional rifle that fires 10's or 100's of projectiles per second then you have to multiply the duration of the acceleration appropriately.


...

Conservation of momentum is the simplest way to get an answer. If you want to calculate it with forces then you need the duration of the force (which, by the way, varies with time and is not constant), which you don't have. A 10N force may be a huge problem or completely irrelevant depending on its duration. Apply it for 0.000000000000000001 seconds and you won't even notice. Apply it for several hours in space and you'll get some pretty impressive speed.

And no, a rifle is not firing "10's or 100's of projectiles per second". An M16 at maximum rate of fire is firing about 15 shots per second, way below your claim. And you're almost never going to use that maximum rate of fire because it's just wasting ammunition.

I won't say I know much about weapons, but I was considering recoiless rifles in terms of M16 type weapons with integrated systems to control the internal recoil. If we are talking about rockets then yes these are different. The propellant is forced out of the rocket and that imparts an opposite force onto the rocket itself. As such little force is applied to the holding mechanism, but is unlikely to be zero.


Recoil compensation on an M16 is not the same as a recoiless rifle, not at all. If you don't know much about weapons perhaps you shouldn't be posting about them as if you do?

There is no such thing as a hobby without politics. "Leave politics at the door" is itself a political statement, an endorsement of the status quo and an attempt to silence dissenting voices. 
   
Made in gb
Longtime Dakkanaut





 Peregrine wrote:


Conservation of momentum is the simplest way to get an answer. If you want to calculate it with forces then you need the duration of the force (which, by the way, varies with time and is not constant), which you don't have. A 10N force may be a huge problem or completely irrelevant depending on its duration. Apply it for 0.000000000000000001 seconds and you won't even notice. Apply it for several hours in space and you'll get some pretty impressive speed.


Sigh. The use of bullets and recoil in basic conservation of momentum physics is common but actually flawed. Conservation of momentum only applies where no external force is applied to the system, or:-

For a collision occurring between object 1 and object 2 in an isolated system, the total momentum of the two objects before the collision is equal to the total momentum of the two objects after the collision. That is, the momentum lost by object 1 is equal to the momentum gained by object 2.

Hence if you were travelling in a rocket at a constant speed and then dropped a ball from that rocket then conservation of momentum is fine. You know the momentum of the system and you can determine the relative velocities with a known mass. It doesn't work when there is an external force applied. This is where the bullet scenario fails. Bullets work by igniting a propellant. This applies a force to both the firer and the bullet. Hence conservation of momentum will get you the incorrect answer until you have taken into account this force applied. It's the force applied that makes the bullet fly forwards and you move backwards. Each time you fire a bullet it imparts the same force on to the firer and the bullet. Any slight misalignment from the centre of mass will start the firing body to start to spin as well as move backwards.

A 10N force may be a huge problem or completely irrelevant depending on its duration. Apply it for 0.000000000000000001 seconds and you won't even notice. Apply it for several hours in space and you'll get some pretty impressive speed.


You are also missing that mass is also a large factor. An almost massless neutrino with a 10N force applied to 10^-18 seconds stated can get it to impressive speeds whereas apply that to a star and it will be a tiny change in speed even over year timescales. The mass of the object you are applying it to is just as relevant as the time applied.

And no, a rifle is not firing "10's or 100's of projectiles per second". An M16 at maximum rate of fire is firing about 15 shots per second, way below your claim.


In mathematical language 15 is 10's of projectiles in the same ways as saying on the order of 10.

Recoil compensation on an M16 is not the same as a recoiless rifle, not at all. If you don't know much about weapons perhaps you shouldn't be posting about them as if you do?
But in context of the older discussion where bullets were being referred to it makes sense. This is just a pedantic argument on nomenclature.

"Because while the truncheon may be used in lieu of conversation, words will always retain their power. Words offer the means to meaning, and for those who will listen, the enunciation of truth. And the truth is, there is something terribly wrong with this country, isn't there? Cruelty and injustice, intolerance and oppression. And where once you had the freedom to object, to think and speak as you saw fit, you now have censors and systems of surveillance coercing your conformity and soliciting your submission. How did this happen? Who's to blame? Well certainly there are those more responsible than others, and they will be held accountable, but again truth be told, if you're looking for the guilty, you need only look into a mirror. " - V

I've just supported the Permanent European Union Citizenship initiative. Please do the same and spread the word!

"It's not a problem if you don't look up." - Dakka's approach to politics 
   
Made in us
Lord of the Fleet





Seneca Nation of Indians

 whembly wrote:
Enforcing the law of the land...

Imagine that.



The issue isn't so much this as it is the fine print. The part where it's more or less assumed that every asylum seeker is doing so fraudulently, and some of the immigration judges are telling people without lawyers that if they want to see their kids again, plead guilty.

This whole debacle is an abomination of justice.


Fate is in heaven, armor is on the chest, accomplishment is in the feet. - Nagao Kagetora
 
   
Made in nl
Tzeentch Aspiring Sorcerer Riding a Disc





tneva82 wrote:
 Disciple of Fate wrote:
 ProtoClone wrote:
Well, I should clarify, he said America needs a "space force" and the military needs to get on to making that branch of the military.

But that's Trump being Trump, as for now he has to get rid off the treaty and then there are still huge technological and financial obstacles to anything effective.


Trump being Trump he'll just say America is out of it.

And now he's adding yet more tariffs to China and says if China responds in kind he'll add more. Lol. "We can do this but you can't respond in kind". Guess there's soon 500% tariff on each other products and rising.

Well he would have to get Congress on board to get out, but they probably just go with it.

The trade war happens when you have a man so blinded by his own sense of being right that everything done in response to him is an attack. Its pretty incredible.

Sorry for my spelling. I'm not a native speaker and a dyslexic.
1750 pts Blood Specters
2000 pts Imperial Fists
6000 pts Disciples of Fate
3500 pts Peridia Prime
2500 pts Prophets of Fate
Lizardmen 3000 points Tlaxcoatl Temple-City
Tomb Kings 1500 points Sekhra (RIP) 
   
Made in us
Proud Triarch Praetorian





 whembly wrote:
Enforcing the law of the land...

Imagine that.



Are you implying they were not being enforced before or they were not encorced to your liking? Was it the wrong team enforcing them?
   
Made in us
5th God of Chaos! (Yea'rly!)




The Great State of Texas

 AdeptSister wrote:
I do think it is funny/sad that there has been a concentrated movement to make it harder to vote in the US.


Harder for those who are not citizens, yes.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
 Grey Templar wrote:
 Ustrello wrote:
What voter ID laws are unconstitutional? I never would of guessed

http://thehill.com/homenews/state-watch/392893-judge-rules-against-kobach-in-voter-registration-case

A federal judge on Monday permanently struck down Kansas's proof-of-citizenship voter registration law, handing down a blistering ruling against Kansas Secretary of State Kris Kobach, one of the country's most vocal advocates of voter-ID laws.

In the 118-page ruling, U.S. District Judge Julie Robinson wrote that the state’s requirement that voters show proof of citizenship during registration violated both the Constitution and the National Voter Registration Act.

Robinson struck down the stringent law, and ordered Kobach to take six additional hours of continuing legal education that “pertain to federal or Kansas civil rules of procedure or evidence.”

Robinson wrote that the law, championed by Kobach, prevented “tens of thousands of eligible citizens” from registering to vote before she issued a preliminary injunction, and that “the process of completing the registration process was burdensome for them.”
According to the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU), Kobach’s law blocked some 35,000 Kansans from being able to register to vote.

In an earlier court order, Robinson had held Kobach in contempt for skirting court orders related to the law and failing to send postcards confirming registration for thousands of voters.


Well if its Unconstitutional to be forced to prove you have the right to vote, then it should also be Unconstitutional to need to prove you are allowed to practice any other right.

So logically nobody should have to show any ID to, say, purchase a firearm for example.


No that's wrong because...reasons...

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2018/06/19 12:31:02


-"Wait a minute.....who is that Frazz is talking to in the gallery? Hmmm something is going on here.....Oh.... it seems there is some dispute over video taping of some sort......Frazz is really upset now..........wait a minute......whats he go there.......is it? Can it be?....Frazz has just unleashed his hidden weiner dog from his mini bag, while quoting shakespeares "Let slip the dogs the war!!" GG
-"Don't mind Frazzled. He's just Dakka's crazy old dude locked in the attic. He's harmless. Mostly."
-TBone the Magnificent 1999-2014, Long Live the King!
 
   
Made in us
Did Fulgrim Just Behead Ferrus?





Fort Worth, TX

The issue with voter ID laws is that those who fight so hard for them aren't willing to put even half that same effort into getting those IDs to the people who need them.

"Through the darkness of future past, the magician longs to see.
One chants out between two worlds: Fire, walk with me."
- Twin Peaks
"You listen to me. While I will admit to a certain cynicism, the fact is that I am a naysayer and hatchetman in the fight against violence. I pride myself in taking a punch and I'll gladly take another because I choose to live my life in the company of Gandhi and King. My concerns are global. I reject absolutely revenge, aggression, and retaliation. The foundation of such a method... is love. I love you Sheriff Truman." - Twin Peaks 
   
Made in us
Lord of the Fleet





Seneca Nation of Indians

 Frazzled wrote:

Harder for those who are not citizens, yes.


As someone who works for Social Security, let me tell you: the same issues that we run into getting everyone an SS card? They mean that this WILL make it harder for actual citizens to vote too. And also, those same issues? They also mean that it would actually make it easier for non-citizens to vote.

Just understand folks, I'm opposed to the idea of a national ID card because I've seen the gak we run into at SSA, where we spend millions on investigations, and bust a lot of bad guys, true, but before it gets to that point, a lot of people lose everything, even if we are absolutely on the ball. The fraud records alone are a pile of filing cabinets that cover an area the size of an Olympic swimming pool and are stacked 20 feet high. As my boss said on the first day: 'I want you to think of how many people's lives being ruined this pile represents.'

I hesitate to imagine what can be done with a 'citizenship card'.


Fate is in heaven, armor is on the chest, accomplishment is in the feet. - Nagao Kagetora
 
   
Made in us
Imperial Guard Landspeeder Pilot




On moon miranda.

On the whole voter fraud & ID requirement thing...

One really need not look beyond the qualities of the people in power involved in pushing such laws to see the issues with them.

Judge strikes down Kansas voter ID law, orders Kobach take legal classes




A federal judge on Monday permanently struck down Kansas's proof-of-citizenship voter registration law, handing down a blistering ruling against Kansas Secretary of State Kris Kobach, one of the country's most vocal advocates of voter-ID laws.

In the 118-page ruling, U.S. District Judge Julie Robinson wrote that the state’s requirement that voters show proof of citizenship during registration violated both the Constitution and the National Voter Registration Act.

Robinson struck down the stringent law, and ordered Kobach to take six additional hours of continuing legal education that “pertain to federal or Kansas civil rules of procedure or evidence.”


Yes, this is the guy Donald Trump picked to run his voter fraud commission.

IRON WITHIN, IRON WITHOUT.

New Heavy Gear Log! Also...Grey Knights!
The correct pronunciation is Imperial Guard and Stormtroopers, "Astra Militarum" and "Tempestus Scions" are something you'll find at Hogwarts.  
   
Made in us
Battlefield Tourist




MN (Currently in WY)

As many of you know, I am a small business owner in a rural upper midwest town. I am a "Job-Creator" for about 20+ peope. I am far away from the Mexican border, so far in fact that I can drive to Canada in less than a day.

about 60 days ago, my best worker was pulled over for a violation. She was arrested and then sent to an immigration holding facility. Within 60 days she was deported to Mexico without even getting a day in court or an attorney.

She had been a resident since she was 1. She was not very good at speaking Spanish, as English was her native language. She has two kids who are now stranded in our state as the father has been out of the picture and in Texas.
She was employed, a hard worker, paid taxes, had HS degree, and saving up money for a house. Now, she is in a strange land where she knows no one and can barely speak the language.

We have many Mexican and Hispanic residents and business owners in my community. They are scared that at any moment someone can come, accuse them of a crime, have their kids taken from them, and shipped to Mexico without any recourse. She only had the clothes on her back and the money in her pocket when she was arrested.

I used to think this was hyperbole, until I saw it happen to my own friend. Each of them has a similar story.

I thought I knew and understood what it meant to be an American and the values we stood for as a society. In the last two years, what I thought I knew has been proven wrong to me..... many, many times in the last 2 years.

I don't know who "started it" and I do not care. All I want is for it to stop. The only ones who can stop it right now are Republicans, as they control all three branches of the Federal government, and the Legislature of my state. They are the only ones who can stop it, and this "Paper Please" reign of terror. If they can or won't stop it, I will support with time, money, efforts, and votes for those who can.

That is what this issues means to me. It is no longer an abstract concept. My friends and fellow "Job-creators" are scared, my friends and workers have been deported, the families of my friends have been shattered and their communities broken up. I do not know what is or is not legal, or who is responsible, but I can clearly see that the effects of these policies are not the American values I thought I understood.

Support Blood and Spectacles Publishing:
https://www.patreon.com/Bloodandspectaclespublishing 
   
Made in us
5th God of Chaos! (Yea'rly!)




The Great State of Texas

 Tannhauser42 wrote:
The issue with voter ID laws is that those who fight so hard for them aren't willing to put even half that same effort into getting those IDs to the people who need them.


Please cite evidence to support the statement.

-"Wait a minute.....who is that Frazz is talking to in the gallery? Hmmm something is going on here.....Oh.... it seems there is some dispute over video taping of some sort......Frazz is really upset now..........wait a minute......whats he go there.......is it? Can it be?....Frazz has just unleashed his hidden weiner dog from his mini bag, while quoting shakespeares "Let slip the dogs the war!!" GG
-"Don't mind Frazzled. He's just Dakka's crazy old dude locked in the attic. He's harmless. Mostly."
-TBone the Magnificent 1999-2014, Long Live the King!
 
   
 
Forum Index » Off-Topic Forum
Go to: