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.

 Disciple of Fate wrote:

But you never need 4% for that, its an incredibly silly number to throw out. Europe can do that without an arbitrary norm of 4%. Just for laughs, if every European state would invest 4% we would outspend Russia ten times over and even give the US a run on total budget. The question being why? Why does Europe need to spend such ungodly amounts of money when it barely involves itself in operations overseas?

it's a number pulled out of Trump's butt at random because he wanted to yell at someone over something. I wouldn't read much more into it than that.

That said, getting up to at least NATO commitment levels of 2% is probably warranted.

 d-usa wrote:
Maybe Europe should just get on Twitter and complain about having the worst defense deals in history, and tell the US that they are going to pay whatever they want.

Careful...don’t fall into the trap that others can out Trump, Trump.

 Disciple of Fate wrote:

 Frazzled wrote:
I am fine with you spending nothing, once we leave.

I think we can agree that as of now most of Europe spends too little. But 4% is just silly, the US didn't even spend 4% last year, while being involved in multiple wars.

I think 2 percent is a good number. The Baltic states can buy a lot of anti-tank missile launchers with that money

 whembly wrote:

 Disciple of Fate wrote:



Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Frazzled wrote:

 Disciple of Fate wrote:
So Trump wants European countrues to spend 4% of their GDP on the military. As few European countries are into military adventurism like the US, why would they need the kind of percentage spending the US has? Just throwing around numbers that sound flashy but are completely stupid considering most European nations.

So when we leave Russia doesn't eat you. Time for the US to go. Russia is not a major threat to us.

But you never need 4% for that, its an incredibly silly number to throw out. Europe can do that without an arbitrary norm of 4%. Just for laughs, if every European state would invest 4% we would outspend Russia ten times over and even give the US a run on total budget. The question being why? Why does Europe need to spend such ungodly amounts of money when it barely involves itself in operations overseas?

Maybe because the US is tired of being treated as a “strap on” for the rest of Europe?

I don’t fully agree with frazzled isolationist views... but I see where he’s coming from.

Trump’s 4% figure is a weee bit silly... but the context is simply “ y’all need to do better “. And he’s right... y’all do. This is not meant to disparage current efforts...just a friendly reminder that the 2% target has been promised numerous times and that the eta frequently pushed back.

Its more than a wee bit silly, its downright stupid, the context being Trump once again showing no grasp of how the world works. We already promised to do better under Obama, Trump really isn't changing much. 2% is the global norm.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Vaktathi wrote:

 Disciple of Fate wrote:

But you never need 4% for that, its an incredibly silly number to throw out. Europe can do that without an arbitrary norm of 4%. Just for laughs, if every European state would invest 4% we would outspend Russia ten times over and even give the US a run on total budget. The question being why? Why does Europe need to spend such ungodly amounts of money when it barely involves itself in operations overseas?

it's a number pulled out of Trump's butt at random because he wanted to yell at someone over something. I wouldn't read much more into it than that.

That said, getting up to at least NATO commitment levels of 2% is probably warranted.

Yeah, its actively endangering lives at how cheap Europe got. 2% is pretty normal.

 d-usa wrote:

 Ustrello wrote:
Plus it only goes to reaffirm that while not all republicans are facists, white supremecists, neo nazis, all of those groups vote republican

I don't think the vast majority of conservatives are racists, sexist, whatever.

But it does make me sad that they voted for, and will defend someone, who is openly racist and sexist and embodies everything they say they hated about Clinton.

At that point, just stop pretending its about actual personality issues. Just admit that it boils down to "I will vote for a corpse as long as he's anti-abortion" and "borders" rather than integrity, trust, honestly, etc.

But for many, politics is this:

http://extrafabulouscomics.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/11/sports.png

I’d argue that a very small portion of the electorates treat it like a team sport... as most voters are single/few issues voters or habitually vote along with their peers (ie, union members, blacks, business owners,etc).

I’d bet that 95% of the voters tunes out the hyper partisan gak.

Actually Whembly. 95% of people just believe everything they hear when they turn on the radio or the TV. So if it's hyper partisan gak - that is what most people are going to believe.

 d-usa wrote:

 Ustrello wrote:
Plus it only goes to reaffirm that while not all republicans are facists, white supremecists, neo nazis, all of those groups vote republican

I don't think the vast majority of conservatives are racists, sexist, whatever.

But it does make me sad that they voted for, and will defend someone, who is openly racist and sexist and embodies everything they say they hated about Clinton.

At that point, just stop pretending its about actual personality issues. Just admit that it boils down to "I will vote for a corpse as long as he's anti-abortion" and "borders" rather than integrity, trust, honestly, etc.

Not to be pedantic, but that would be Republicans you are talking about, not conservatives. Conservatives didn't support the GOP in 2016 and certainly don't now; they represent exactly zero conservative values.

Yet, somehow they voted for them.

 d-usa wrote:
Cuda: my main issue with your arguments right now is that you are not finishing any of them. Instead you are just jumping from X to Y to Z. For me, when I try to address a point you make, you just counter with a different point. With the KKK as an example, you argued that they haven’t been relevant, I brought up an example of their relevance by pointing out how they littered a black town with KKK flyers, and you countered with “did the flyers beat people up”. That to me is the classic whembly style of arguing on here, because you can’t actually argue with someone if you can’t actually pin them down to an actual argument. I’m not even talking about ignoring rebuttals, which is also prevalent.

I try to see any argument I make through to the end. Sometimes the discussion flows organically, so the specific argument flows as well. But I really try to abstain from the “well X”, “actually X is...”, “but Y!!!” style of debating.

I also don’t care if we disagree on stuff. Plenty of people disagree and you can still have a good discussion without any Rule 1 violations. My beef is just the switching of the actual arguments and ignoring any rebuttals.

My apologies. At the time I was having three or four simultaneous arguments. Remembering where I was on any of them at any given moment, while at work, while using a kitbashed tablet with a 3 inch screen can be a little disorienting.

As for your argument, yes, throwing out flyers is annoying. Yes, the KKK is still around in some form. I guess I should have said that they are relatively irrelevant, compared to what they once were. While I'd prefer them to be extinct entirely, they are basically a slowly dying organization (recent surges withstanding), that hasn't had the clout for any major action in a very long time. I think the worst they've done in the last 10 years are some organized marches. I'm not happy about those, but they are legal. When was the last time a group of robed idiots pulled a minority out of their home and lynched them? Compared to that I can almost live with them blanketing a neighborhood in flyers.

I did get a little frustrated when we were discussing a law, pretty much targeting Antifa, and someone asks why I keep mentioning Antifa.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Rosebuddy wrote:

 Iron_Captain wrote:

Antifa does use the same methods as the fascists though..

Everyone who has ever wielded a rifle has used the same method. Antifa and nazis are similar only from a horribly reductionist point of view. "They fight those they consider their enemies" can apply to a lot of people and does not contain any value judgement so it's about as useful for anything as the observation that multiple different organisations are all joined by people who wear shoes.

There's a huge difference between "normal fighting" and what Antifa does. Let's pretend this forum is the world. You don't like what I say, you can rebut it. Still don't like me, put me on ignore. Did I say something truly outrageous? Report me to a Mod. An Antifa member would enter with their friends and violate rule 1 so much they'd force the thread closed. Of they may flood your inbox, or hack your account, or crash the website. If it can't be their way, it will be no way.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 NinthMusketeer wrote:

 d-usa wrote:

 Ustrello wrote:
Plus it only goes to reaffirm that while not all republicans are facists, white supremecists, neo nazis, all of those groups vote republican

I don't think the vast majority of conservatives are racists, sexist, whatever.

But it does make me sad that they voted for, and will defend someone, who is openly racist and sexist and embodies everything they say they hated about Clinton.

At that point, just stop pretending its about actual personality issues. Just admit that it boils down to "I will vote for a corpse as long as he's anti-abortion" and "borders" rather than integrity, trust, honestly, etc.

Not to be pedantic, but that would be Republicans you are talking about, not conservatives. Conservatives didn't support the GOP in 2016 and certainly don't now; they represent exactly zero conservative values.

I feel a lot of Conservatives voted for Trump not because they liked him, but because he was the lesser of two evils. That's a conversation we've had one too many times here, so let's not rehash it. Frankly I'd love to see a REAL Conservative nominee that has more than a pipedream of a chance. Seriously, give me a truly Conservative candidate that can be trusted, and has at least a 25% chance of winning any given election and I'd vote for them. I'd vote for a Green Party member at that point. At least it wouldn't totally feel like I was throwing my vote away for a 3rd party.

Honestly, would it really take that much for the left-leaning Republicans and right-leaning Democrats to just say "feth this two-party thing. Let's join forces and make a 3-way race"

 cuda1179 wrote:


I feel a lot of Conservatives voted for Trump not because they liked him, but because he was the lesser of two evils.

You cannot be serious.

Steelmage99 wrote:

 cuda1179 wrote:


I feel a lot of Conservatives voted for Trump not because they liked him, but because he was the lesser of two evils.

You cannot be serious.

That's how I personally felt. I entered that voting booth and nearly tasted the vomit as I made that decision. I have friends that felt the same way voting for Hillary.

 cuda1179 wrote:
Honestly, would it really take that much for the left-leaning Republicans and right-leaning Democrats to just say "feth this two-party thing. Let's join forces and make a 3-way race"

It would take a lot, because a three (or more) party system can not exist in the US without changing the structure of the elections.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 cuda1179 wrote:
There's a huge difference between "normal fighting" and what Antifa does. Let's pretend this forum is the world. You don't like what I say, you can rebut it. Still don't like me, put me on ignore. Did I say something truly outrageous? Report me to a Mod. An Antifa member would enter with their friends and violate rule 1 so much they'd force the thread closed. Of they may flood your inbox, or hack your account, or crash the website. If it can't be their way, it will be no way.

"Normal fighting" is exactly what you're talking about here. Asking a moderator to ban someone isn't fighting, it's peacefully complying with the rules. Fighting implies getting out the weapons and breaking the rules until the people you're fighting are dealt with. And "if it can't be their way it will be no way" sure sounds like a solid plan when you're talking about Nazis and fascists and such, those groups shouldn't be accepted. The problem you seem to be having is not the methods, it's the choice of enemies to fight and your belief that those enemies are not sufficient to justify fighting.

 Peregrine wrote:

 cuda1179 wrote:
Honestly, would it really take that much for the left-leaning Republicans and right-leaning Democrats to just say "feth this two-party thing. Let's join forces and make a 3-way race"

It would take a lot, because a three (or more) party system can not exist in the US without changing the structure of the elections.

We all ready have 3rd party people that have been elected to positions. Frankly I'd like to see this happen and I think it would be worth the effort. I see a lot of people stuck in the middle trying to decide what side of the fanaticism line they will cross with their vote. I'd like to have an option, even if it's not perfect at least it wouldn't be as bad as the other two.

Breaking out other parties and independents into electoral viability would be fantastic, but the reality is that there needs to be major electoral reform to allow that to happen, there was a lot of effort that went into crafting the two party system at all levels of government (and the two parties historically also simply adopt and gobble up the primary platforms of alternative parties), and a lot of structures will have to change, and the existing two parties have evey incentive not to allow that to happen.

But I'm absolutely all on board with breaking the two party system, and I hope all this drama spurs a drive toward that.

I've said it before, but I feel that no republican that ever voted for trump can ever claim the moral or ethical high ground again

 Peregrine wrote:
[
"Normal fighting" is exactly what you're talking about here. Asking a moderator to ban someone isn't fighting, it's peacefully complying with the rules. Fighting implies getting out the weapons and breaking the rules until the people you're fighting are dealt with. And "if it can't be their way it will be no way" sure sounds like a solid plan when you're talking about Nazis and fascists and such, those groups shouldn't be accepted. The problem you seem to be having is not the methods, it's the choice of enemies to fight and your belief that those enemies are not sufficient to justify fighting.

I think you may have misinterpreted what I say. I do have problems with the methods. I don't like Klansmen or Skinheads. If they initiate physical violence I'd say "Go to town Antifa, defend yourselves". As long as all they are doing is espousing ideas I find offensive, let them be.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Vaktathi wrote:
Breaking out other parties and independents into electoral viability would be fantastic, but the reality is that there needs to be major electoral reform to allow that to happen, there was a lot of effort that went into crafting the two party system at all levels of government (and the two parties historically also simply adopt and gobble up the primary platforms of alternative parties), and a lot of structures will have to change, and the existing two parties have evey incentive not to allow that to happen.

But I'm absolutely all on board with breaking the two party system, and I hope all this drama spurs a drive toward that.

I've thought about how we could shoe-horn this into our system. The judiciary branch would work fine as-is. When it comes to the House, I think the House minority and majority leaders should be changed to Primary and Secondary leaders (same in function, with leading party being primary, second party being secondary, third party getting nothing).

 cuda1179 wrote:
I think you may have misinterpreted what I say. I do have problems with the methods. I don't like Klansmen or Skinheads. If they initiate physical violence I'd say "Go to town Antifa, defend yourselves". As long as all they are doing is espousing ideas I find offensive, let them be.

Like I said, your problem is the target. You are objecting to the idea of fighting at all, arguing that their targets have not crossed the line to where fighting is justified.

(Of course we'll just have to disagree on this. The KKK is a terrorist group in addition to being morally unacceptable. Treat them like ISIS and end the problem.)

 Ustrello wrote:
I've said it before, but I feel that no republican that ever voted for trump can ever claim the moral or ethical high ground again

Now who is it playing team sports again?

 cuda1179 wrote:
We all ready have 3rd party people that have been elected to positions. Frankly I'd like to see this happen and I think it would be worth the effort. I see a lot of people stuck in the middle trying to decide what side of the fanaticism line they will cross with their vote. I'd like to have an option, even if it's not perfect at least it wouldn't be as bad as the other two.

We only have third-party candidates that have been successful on the lower levels, and only in very small numbers. You aren't going to see the same thing happening with national-level elections, especially for president. The structure of things is just completely different.

 Ustrello wrote:
I've said it before, but I feel that no republican that ever voted for trump can ever claim the moral or ethical high ground again

If we had a realistic 3rd option we likely wouldn't have voted for him. I mean, what options did we have?

Ranked voting might open the door to third parties, but it gets a lot of resistance.

 cuda1179 wrote:

 Ustrello wrote:
I've said it before, but I feel that no republican that ever voted for trump can ever claim the moral or ethical high ground again

If we had a realistic 3rd option we likely wouldn't have voted for him. I mean, what options did we have?

Hey.... Gary Johnson was that 3rd candidate!

 cuda1179 wrote:
If we had a realistic 3rd option we likely wouldn't have voted for him. I mean, what options did we have?

Vote for Clinton. Seriously, this was not a complicated choice. You had a morally appalling candidate who was blatantly corrupt and incompetent, running on a platform of racism and lying. Or you had a candidate who, while she didn't match all of your political positions, at least existed in mainstream politics and had a record of competent governance that would suggest she might be capable of doing the job. The only acceptable option was to vote for Clinton as the clearly superior of the two possible candidates.

 d-usa wrote:
Ranked voting might open the door to third parties, but it gets a lot of resistance.

As long as you don’t have to rank every candidate, I’d be okay with it.

 Peregrine wrote:

 cuda1179 wrote:
We all ready have 3rd party people that have been elected to positions. Frankly I'd like to see this happen and I think it would be worth the effort. I see a lot of people stuck in the middle trying to decide what side of the fanaticism line they will cross with their vote. I'd like to have an option, even if it's not perfect at least it wouldn't be as bad as the other two.

We only have third-party candidates that have been successful on the lower levels, and only in very small numbers. You aren't going to see the same thing happening with national-level elections, especially for president. The structure of things is just completely different.

I agree with you here. but.... and here's the catch.... hypothetically what if members of both sides had a mass exodus of their elected officials? Some are disillusioned with their party all ready. Too many leave and it's too much to ignore. 150 years ago we had a new party form. Perhaps one of the existing two would die off?


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 whembly wrote:

 cuda1179 wrote:

 Ustrello wrote:
I've said it before, but I feel that no republican that ever voted for trump can ever claim the moral or ethical high ground again

If we had a realistic 3rd option we likely wouldn't have voted for him. I mean, what options did we have?

Hey.... Gary Johnson was that 3rd candidate!

I did state "REALISTIC" there Whembly, LOL

Steelmage99 wrote:

 cuda1179 wrote:


I feel a lot of Conservatives voted for Trump not because they liked him, but because he was the lesser of two evils.

You cannot be serious.

Yes he’s serious... most voters are single issues electorates. Be it judges, 2nd amendment, first amendment, etc....

It’s easy to see why people chose Trump over Hillary Clinton.

 whembly wrote:
As long as you don’t have to rank every candidate, I’d be okay with it.

Obviously you wouldn't. It would be absurd from a logistics point of view to have to rank all of the irrelevant fringe candidates. The obvious way of handling it would be that anyone not ranked on your ballot would get zero votes.

 cuda1179 wrote:



Automatically Appended Next Post:

 whembly wrote:

 cuda1179 wrote:

 Ustrello wrote:
I've said it before, but I feel that no republican that ever voted for trump can ever claim the moral or ethical high ground again

If we had a realistic 3rd option we likely wouldn't have voted for him. I mean, what options did we have?

Hey.... Gary Johnson was that 3rd candidate!

I did state "REALISTIC" there Whembly, LOL

He was on the ballot was he not?

Ok...ok.... he’s a protest vote.

 whembly wrote:

 Ustrello wrote:
I've said it before, but I feel that no republican that ever voted for trump can ever claim the moral or ethical high ground again

Now who is it playing team sports again?

Who claims to be the party of morality and family values again?

 cuda1179 wrote:
I agree with you here. but.... and here's the catch.... hypothetically what if members of both sides had a mass exodus of their elected officials? Some are disillusioned with their party all ready. Too many leave and it's too much to ignore. 150 years ago we had a new party form. Perhaps one of the existing two would die off?

Such an event is extremely unlikely, but in that hypothetical scenario you'd have a transition period where everything would be chaos and then various groups would re-align into two parties again. It would very likely be two different parties that have little in common with the ones we have now, but it would still be a two-party system. And that new two-party system would be stable and lock out third-party candidates just like the current one does, short of another implausible "destroy it all" event happening.