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.
KTG17 wrote: I am curious about something, and not trying to be inflammatory here.
Lets say that in a parallel universe, Trump is somehow well spoken, polite, PC, respectful, and so on. He still runs on the same platform and wins.
All that being said, if he announced that he:
1) wanted to put America first
2) re-negotiate NAFTA and other trade agreements as they were no longer fair to US workers
3) wanted to prevent illegal immigration, as well as block immigration from countries that cannot provide background checks
4) wanted NATO member to fulfill their obligations
5) make us less dependent on importing resources such as oil, as well as protect some industries from unfair trade practices like steel
6) wants the American economy to be strong
And he was able to say all that in a passionate and intelligent way. Would you be on board with that? I imagine most of you who oppose Trump because of how he acts and what he says, which is fully understandable, sometimes he pisses me off too. However, the things I listed above I want from every President. I do not want them to bend on those for the sake of others. I don't agree with the far right, but I also do not agree with the far left, but he is a republican president, and that goes with some things, like supreme court nominations. But still, if he was able to communicate and act more appropriately, would you still be raging mad about some of the policies he is following?
1) meaningless sloganeering.
2) NAFTA has been amazing for America
3) Illegal immigration has been trending down for decades.
4) Of course NATO members need to fulfill their obligations and I fully support this. Doesn't Trump actually want to disband NATO though?
5) Imported Oil is something that puzzles me as well. In Canada it would be trivial for our oil to be 100% domestic, but we get overseas oil while shipping ours away. "unfair" is only because chineseium is so much cheaper to make.
6) Everyone 'wants' their economy to be strong. But, you know, wishes and horses. The economy is a vast system with billions of actors. Trump can only do so much. His understanding of business is obviously faulty, though.
If you think people's objections to Trump are because of his boorish manners, you are mistaken. That's like, probably the 6th worst thing about him.
We were once so close to heaven, St. Peter came out and gave us medals; declaring us "The nicest of the damned".
“Anti-intellectualism has been a constant thread winding its way through our political and cultural life, nurtured by the false notion that democracy means that 'my ignorance is just as good as your knowledge.'”
1) wanted to put America first
2) re-negotiate NAFTA and other trade agreements as they were no longer fair to US workers
3) wanted to prevent illegal immigration, as well as block immigration from countries that cannot provide background checks
4) wanted NATO members to fulfill their obligations
5) make us less dependent on importing resources such as oil, as well as protect some industries from unfair trade practices like steel
6) wants the American economy to be strong
Aims 1, 2, 4, 5, and 6 are all laudable and what we should expect from a US president. Point 3, I mean, obviously you want to prevent illegal immigration, that is why it is illegal. And it is the US right to manage its own immigration laws.
Now, the AIMS, I have no real issue with. The policies he chooses to achieve those aims, oh, definitely, I have a problem.
You have also left a number of things I have a problem with off the list. But to answer your question: I would be much less annoyed if Trump was polite and diplomatic and treated other countries and organisations with RESPECT. He treats others inferiors and shows no respect or manners in his dealings. We all know America is a hegemonic power. We all know you can obliterate us with a whim. We all know you deep down, do not consider our lives equal to yours. But it sticks in our craw to have our noses rubbed in it in such an obnoxious way.
Da Boss wrote: The UK is the US best ally, a country that has fully committed to military operations with the US every time it was asked to in recent memory. British troops have died on your behalf.
I thought Canada was the US's favourite.
Bruh. Our of all the gakky, terrible things Trump has done, weirdly the attacks on Canada sort of bother me the most. I mean obviously being rude to the PM isn't really on the same level as pushing a policy that predictably would, and did, result in breastfeeding babies being ripped from their mothers arms but.... it's just so wtf! Canada has been our bros since literally forever. It's just so weird and gakky,
KTG17 wrote: Get used to him being around. He will most likely win re-election.
I agree, because American's love Reality TV more than good governance.
Honestly I wouldn't be surprised either. There really is no good candidate that has yet coalesced against him. It's like in 2012, really early, there was a guy on here who kept saying that Obama would for sure lose because polling was showing generic republican was beating him by >8 points. The problem is Obama wasn't running against a generic republican, he was running against a specific list of republicans, and he was beating all of those specific republicans by the same percentage. And of course, he did win,. because specific republicans come with specific baggage and weaknesses.
Even if you come up with a decent candidate, I am not sure how you counter Trump's style of campaigning. What do you do when you promise specific, quantifiable policy positions, and he promises flying cars? What do you do when a substantial chunk of the populace is willing to say to agree that yeah, flying cars could totally happen, and I'd like one too! Because flying cars is really not different than the idea that we're going to build a wall that meaningfully affects illegal immigration and that Mexico would pay for it.
How are you supposed to counter a candidate who slides out of scandal by simply overwhelming you with them?
No idea.
Always bear in mind hat Trump lost the popular vote.
Despite all the gerrymandering, the lies, the Russian interference, and all of the bs, the Republicans still lost.
3) Illegal immigration has been trending down for decades.
And yet we have more people coming into our country illegally than an other. No reason to keep the door open.
4) Of course NATO members need to fulfill their obligations and I fully support this. Doesn't Trump actually want to disband NATO though?
No, he doesn't want to pay what others should be paying. Just looking at it from a business point of view I guess. While we spend money on resources to make up for others, our infrastructure suffers while the others develop social programs.
5) Imported Oil is something that puzzles me as well. In Canada it would be trivial for our oil to be 100% domestic, but we get overseas oil while shipping ours away. "unfair" is only because chineseium is so much cheaper to make.
Just depends on how much it takes to get it out of the ground and why kind it is, and what the price is. Not all oil is equal. American oil for example gets sold out to mix with heavier oil that other countries dig up.
6) Everyone 'wants' their economy to be strong. But, you know, wishes and horses. The economy is a vast system with billions of actors. Trump can only do so much. His understanding of business is obviously faulty, though.
Right, but the difference is the democrats have been selling the US on improved social programs paid for via taxes (usually targeting the rich), rather than coming up with a plan to improve the economy so people wouldn't have to rely on the very programs they are trying to promote. I rarely see a democrat who promotes big businesses, or even looks out for small businesses. Many are not even businessmen themselves. That's one of the reasons I wanted Ross Perot as president early on back in the day when he ran, because I hoped that a business man would have a better sense on creating jobs and so on versus a bunch of lawyers and career politicians.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2018/07/13 18:51:11
Xenomancers wrote: Curious. How does a US indictment against a Russian intelligence officer work?
You write up the indictment, the court handles all the preliminaries, the correct authorities ask Russia to send in the guy for trial - then Russia says it's constitution forbids extraditing a Russian citizen, no matter what he has been accused of. He can only appear in a foreign court if he willingly turns himself over.
Ofc, in the cases where Russian intelligence agents are suspects in the murders of traitors or dissidents abroad I don't actually believe they'd even be allowed to leave Russia and defend themself in court. There would probably be a very convenient "accident" leading to their death, and besides, loyal servants get to have their families looked after (in more than one way)...
Xenomancers wrote: Curious. How does a US indictment against a Russian intelligence officer work?
You write up the indictment, the court handles all the preliminaries, the correct authorities ask Russia to send in the guy for trial - then Russia says it's constitution forbids extraditing a Russian citizen, no matter what he has been accused of. He can only appear in a foreign court if he willingly turns himself over.
Ofc, in the cases where Russian intelligence agents are suspects in the murders of traitors or dissidents abroad I don't actually believe they'd even be allowed to leave Russia and defend themself in court. There would probably be a very convenient "accident" leading to their death, and besides, loyal servants get to have their families looked after (in more than one way)...
But it could be a pain in the ass for those guys to travel. If they go somewhere that has an extradition treaty with the US they could turn him over I think. Of course, that could always depend on that country's relationship with Russia.
But if the guy wanted to take his family to Orlando to Disney, thats out of the question now.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2018/07/13 18:53:30
IMO - it is all overblown. Russia is not the enemy. Russia isn't doing anything to interfere with elections that other western nations also take part in. I don't see Russia as an enemy. Though - any nation that is dependent on another nation is under leverage. These are acceptable points be be brought up and discussed.
Literal minutes after this post, the US files indictments against a dozen Russian military intelligence officers for actively interfering in US elections
Seriously, if anyone out there is still so deep in the hole they can't see how pathetic the GOP position is on Trump/Russia/Mueller, just watch some of yesterday's GOP lunacy, then watch Rosenstein today.
It's...quite a remarkable thing to br sure.
I am not saying it's not happening. I'm just saying it's happening everywhere.
Curious. How does a US indictment against a Russian intelligence officer work? I assume it's going to go to some agency with no power - Russia will deny it's even happening and really the indictment is just an attempt to make the wasted resources in the investigation were worth while.
Again - I honestly have no idea how that works. How does it work?
Provided that the evidence is compelling its not worthless.
However from a legal standpoint this is a show as Russian citizens has constitutional protection from extradition... unless thes GRUs can be apprehended elsewhere...
Which would be unwise, unless the US wants to see some of its people in other countries "vanish".
The US' position is highly hypocritical, considering the US' intelligence services meddle in foreign elections, including Russian elections as well. Not to mention the strange fact that Russia and the Soviet Union have directly interfered in US democracy for close to a century, but only now, precisely at this moment, it becomes a political issue. Russia is going to respond tit for tat to any action the US does. Arresting anyone would really escalate this. That would not be a smart decision. Russia and the US aren't enemies, but it would not take much amymore to change that, I am afraid.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2018/07/13 19:10:01
No, I mean it has no actual meaning. "America first"? Define that as an actual, enactable policy.
2) NAFTA has been amazing for America
Up to a certain point.
Yeah, the point where Trump unilaterally tried to wreck it
3) Illegal immigration has been trending down for decades.
And yet we have more people coming into our country illegally than an other. No reason to keep the door open.
No, absolute numbers are down and have been sharply declining for decades. "the door" is not open.
4) Of course NATO members need to fulfill their obligations and I fully support this. Doesn't Trump actually want to disband NATO though?
No, he doesn't want to pay what others should be paying. Just looking at it from a business point of view I guess. While we spend money on resources to make up for others, our infrastructure suffers while the others develop social programs.
But he has repeatedly said NATO is obsolete. But nothing he says can be relied on for more than 30 seconds. I seriously doubt that any increse in other Nato members spending would see a corresponding drop in US military spending. The GOP and developing social programs is a non starter, too.
5) Imported Oil is something that puzzles me as well. In Canada it would be trivial for our oil to be 100% domestic, but we get overseas oil while shipping ours away. "unfair" is only because chineseium is so much cheaper to make.
Just depends on how much it takes to get it out of the ground and why kind it is, and what the price is. Not all oil is equal. American oil for example gets sold out to mix with heavier oil that other countries dig up.
Well yeah. I would love it if Canada nationalised our oil. It's fething absurd that there are Canadian billionaires off the back of the oil that comes out of Canadian ground. It's the nation's wealth.
6) Everyone 'wants' their economy to be strong. But, you know, wishes and horses. The economy is a vast system with billions of actors. Trump can only do so much. His understanding of business is obviously faulty, though.
Right, but the difference is the democrats have been selling the US on improved social programs paid for via taxes (usually targeting the rich), rather than coming up with a plan to improve the economy so people wouldn't have to rely on the very programs they are trying to promote. I rarely see a democrat who promotes big businesses, or even looks out for small businesses. Many are not even businessmen themselves. That's one of the reasons I wanted Ross Perot as president early on back in the day when he ran, because I hoped that a business man would have a better sense on creating jobs and so on versus a bunch of lawyers and career politicians.
I mean HRC had a well developed plan that anyone could read, but she said, "check the website" instead of "MAGA" and our half collective goldfish attention span fell for all the stupid, obvious, pie in the sky lies.
We were once so close to heaven, St. Peter came out and gave us medals; declaring us "The nicest of the damned".
“Anti-intellectualism has been a constant thread winding its way through our political and cultural life, nurtured by the false notion that democracy means that 'my ignorance is just as good as your knowledge.'”
KTG17 wrote: I am curious about something, and not trying to be inflammatory here.
Lets say that in a parallel universe, Trump is somehow well spoken, polite, PC, respectful, and so on. He still runs on the same platform and wins.
All that being said, if he announced that he:
1) wanted to put America first
2) re-negotiate NAFTA and other trade agreements as they were no longer fair to US workers
3) wanted to prevent illegal immigration, as well as block immigration from countries that cannot provide background checks
4) wanted NATO members to fulfill their obligations
5) make us less dependent on importing resources such as oil, as well as protect some industries from unfair trade practices like steel
6) wants the American economy to be strong
And he was able to say all that in a passionate and intelligent way. Would you be on board with that? I imagine most of you who oppose Trump because of how he acts and what he says, which is fully understandable, sometimes he pisses me off too. However, the things I listed above I want from every President. I do not want them to bend on those for the sake of others. I don't agree with the far right, but I also do not agree with the far left, but he is a republican president, and that goes with some things, like supreme court nominations. But still, if he was able to communicate and act more appropriately, would you still be raging mad about some of the policies he is following?
In broad strokes, much of that sounds like a good idea. But regardless of Trump's mannerisms, it's also his approach to those things that has been all wrong. It's like deciding you want some more light in your front room, and so you just take a chainsaw to a random part of the wall to cut out a new window without even checking first to see where the studs are, where the electrical wires are, if it's a load-bearing part of the wall, etc. And then you act all surprised when, you're looking out your new window enjoying the view, and the power goes out and the roof falls in on you.
"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
I don't care what Alternate Universe Trump announces or how polite he is.
If he makes a policy of kidnapping children, he doesn't get my support. This is not an issue that gets to be reframed. State-ssponsored child abductions are wrong.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2018/07/13 19:26:42
22. The Conspirators spearphished individuals affiliated with the Clinton Campaign throughout the summer of 2016. For example, on or about July 27, 2016, the Conspirators attempted after hours to spearphish for the first time email accounts in a domain hosted by a third-party provider and used by Clinton's personal office. At or around the same time, they also targeted seventy-six email addresses at the domain for the Clinton Campaign.
22. The Conspirators spearphished individuals affiliated with the Clinton Campaign throughout the summer of 2016. For example, on or about July 27, 2016, the Conspirators attempted after hours to spearphish for the first time email accounts in a domain hosted by a third-party provider and used by Clinton's personal office. At or around the same time, they also targeted seventy-six email addresses at the domain for the Clinton Campaign.
Just to save everybody else the time it takes to Google the significance of that date, that would be the day Trump said: "Russia, if you’re listening, I hope you’re able to find the 30,000 emails that are missing,” Mr. Trump said during a news conference here in an apparent reference to Mrs. Clinton’s deleted emails. “I think you will probably be rewarded mightily by our press.”
"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
No, he doesn't want to pay what others should be paying. Just looking at it from a business point of view I guess. While we spend money on resources to make up for others, our infrastructure suffers while the others develop social programs.
Do you honestly believe that if NATO member States were to actually be "paying what they're supposed to" that we'd somehow lower our defense spending and redirect it to other aspects of US governance??
KTG17 wrote: I am curious about something, and not trying to be inflammatory here.
Lets say that in a parallel universe, Trump is somehow well spoken, polite, PC, respectful, and so on. He still runs on the same platform and wins.
All that being said, if he announced that he:
1) wanted to put America first
2) re-negotiate NAFTA and other trade agreements as they were no longer fair to US workers
3) wanted to prevent illegal immigration, as well as block immigration from countries that cannot provide background checks
4) wanted NATO members to fulfill their obligations
5) make us less dependent on importing resources such as oil, as well as protect some industries from unfair trade practices like steel
6) wants the American economy to be strong
And he was able to say all that in a passionate and intelligent way. Would you be on board with that? I imagine most of you who oppose Trump because of how he acts and what he says, which is fully understandable, sometimes he pisses me off too. However, the things I listed above I want from every President. I do not want them to bend on those for the sake of others. I don't agree with the far right, but I also do not agree with the far left, but he is a republican president, and that goes with some things, like supreme court nominations. But still, if he was able to communicate and act more appropriately, would you still be raging mad about some of the policies he is following?
In broad strokes, I don't think most people have an issue with, even if theres disagreement on a couple of them or priority/context/nuance/framing.
Aside from just Trump's belligerence however, the policy specifics he chooses to pursue in pursuit of these goals however are also deeply divisive, often intentionally so, and are often counterproductive to those goals.
For many of these issues, the problems are only superficially related to the things Trump is targeting. For example, we aren't going to make American energy independnt and create vast number of jobs on Coal for example, the government didnt kill coal, the market killed coal many years ago. Trying to "bring Coal back" is just going to be federal subsidization of a dying/niche-ifying industry.
In terms of actual policy, at least to my eyes, Trump is not pursuing policies that will advance these goals in many if not most cases, but rather based on if it will anger his opponents or not.
22. The Conspirators spearphished individuals affiliated with the Clinton Campaign throughout the summer of 2016. For example, on or about July 27, 2016, the Conspirators attempted after hours to spearphish for the first time email accounts in a domain hosted by a third-party provider and used by Clinton's personal office. At or around the same time, they also targeted seventy-six email addresses at the domain for the Clinton Campaign.
Just to save everybody else the time it takes to Google the significance of that date, that would be the day Trump said: "Russia, if you’re listening, I hope you’re able to find the 30,000 emails that are missing,” Mr. Trump said during a news conference here in an apparent reference to Mrs. Clinton’s deleted emails. “I think you will probably be rewarded mightily by our press.”
That's gonna be awkward....
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.
No, he doesn't want to pay what others should be paying. Just looking at it from a business point of view I guess. While we spend money on resources to make up for others, our infrastructure suffers while the others develop social programs.
Do you honestly believe that if NATO member States were to actually be "paying what they're supposed to" that we'd somehow lower our defense spending and redirect it to other aspects of US governance??
No way dude - it's going to SPACE FORCE!
This might be a little off topic. But what do you think the first US Space Force warships will look like? What will they be armed with? Rail guns? Giant Gatling cannons?
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2018/07/13 19:52:02
If we fail to anticipate the unforeseen or expect the unexpected in a universe of infinite possibilities, we may find ourselves at the mercy of anyone or anything that cannot be programmed, categorized or easily referenced.
- Fox Mulder
No, he doesn't want to pay what others should be paying. Just looking at it from a business point of view I guess. While we spend money on resources to make up for others, our infrastructure suffers while the others develop social programs.
Do you honestly believe that if NATO member States were to actually be "paying what they're supposed to" that we'd somehow lower our defense spending and redirect it to other aspects of US governance??
No way dude - it's going to SPACE FORCE!
This might be a little off topic. But what do you think the first US Space Force warships will look like? What will they be armed with? Rail guns? Giant Gatling cannons?
Ball bearings. I'm not kidding.
Bender wrote:* Realise that despite the way people talk, this is not a professional sport played by demi gods, but rather a game of toy soldiers played by tired, inebriated human beings.
No, he doesn't want to pay what others should be paying. Just looking at it from a business point of view I guess. While we spend money on resources to make up for others, our infrastructure suffers while the others develop social programs.
Do you honestly believe that if NATO member States were to actually be "paying what they're supposed to" that we'd somehow lower our defense spending and redirect it to other aspects of US governance??
No way dude - it's going to SPACE FORCE!
This might be a little off topic. But what do you think the first US Space Force warships will look like? What will they be armed with? Rail guns? Giant Gatling cannons?
Missiles and regular guns.
On that note.
-------------------------------------------------------
"He died because he had no honor. He had no honor and the Emperor was watching."
No, he doesn't want to pay what others should be paying. Just looking at it from a business point of view I guess. While we spend money on resources to make up for others, our infrastructure suffers while the others develop social programs.
Do you honestly believe that if NATO member States were to actually be "paying what they're supposed to" that we'd somehow lower our defense spending and redirect it to other aspects of US governance??
No way dude - it's going to SPACE FORCE!
This might be a little off topic. But what do you think the first US Space Force warships will look like? What will they be armed with? Rail guns? Giant Gatling cannons?
Ball bearings. I'm not kidding.
^largely this in some form or fashion, coupled with more conventional weapons like missiles. Small objects moving very fast do nasty things to spacecraft.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2018/07/13 20:09:19
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.
No, absolute numbers are down and have been sharply declining for decades. "the door" is not open.
Feeder, we have more people coming into the US illegally than in any other country. That is a fact. Doesn't matter if the trend is falling. We still have a ton sneaking in, and its still a problem. I don't what the number is, I do not want people coming into the country illegally. There is no 'reasonable number. Doesn't matter if its 1 million, 1 thousand, or 1.
No, he doesn't want to pay what others should be paying. Just looking at it from a business point of view I guess. While we spend money on resources to make up for others, our infrastructure suffers while the others develop social programs.
Do you honestly believe that if NATO member States were to actually be "paying what they're supposed to" that we'd somehow lower our defense spending and redirect it to other aspects of US governance??
No way dude - it's going to SPACE FORCE!
This might be a little off topic. But what do you think the first US Space Force warships will look like? What will they be armed with? Rail guns? Giant Gatling cannons?
@Ensis Ferrae - To some degree sure. Its hard to justify troops in Europe if we have enough Europeans doing that job, with parts for their planes and so on. When they don't, we have to send ours.
@Xenomancers - Which I do think is long overdue and naive not to have. There will be a war for space some day.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2018/07/13 20:31:22
Xenomancers wrote: and really the indictment is just an attempt to make the wasted resources in the investigation were worth while.
If you want to look at wasted resources in investigations look no further than 7(?) different increasingly desperate attempts at pinning Benghazi on former Secretary of State Clinton personally.
Not wasted as we found out about Clinton’s email server from those investigations.
Furthermore, Obama and company really fethed up prior/during/post to this event and largely escaped accountability.
Is there a big pending investigation about Trump giving out his unencrypted, personal phone number? Genuine question.
If true that’s bad... but not the same as Clinton’s email server. POTUS can declassify anything at will... Clinton cannot and is subjected to the same laws as you and I when handling classified information.
Doesn’t excuse Trump though if he’s using unclas cellphone imo, because we can’t know if he’s disciplined enough to only use it personally.
The reported stor was that he was giving it to diplomats and world leaders and using it to talk to them without the knowledge or monitoring of the White House or CIA. Which seems pretty catastrophically stupid given I imagine there are a lot of people in Washington constantly trying to monitor calls for intelligence.
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.
The reported stor was that he was giving it to diplomats and world leaders and using it to talk to them without the knowledge or monitoring of the White House or CIA. Which seems pretty catastrophically stupid given I imagine there are a lot of people in Washington constantly trying to monitor calls for intelligence.
Incredibly stupid. The Israelis intercepted Clinton on the phone with Monica and even tried to blackmail him to so something. It might have been to release that guy Pollard or something, that was spying for Israel. Can't remember why the release couldn't happen then, but Clinton tried as he was pretty desperate to keep the whole thing hush hush.
Lewinsky testified under oath that after a session of heavy petting and oral sex in the White House, Clinton told her that a foreign embassy was tapping the two phone lines in her D.C. apartment.
Wow. Man, stay out of DC.
This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2018/07/13 20:56:11
No, absolute numbers are down and have been sharply declining for decades. "the door" is not open.
Feeder, we have more people coming into the US illegally than in any other country. That is a fact. Doesn't matter if the trend is falling. We still have a ton sneaking in, and its still a problem. I don't what the number is, I do not want people coming into the country illegally. There is no 'reasonable number. Doesn't matter if its 1 million, 1 thousand, or 1.
Oh, I misunderstood you. I thought you were saying more illegals were coming to the US than ever before.
I agree that illegal immigration is undesirable. I think that it is not happening at a rate that should make it any kind priority, though.
Heart disease affects more Americans than illegal immigration, and doesn't have the knock-on effect of being great for the economy. But nobody runs on a stopping heart disease platform.
We were once so close to heaven, St. Peter came out and gave us medals; declaring us "The nicest of the damned".
“Anti-intellectualism has been a constant thread winding its way through our political and cultural life, nurtured by the false notion that democracy means that 'my ignorance is just as good as your knowledge.'”
Too slow probably. I think lasers will be the weapon of choice. Can't beat the speed of light with our technology.
How will you power such a laser?
Well if we're flying around in space blowing each other up, I assume by then we'll know how.
As a matter of fact, I think we've got the power now. The tough part about lasers in an atmosphere is things like dust and even clouds that affect the lasers, so they have to be more powerful in our atmosphere than they will need to be in space, as you don't have those conditions there. We've got a few laser weapons being tested on naval ships now, so the tech is there.
This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2018/07/13 21:01:18
Too slow probably. I think lasers will be the weapon of choice. Can't beat the speed of light with our technology.
How will you power such a laser?
Well if we're flying around in space blowing each other up, I assume by then we'll know how.
As a matter of fact, I think we've got the power now. The tough part about lasers in an atmosphere is things like dust and even clouds that affect the lasers, so they have to be more powerful in our atmosphere than they will need to be in space, as you don't have those conditions there. We've got a few laser weapons being tested on naval ships now, so the tech is there.
I wasn't questioning the fact that lasers will be more effective outside of Earth's atmosphere.
Naval ships have huger power plants. Huuge, compared to what we have on space ships and space stations.
-------------------------------------------------------
"He died because he had no honor. He had no honor and the Emperor was watching."
Well you don't even need to blow something up like in Star Wars to ruin it's day. You can knock it off course and kill its ability to regain control and you'll never see it again.
KTG17 wrote: Well you don't even need to blow something up like in Star Wars to ruin it's day. You can knock it off course and kill its ability to regain control and you'll never see it again.
Correct again, yet still not what we are talking about.
Power supply and power output is the issue I am addressing.
-------------------------------------------------------
"He died because he had no honor. He had no honor and the Emperor was watching."
18.000 
8.200 
3.300 
2.400 
3.100 
5.500 
2.500 
3.000
