Half-baked Republican Presidential Fruitcakes (and fellow confections)

FA Hayek

Christy42 wrote: »

So you agree you have not provided evidence as you claimed.

Strawman alert, try harder.

robindch

oscarBravo wrote: »

Ugh. Quite possibly the worst thing about a Trump victory is how it has emboldened his supporters to believe that childishness is a useful debating tactic.

And not only for adults and not just juvenile comments - following his acquisition of the office of President, at least one kid in my child's Fourth Class environment regurgitated some of DJT's election comments as though they were acceptable in a civilized society.

As regards the generation, delivery and tolerance for extensive bullshit, the RAND corporation produced a report that's worth reading given that the GOP, DJT and the US generally are ramping up production of officially-produced bullshit to match Russia's output.

http://www.rand.org/pubs/perspectives/PE198.html

It would be interesting to see what changes, if any, might be useful to consider for A+A or boards more generally, if some posters begin or continue to post as though reality were just a political opinion.

Christy42

FA Hayek wrote: »

Strawman alert, try harder.

Haha haha. You claim you have provided evidence. I point you have not. You bail and claim strawman. You provided no evidence for your belief that the memo is an IC plot to gain leverage on Trump. End of.

As for the thought exercise. Take it or leave it but as a tip don't start one and rant and insult people for for voicing an opinion. Does not make you look like you are on the side of evidence.

I will make a final attempt to be reasonable. Is there anything in particular you wanted evidence for? Remember the thought exercise YOU set up is what happens IF the tape exists and is revealed.

recedite

robindch wrote: »

As regards the generation, delivery and tolerance for extensive bullshit, the RAND corporation produced a report ...
http://www.rand.org/pubs/perspectives/PE198.html

You picked a winner there alright

If I was to pick a "think tank" that exemplifies the power of the military-industrial complex to successfully lobby and influence the US govt. with its propaganda, the Rand Corp would be high on the list.

Since the 1950s, RAND research has helped inform United States policy decisions on a wide variety of issues, including the space race, the U.S.-Soviet nuclear arms confrontation, the creation of the Great Society social welfare programs, the digital revolution, and national health care. Its most visible contribution may be the doctrine of nuclear deterrence by mutually assured destruction (MAD), developed under the guidance of then-Defense Secretary Robert McNamara and based upon their work with game theory. Chief strategist Herman Kahn also posited the idea of a "winnable" nuclear exchange in his 1960 book On Thermonuclear War. This led to Kahn being one of the models for the titular character of the film Dr. Strangelove, in which RAND is spoofed as the "BLAND Corporation"

The corporation that founded Rand, Douglas Aircraft, has done extremely well for itself over the years with lucrative contacts to air forces all over the globe.
And profitability always seems to rise with the general ambient level of global conflict.

robindch

recedite wrote: »

If I was to pick a "think tank" that exemplifies the power of the military-industrial complex to successfully lobby and influence the US govt. with its propaganda, the Rand Corp would be high on the list.

Does your disbelief of RAND stretch to disbelief in this article which claims that objections to the "value of public education", the "efficacy of the Affordable Care Act" and the "validity of climate change" are, in "many cases" based upon "sound analysis and careful thought"?

Still, would you like to respond to the actual point of the article, rather than attempting to discredit the non-partisan organization which presumably paid the person who wrote it?

recedite

robindch wrote: »

Still, would you like to respond to the actual point of the article.

Allow me to explain the "actual point" of that article, just in case you missed it.
Its the classic "association" logical fallacy.

Author realises that Trump is winding down the cold war politics between Russia and USA, but at the same time sees in the Trump administration new opportunity for the military industrial complex in ramping up China-USA tensions. This is what "non-partisan" means in terms of Rand Corps. Any opportunity is equally good.

Author tries to draw attention to the "One China Policy". Any close inspection of this "policy" will expose its inherent hypocrisy. Both PRC China and Taiwan China claim to be the legitimate rulers of this notional One China. The USA agrees with both, but can only have full diplomatic relations with one at a time. Therefore, in the interests of peace, its best not to look too closely at what this policy means exactly. Its a deliberate fudge.
Taiwan is in any event a major purchaser of US arms and fighter jets.

Author "warns" against spending cuts which Trump has signaled on military aircraft programs such as F35 fighters and Air Force One upgrade

Now for the clever bit. Briefly mention some totally unrelated and irrelevant points such as climate change and healthcare (at least some of which the target audience is likely to be sympathetic with) and then "justify" the military spending argument by close association (adjacent paragraphs) with those.

robindch

recedite wrote: »

Allow me to explain the "actual point" of that article, just in case you missed it.

Many thanks for the careful explanation which - I have to be honest here - was pretty much the same as my understanding

Question is, do you disagree with it just because it's published by RAND, in the same way that you rubbished the far more interesting and relevant earlier article I referred to - for the same reason?

That more interesting article again, on the "firehose of falsehood" (better named 'billowing breakers of bullshit?) is here.

robindch

Actually scratch that RAND report. Here's a simpler dissection:

https://medium.com/@alexey__kovalev/message-to-american-media-from-russia-6e2e76eeae77

recedite

robindch wrote: »

Actually scratch that RAND report. Here's a simpler dissection:

https://medium.com/@alexey__kovalev/message-to-american-media-from-russia-6e2e76eeae77

Its a false dichotomy really, as Trump won't face the media in the same way that Putin does. I like Putin's press conferences because he actually answers the questions in a detailed way, and they appear to be quite casual and unscripted affairs. Unfortunately they go on for a long time, up to several hours typically, so I don't watch all of them.
In contrast, in the US system, press questions are batted away by a spokesperson during multiple short press conferences, where he utters mostly one liners unless he has something he wants to dwell on. The current guy, Kirby, is extremely annoying in that respect, but fortunately he will be history very soon.

FA Hayek

Christy42 wrote: »

Haha haha. You claim you have provided evidence.

I have, its not claim but a fact (see the links I have provided). Now you can dispute the evidence and put forward your own or you can move along.

Ranting and raving is all well and good but just because you have been caught making unverified claims don't blame me, look at your self and your own posts. As I said, you are the priest in this debate, not me.

Besides, 6 posts ago, you said you were done yet here you are. Not only you make unverified claims but also don't hold to your word.

Christy42

FA Hayek wrote: »

I have, its not claim but a fact (see the links I have provided). Now you can dispute the evidence and put forward your own or you can move along.

Ranting and raving is all well and good but just because you have been caught making unverified claims don't blame me, look at your self and your own posts. As I said, you are the priest in this debate, not me.

Besides, 6 posts ago, you said you were done yet here you are. Not only you make unverified claims but also don't hold to your word.

You gave (very circumstancial) evidence that the details in the memory were not true. They are opinion pieces from people with some knowledge of thr i dustry but again this piece was funded by Jeb Bush initially and followed on by the Democrats https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2017/jan/11/trump-russia-report-opposition-research-john-mccain so they didn't make it.
None of it implicates the US IC. How could they use it? The media have already have it so they can't threaten to release the memo. If they could get evidence they would get him out of power.

I said I would go if you started debating and stopped insulting. Maybe I was naive. You went on a massive rant on the word believe ffs. You accused me of hinting at a video I didn't bring up in the first place.

Your first piece of evidence was that the IC lied in the early naughties which while true is hardly relevant nowadays. Maybe a reason to not believe that about something but certainly lyrics not convict them on it. You also supplied an article that said I just need you to deny it and then I have won. Really not sure how that connects to the IC.

Again what unverified claims did I make? That I feel Trump will have to resign if a video that may or may not exist? Well yeah, it has not happened and there is no way anyone can guarantee anything about this scenario but give an opinion. It has not happened. I mean do you think that people won't wonder about the rest of what is in that document if such a video exists and is released? I mean I am not sure what evidence could exist on either side of that argument but it is common sense on how people think and realistically is the deciding factor on whether or not he would be forced to resign in the scenario you created.

Edit: you have a great fascination with belief and priests being insults. I mean I am an atheist and not fond of priests but you seem to have an obsession that it is something clever because you are on the atheist forum. It isn't. It really makes your posts look like a rant.

Peregrinus

recedite wrote: »

Not necessarily more debt.

My prediction of “more debt” is based on the assumption that Trump says he will do what he says he will do. That. of course, is far from a certainty, but run with it.

recedite wrote: »

Military;
I would envision a far less interventionist period ahead in US foreign policy. Foreign military adventures are extremely costly. Plenty of savings to be made there, while improving pay and conditions for actual servicemen. Trump could also make the US military better equipped while saving money. There is a lot of funny stuff going on in procurement, and the military themselves would welcome some changes. As we know, the Donald has already made his feelings known in regard to certain overly lucrative airplane contracts, even before taking office.

It may be possible to spend the US defence budget more wisely and more effectively, and so secure a better return for a lower expenditure. But that’s not what Trump is proposing. He wants to recruit tens of thousands of additional troops, commission dozens of new warships and acquire hundreds of new warplanes. External experts have estimated that Trumps defence commitments for his first term would cost about $100 billion more than Congress has budgeted for defence over that period.

Whether the US will get value for this in terms of greater security or enhanced status is not the issue. (I have my doubts, myself.) Ths point is that this is a $100 billion dollar expenditure commitment, and the notion that this, plus the promised tax cuts (also costed, by coincidence, at $100 billion - but this time $100 billion per year, not $100 billion over four years), plus the infrastructure spending of $1 trillion over 4 years (see below) can all be funded by “eliminating inefficiencies” and “cutting waste” is such a silly one that not even Trump has offered it.

recedite wrote: »

Infrastructure;
Spending on infrastructure does not automatically mean extra public expense.
I'm not going down an economics rabbithole on this, but suffice it to say, if there is surplus labour in an economy, it is often beneficial to use it for public infrastructure projects. Workers bring in taxes. This is particularly effective if the state can create its own money. The Donald understands money, and he understands that a temporary increase in the money supply to stimulate the economy and to generate productive wealth, is a good thing for the economy.
This is very different to the state borowing money from the IMF or other external sources (plus interest payments) and then using the money to pay off banksters bondholders and speculators, as we did. Increasing their profit is not necessarily productive to the domestic economy, especially when many are foreign based.

Infrastructure spending may well be beneficial to the US, but it is still spending. Workers may “bring in taxes”, but if they are also paid out of taxes that’s still a net cost, not a net gain, to the public revenue. The US “creates money” by issuing bonds, i.e. by borrowing - mostly from the Chinese, these days, since they have large US dollar earnings that they are always looking to invest. The claim that Trump “understands money” is a dubious one, but his string of bankruptcies suggests that he doesn’t, at any rate, have much grasp of budgeting or cashflow.

Just to be clear - I’m not saying that Trump’s ballooning budet deficits will be a bad thing - that’s a whole other discussion. But they will definitely be a thing. Trump’s budgetary policy is estimated to add $7.2 trillion to US debt over the next decade, and to double the US’s annual interest bill (payable to your friends the banksters, bondholders and speculators) by 2020. Obviously, given the stance the Congressional Republican party has taken on budgetary matters over the past 8 years, if they agree to this they will reveal themselves as the most shameless hypocrites that ever disgraced public olffice, but nobody will be in the least surprised by that.

robindch

recedite wrote: »

Its [...] soon.

Three requests to address the actual issue of bullshit fail - I give up - bullshit wins

silverharp

Infrastructure spending isn't a good thing unless its needed. Japan concreted the country just to keep it ticking along in the 90's but vast amounts of money was wasted on infrastructure with no benefit. If Trump pushed is as a pubic works thing then its a bad idea, on the other hand if its tied into innovation like driverless cars and logistics then it might be a smart investment.

robindch

silverharp wrote: »

Infrastructure spending isn't a good thing unless its needed.

The GOP's "infrastructure spending" is likely to become a grisly scene of pork-barrel politics by the billion - most or all likely handed over to GOP-controlled areas in order to purchase the votes there.

recedite

robindch wrote: »

Three requests to address the actual issue of bullshit fail - I give up - bullshit wins

Hey, you supplied it. I just analysed it

FA Hayek

Christy42 wrote: »

None of it implicates the US IC. How could they use it? The media have already have it so they can't threaten to release the memo. If they could get evidence they would get him out of power.

People within the intelligence community leaked the fact the dossier was given as a briefing note to Obama and Trump, which in turn made it news worthy. They are certainly involved in this. It is stupid to think otherwise.

recedite

Peregrinus wrote: »

It may be possible to spend the US defence budget more wisely and more effectively, and so secure a better return for a lower expenditure. But that’s not what Trump is proposing...

You may be right, but I'm not convinced the overall US defence budget will change significantly under The Donald. Time will tell.
Reductions in contributions to Nato in Europe and cost savings in procurement will be balanced by increases elsewhere. Realistically, Russia is no threat. Its not the Soviet Union anymore.

The threat today is the expansion of Islamic jihad and terrorism. Future threats to global security will be created by China's building of islands around the South China Sea and then claiming ownership of these seas. Tank armies and US army bases in Europe are no good in these scenarios; aircraft carriers, drones and missile systems are needed. Obama administration failed to realise that it was diverting resources to a cold war problem that has ceased to exist.

Water John

At least Reced, your echoing DT to the letter there. That doesn't make it any more correct.
It isn't Russia good China bad, or vice versa. Far too simplistic.

recedite

Water John wrote: »

It isn't Russia good China bad, or vice versa. Far too simplistic.

I didn't say that. I'm just saying there are no commies trying to overrun Europe. Russia has huge undeveloped areas of land in the east, if it wanted to expand.
China will expand its regional power and influence. That is only natural really.
Look at the amount of islands the US has already taken control of all over the world. Its not a question of goodies and baddies. There will be increased tensions between the two of them though.

BoatMad

recedite wrote: »

You may be right, but I'm not convinced the overall US defence budget will change significantly under The Donald. Time will tell.
Reductions in contributions to Nato in Europe and cost savings in procurement will be balanced by increases elsewhere. Realistically, Russia is no threat. Its not the Soviet Union anymore.

The threat today is the expansion of Islamic jihad and terrorism. Future threats to global security will be created by China's building of islands around the South China Sea and then claiming ownership of these seas. Tank armies and US army bases in Europe are no good in these scenarios; aircraft carriers, drones and missile systems are needed. Obama administration failed to realise that it was diverting resources to a cold war problem that has ceased to exist.

The right want an increase in military spending , almost irrespective to any justification. Hence given the cabinet and congress , Id say the military is in for " a good time "

The threat today is the expansion of Islamic jihad and terrorism.

Thats primarily in reality a policing and intelligence matter, its cant be solved militarily , god knows the US has tried ( and failed )

Future threats to global security will be created by China's building of islands around the South China Sea and then claiming ownership of these seas.

bluff and bluster and can largely be ignored, China can not risk an economic war with the west. it will agree a process

Tank armies and US army bases in Europe are no good in these scenarios; aircraft carriers, drones and missile systems are needed. Obama administration failed to realise that it was diverting resources to a cold war problem that has ceased to exist.

Obama didnt preside over any expansion of US military assets in Europe , a few GIs in poland hardly count !!. US assets and capability continue to decline in Europe.

recedite

BoatMad wrote: »

The right want an increase in military spending , almost irrespective to any justification. Hence given the cabinet and congress , Id say the military is in for " a good time "

The military would also have "had a good time" under the democrats, who are not exactly "left wing".

BoatMad wrote: »

That's primarily in reality a policing and intelligence matter, its cant be solved militarily , god knows the US has tried ( and failed )

The US failed because the US fought the people who opposed Islamic fundamentalism, eg Assad, Saddam, Hussein. I would not expect the Islamic State crowd to last long after Trump and Putin start co-operating in their annihilation.

bluff and bluster and can largely be ignored, China can not risk an economic war with the west. it will agree a process

Talks process or not, China will continue expanding and claiming fishing, oil minerals and whatever resources exist in their newly acquired seas. And that will upset other countries in the region, which will drag the USA in. Underestimating China would be a mistake.

oscarBravo

recedite wrote: »

Its a false dichotomy really, as Trump won't face the media in the same way that Putin does. I like Putin's press conferences because he actually answers the questions in a detailed way, and they appear to be quite casual and unscripted affairs.

Credit where it's due: that was an utterly hilarious response to the story in the post you quoted. A career in comedy beckons.

BoatMad

recedite wrote: »

The military would also have "had a good time" under the democrats, who are not exactly "left wing".

True

The US failed because the US fought the people who opposed Islamic fundamentalism, eg Assad, Saddam, Hussein. I would not expect the Islamic State crowd to last long after Trump and Putin start co-operating in their annihilation.

Assad isnt fighting Islamic fundamentalism, he fighting anyone thats trying to take over his country.

The US war on terror , and its appealing mess in Iraq, lead directly to ISIS. whats its now doing will lead to more and more muslim fundamentalism.

I agree that the idea in Bushs cabinet that a weak russia , allowed the US opportunity to destabilise old soviet client states was also a huge factor in rise of fundamentalism . The US was prepared to take that risk ( until now it seems )

Talks process or not, China will continue expanding and claiming fishing, oil minerals and whatever resources exist in their newly acquired seas. And that will upset other countries in the region, which will drag the USA in. Underestimating China would be a mistake.

China is posturing, thats all. It will agree a solution

silverharp

robindch wrote: »

The GOP's "infrastructure spending" is likely to become a grisly scene of pork-barrel politics by the billion - most or all likely handed over to GOP-controlled areas in order to purchase the votes there.

well its worth keeping an eye out for. that one is going to take a few years to see how that pans out and how big or minor it is. No country seems to be good at rolling out big projects anymore, look at California and a high speed rail network they are building, its nearly 200% over budget and I assume years behind yada yada.

robindch

recedite wrote: »

I like Putin's press conferences because he actually answers the questions in a detailed way [...]

VVP on DJT, from here.

For those familiar with Russian power politics, Putin's second last sentence is wonderful and the last is simply unbeatable:

Putin wrote:

I’ve never met him. I don’t know what he’ll do on the world stage. So I have no reason either to criticise him, or to defend him [...] This is an adult, and a man who for years organised beauty contests and spoke with the most beautiful women in the world. I can hardly believe that he ran off to meet with our girls of low social morals. Although of course ours are the best in the world.

recedite

oscarBravo wrote: »

that was an utterly hilarious response to the story ...

Come back to me when you have actually watched one. Until then, your judgement on the matter is of no value whatsoever.

PopePalpatine

How convenient, you can dismiss anyone's opinion until they subject themselves to hours of Gish-galloping.

Peregrinus

robindch wrote: »

VVP on DJT, from here.

For those familiar with Russian power politics, Putin's second last sentence is wonderful and the last is simply unbeatable:

My theory on this is that Putin has worked hard to come up with a statement which Trump will think is a robust defence of Trump, and everyone else will recognise as a joke at Trump's expense.

Peregrinus

silverharp wrote: »

Infrastructure spending isn't a good thing unless its needed. Japan concreted the country just to keep it ticking along in the 90's but vast amounts of money was wasted on infrastructure with no benefit. If Trump pushed is as a pubic works thing then its a bad idea, on the other hand if its tied into innovation like driverless cars and logistics then it might be a smart investment.

I think there's fairly widespread recognition that the US has a lot of crumbling infrastructure - highways, bridges, flood defences, etc that are at or past the end of their rated dependable lives, that are due for renewal or replacement, but that haven't been replaced because the Republican-dominated Congress wouild not authorise either the taxes or the borrowings that could pay for them. So there' plenty of fairly unglamorous infrastructure spending that could be undertaken and that could yield long-term benefits.

Of course, I wouldn't put it past Trump to prefer infrastructure that would yield a lower return, whether that's a wall with Mexico or gold-plated statues of The Donald in every shopping mall. But the potential for useful infrastructure spending does exist.