Donald Trump Presidency discussion Thread VI

Gbear

pixelburp wrote: »

Given the way American politics operate, it's entirely possible that Putin is popular, precisely BECAUSE the Democrats and liberals agitate over him. They hate him therefore he must be good and worth cheering. You see that kind of mentality everywhere IMO from the big items to smallest of legislation. When you have GOP adjacents posing online with their guns and plastic straws as a pushback against Californian (read, democrat) laws banning the latter, you know partisanship has lost its mind. I swear of a democrat announced on TV the grass was green, there would be republican boosters spitting fury about accepting liberal lawns.

They probably also agree with his fascist, oligarch politics.

Leroy42

The Dems know that Trump won’t be removed by the Senate. McConnell has made that abundantly clear.

But it has a number of key reasons to proceed.

1st, Trump has serious questions to answer and simply ignoring one strand of the executive is unacceptable. Should he be allowed to simply ignore the SC?

2nd, it is a massive distraction for Trump. Unlike others who could probably continue to work and let it play out without becoming totally obsessed, Trump will become completely focused on it. Thereby reducing his ability to deal with other things.

3rd. It forces the GOP to take a position. Whether it makes a difference in the current era of Trump devotion is open to question, but it creates very clear positions that any future Dem POTUS can basically push back on anything the GOP complain about. This defending of Trump no matter what, will come back to bite them

duploelabs

Leroy42 wrote: »

The Dems know that Trump won’t be removed by the Senate. McConnell has made that abundantly clear.

But it has a number of key reasons to proceed.

1st, Trump has serious questions to answer and simply ignoring one strand of the executive is unacceptable. Should he be allowed to simply ignore the SC?

2nd, it is a massive distraction for Trump. Unlike others who could probably continue to work and let it play out without becoming totally obsessed, Trump will become completely focused on it. Thereby reducing his ability to deal with other things.

3rd. It forces the GOP to take a position. Whether it makes a difference in the current era of Trump devotion is open to question, but it creates very clear positions that any future Dem POTUS can basically push back on anything the GOP complain about. This defending of Trump no matter what, will come back to bite them

Also in a world where ad buying is king, the wall to wall coverage of this by the press is free advertising for them

Larbre34

"Where are you? Why do you hide?
Where is that moonlight trail that leads to your side?
Just like the Moonraker goes in search of his dream of gold"

Yes, his Orangeness has created the US Space Force, a co-equal military branch with the Army, Navy etc., for combat in outer space. 16,000 strong, it will weaponise the heavens to maintain American dominance over all those other space based armies that threaten them. Ahem. Its laser time.

And the Moonraker knooooows....

Manic Moran

Larbre34 wrote: »

"Where are you? Why do you hide?
Where is that moonlight trail that leads to your side?
Just like the Moonraker goes in search of his dream of gold"

Yes, his Orangeness has created the US Space Force, a co-equal military branch with the Army, Navy etc., for combat in outer space. 16,000 strong, it will weaponise the heavens to maintain American dominance over all those other space based armies that threaten them. Ahem. Its laser time.

And the Moonraker knooooows....

Of all the things he's done which you can complain about, creating a separate branch of service for space, which has been a subject talked about for nearly two decades, and seriously proposed by policy makers, Defense experts, and Congress for over one (to include being voted upon and approved by the House in 2017), is not one which is quite as justified.

I view the arguments against Space Force to be akin to the arguments against the US Air Force being created in 1948. "We're already covering it with other branches, why do we need to create a separate one?"

listermint

Manic Moran wrote: »

Of all the things he's done which you can complain about, creating a separate branch of service for space, which has been a subject talked about for nearly two decades, and seriously proposed by policy makers, Defense experts, and Congress for over one (to include being voted upon and approved by the House in 2017), is not one which is quite as justified.

I view the arguments against Space Force to be akin to the arguments against the US Air Force being created in 1948. "We're already covering it with other branches, why do we need to create a separate one?"

Space force is a stupid idea. Literally a stupid idea. Dreamt up by fools who love to pew pew pew.

Its sole purpose to secure more funding for military purposes to redirect to whatever military and as we've seen non military purpose.


News flash it has nothing really to do with space.

JRant

duploelabs wrote: »

It's hard to take your opinion seriously if you don't understand basic procedures of the ongoing process, apologies if I highlighted this lack of knowledge

Well what do you know, seems they may not be the only ones having trouble understanding the basic procedures involved.

https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.bloomberg.com/amp/opinion/articles/2019-12-19/trump-impeachment-delay-could-be-serious-problem-for-democrats

Would seem that technically he isn't impeached until the articles are actually sent to the Senate.

pixelburp

Manic Moran wrote: »

Of all the things he's done which you can complain about, creating a separate branch of service for space, which has been a subject talked about for nearly two decades, and seriously proposed by policy makers, Defense experts, and Congress for over one (to include being voted upon and approved by the House in 2017), is not one which is quite as justified.

I view the arguments against Space Force to be akin to the arguments against the US Air Force being created in 1948. "We're already covering it with other branches, why do we need to create a separate one?"

The simple difference is that air dominance had been proven as a vital factor of not just military but the civilian world by 1945. Persisting with the air force as a branch of the army made no sense by dint of all that real world evidence. Plus if anything, the US was lagging behind other nations in recognising the importance of an air force as a separate entity.

There's not a single shred of equivalent circumstance or context to suggest Space Force needs to get singular focus in this current world. Space travel has barely privatised, and the most permanent extra-orbital presence we have is the international space station. Space Force is a boondoggle, and whether or not this idea started with Trump doesn't negate that. Show me a single, current scenario where it would have a relevance and I'll defer to your point of view.

Midlife

I imagine space force is basically an excuse to funnel funds to boeing and the like.

pixelburp

Midlife wrote: »

I imagine space force is basically an excuse to funnel funds to boeing and the like.

Presumably that's the nub of it; thinly disguised justification for a slew of new government stamped contracts under the wishy washy justification of space force. Force against who?

everlast75

Manic Moran wrote: »

Of all the things he's done which you can complain about, creating a separate branch of service for space, which has been a subject talked about for nearly two decades, and seriously proposed by policy makers, Defense experts, and Congress for over one (to include being voted upon and approved by the House in 2017), is not one which is quite as justified.

I view the arguments against Space Force to be akin to the arguments against the US Air Force being created in 1948. "We're already covering it with other branches, why do we need to create a separate one?"

The idea is fine in a vacuum.

The idea when the deficit is through the roof, Republicans are saying there's no money for healthcare and Trump just gave a massive tax cut to the rich already means that the idea is ridiculous at this point in time.

Context matters.

pixelburp

pixelburp wrote: »

Presumably that's the nub of it; thinly disguised justification for a slew of new government stamped contracts under the wishy washy justification of space force. Force against who?

True. Putin has no equivalent Shuttle fleet. The Buran has been abandoned for many many years. Trump likes talking up Putin.

StringerBell

Manic Moran wrote: »

Of all the things he's done which you can complain about, creating a separate branch of service for space, which has been a subject talked about for nearly two decades, and seriously proposed by policy makers, Defense experts, and Congress for over one (to include being voted upon and approved by the House in 2017), is not one which is quite as justified.

I view the arguments against Space Force to be akin to the arguments against the US Air Force being created in 1948. "We're already covering it with other branches, why do we need to create a separate one?"

Space force. Great.

To my knowledge there will be no new job hires? And no new premises? As in the space force will continue to operate with the same people, and from the same place as they are right now ...you know, the air force.

Manic Moran

pixelburp wrote: »

The simple difference is that air dominance had been proven as a vital factor of not just military but the civilian world by 1945. Persisting with the air force as a branch of the army made no sense by dint of all that real world evidence. Plus if anything, the US was lagging behind other nations in recognising the importance of an air force as a separate entity.

There's not a single shred of equivalent circumstance or context to suggest Space Force needs to get singular focus in this current world. Space travel has barely privatised, and the most permanent extra-orbital presence we have is the international space station. Space Force is a boondoggle, and whether or not this idea started with Trump doesn't negate that. Show me a single, current scenario where it would have a relevance and I'll defer to your point of view.

I would take issue with your assertion that there is no import demonstrated in either civilian or military application of space.

The US military is known to currently have over 150 satellites in orbit. They are used for anything from reconnaissance and missile warning through communications and navigation. You may not think that sitting in my tank I have much care over what happens in space, until one realises that much of what I do in order to have peer overmatch requires space-based assets. Navigating around the desert? GPS. I see a target, lase it, a grid pops up on my Blue Force Tracker. That location gets distributed to the rest of the force by satellite communications. Terrestrial FM-based was tried for a while (FBCB2), it did not work as well for the function. Maybe I want to call in an airstrike, the current standard precision munition (JDAM) is satellite guided.

Can we navigate and bomb and communicate without satellites? Sure. At reduced efficiency. The US military does not like to do that, its strength is technological and training overmatch.

Further, space is now a domain of combat, ever since the US shot down its first satellite with a missile back in the early 1960s. This isn't new technology, the Soviets were less than ten years behind. India and China have also both demonstrated the ability to kill orbiting satellites. Air Force Space Command is thrice the size of NASA.
https://spacenews.com/a-space-corps-in-the-u-s-military-a-no-brainer-says-former-astronaut/

Have a read of the Commission's report back in 2000 for an argument as to why a separate branch was considered necessary back then, let alone more recent advancements.
https://aerospace.csis.org/wp-content/uploads/2018/09/RumsfeldCommission.pdf

To my knowledge there will be no new job hires? And no new premises? As in the space force will continue to operate with the same people, and from the same place as they are right now ...you know, the air force.

You mean just like the folks on 18 Sept 1947 just swapped their khaki uniforms for blue, put a new coat of paint on the airplane, and reported for work at the same airfield as they did the day before?

StringerBell

No, not what I mean. I'd have assumed you know.

Larbre34

Midlife wrote: »

I imagine space force is basically an excuse to funnel funds to boeing and the like.

Last one to produce a directed energy weapon is a rotten egg. That'll be 9 billion bucks please.

Leroy42

So instead of fixing the major problems with the current military, Trumps answer is to make it bigger and more complicated?

The US military has been failing for years. Nobody can honestly look at the current US military, and the massive spending, and think that it doesn't need major reform.

But rather than do that Trump prefers to spend money on new toys. If I'm a soldier in Afghanistan or wherever, I'm thinking feck space, can someone send equipment and troops to end this disaster.

Leroy42

Leroy42 wrote: »

So instead of fixing the major problems with the current military, Trumps answer is to make it bigger and more complicated?

The US military has been failing for years. Nobody can honestly look at the current US military, and the massive spending, and think that it doesn't need major reform.

But rather than do that Trump prefers to spend money on new toys. If I'm a soldier in Afghanistan or wherever, I'm thinking feck space, can someone send equipment and troops to end this disaster.

Sounds really familiar
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Strategic_Defense_Initiative

26000 Elephants

JRant wrote: »

Well what do you know, seems they may not be the only ones having trouble understanding the basic procedures involved.

https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.bloomberg.com/amp/opinion/articles/2019-12-19/trump-impeachment-delay-could-be-serious-problem-for-democrats

Would seem that technically he isn't impeached until the articles are actually sent to the Senate.

That's nonsense. Criminal conviction is also a process: but you still remain indicted for the time between indictment and trial.

Manic Moran

Leroy42 wrote: »

So instead of fixing the major problems with the current military, Trumps answer is to make it bigger and more complicated?

The US military has been failing for years. Nobody can honestly look at the current US military, and the massive spending, and think that it doesn't need major reform.

But rather than do that Trump prefers to spend money on new toys. If I'm a soldier in Afghanistan or wherever, I'm thinking feck space, can someone send equipment and troops to end this disaster.

You really think the problem in Afghanistan is a lack of troops or equipment?

Whatever the inefficiencies with the US military as it currently exists, that does not make the idea of a Space Force wrong. Even if you disagree with it, you cannot deny that there are many competent people who think it is a correct move and it is nowhere near as bizarre an idea as.. I don't know.. flushing ten-fifteen times.

beggars_bush

Did Reagan not announce that in the 1980s?

mcmoustache

listermint wrote: »

Space force is a stupid idea. Literally a stupid idea. Dreamt up by fools who love to pew pew pew.

Its sole purpose to secure more funding for military purposes to redirect to whatever military and as we've seen non military purpose.


News flash it has nothing really to do with space.

While I can safely say that whatever Trump imagines a Space Force to be is most likely stupid, the general idea of a military branch looking after things like satellites and enforcing resource claims isn't that crazy. We're not far away from mining asteroids and nobody wants China taking out GPS satellites.

duploelabs

JRant wrote: »

Well what do you know, seems they may not be the only ones having trouble understanding the basic procedures involved.

https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.bloomberg.com/amp/opinion/articles/2019-12-19/trump-impeachment-delay-could-be-serious-problem-for-democrats

Would seem that technically he isn't impeached until the articles are actually sent to the Senate.

Actually he is
https://twitter.com/tribelaw/status/1207839832992604160?s=19

MadYaker

everlast75 wrote: »

A question posed by a former state prosecutor..


What do ye think?


Hypothetical: if Bolton testified, “I spoke to the President directly and he said, ‘Screw Ukraine, either they announce a bogus investigation on the Bidens to help me in the election or else they don’t get foreign aid’” - would Republicans turn on Trump?

None of this matters. The only thing that matters is trumps approval rating among republican voters and that’s still way to high for the senate to turn on him.

duploelabs

MadYaker wrote: »

None of this matters. The only thing that matters is trumps approval rating among republican voters and that’s still way to high for the senate to turn on him.

It's not republican voters, or his base, or whatever that will win him the election or decide how the senate trial goes. They have proven to be unturnable despite what Trump does. The power belongs to the 'undecideds', the 20-30% who aren't the hardcore on either side (if you consider the split being 35-40% rep, 35-40% dem, and the remainder the undecided).

That undecided are what won trump the election in 16, they're the ones who wanted to try something new, they're the blue collar workers who disliked the 'eliteness' of HC and got disenfranchised by the stiffing of Bernie, and most importantly of all, they're the ones swayed by the microtargeting social media ads by a certain institution.

duploelabs

beggars_bush wrote: »

Did Reagan not announce that in the 1980s?

Reagan also coined the phrase 'Make America Great Again', but people have short memories

Midlife

About 1 in 6 of the citizens this space force will serve live in consistent poverty.

About 1 in 6 of the citizens the current army serves lives in consistent poverty.

What is it? Nearly 700 billion a year on the military?

Half a trillion or so after wages?

Between that and the fact that billionaires pay less tax pro rata than teachers and soldiers, I think it's fair to say America first means 'rich Americans first'

Midlife

An interesting question actually to our friend in the military.

Manic, if Trumps tax records come out and it's revealed that you have paid more tax in your career than him, how would you feel about that?

Professor Moriarty

MadYaker wrote: »

None of this matters. The only thing that matters is trumps approval rating among republican voters and that’s still way to high for the senate to turn on him.

In fact, his average approval rating today is higher than any time since March 2017, just after inauguration.

TomOnBoard

duploelabs wrote: »

It's not republican voters, or his base, or whatever that will win him the election or decide how the senate trial goes. They have proven to be unturnable despite what Trump does. The power belongs to the 'undecideds', the 20-30% who aren't the hardcore on either side (if you consider the split being 35-40% rep, 35-40% dem, and the remainder the undecided).

That undecided are what won trump the election in 16, they're the ones who wanted to try something new, they're the blue collar workers who disliked the 'eliteness' of HC and got disenfranchised by the stiffing of Bernie, and most importantly of all, they're the ones swayed by the microtargeting social media ads by a certain institution.

I agree that it's the undecided that are the ones who really matter. That said, it's not undecided in places like California that matter ; it's those undecideds in the smaller rust belt states who really matter. Those states still have as many electoral college votes as California with a fraction of its voting population. So, the so-called flyover states are where the battle will be fought.

Trump may well lose the popular vote by 5 million, but it won't deny him the White House in 2020 if he can persuade couple of thousand extra voters to support him in Ohio, Michigan, Wyoming etc.