2016 US Presidential Race - Mod Warning in OP

Billy86

Trump: I promise you, I will pay for the legal fees, I promise, I promise

Trump: I never said I was going to pay for fees.

JPNelsforearm

Overheal wrote: »

You think Mexico is just going to let us appropriate a "neutral zone" in their territory just to create a loophole in the military's centuries long restriction on policing domestic affairs? :rolleyes:

All of which are in use, doing other roles. If you take a carrier group and park it off the Gulf of Mexico, sure "we HAVE the carrier" but now it's not operating in the Sea of Japan, or the Arabian Sea, doing ostensibly way more important things. The personnel you transfer to this role have to have their previous roles replaced. It's not difficult logic to follow. Fun fact for example: an F-35A (Air Force Variant, supercruise) requires a bucket load of money just to get off the ground, not just in fuel and logistics and mission planning, but in maintenance and labor.

http://www.defense-aerospace.com/articles-view/feature/5/151303/a-look-at-f_35%E2%80%99s-true-o%26s-cost.html

So yeah, while you HAVE the hardware, and you HAVE the personell, and you PUT them somewhere, you THEN have to pay the expenses associated with having them actually DO things.

You grossly underestimate the associated costs here. I yank the F35 numbers because I've been doing a research credit on the program.

Yeah, wondered when that changed?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Security_Act_of_1947

Oh: and again, nobody said they CANT operate on the soil or I should at least re-phrase, they have a long history of that. But it takes an Act of Congress to make it happen beyond basic rules of engagement (eg. incoming strike). Until there is a congressional or presidential mandate to assume Mexicans as an invading military force or some such, you won't be seeing the marines rolling around with Tanks on the border any time soon.

F35? Why would you use an F35 on border defence? Carriers? Moronic, complete ignorance of what it would take to seal the border. Drones, Air Cav, thermal cameras and fencing. thats it. The fact you are suggesting high tech expensive conventional war machines suggests you dont understand the concept of border defence against smugglers, seriously, a fast air jet, tanks????:rolleyes:

Read this

http://usacac.army.mil/cac2/cgsc/carl/download/csipubs/Matthews_op22.pdf

JPNelsforearm

Overheal wrote: »

Oliver laughs his way through not just the financial realities but the legal and practical and historic realities of building border walls and fences

http://www.mediaite.com/election-2016/john-oliver-absolutely-destroys-donald-trump-with-deep-dive-on-border-wall/

John Oliver is an idiot. Just like in Europe, all it requires is the balls not to waver in the face of leftist media pressure and a few drowned kids. Hey, just like these guys do.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FU8ISmcwa3s

A border wall is not a construction issue, it doesnt require concrete etc, all you need is drone technology and air cav units in addition to some fencing on the ground and utilising natural land barriers.
again a good read on US military policing the border.
http://usacac.army.mil/cac2/cgsc/carl/download/csipubs/Matthews_op22.pdf

Magnate

Akrasia wrote: »

I love the clip of trump figuring out in real time that people could climb the wall with a ladder, and then use a rope to climb down the other side.

It had obviously just occurred to him.

Anyone have a link? I would pay to see that.

Overheal

JPNelsforearm wrote: »

F35? Why would you use an F35 on border defence?Carriers? Moronic, complete ignorance of what it would take to seal the border. Drones, Air Cav, thermal cameras and fencing. thats it. The fact you are suggesting high tech expensive conventional war machines suggests you dont understand the concept of border defence against smugglers, seriously, a fast air jet, tanks????:rolleyes:

Read this

http://usacac.army.mil/cac2/cgsc/carl/download/csipubs/Matthews_op22.pdf

....Quote, "I yank the F35 numbers because I've been doing a research credit on the program." It is an example to illustrate that military applications have many and varied hidden costs. I use the carrier as an example because your assumption that "we already have the men and the tools" implies those men and tools aren't busy elsewhere.

Overheal

Magnate wrote: »

Anyone have a link? I would pay to see that.

ancapailldorcha

Magnate wrote: »

Anyone have a link? I would pay to see that.

HBO don't seem to be making Last Week with John Oliver available outside the US anymore sadly. If you like their Facebook page, you can watch the videos there.

Works for me.

ancapailldorcha

Deleted User wrote: »

Works for me.

I'm in the UK. Must be that then.

JPNelsforearm

Overheal wrote: »

....Quote, "I yank the F35 numbers because I've been doing a research credit on the program." It is an example to illustrate that military applications have many and varied hidden costs. I use the carrier as an example because your assumption that "we already have the men and the tools" implies those men and tools aren't busy elsewhere.

But the F35, the most expensive military project in the world....for border policing.... Completely irrelevant comparison, there are approx 150k troops between the Marines, Army etc on US soil at this minute https://www.dmdc.osd.mil/appj/dwp/rest/download?fileName=DRS_54601_309_Report_P1509.xlsx&groupName=milRegionCountry
Border policing is a low tech operation, you are merely reallocating resources, and a tiny proportion of those resources "on a training exercise", the same as they are doing currently, all the equipment in use is already bought, fuel is already allocated for maneuvers. You are not "de skilling" or wasting resources, you are training soldiers in tough terrain with the added bonus of securing your border.

Black Swan

JPNelsforearm wrote: »

If Mexico refuses to police its own side of the border with the construction of drug tunnels etc, of course the US is entitled to destroy those tunnels and clear the area of any further dig opportunities, as any sovereign nation is. No one is tlaking about 2k miles of buffer zone, you would use it when necessary and then withdraw.

What is this "buffer zone on Mexican territory?" Specifics (plus links), not simple and superficial generalities that occur all to frequently in Trump speeches. What would it look like? How would it be designed? How would normal Mexican citizens be affected during the creation of this "buffer zone" in Mexico by the US military?

In major metropolitan Mexican cities like Tijuana, Mexico, would Mexican homes, businesses, and industrial facilities be plowed away by the US military to create this "buffer zone" using the US Army Corp of Engineers, or the US Navy Seabees? Would Trump expect the citizens of Tijuana and the nation of Mexico to accept this invasion by the US military and destruction of their property? Or would the Mexican homes, businesses, and industrial facilities remain in place within this "buffer zone," and only be destroyed by US military surgical strikes against suspected drug dealer tunnels and related Mexican-based facilities, etc., when the US military invades their city to perform their "police" action? And what if law abiding Mexican citizens resist with force the invasion of their country and property by US military forces? Will these innocent men, women, and children be also killed by the US military, later to be labeled something inhuman like "collateral damage?" Does this Trump Wall "buffer zone" exemplify Trump thinking, and what we can expect from him if elected 8 November 2016, and sworn in 20 January 2017?

Manach

Based of what I've read on the Drone policy of the US, this is already been done in large part in areas of Pakistan and elsewhere in the Hindu Krush?

However given Mr. Trump's recent foray in foreign affairs by calling into question the US membership of NATO/its existence, does not auger too well for international relations.

eire4

maryishere wrote: »

It can be job of theU.S. army / security services to keep out millions of people swarming from central and south America. In the eyes of many Americans, illegial immigrants are invaders, taking their jobs, and changing the ethnicity of the America they knew decades before. I am not necessarily saying they are right, but that is how many ordinary Americans see it now.

Maybe if the Americans did not spend so much time in central America over throwing democratically elected governments via the CIA and often at the behest of major multi national corporations such as in Honduras and supporting nasty regimes instead then there would not need to be so many Hondurans etc willing to risk all sorts of dangers to flee their own country.

eire4

Sanders won the small Democratic International Primary today as he heads into a run of 10 states between now and the New York primary next month. Tomorrow its is Arizona, Utah and Idaho up for grabs. Latest polls have Clinton up by 26 in Arizona, Sanders by 8 in Utah and Sanders by 2 in Idaho. I think Sanders needs to win 7 of these next 10 to get himself back in with a real shot at the Democratic nomination.

Black Swan

Arizona and Utah will be decided Tuesday, 22 March 2016 for the Republicans, with 58 and 40 Republican delegates to be determined. Methinks it's doubtful that Trump will win Utah after Mitt Romney's speeches against Trump, but will Cruz or Kasich? The recent Utah polls by various organisations appear to favour a Cruz win, while the recent Arizona polls suggest a Trump win.

Akrasia

Black Swan wrote: »

Where does Trump advocate creating "a buffer zone on Mexican Territory" with the US military? Links?

Does Trump believe that Mexico will surrender its national sovereignty and allow a foreign military (USA) to create and occupy 1,989 miles of its border to create this "buffer zone" in Mexico? To create this "buffer zone" in Mexican territory, what will happen to the thousands of Mexican homes, businesses, and industrial facilities that currently occupy this area right up to the existing Mexico-US border in several border cities? Is this the type of irresponsible, over-simplistic, and ludicrous thinking we can expect from Trump, should he become president and CIC of the US military 20 January 2017?

This is one of the reasons Trump has so many supporters. His supporters are filling in the gaps with their own idea of what he should do.

Trump has never said anything about buffer zones and he has been very clear that he means a physical wall, not an abstract iron curtain style border policy, but somehow, his supporters have decided that his public statements are all just a means to an end and that when he gets to power, he'll be more reasonable, and this allows them to attribute their own private version of reasonable to what Trump would actually do.

It's so similar to religious belief. Trump supporters are like the religious fundamentalists, who think that they really know what god 'meant to say' in the bible, so they can believe wholeheartedly that god wants them to shun homosexuals and embrace individualistic capitalism, despite all the bits of the bible that say they should give away all their money and love their neighbour.

Trump says whatever he thinks people want to hear, and the people who support him, only hear the things that they want to hear. It's a perfect storm.

Akrasia

JPNelsforearm wrote: »

John Oliver is an idiot. Just like in Europe, all it requires is the balls not to waver in the face of leftist media pressure and a few drowned kids. Hey, just like these guys do.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FU8ISmcwa3s

A border wall is not a construction issue, it doesnt require concrete etc, all you need is drone technology and air cav units in addition to some fencing on the ground and utilising natural land barriers.
again a good read on US military policing the border.
http://usacac.army.mil/cac2/cgsc/carl/download/csipubs/Matthews_op22.pdf

Except your preferred candidate has explicitly said he means to build a physical concrete wall.

Trump isn't proposing the kinds of things in your linked article. He'd proposing a stupid concrete wall and he's proposing threatening Mexico with war unless they build it for him.

Akrasia

Manach wrote: »

Based of what I've read on the Drone policy of the US, this is already been done in large part in areas of Pakistan and elsewhere in the Hindu Krush?

However given Mr. Trump's recent foray in foreign affairs by calling into question the US membership of NATO/its existence, does not auger too well for international relations.

Trump will probably demand that the NATO members pay them for the military protection it gives them....

Then he'll act all surprised when they leave Nato and cosy up to Russia and China

Akrasia

eire4 wrote: »

Sanders won the small Democratic International Primary today as he heads into a run of 10 states between now and the New York primary next month. Tomorrow its is Arizona, Utah and Idaho up for grabs. Latest polls have Clinton up by 26 in Arizona, Sanders by 8 in Utah and Sanders by 2 in Idaho. I think Sanders needs to win 7 of these next 10 to get himself back in with a real shot at the Democratic nomination.

I don't think the numbers of states won is good enough anymore, he needs to win big and win often. He needs landslides in his fertile ground. Clinton won some of the southern states by 70 to 30. Sanders needs to do this in his home ground.

I hope that Sanders will win Arizona as well as comprehensive victories in Utah and Idaho. He's put the work in, he's been really pounding the campaign trail in Arizona. If he loses there, I don't see any hope for him.

If Sanders gets more than 53% of the vote in Arizona and 60%+ in Idaho and Utah, then I think it's game (back) on.

Overheal

JPNelsforearm wrote: »

But the F35, the most expensive military project in the world....for border policing.... Completely irrelevant comparison, there are approx 150k troops between the Marines, Army etc on US soil at this minute https://www.dmdc.osd.mil/appj/dwp/rest/download?fileName=DRS_54601_309_Report_P1509.xlsx&groupName=milRegionCountry
Border policing is a low tech operation, you are merely reallocating resources, and a tiny proportion of those resources "on a training exercise", the same as they are doing currently, all the equipment in use is already bought, fuel is already allocated for maneuvers. You are not "de skilling" or wasting resources, you are training soldiers in tough terrain with the added bonus of securing your border.

Well then damn son write to your congressman and tell them you've personally solved the border crisis.

Again, you make it sound so unrealistically easy that it hurts.

Final note on the f35 anecdote: the total program is quite expensive, but each plane is about $120M, which isn't much more expensive than a 4th gen fighter and their target cost is set to get down to $100M/copy, and in terms of sensors, it has plenty of them. As for the Global Hawk, govt estimates it costs them $20,000 every hour they want to put it in the air.

K-9

LuckyLloyd wrote: »

Obama has been a very good president working in extremely difficult circumstances.

However, and I say this as a liberal, the seeds of the Financial crash were sown under Clinton. Yes regulation during 2000 - 2007 was too lax and yes the Bush appointed key government players such as Paulsen et al responded poorly under pressure in 2007 / 8 in terms of who to bailout, why and how. But key deregulating legislation that produced the financial climate for the crash were passed under Clinton. And Obama's legislation to rebaseline the industry from a regulatory perspective was toothless despite a strong mandate and opportunity to solve the issue.

The bottom line is that unprecedented Republican obstructionism in the joint houses needs to be highlighted and articulated to the electorate. But efforts to portray Democrats as less in the pockets of financial lobbyists is not supported by the facts imo.

I'd say it was liberalised with the best of intentions, I don't think anybody foresaw the sub prime mortgage crisis, similar to say 1980 or whenever. We didn't necessarily have to end up with a great recession, that's where regulation comes in. We need to always have tough regulation in mind because human greed and complacency will take over, we'll think we've boom and bust solved and ignore the lessons of history and human psychology.

LuckyLloyd

Black Swan wrote: »

Arizona and Utah will be decided Tuesday, 22 March 2016 for the Republicans, with 58 and 40 Republican delegates to be determined. Methinks it's doubtful that Trump will win Utah after Mitt Romney's speeches against Trump, but will Cruz or Kasich? The recent Utah polls by various organisations appear to favour a Cruz win, while the recent Arizona polls suggest a Trump win.

Any serious pundits will have assumed 0 delegates for Trump in Utah for some time. I expect the lame stream media to assign significance to Trump garnering <20% of the vote there. But it doesn't matter.

LuckyLloyd

K-9 wrote: »

I'd say it was liberalised with the best of intentions, I don't think anybody foresaw the sub prime mortgage crisis, similar to say 1980 or whenever. We didn't necessarily have to end up with a great recession, that's where regulation comes in. We need to always have tough regulation in mind because human greed and complacency will take over, we'll think we've boom and bust solved and ignore the lessons of history and human psychology.

I'd disagree in so far as I think every deregulating move has been an ultimate product of lobbying rather than voter mandated policy driven legislating. As such, 'best of itentions' doesn't come into it. Deregulation has been bought and paid for on both sides of the political divide.

Amazingfun

RIP to the victims of this horrific attack.

However, the political world continues.
I wonder if Trump's words on Brussels in January will have any effect on the vote in Utah today:

"There is something going on, Maria," Trump replied. "Go to Brussels. Go to Paris. Go to different places. There is something going on and it's not good, where they want Sharia law, where they want this, where they want things that — you know there has to be some assimilation. There is no assimilation. There is something bad going on."

The Republican presidential front-runner said Brussels, the capital of Belgium, had been particularly transformed. Belgium has been home to a number of recent terror plots, and was linked to the November attack on Paris, France, that left 130 people dead.

"You go to Brussels — I was in Brussels a long time ago, 20 years ago, so beautiful, everything is so beautiful — it's like living in a hellhole right now," Trump continued. "You go to these different places. There is something going on."

http://uk.businessinsider.com/donald-trump-brussels-muslim-ban-hellhole-2016-1?r=US&IR=T

Akrasia

Amazingfun wrote: »

RIP to the victims of this horrific attack.

However, the political world continues.
I wonder if Trump's words on Brussels in January will have any effect on the vote in Utah today:



http://uk.businessinsider.com/donald-trump-brussels-muslim-ban-hellhole-2016-1?r=US&IR=T

It probably will have some effect on undecided voters and those people who rank terrorism as high on their list of concerns.

It's typical Trump speak though. He calls Brussels a hellhole even though the last time he was there was 20 years ago and it was a beautiful city.

Brussels still is a beautiful city, it just has ghettos like every other capital city in the world, and there are social problems in those ghettos.

He offers no solutions. He says there needs to be some assimilation but how do we do this?

Trump as president would play directly into the hands of ISIS. He would react in exactly the way they want him to.

Fr Tod Umptious

I'm more interested in what Clinton or Sanders will say about it, and I think that will have a big bearing on what people think.
We all know what Trump is likely to say.

Will they be brave enough to use the term "radical Islam" ?

Will they be able to reassure Americans that something like what happened this morning will not happen under their watch in the US ?.

If not then it plays right into the hands of Trump for obvious reasons.

People are worried about attacks by radical Islamic groups and rightly so.

Akrasia

Fr Tod Umptious wrote: »

I'm more interested in what Clinton or Sanders will say about it, and I think that will have a big bearing on what people think.
We all know what Trump is likely to say.

Will they be brave enough to use the term "radical Islam" ?

Will they be able to reassure Americans that something like what happened this morning will not happen under their watch in the US ?.

If not then it plays right into the hands of Trump for obvious reasons.

People are worried about attacks by radical Islamic groups and rightly so.

I think Sanders doesn't really like to engage with the international terrorism issue. His position is that America should not be directly fighting these wars in the middle east. That the only solution to extremist islam is moderate islam, and western forces can't impose this from the outside, but it's a dangerous topic for him because no matter what he says, he'll be attacked as 'weak' or 'isolationist'

Sanders, after the Paris attack delivered a speech saying that he wouldn't turn his back on refugees

http://thehill.com/blogs/ballot-box/presidential-races/260361-sanders-we-will-not-turn-our-backs-on-refugees
It was basically, the exact opposite of the populist rhetoric he is accused of by his opponents. But it's politically damaging because one side is playing up the fear, and calling immigrants and refugees potential terrorists, and Sanders' message is that we should show compassion and allow them to enter.

The solution to Islamic extremist terrorism (if there is one) can not be iterated in soundbytes, there are no quick fix solutions, but the nature of political campaigns is that people demand these answers in sound-byte form, and sometimes it's better to avoid the topic rather than get drawn into saying something that can be taken out of context.

Sanders does the same thing whenever he's asked about religion. He could just lie and say he loves Moses, but integrity is his platform so that doesn't work, but he also can't say he's an atheist (even though he probably is) because that would lose him so many votes due to negative associations that are unfairly associated with this word, so he usually gives a quick answer relating to his Jewish ethnic background and changes the topic.

In terms of compromises required to win an election, I think this is justifiable.

Fr Tod Umptious

Akrasia wrote: »

I think Sanders doesn't really like to engage with the international terrorism issue. His position is that America should not be directly fighting these wars in the middle east. That the only solution to extremist islam is moderate islam, and western forces can't impose this from the outside, but it's a dangerous topic for him because no matter what he says, he'll be attacked as 'weak' or 'isolationist'

Sanders, after the Paris attack delivered a speech saying that he wouldn't turn his back on refugees

http://thehill.com/blogs/ballot-box/presidential-races/260361-sanders-we-will-not-turn-our-backs-on-refugees
It was basically, the exact opposite of the populist rhetoric he is accused of by his opponents. But it's politically damaging because one side is playing up the fear, and calling immigrants and refugees potential terrorists, and Sanders' message is that we should show compassion and allow them to enter.

The solution to Islamic extremist terrorism (if there is one) can not be iterated in soundbytes, there are no quick fix solutions, but the nature of political campaigns is that people demand these answers in sound-byte form, and sometimes it's better to avoid the topic rather than get drawn into saying something that can be taken out of context.

Sanders does the same thing whenever he's asked about religion. He could just lie and say he loves Moses, but integrity is his platform so that doesn't work, but he also can't say he's an atheist (even though he probably is) because that would lose him so many votes due to negative associations that are unfairly associated with this word, so he usually gives a quick answer relating to his Jewish ethnic background and changes the topic.

In terms of compromises required to win an election, I think this is justifiable.

Somebody needs to tell Sanders that not engaging in the international terrorism issue is not an answer.

Radical Islam is a threat to westerns society, we have seen it in NYC, London, Paris, Boston, San Bernardino, and now Brussels.

Ignoring it will not make it go away Bernie.

As for refugees, there will be radicals among them, and that has to be dealt with.

Akrasia

Fr Tod Umptious wrote: »

Somebody needs to tell Sanders that not engaging in the international terrorism issue is not an answer.

Radical Islam is a threat to westerns society, we have seen it in NYC, London, Paris, Boston, San Bernardino, and now Brussels.

Ignoring it will not make it go away Bernie.

As for refugees, there will be radicals among them, and that has to be dealt with.

He's not ignoring it though, he's just avoiding this topic in the debates because his solution is not a sexy one. Trump has advocated committing war crimes, targeting the children of terrorists, torturing and mass deportations. These are horrific, but populist positions. Sanders positions are sensible, but appear weak and can not be communicated well in a debate or soundbyte format.

Sanders solution is to reduce inequality within the U.S. improve education, provide decent paying jobs and healthcare etc, so that the young people feel like they are valued and feel proud to be American. At the same time, he wants to change American foreign policy from the bully boys who went into Iraq and instituted 'regime change', The America that bullies the U.N. and abuses the Veto system to an america that works with and supports other nations to build prosperous democratic states.

Sanders wants a global coalition to tackle ISIS.

The dirty part of his message is that this would require cooperation with regimes that are pretty despotic

Saudi Arabia need to be tackling ISIS. When Bernie Sanders said that Saudi Arabia had an obligation to combat terrorism in it's region, he was attacked by the right and people on the fringes as 'Sanders calls for Saudi Arabia to kill more people' When in fact, it's the opposite, Sanders wants Saudi Arabia to take a position against ISIS, and not support them in the background like they are currently doing. Sanders' policy towards the middle east is that they need to be encouraged and supported to take responsibility for their own security.

Current U.S. policy is that they turn a blind eye to the source of much of this terrorism because corporate interests do not want to upset the oil supply.

BoJack Horseman

Akrasia wrote: »

Sanders wants a global coalition to tackle ISIS.

What is it about the existing coalition that Bernie disagrees with?

Is he seeking a UN intervention force?