Jump to content
Sturgeon's House
T___A

US Politics Thread: Year 2 of 1000 of the TrumpenReich

Recommended Posts

18 minutes ago, Ulric said:

 

Yes, as you see it, because confirmation bias totally isn't a thing. From an Investors Business Daily article

 

'Vice President Pence said that Honduras President Juan Orlando Hernandez told him that the caravan had been "organized by leftist organizations and financed by Venezuela."'

 

we also know that the caravan has received substantial assistance from the UN under human rights programs. All that information from a single layer Google search. I didn't even bother chasing down connections between named organisations because I'm at work right now. So, there you go, 2 minutes of Google gives us a hint, unless you think that Pence and Hernandez are both lying. That seems unlikely, though, because we know there are plenty of lefty charitable organization devoted to refugees and immigration.

 

So, you don't see it because you don't want to see it.

 

I might have incorrectly assumed that you could tell the difference between satire and reality, but the whole reason why I started on this subject is because you unironically parroted a point that was made by a parody outlet to be absurdist satire.

 

In two minutes, I could also find "proof" of just about anything online.  Provide sources or your argument is invalid. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
56 minutes ago, Walter_Sobchak said:

 

How does this contradict my rating of "somewhat" competent?  Carter made some bad calls, hence the "somewhat."  Anyhow, you can cherry pick individual instances of bad foriegn policy decisions of every president.  

 

Well, first of all, Carter's presidency was a trainwreck in slow motion. Second of all, that link wasn't intended to address your claim that Carter was "somewhat competent", it was to address that he was of "very good character". The guy supported Mugabe!

gettyimages-615298506-d196d6aa44ca9d9608

 

So either he's evil or stupid (probably the latter), but I still wouldn't put someone who was such a naive twit that they supported the installation of a rebel war criminal into the "very good character" bin.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
32 minutes ago, Walter_Sobchak said:

 

In two minutes, I could also find "proof" of just about anything online.  Provide sources or your argument is invalid. 

 

I didn't say "proof" anywhere in my post.

 

Here is the article that I pulled it from. https://www.investors.com/politics/editorials/migrant-caravan-u-s-sovereignty/

 

Yes, it is right leaning, so I know that means you will automatically discount everything in it as make believe propaganda, because confirmation bias is a bitch like that. I could go through the effort of looking up any charity that focuses on immigration and chase down where they get their funding, what projects they support, etc, but you will just deflect the conversation away from that anyways. The left and the media still exploited the caravan for political gain, even if they didn't have any direct involvement in it. I don't have the spare time to find proof that you will accept as valid, which I'm convinced that there is none that you will find valid because of afford mentioned confirmation bias and that you yourself said that you cannot be objective about Trump. Why would I assume that you will be objective about anything then?

 

Talking with you is an absolute waste of time and mental effort, which is why I mostly leave it at cheap troll shots for my own amusement. Maybe when you decide to join us in reality we can actually have a discussion. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Sturgeon said:

 

Well, first of all, Carter's presidency was a trainwreck in slow motion. Second of all, that link wasn't intended to address your claim that Carter was "somewhat competent", it was to address that he was of "very good character". The guy supported Mugabe!

gettyimages-615298506-d196d6aa44ca9d9608

 

So either he's evil or stupid (probably the latter), but I still wouldn't put someone who was such a naive twit that they supported the installation of a rebel war criminal into the "very good character" bin.

 

Well then, you will have to subscribe to the idea that every single US president is an evil motherfucker because all of them have to make some foriegn policy decisions that look awful in retrospect.  And that sort of cynicism leads eventually to looking at someone like Trump and thinking "this is fine."

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Walter_Sobchak said:

 

Well then, you will have to subscribe to the idea that every single US president is an evil motherfucker because all of them have to make some foriegn policy decisions that look awful in retrospect.  And that sort of cynicism leads eventually to looking at someone like Trump and thinking "this is fine."

 

Oh no! What a horrible fate!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, Sturgeon said:

 

Oh no! What a horrible fate!

 

But, Trump is literally hitlerputin. He stomps on puppies and says mean things! If you don't rabidly hate Trump with every fiber of your being every waking moment of your life, then you are a snowflakenazi whataboutism spewing Russian agent of the Kremlin too!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 minutes ago, Ulric said:

 

But, Trump is literally hitlerputin. He stomps on puppies and says mean things! If you don't rabidly hate Trump with every fiber of your being every waking moment of your life, then you are a snowflakenazi whataboutism spewing Russian agent of the Kremlin too!

 

WHERE'S MY PUTIN CHECK???

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So, who wants to be the first to try to explain away the resignation of General Mattis as no big deal?  In case anyone is wondering, this is the first time in US history that a Secretary of Defense has resigned over differences with the US President.  

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, Walter_Sobchak said:

So, who wants to be the first to try to explain away the resignation of General Mattis as no big deal?  In case anyone is wondering, this is the first time in US history that a Secretary of Defense has resigned over differences with the US President.  

 

 

 

 

I think this sums it up pretty well, and it's from a source that you agree with.

https://babylonbee.com/news/trumpy-bear-selected-as-new-secretary-of-defense

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 hours ago, Walter_Sobchak said:

So, who wants to be the first to try to explain away the resignation of General Mattis as no big deal?  In case anyone is wondering, this is the first time in US history that a Secretary of Defense has resigned over differences with the US President.  

 

 

 

Start with explaining why we need to keep troops in Syria and Afghanistan.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 hours ago, Walter_Sobchak said:

So, who wants to be the first to try to explain away the resignation of General Mattis as no big deal?  In case anyone is wondering, this is the first time in US history that a Secretary of Defense has resigned over differences with the US President.  

 

Ain't nobody reaching for that stick up your ass but you, Walt.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 hours ago, Walter_Sobchak said:

So, who wants to be the first to try to explain away the resignation of General Mattis as no big deal?  In case anyone is wondering, this is the first time in US history that a Secretary of Defense has resigned over differences with the US President.  

 

 

Mattis becomes Secretary of Defense. 

 

The Left: "This is Terrible! Here comes WW3!!!!"

 

Mattis steps down as Secretary of Defense.

 

The Left: "This is UNPRECEDENTED! This is HUGE! This is Terrible!" 

 

BONUS ROUND!

 

Obama: "I'm going to pull us out of these unnecessary wars!"

 

The Left and everyone else at the time: "Oh hell yeah you go black Jesus!" 

 

Obama doesn't actually do shit, and in fact bombs more countries. But gives himself a Nobel Peace Prize regardless. (Which I KNOW he just giggles every time he looks at it sitting in his office)

 

Trump: "Fuck it, I'm out of these shit hole countries."

 

The Left: "How coulhe do such a thing?!"

 

Everyone else: "Fuckin' about time a president made good on his promises. He's got my vote in 2020."

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 hours ago, Walter_Sobchak said:

In case anyone is wondering, this is the first time in US history that a Secretary of Defense has resigned over differences with the US President.  

 

I figured there was some sort of GOTCHA! to this, and there is. Maybe it's true that there's never been a SecDef who's resigned due to differences with the President, I didn't bother to check. But I figured what this bazinga was pulling was the fact that the Secretary of Defense position has only existed since 1947. Turns out I'm right! So let's take a quick peek at the bio of one Kenneth C Royall, the last Secretary of War, and the Secretary of the Army from 1947-1949:
 

Quote

Royall was forced into retirement in April 1949 for continuing to refuse to desegregate the Army, even nearly a year after President Truman promulgated Executive Order 9981.

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Also, HAHAHAHA, that statement is completely false. Let's take a look at Forrestal's bio:
 

Quote

Governor of New York Thomas E. Dewey was expected to win the presidential elections of 1948. Forrestal met with Dewey privately, and it was agreed he would continue as Secretary of Defense under a Dewey administration. Unwittingly, Forrestal would trigger a series of events that would not only undermine his already precarious position with President Truman but would also contribute to the loss of his job, his failing health, and eventual demise. Weeks before the election, Pearson published an exposé of the meetings between Dewey and Forrestal.[23] In 1949, angered over Forrestal's continued opposition to his defense economization policies, and concerned about reports in the press over his mental condition, Truman abruptly asked Forrestal to resign. By March 31, 1949, Forrestal was out of a job.[19] He was replaced by Louis A. Johnson, an ardent supporter of Truman's defense retrenchment policy.

 

I have to note here, Royall and Forrestal were the first SecWar and SecDef, respectively, whose bios I looked up. So you're just fucking wrong. Do not pass Go, do not collect $200.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 hours ago, Walter_Sobchak said:

So, who wants to be the first to try to explain away the resignation of General Mattis as no big deal?  In case anyone is wondering, this is the first time in US history that a Secretary of Defense has resigned over differences with the US President.  

 

 

 

What?

 

Well, Secretary of War Harry Woodring was fired in 1936 by FDR because he was an isolationist.

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Harry_Hines_Woodring#Career

 

A strict non-interventionist, Woodring came under pressure from other cabinet members to resign in the first year of World War II. Secretary of the Interior Harold Ickes met with Roosevelt at least twice to call for Woodring's firing, but FDR was at first unwilling to do so, instead appointing outspoken interventionist Louis A. Johnson as Woodring's assistant secretary of war. Woodring and Johnson were immediately at odds, and quickly reached the point where they refused to speak to each other.[8] On June 20, 1940, Roosevelt ended the struggle by finally firing Woodring, replacing him with long-time Republican politician Henry Stimson.[9] Woodring remained isolationist, opposing the Selective Training and Service Act of 1940.

 

...

 

And Secretary of War Lindley Garrison was forced to resign by Woodrow Wilson in 1916 because he was an interventionist.

 

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

 

 Garrison and Wilson never fit well together. Garrison was much more willing to intervene militarily overseas than was the President. This was especially evident in regard to Mexico. Garrison urged American intervention into the Mexican revolution to restore order. During the Preparedness campaign of 1916, when Wilson was trying to convince Congress to raise military spending, Garrison supported a plan for expanding the US military with what he called the Continental Army Plan. Garrison’s proposal would establish a standing army of 140,000 and a national, volunteer reserve force of 400,000 men. Wilson initially gave the plan tepid support, but Garrison ran into opposition from both those who felt his plan went too far in creating a large standing army, as well as from those who felt it did not go far enough. Wilson was convinced by allies in Congress to back an alternative plan which emphasized not Garrison’s national volunteer force, but a continued role for the states’ National Guard. Garrison resigned in February 1916 over these differences

 

...

 

...

 

But wait, there's more!

 

Andrew Jacksons ENTIRE FUCKING CABINET was forced to resign because of the fact that the Secretary of War John H Eaton married a whore and none of the respectable women in Washington would sit in the same room with her.

 

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

 

 

 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
20 minutes ago, Donward said:

Andrew Jacksons ENTIRE FUCKING CABINET was forced to resign because of the fact that the Secretary of War John H Eaton married a whore and none of the respectable women in Washington would sit in the same room with her.

 

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

 

 

John Tyler's entire cabinet sans Daniel Webster also resigned. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Oedipus Wreckx-n-Effect said:

Mattis becomes Secretary of Defense. 

 

The Left: "This is Terrible! Here comes WW3!!!!"

 

 

 

I fucking cheered pretty damned hard when Mattis was made SecDef.  I'm disappointed he's leaving.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
27 minutes ago, Belesarius said:

I'm disappointed he's leaving.

 

Me too. Mattis was one of the things that made me think Trump would actually do a good job, as opposed to just being hilarious. But I didn't expect Mattis to stick around for very long. The guy is pretty old, and he came out of retirement to be SecDef. I had hoped for four years, though.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Sturgeon said:

Also, HAHAHAHA, that statement is completely false. Let's take a look at Forrestal's bio:
 

 

I have to note here, Royall and Forrestal were the first SecWar and SecDef, respectively, whose bios I looked up. So you're just fucking wrong. Do not pass Go, do not collect $200.

 

Ok, you got me.  The statement literaly applied to the position of Secretary of Defense, not the preceeding similar positions with different names.  Still, no one addressed the main point.  (Which is what Ulric keeps trying to accuss me of doing.)  

 

Anyhow, this isn't about Syria, it's about Mattis' resignation letter.   Syria was the straw that broke the camels back for Mattis, but it was not the primary issue addressed in his letter.  After two years of most of  you heaping praise on Mattis, it's got to be a bitter pill that he has left, essentially saying that the President has no idea what he is doing on foriegn policy and can't tell a friend from an enemy.

 

1 hour ago, Jeeps_Guns_Tanks said:

Just like a CNN feed, lol, I so called it. 

 

You know what the funny thing is?  The only reason you pick "CNN" as your anti-Trump whipping boy is because that's Trumps favorite target.   

 

3 hours ago, Sturgeon said:

 

Ain't nobody reaching for that stick up your ass but you, Walt.

 

So apparently, I'm in the wrong for posting important news regarding Trump in the thread about Trump.  Got it.

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Sturgeon said:

Leslie Aspin stepped down in 1995 at the request of Bill Clinton, and there's not a whole lot of room between that and "resigned over differences".

 

There is no indication that Trump wanted Mattis to leave.  There is a big difference between getting fired and quitting while in good standing with your boss.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
22 minutes ago, Walter_Sobchak said:

Ok, you got me.  The statement literaly applied to the position of Secretary of Defense, not the preceeding similar positions with different names.  Still, no one addressed the main point.  (Which is what Ulric keeps trying to accuss me of doing.)  

 

Well if you'd read my subsequent posts you would know that your claim was entirely false.

 

23 minutes ago, Walter_Sobchak said:

After two years of most of  you heaping praise on Mattis, it's got to be a bitter pill that he has left

 

Yes and I suppose that makes you terribly happy because at this point you're a walking hallucination wrapped in spite, or something. The spite I understand, welcome to conservatism circa 2009.

 

24 minutes ago, Walter_Sobchak said:

essentially saying that the President has no idea what he is doing on foriegn policy and can't tell a friend from an enemy.

 

No, it means they had an irreconcilable disagreement. Happens on a regular basis. And guess who I think is probably right in this case?
 

26 minutes ago, Walter_Sobchak said:

You know what the funny thing is?  The only reason you pick "CNN" as your anti-Trump whipping boy is because that's Trumps favorite target.   

 

You have got that causality exactly backwards.

 

27 minutes ago, Walter_Sobchak said:

So apparently, I'm in the wrong for posting important news regarding Trump in the thread about Trump.  Got it.

 

No, you're in the wrong for being a gigantic douchecanoe to people just because they don't hate a political candidate that you hate.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

  • Similar Content

    • By T___A
      Might as well make a new thread now that the election is over.
    • By Tied
      Yes
       
      i personally support it, by finding the KGB Felix Dzerzhinsky greatly improved state scurrility both inside the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics and abroad (their jurisdiction was only domestic, but they kept the internationally influential people safe at night)   a dedicated defender of both the Revolution and all the Soviet peoples     what do you think of this news?
    • By Xoon
      Colonization Of The Solar System

       
      This thread is for discussing the colonization of the solar system, mainly focusing on Mars and the Moon since they are the most relevant. 
      Main topics include transportation, industry, agriculture, economics, civil engineering,  energy production and distribution, habitation, ethics and politics. 
       
       
       
       
      First order of business, our glories tech messiah Elon Musk has set his eyes on Mars:
      Reason stated? Because being a interplanetary species beats being a single planetary species. 
       
      How does he plan to do this?
      By sending two cargo ships by 2022 to Mars for surveying and building  basic infrastructure, then two years later in 2024 sending 4 ships, two cargo ships and two crewed ships to start the colonization. First thing would be to build fuel refineries and expanding infrastructure to support more ships, then starting to mine and build industry. 
       
      This could mark a new era in human history, a second colonization era, this time without the genocides. The economic potentials are incredible, a single asteroid could easily support the entire earths gold, silver and platinum production for a decade. The moon holds a lot of valuable Helium 3, which right now is worth 12 000 dollars per kilogram! Helium is a excellent material for nuclear reactors. 
       
       
       

       
       
      Speaking about the moon, several companies have set their eyes on the moon, and for good reason.
      In my opinion,  the moon has the possibility of becoming a mayor trade hub for the solar system.  Why is this? Simply put, the earth has a few pesky things called gravity, atmosphere and environmentalists. This makes launching rockets off the moon much cheaper. The moon could even have a space elevator with current technology!  If we consider Elon Musk's plan to travel to Mars, then the Moon should be able to supply cheaper fuel and spaceship parts to space, to then be sent to Mars. The Moon is also rich in minerals that have not sunk to the core yet, and also has a huge amount of rare earth metals, which demands are rapidly increasing. Simply put, the Moon would end up as a large exporter to both the earth and potentially Mars. Importing from earth would almost always be more expensive compared to a industrialized Moon. 
       
      Now how would we go about colonizing the moon? Honestly, in concept it is quite simple.When considering locations, the South pole seems like the best candidate. This is because of it's constant sun spots, which could give 24 hour solar power to the colony and give constant sunlight to plants without huge power usage. The south pole also contain dark spots which contains large amount of frozen water, which would be used to sustain the agriculture and to make rocket fuel. It is true that the equator has the largest amounts of Helium 3 and the best location for rocket launches. However, with the lack of constant sunlight and frequent solar winds and meteor impacts, makes to unsuited for initial colonization. If the SpaceX's BFR successes, then it would be the main means of transporting materials to the moon until infrastructure is properly developed. Later a heavy lifter would replace it when transporting goods to and from the lunar surface, and specialized cargo ship for trans portion between the Moon, Earth and Mars. A space elevator would reduce prices further in the future.  Most likely, a trade station would be set up in CIS lunar space and Earth orbit which would house large fuel tanks and be able to hold the cargo from  cargo ships and heavy lifters. Sun ports would be designated depending on their amount of sunlight. Year around sunlight spots would be dedicated to solar panels and agriculture. Varying sun spots would be used for storage, landing pads and in general everything. Dark spots would be designated to mining to extract its valuable water. Power production would be inistially almost purely solar, with some back up and smoothing out generators. Later nuclear reactors would take over, but serve as a secondary backup energy source. 
       
       
      The plan:
      If we can assume the BFR is a success, then we have roughly 150 ton of payload to work with per spaceship. The first spaceship would contain a satellite to survey colonization spot. Everything would be robotic at first. Several robots capable of building a LZ for future ships,  mining of the lunar surface for making solar panels for energy production, then mining and refinement for fuel for future expeditions. The lunar colony would be based underground, room and pillar mining would be used to cheaply create room that is also shielded from radiation and surface hazards. Copying the mighty tech priest, a second ship would come with people and more equipment. With this more large scale mining and ore refinement would be started. Eventually beginning to manufacturing their own goods. Routinely BFRs would supply the colony with special equipment like electronics, special minerals and advanced equipment and food until the agricultural sector can support the colony.  The colony would start to export Helium 3 and rocket fuel, as well as spacecraft parts and scientific materials. Eventually becoming self sustaining, it would stop importing food and equipment, manufacturing it all themselves to save costs. 
       
      I am not the best in agriculture, so if some knowledge people could teach us here about closed loop farming, or some way of cultivating the lunar soil. Feel free to do so.
       
       
      Mining:
      I found a article here about the composition of the lunar soil and the use for it's main components:

      In short, the moon has large amounts of oxygen, silicon, aluminum, calcium, iron, magnesium and titanium in it's soil.
      How do we refine them? By doing this.
       
      Aluminum could be used for most kinds of wiring to requiring high conductivity to density ratio. Meaning power lines, building cables and such. Aluminum is not very suited for building structures on the surface because of the varying temperatures causing it to expand and contract. Iron or steel is better suited here. Aluminum could however be used in underground structures where temperatures are more stable.  Aluminum would also most likely end up as the main lunar rocket fuel. Yes, aluminum as rocket fuel. Just look at things like ALICE, or Aluminum-oxygen. Aluminum-oxygen would probably win out since ALICE uses water, which would be prioritized for the BFRs, since I am pretty sure they are not multi-fuel. 
       More on aluminum rocket fuel here:
      https://forum.kerbalspaceprogram.com/index.php?/topic/88130-aluminum-as-rocket-fuel/&
      http://www.projectrho.com/public_html/rocket/realdesigns2.php#umlunar
      https://blogs.nasa.gov/Rocketology/2016/04/15/weve-got-rocket-chemistry-part-1/
      https://blogs.nasa.gov/Rocketology/2016/04/21/weve-got-rocket-chemistry-part-2/
       
      Believe it or not, but calcium is actually a excellent conductor, about 12% better than copper. So why do we not use it on earth? Because it has a tendency to spontaneously combust in the atmosphere. In a vacuum however, this does not pose a problem. I does however need to be coated in a material so it does not deteriorate. This makes it suited for "outdoor" products and compact electrical systems like electric motors. Yes, a calcium electric motor.  
       
       
      Lastly, a few articles about colonizing the moon:
      https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Colonization_of_the_Moon
      https://www.sciencealert.com/nasa-scientists-say-we-could-colonise-the-moon-by-2022-for-just-10-billion
      https://www.nasa.gov/audience/foreducators/topnav/materials/listbytype/HEP_Lunar.html
       
      NASA article about production of solar panels on the moon:
      https://ntrs.nasa.gov/archive/nasa/casi.ntrs.nasa.gov/20050110155.pdf
       
      Map over the south pole:
      http://lroc.sese.asu.edu/images/gigapan
       
       
      Feel free to spam the thread with news regarding colonization. 
       
       
×