Club PA 2.0 has arrived! If you'd like to access some extra PA content and help support the forums, check it out at patreon.com/ClubPA
The image size limit has been raised to 1mb! Anything larger than that should be linked to. This is a HARD limit, please do not abuse it.
Our new Indie Games subforum is now open for business in G&T. Go and check it out, you might land a code for a free game. If you're developing an indie game and want to post about it, follow these directions. If you don't, he'll break your legs! Hahaha! Seriously though.
Our rules have been updated and given their own forum. Go and look at them! They are nice, and there may be new ones that you didn't know about! Hooray for rules! Hooray for The System! Hooray for Conforming!

The Trump Administration

12467100

Posts

  • KetBraKetBra FISTS OF JUSTICE! Registered User regular
    Like, sorry buddy but that ship sailed and you were the goddamn captain.

    ohKiGmg.png
    Steam Bnet:KetBra#1692 Yo Satan
    Gnome-InterruptusCptKemzikZomroVoodooVLovelyemp123shrykeQuidCommander ZoomArdolOneAngryPossumlonelyahavaVegemyteGiggles_FunsworthDoctorArchUnluckyHakkekageJazzSleepPLAnaengwenMan in the MistsNobeardjdarksunN1tSt4lkerHacksawjoshofalltradesMagellLeon2309chrono_travellerSquigie
  • DoctorArchDoctorArch Curmudgeon Registered User regular
    KetBra wrote: »

    I dunno, I think you showed pretty convincingly over the last year that they will. In fact, they have every incentive to do so.

    Also McConnell keeps trying to re-write history on what the "Biden Rule" is/was. It wasn't that the Senate wouldn't confirm a Supreme Court nominee during a presidential election year, that's the "McConnell is a Douchenozzle Rule" so I can see why McConnell is confused. The Biden Rule (and it wasn't a rule, merely a suggestion) was that during a presidential election year, if a vacancy occurs in the Supreme Court, the sitting president delay their nomination until after the election.

    So fuck you McConnell.

    Switch Friend Code: SW-6732-9515-9697
  • DarkewolfeDarkewolfe Registered User regular
    gladapple wrote: »
    Can the thread titles for these Trump threads be a little more creative?

    They've all just been bland and uninspired.

    Sorry if this is too meta.

    Failing thread. Sad!

    What is this I don't even.
    Panda4You
  • OghulkOghulk biggest externality low-energy economistRegistered User regular
    KetBra wrote: »
    Like, sorry buddy but that ship sailed and you were the goddamn captain.

    Republicans, unsurprisingly hypocritical, wanted to keep the toys they broke.

    Sorry McConnell, the blockading of nominations for SCOTUS or cabinet positions is something you and your party caused by being obstructionist for the last 6 years.

    Sucks when it's played against you

    raoADVy.png
    Shadowhope
  • a nu starta nu start Registered User regular
    So they hint at blocking Clinton's nominations for her entire term and it's all cool. Put the shoe on the other foot and all of a sudden it's time to break out the fainting couches.

    Number One Tricky
    kimeDarkPrimusHarry DresdenGennenalyse RuebenMayabirdZomroLovelyCaptainPeacockemp123dispatch.oCommander ZoomArdolGiggles_FunsworthDoctorArchShadowhopeHakkekageJazzSleepminirhyderOatsMan in the MistsIncenjucarCalicaNobeardjdarksunN1tSt4lkerHacksawjoshofalltradesMagellLeon2309Squigie
  • OghulkOghulk biggest externality low-energy economistRegistered User regular
    a nu start wrote: »
    So they hint at blocking Clinton's nominations for her entire term and it's all cool. Put the shoe on the other foot and all of a sudden it's time to break out the fainting couches.

    party of hypocrites

    along with all the dumb people who can't bother to look further into the issues and see things for what they are

    also that WSJ article about Trump wanting to restructure the intelligence community is, uh, pretty worrying

    raoADVy.png
    kimeHarry DresdenPhoenix-DGnome-InterruptusCptKemzikMrVyngaardGennenalyse RuebenOrcaTL DRMayabirdSpoitZomroNobodyLovelyDisrupterCaptainPeacockemp123ForarGundishrykedispatch.oCommander ZoomArdolAistanShadowfireMegaMekGiggles_FunsworthDoctorArchShadowhopeHakkekageJazzSleepEriosnaengwenminirhyderOatsMan in the MistsIncenjucarTransporterCalicaNobeardjdarksunN1tSt4lkerMild ConfusionHacksawBlameless ClericglithertMagellJoolanderLeon2309Squigie
  • Santa ClaustrophobiaSanta Claustrophobia Ho Ho Ho Disconnecting from Xbox LIVERegistered User regular
    Oghulk wrote: »
    a nu start wrote: »
    So they hint at blocking Clinton's nominations for her entire term and it's all cool. Put the shoe on the other foot and all of a sudden it's time to break out the fainting couches.

    party of hypocrites

    along with all the dumb people who can't bother to look further into the issues and see things for what they are

    also that WSJ article about Trump wanting to restructure the intelligence community is, uh, pretty worrying

    Look, if the CIA would just come to the conclusions he wants, then he wouldn't have to threaten to gut them for being too politicised.

    Duh.

    MrVyngaardPanda4YouGiggles_FunsworthShadowhopeNobeard14357chrono_traveller
  • enlightenedbumenlightenedbum Registered User regular

    You would hope this would be the last straw for even the morons in our political media. I know it won't be, but you'd hope.

    Herbert Hoover got 40% of the vote in 1932. Friendly reminder.
    Lovelyemp123shrykelonelyahavaGaddezGiggles_FunsworthCptKemziknaengweniTunesIsEvilMan in the MistsCalica14357jdarksunHacksawLeon2309Squigie
  • MayabirdMayabird Pecking at the keyboardRegistered User regular
    Was thinking about all those coal miners that voted for Trump. Do they not remember that coal companies have been among the most evil corporations to ever exist? Do they not realize that any "aid to coal" will end up being handouts to the companies and slashing of the regulations that keep them in check? That the coal companies will basically enslave them and literally slaughter them (or call up the military and have air strikes when they resist? Safety regulations will be cut so miners will start dying from accidents, and black lung benefits will be cut so any who survive will suffocate penniless, the water will be poisoned so their families will die of that, and hell, maybe they'll even ban unions and allow people to be paid in scrip. Or cut costs by bringing in unpaid prison labor (the jobs are saved! The people die, but fuck them. Only JOBS are important.) The National Guard would be called up against strikers, or maybe drones sent these days.

    Coal was always a dead end that screwed everybody on multiple levels but the rich owners.

    LovelyhippofantGiggles_FunsworthMahnmutMan in the MistsDoodmannCalicaNobeardjdarksunMagellSmrtnikLeon2309
  • GoodKingJayIIIGoodKingJayIII Registered User regular
    I can't believe McConnell can say anything with a straight face.

    It's probably because he wears his people face so loosely around his toad form.

    Battletag: Threeve#1501
    PSN: Threeve703
    MayabirdGiggles_FunsworthGennenalyse RuebenZomroJazzGnome-InterruptusEriosMagellvaliance
  • No-QuarterNo-Quarter Nothing to Fear But Fear ItselfRegistered User regular
    I can't believe McConnell can say anything with a straight face.

    Well just look at his "response" to questions about concerns for Steve Bannon...

    DarkPrimusGiggles_FunsworthJazzPLATL DRDrezSquigie
  • KharnorKharnor Registered User regular
    Of course they should block Trump's nominations, it's less than a year until it's a year until it's a year until it's a year until the next election

    He's really just a lame duck at this point

    Spoitemp123kimedispatch.oArdolShadowfireMegaMekGiggles_FunsworthGennenalyse RuebenDoctorArchTeriferinZomroJazzSleepGoodKingJayIIInaengwenminirhyderwanderingOatsT-boltKid PresentableTransporterDaenrisNobeardNijajdarksunHacksawBlameless ClericvalianceLeon2309Drezchrono_travellerSquigie
  • CoinageCoinage dance all crazy, whip my hair around all crazy Registered User regular
    Kharnor wrote: »
    Of course they should block Trump's nominations, it's less than a year until it's a year until it's a year until it's a year until the next election

    He's really just a lame duck at this point
    Trump is a lame duck until he wins the popular vote twice.

    My baba said that I'm not living right
    I said I'm trying baba
    TeriferinSleepMagell
  • OrcaOrca Registered User regular
    Coinage wrote: »
    Kharnor wrote: »
    Of course they should block Trump's nominations, it's less than a year until it's a year until it's a year until it's a year until the next election

    He's really just a lame duck at this point
    Trump is a lame duck until he wins the popular vote twice.

    But then he's a lame duck since he can't be re-elected, so he should just be ignored.

    LOGIC.
    Let's pretend you just said "until he wins re-election."

    evilthecat wrote: »
    "Bioware I want to suck on your teets of gamingness".

    The 2012 issue of Fornax. | Steam and Origin: Espressosaurus
  • CoinageCoinage dance all crazy, whip my hair around all crazy Registered User regular
    Orca wrote: »
    Coinage wrote: »
    Kharnor wrote: »
    Of course they should block Trump's nominations, it's less than a year until it's a year until it's a year until it's a year until the next election

    He's really just a lame duck at this point
    Trump is a lame duck until he wins the popular vote twice.

    But then he's a lame duck since he can't be re-elected, so he should just be ignored.
    ....Yes, that is what I was implying.

    My baba said that I'm not living right
    I said I'm trying baba
  • OghulkOghulk biggest externality low-energy economistRegistered User regular
    I would never want to play poker with McConnell

    he could say he raped and killed his mother with a straight face and i wouldn't know whether to believe it or not

    raoADVy.png
    GaddezGiggles_FunsworthPLANobeardDrez
  • GundiGundi Serious Bismuth Registered User regular
    edited January 2017
    Gundi was warned for this.
    Hakkekage wrote: »

    I will in fact pop a bottle of sparkling grape juice whenever McConnell finally keels over. (i'm a tee-toler so... wine's kind of a no go)

    Gundi on
    Panda4YouShadowhopeminirhyderYamiB.TL DR
  • shrykeshryke Member of the Beast Registered User regular
    a nu start wrote: »
    So they hint at blocking Clinton's nominations for her entire term and it's all cool. Put the shoe on the other foot and all of a sudden it's time to break out the fainting couches.

    It all makes sense once you realise they don't give a shit about anything but power.

    LovelyPanda4YouIncenjucarNobeardHacksawLeon2309Squigie
  • shrykeshryke Member of the Beast Registered User regular
    Couscous wrote: »
    http://www.wsj.com/articles/lawmakers-officials-frown-on-donald-trumps-dismissal-of-u-s-intelligence-1483554450
    Donald Trump Plans Revamp of Top U.S. Spy Agency
    WASHINGTON—President-elect Donald Trump, a harsh critic of U.S. intelligence agencies, is working with top advisers on a plan that would restructure and pare back the nation’s top spy agency, people familiar with the planning said, prompted by a belief that the Office of the Director of National Intelligence has become bloated and politicized.
    Trump will only consider intelligence agencies not politicized when they are completely politicized in his favor (Comey's letter is not political while not prosecuting Clinton is political), so that really worries me.

    Paring down intelligence agencies would provide plenty of opportunities for getting rid of dissent that might reach conclusions the administration doesn't like.

    Well, that's worrying as fuck. This is full on failed state purges of the government stuff.

    Giggles_FunsworthGennenalyse RuebenLovelymrondeauCalicaNobeardjdarksunLeon2309Squigie
  • shrykeshryke Member of the Beast Registered User regular
    Mr Khan wrote: »
    Like with NATO, it's another thing where Trump's right for the wrong reasons. How to fix the intelligence agency quagmire is one of those things Presidents have been trying for a generation, and usually attempts to fix just make it worse (like when Bush's effort to reconcile interagency rivalries that had their role in causing 9/11 to get past the radar ended up creating an entire expensive new cabinet-level department).

    Similar to NATO, i'm sure any solution Trump devises will just make the problem worse.

    Uh, what? In what way is Trump right on NATO exactly?

    SpoitMegaMekGiggles_FunsworthGennenalyse RuebenmrondeauGnome-Interruptusjdarksun
  • Commander ZoomCommander Zoom Registered User regular
    The mistake is in thinking that Trump wants to fix any actual problems with the agencies in question. He doesn't. He wants them to stop telling him things he doesn't want to hear, and only tell him things that he does.

    steam_sig.png
    Steam, Warframe: Megajoule
    Harry DresdenGiggles_FunsworthGennenalyse RuebenLovelyEmerlmaster999PLAminirhyderMan in the MistskimeTransporter14357jdarksunHacksawLeon2309Squigie
  • OghulkOghulk biggest externality low-energy economistRegistered User regular
    shryke wrote: »
    Mr Khan wrote: »
    Like with NATO, it's another thing where Trump's right for the wrong reasons. How to fix the intelligence agency quagmire is one of those things Presidents have been trying for a generation, and usually attempts to fix just make it worse (like when Bush's effort to reconcile interagency rivalries that had their role in causing 9/11 to get past the radar ended up creating an entire expensive new cabinet-level department).

    Similar to NATO, i'm sure any solution Trump devises will just make the problem worse.

    Uh, what? In what way is Trump right on NATO exactly?

    NATO countries don't pull their fair share in defense spending as a percentage of GDP. The reason NATO has worked for so long under this dynamic is cause the US spends well over our requirement. Places like France, and the UK don't spend as much as they're supposed to (I think it's like 2% of GDP? Can't recall the exact number but it's somewhere in the 2-4% range).

    In that sense Trump is kinda right that we need to go back to the table and figure out these agreements cause as of right now we're pulling the majority of the weight for such a broad coalition.

    The thing with the CIA though is a bit different. It's harder to make changes that aren't just pure policy or foreign policy type things but bureaucratic problems. And what's more is that it comes at a time that reeks of corruption and political purging. Hopefully the incoming administration won't be able to actually do a whole lot on that front since people have contracts and can't be fired that easily in the IC (you don't get fired, you leave more or less). I do think it's fucking hilarious that Flynn wants to rotate other agencies into the field as if other IC agencies have any reason at all to do so. The CIA is the sole responsible party of HUMINT. They have actual reasons to be in the field when there isn't a full blown war going on -- gathering intelligence, making network connections, recruiting sources, covert operations and other undercover work. What does he expect, NSA analysts to be in the desert of Syria listening to ISIL broadcasts on a shitty radio?

    raoADVy.png
    Giggles_FunsworthNobodyCptKemzikMr Khan
  • enlightenedbumenlightenedbum Registered User regular
    Alternately the hegemon pays for that shit or the world starts going slightly mad. And then bad things start happening.

    Herbert Hoover got 40% of the vote in 1932. Friendly reminder.
    ArdolshrykeFencingsaxAistanSpoitMegaMekGiggles_FunsworthGennenalyse RuebenHakkekageMayabirdSleepiTunesIsEvilAngelHedgieNobeardInfamyDeferredjdarksunHacksawEriosMagellLeon2309
  • DacDac Registered User regular
    We kind of benefit a lot from the world not dissolving into anarchy. So.

    Steam: catseye543
    PSN: ShogunGunshow
    Origin: ShogunGunshow
    Harry DresdenArdolCommander ZoomFencingsaxemp123AistanGiggles_FunsworthGennenalyse RuebenSleepEmerlmaster999iTunesIsEvilMan in the MistsNobeardCalicajdarksunN1tSt4lkerHacksawEriosMagellLeon2309
  • ViskodViskod Registered User regular
    Well Mitch, I can't tell you exactly how many people will or won't tolerate that.

    But I can tell you the difference between the two groups is probably around 3,000,000.

    Artereis wrote: »
    It's not your fault, Viskod. 1 out of every 10 people just happens to be a monster.
    Giggles_FunsworthGennenalyse RuebenZomroSleepOrcaMan in the MistsGnome-InterruptusCalicaSquigie
  • Commander ZoomCommander Zoom Registered User regular
    edited January 2017
    The GOP and their base have, IMO, a pretty poor track record when it comes to understanding anything that doesn't directly, clearly and personally benefit them. And even when it does, if it also benefits those they consider unworthy, they're likely to want it gone ayway.

    Commander Zoom on
    steam_sig.png
    Steam, Warframe: Megajoule
    AistanGiggles_FunsworthGennenalyse RuebenPanda4YouPLADiannaoChongdispatch.oMan in the MistsGnome-InterruptusN1tSt4lkerLeon2309Squigie
  • shrykeshryke Member of the Beast Registered User regular
    Oghulk wrote: »
    shryke wrote: »
    Mr Khan wrote: »
    Like with NATO, it's another thing where Trump's right for the wrong reasons. How to fix the intelligence agency quagmire is one of those things Presidents have been trying for a generation, and usually attempts to fix just make it worse (like when Bush's effort to reconcile interagency rivalries that had their role in causing 9/11 to get past the radar ended up creating an entire expensive new cabinet-level department).

    Similar to NATO, i'm sure any solution Trump devises will just make the problem worse.

    Uh, what? In what way is Trump right on NATO exactly?

    NATO countries don't pull their fair share in defense spending as a percentage of GDP. The reason NATO has worked for so long under this dynamic is cause the US spends well over our requirement. Places like France, and the UK don't spend as much as they're supposed to (I think it's like 2% of GDP? Can't recall the exact number but it's somewhere in the 2-4% range).

    In that sense Trump is kinda right that we need to go back to the table and figure out these agreements cause as of right now we're pulling the majority of the weight for such a broad coalition.

    The thing with the CIA though is a bit different. It's harder to make changes that aren't just pure policy or foreign policy type things but bureaucratic problems. And what's more is that it comes at a time that reeks of corruption and political purging. Hopefully the incoming administration won't be able to actually do a whole lot on that front since people have contracts and can't be fired that easily in the IC (you don't get fired, you leave more or less). I do think it's fucking hilarious that Flynn wants to rotate other agencies into the field as if other IC agencies have any reason at all to do so. The CIA is the sole responsible party of HUMINT. They have actual reasons to be in the field when there isn't a full blown war going on -- gathering intelligence, making network connections, recruiting sources, covert operations and other undercover work. What does he expect, NSA analysts to be in the desert of Syria listening to ISIL broadcasts on a shitty radio?

    Except that's not what Trump has been saying. Nor is the US pulling most of the weight a problem. Hegemony ain't free bitches.

    MegaMekGiggles_FunsworthGennenalyse RuebenmrondeauSleepAngelHedgieGnome-InterruptusjdarksunErios
  • hippofanthippofant ティンク Registered User regular
    edited January 2017
    Oghulk wrote: »
    shryke wrote: »
    Mr Khan wrote: »
    Like with NATO, it's another thing where Trump's right for the wrong reasons. How to fix the intelligence agency quagmire is one of those things Presidents have been trying for a generation, and usually attempts to fix just make it worse (like when Bush's effort to reconcile interagency rivalries that had their role in causing 9/11 to get past the radar ended up creating an entire expensive new cabinet-level department).

    Similar to NATO, i'm sure any solution Trump devises will just make the problem worse.

    Uh, what? In what way is Trump right on NATO exactly?

    NATO countries don't pull their fair share in defense spending as a percentage of GDP. The reason NATO has worked for so long under this dynamic is cause the US spends well over our requirement. Places like France, and the UK don't spend as much as they're supposed to (I think it's like 2% of GDP? Can't recall the exact number but it's somewhere in the 2-4% range).

    In that sense Trump is kinda right that we need to go back to the table and figure out these agreements cause as of right now we're pulling the majority of the weight for such a broad coalition.

    The thing with the CIA though is a bit different. It's harder to make changes that aren't just pure policy or foreign policy type things but bureaucratic problems. And what's more is that it comes at a time that reeks of corruption and political purging. Hopefully the incoming administration won't be able to actually do a whole lot on that front since people have contracts and can't be fired that easily in the IC (you don't get fired, you leave more or less). I do think it's fucking hilarious that Flynn wants to rotate other agencies into the field as if other IC agencies have any reason at all to do so. The CIA is the sole responsible party of HUMINT. They have actual reasons to be in the field when there isn't a full blown war going on -- gathering intelligence, making network connections, recruiting sources, covert operations and other undercover work. What does he expect, NSA analysts to be in the desert of Syria listening to ISIL broadcasts on a shitty radio?

    Re. NATO, that's a pretty unfortunate post hoc interpretation of the situation. That is to say, NATO's, as an international treaty, "fairness" doesn't really arise from who spends what % of their GDP. Even if Europe and Canada spent 0% of their GDP on defense, it would remain in the US's interest to defend Europe and especially Canada from foreign invasion. The difference then is that this would functionally make European nations client states of the US, which they don't want, but ultimately, NATO wasn't enshrined with the 2% spending responsibility as a deal-breaking element here. If Germany only spends 1.5%, the US is just going to be okay with Russia invading?

    I mean, here's the thing: the US spends $650B on their military annually, for 3.61% of GDP. Canada spends $20B, at 1% of GDP. So say Canada doubles its military spending to $40B... uh... so... what, does the US cut back down to 2% then? Who makes up the missing $290B? In fact, take ALL the NATO countries spending less than 2% of GDP on their militaries, raise those expenditures to 2%, and the difference is a "paltry" $66B. That is, if ALL NATO countries moved to 2% GDP military spending, NATO would be short $225B.

    What is happening is that the US is removing any incentive for other NATO nations to spend on their military, because the US is spending so much on its military, albeit partially due to their two-front doctrine and the fact that the US has interests in the Pacific that other NATO members do not (other than Canada). The US spends three times more on their military than the next nation, China at $216B. They are the big bully in the playground, and when you're one of the big bully's lackeys, you don't really need to get into any fights, so who cares? (Never mind that most other NATO nations are far less interested in bullying other nations than the US is.)

    Let's be real: if other NATO nations were really to increase their military spending, it's not like the US would spend less in response. If the US were to make gestures that they are decreasingly likely to intervene on behalf of NATO nations, those nations would, in turn, ramp up their defense spending, but it would have nothing to do with "fairness" to the US; the US wouldn't "get" anything out of that in any way. If anything, what the US wants most out of its NATO partners is political cover and manpower (not technological nor materiel) contributions for the US' foreign adventures, but they've sort of shot away whatever willingness there was with the adventures in Afghanistan and Iraq. It's not going to be like, "Oooo, Canada built 5 more frigates, so time to retire the Nimitz I guess!"


    Edit: Maybe, maybe, there's some interest in getting NATO partners to join in on US arms development, so as to spread out some of those capital costs more widely, but again, the JSF-35's kinda turning out to be a financial disaster that still represents a relative pindrop in US military expenditures. I still don't think anybody knows how much they cost to develop.

    hippofant on
    EvigilantCommander ZoomAistanSpoitrockrngerGiggles_FunsworthPanda4YouHakkekagemrondeauGnome-InterruptusForarN1tSt4lkerEriosSquigie
  • QuidQuid I don't... what... hnnng Registered User regular
    I'm cool with them not filibustering if Trump picks a moderate. Maybe someone with a decent track record who has had a lot of support from Democrats and Republicans alike.

    I wonder if Obama knows anyone like that.

    Giggles_FunsworthwanderingDeliciousTacoskimeT-boltnever dieGaddezDaenrisNobeardNijaDracomicronjdarksunN1tSt4lkerHacksawBlameless ClericMagellLeon2309chrono_travellerSquigie
  • gladapplegladapple Registered User new member
    If the Democrats start justifying obstructionism just because Republicans did it to them in the past then it's proof that the "when they go low, we go high" mantra is bullshit. Both parties are exactly the same when it comes to pushing their agenda. There are no high roads here.

  • shrykeshryke Member of the Beast Registered User regular
    gladapple wrote: »
    If the Democrats start justifying obstructionism just because Republicans did it to them in the past then it's proof that the "when they go low, we go high" mantra is bullshit. Both parties are exactly the same when it comes to pushing their agenda. There are no high roads here.

    No, it's not. I mean, let's not mince words here, McConnell is now complaining about the very tactic he employed to steal a SCOTUS seat from the Democrats via instigating a constitutional crisis.

    Giggles_FunsworthGennenalyse RuebenLovelyPanda4YouHakkekageMahnmutJazzMayabirdmrondeauTetraRaySleepTheDrifteriTunesIsEvilminirhyderYamiB.AngelHedgieOrcadispatch.okimeMan in the MistsGundiHexmage-PAGnome-InterruptusNobeard14357DedwrekkaDracomicronjdarksunN1tSt4lkerHacksawMagellLeon2309Squigie
  • QuidQuid I don't... what... hnnng Registered User regular
    edited January 2017
    gladapple wrote: »
    If the Democrats start justifying obstructionism just because Republicans did it to them in the past then it's proof that the "when they go low, we go high" mantra is bullshit. Both parties are exactly the same when it comes to pushing their agenda. There are no high roads here.

    I don't want Democrats to do it just because Republicans do it. I want them to do it whenever Republicans put forward atrocious policy or nominations. If Republicans decide to ever start compromising I'm happy for Dems to reciprocate but I do not at all accept the idea that what's right is rewarding eight years of obstructionism with letting them do whatever they want.

    Quid on
    Harry DresdenArdolAistanshrykeSpoittynicRoad BlockMetzger MeisterMegaMekGiggles_FunsworthGennenalyse RuebenLovelyHakkekageMahnmutZomroTomantaJazzMayabirdTetraRayDisrupterSleepTheDrifterDarkewolfeShivahnIlpalaiTunesIsEvilminirhyderOrcaMr Khandispatch.okimeMan in the MistsGundienlightenedbumHexmage-PAIncenjucarDacGaddezGnome-InterruptusTransporterDaenrisNobeard14357DedwrekkaCalicaForarNijaJust_Bri_ThanksDracomicronjdarksunN1tSt4lkerMild ConfusionlonelyahavaHacksawBlameless ClericMagellEriosLeon2309Rawkking GoodguySquigie
  • Harry DresdenHarry Dresden Registered User regular
    gladapple wrote: »
    If the Democrats start justifying obstructionism just because Republicans did it to them in the past then it's proof that the "when they go low, we go high" mantra is bullshit. Both parties are exactly the same when it comes to pushing their agenda. There are no high roads here.

    It is bullshit at the moment, and why should the Dems not play hard ball?

    Giggles_FunsworthPanda4YouminirhyderOrca
  • gladapplegladapple Registered User new member
    Democrats have done a shitty job of demonstrating that they understand how Republicans feel, without that there will never be a strong foundation for negotiation or compromise. Every effort spent on fruitless obstructionism is a wasted opportunity for a deeper conversation. It needs to stop. Take the high road.

    Ninjeff
  • gladapplegladapple Registered User new member
    gladapple wrote: »
    If the Democrats start justifying obstructionism just because Republicans did it to them in the past then it's proof that the "when they go low, we go high" mantra is bullshit. Both parties are exactly the same when it comes to pushing their agenda. There are no high roads here.

    It is bullshit at the moment, and why should the Dems not play hard ball?

    Because Dems suck at hard ball.

    hippofant
  • Harry DresdenHarry Dresden Registered User regular
    edited January 2017
    gladapple wrote: »
    Democrats have done a shitty job of demonstrating that they understand how Republicans feel, without that there will never be a strong foundation for negotiation or compromise. Every effort spent on fruitless obstructionism is a wasted opportunity for a deeper conversation. It needs to stop. Take the high road.

    On the contrary, Obama's administration did that to the hilt - all that got them is record breaking obstructionism. The comes a time when understanding comes to end, and fighting back is the rational response. The GOP have crossed this line several times over, Obama's a saint for holding back this long.
    gladapple wrote: »
    gladapple wrote: »
    If the Democrats start justifying obstructionism just because Republicans did it to them in the past then it's proof that the "when they go low, we go high" mantra is bullshit. Both parties are exactly the same when it comes to pushing their agenda. There are no high roads here.

    It is bullshit at the moment, and why should the Dems not play hard ball?

    Because Dems suck at hard ball.

    Then what do they have to lose? This'll give them vital practice for the years to come.

    Harry Dresden on
    ProhassSpoittynicMegaMekGiggles_FunsworthGennenalyse RuebenPanda4YouMayabirdmrondeauTetraRaySleepTheDrifterminirhyderSimpsoniaPhoenix-DkimeIncenjucarNobeard14357DracomicronjdarksunN1tSt4lkerHacksawLeon2309Squigie
  • Commander ZoomCommander Zoom Registered User regular
    edited January 2017
    Commander Zoom was warned for this.
    gladapple wrote: »
    If the Democrats start justifying obstructionism just because Republicans did it to them in the past then it's proof that the "when they go low, we go high" mantra is bullshit. Both parties are exactly the same when it comes to pushing their agenda. There are no high roads here.

    Hello, new person! Welcome to the Penny Arcade forums! I look forward to reading your contributions to this thread, and encourage you to also participate in the many other discussions on this site; you may find some of them to your interest as well!

    While you're here, I'm hoping you can answer a question I wanted to put to your predecessor, before they were forced to leave us. You see, I'm currently unemployed and so I'm genuinely curious: how much does this gig pay? (Or is this volunteer work, or an unpaid internship?)
    If it would be more convenient to answer in terms of a currency other than US dollars, go ahead; I can do the conversion myself.

    Commander Zoom on
    steam_sig.png
    Steam, Warframe: Megajoule
    SpoitronzoMetzger MeisterGennenalyse RuebenPanda4YouSleepAngelHedgieiTunesIsEvilminirhyderMan in the MistsDoodmannKraintGaddezNobeardm!ttensjdarksunHacksawLeon2309
  • SomeWarlockSomeWarlock Registered User regular
    Oghulk wrote: »
    shryke wrote: »
    Mr Khan wrote: »
    Like with NATO, it's another thing where Trump's right for the wrong reasons. How to fix the intelligence agency quagmire is one of those things Presidents have been trying for a generation, and usually attempts to fix just make it worse (like when Bush's effort to reconcile interagency rivalries that had their role in causing 9/11 to get past the radar ended up creating an entire expensive new cabinet-level department).

    Similar to NATO, i'm sure any solution Trump devises will just make the problem worse.

    Uh, what? In what way is Trump right on NATO exactly?

    NATO countries don't pull their fair share in defense spending as a percentage of GDP. The reason NATO has worked for so long under this dynamic is cause the US spends well over our requirement. Places like France, and the UK don't spend as much as they're supposed to (I think it's like 2% of GDP? Can't recall the exact number but it's somewhere in the 2-4% range).

    In that sense Trump is kinda right that we need to go back to the table and figure out these agreements cause as of right now we're pulling the majority of the weight for such a broad coalition.

    It's 2% of GDP. Excluding the US, of the remaining 27 member states of NATO only 8 met the 2% requirement, and that's with some generous stretching(counting Portugal at 1.9% and Lithuania at 1.8%). Ironically, both of your examples, France and the UK, both meet the 2% requirement. For the most part, the majority of the remaining members spend about 1% to 1.5%, or about half to 3/4ths of what they should.

    Of course, it's also important to realize the requirement is in a % of GDP, and that the US' GDP is massive in comparison to any single other member state of NATO. Germany is the second wealthiest member state in NATO by GDP, and the US's GDP is ~5 times Germany's. As a result, even if every member state exactly matched the 2% requirement(including the US), then the US would still be ~45% of NATO(And note: total NATO spending decreases in this scenario). If the US were to maintain it's current levels of spending and everyone else were to met the 2% requirement, the US would still be a majority of spending at ~60% of NATO spending.

    There's no way around that fact, really.

  • VeeveeVeevee WisconsinRegistered User regular
    gladapple wrote: »
    If the Democrats start justifying obstructionism just because Republicans did it to them in the past then it's proof that the "when they go low, we go high" mantra is bullshit. Both parties are exactly the same when it comes to pushing their agenda. There are no high roads here.

    America's government works on precedent. In a nutshell: Action X produces Desired Result Y, therefore Action X is acceptable. The Republicans spent 8 years completely obstructing government and it's ability to function and were rewarded for it with the presidency.

    When dem's say "we go high" they don't mean "We will only follow the strictest of moral codes", they mean "We will follow the precedents that were set in the past."

    Going back a page to that concealed carry nonsense, it's blatantly unconstitutional and comparing it to credit cards is laughable. The feds were able to force states to accept other state's credit card regulations because Feds have the ultimate power when it comes to interstate commerce, so what they say goes according to the constitution. Concealed carry has nothing to do with intrastate commerce, let alone interstate commerce, so I can only see that bill dying as soon as someone challenges it. Otherwise, if it were to pass, welcome to Alaska where the only requirement for concealed carry is that you can legally posses the gun and tell any law enforcement that you have it immediately.

    SpoitGiggles_FunsworthmrondeauGaddezHacksaw
  • DarkPrimusDarkPrimus Registered User regular
    gladapple wrote: »
    Democrats have done a shitty job of demonstrating that they understand how Republicans feel, without that there will never be a strong foundation for negotiation or compromise. Every effort spent on fruitless obstructionism is a wasted opportunity for a deeper conversation. It needs to stop. Take the high road.

    Don't come in here and act like Obama hadn't tried to negotiate and compromise for eight years and Republicans being petulant children the whole while about it, demanding concession after concession and then stonewalling once those concessions were given.

    wpyz0Y5.png
    Gamertag: PrimusD | Rock Band DLC | GW:OttW - arrcd | WLD - Thortar
    QuidAistanProhassSpoittynicdavidsdurionsemp123Metzger MeisterMegaMekGiggles_FunsworthGennenalyse RuebenLovelyZomroMahnmutJazzMayabirdmrondeauTetraRayGoodKingJayIIISleepTheDrifterShivahniTunesIsEvilminirhyderTL DRnaengwenOrcakimeMan in the MistsenlightenedbumIncenjucarGaddezGnome-InterruptusTransporterDaenrisNobeard14357DedwrekkaCalicaDracomicronFoolOnTheHilljdarksunN1tSt4lkerlonelyahavaHacksawMagellEriosLeon2309Squigie
This discussion has been closed.