Trump outrage of the day

[nereo]

@AnnaGrowsAMustache - I think you are talking about something else than other posters. There is the discussion about protecting international commerce, which by geography often requires transit through unstable regions, and there is protecting ones homeland from foreign invasion. I believe you are the only one discussing the latter.

[GuitarStv]

When you say get along just fine, do you mean that New Zealand would be able to defend itself without US Naval support?

From whom?

Fuck only knows. Anyone wanting to target us would have to be based in Aus. And if you guys wanted to annex us, we'd probably just have a vote or something. Since you keep sending us back kiwi troublemakers, I'm guessing it's unlikely we'll be an aussie state anytime soon.

King of England.  That fucker is always trying to break into your living room.  That's why everyone in the US needs an AR-15 that can be purchased without a background check.  Protection from imaginary enemies.  Here in Canada with our less expansive gun rights I'm constantly being pushed around by the King of England.

[OtherJen]

When you say get along just fine, do you mean that New Zealand would be able to defend itself without US Naval support?

From whom?

Fuck only knows. Anyone wanting to target us would have to be based in Aus. And if you guys wanted to annex us, we'd probably just have a vote or something. Since you keep sending us back kiwi troublemakers, I'm guessing it's unlikely we'll be an aussie state anytime soon.

King of England.  That fucker is always trying to break into your living room.  That's why everyone in the US needs an AR-15 that can be purchased without a background check.  Protection from imaginary enemies.  Here in Canada with our less expansive gun rights I'm constantly being pushed around by the King of England.

Shit, I'll take QEII or Prince Charles over Trump any day. But I don't own an AR-15 so I'm not sufficiently patriotic.

[LennStar]

@nereo: No, her and my post were a direct answer of one or more people talking about "defending NZ".

Not about defending trade lines (btw. the most dangerous pirates are the Somali fisherman made unemployed by EU/American fish fleets. You get what you sow)
And even if it would be about trade - how the hell does an aircraft carrier group protect trade? By blocking so much sea that pirates can't move around anymore??

[nereo]

@nereo: No, her and my post were a direct answer of one or more people talking about "defending NZ".

Not about defending trade lines (btw. the most dangerous pirates are the Somali fisherman made unemployed by EU/American fish fleets. You get what you sow)
And even if it would be about trade - how the hell does an aircraft carrier group protect trade? By blocking so much sea that pirates can't move around anymore??

Fair enough, must have missed the other posts about directly defending NZ.

As for an aircraft carrier... isn’t it obvious?  They carry air craft.
, both fixed wing and rotary.

[Dr. Pepper]

While it may be hip/edgy to forecast the downfall of the USA, I don't think the USA is going anywhere. The military is too strong and too influential on the global economy. The US Navy controls all global shipping and the USAF controls all air shipping. In the global economy countries like China need goods both shipped to them and they need to ship goods to other countries. Their air force and navy is a loooooooooooooong way from being able to rival the USA and it's very possible they may never be able to. Until star trek style replicators are created whoever controls the flow of goods will control the global economy and the USA has such a head start and advantage that it will be so difficult/impossible for other countries to gain a foothold. There might be some fraying of the edges but that influence/control is not on the verge of collapse because Trump's a moron.

How does the US navy control all global shipping?? NZ ships stuff all over the place and I've never heard one single mention of the US navy being required. Do you even have a presence in the Tasman Sea?? Ditto air shipping?

Short version:  the USN patrols the overwhelming majority of international waters, and is the only country with a Navy even remotely large and diverse enough to do so.  It’s also the most often nation to respond to distress in international waters.  There’s a few hot-spots of pirate activity, but by-and-large cargo ships get to and from their destinations unmolested.

As for air shipping, as mentioned earlier the entire air traffic control network is underpinned by the US.  Which is why an international flight with a German pilot on a German airline coming into Berlin will still be directed in English until the flight is taken over by ground control in Germany.

Domestic flights and shipping are another story, handled entirely by the sovereign country (with some exceptions).

Are you under the impression that Europe could not manage it's own bloody flight traffic without the US??? You can't even manage your own domestic issues, currently.

No, not at all.  you're missing entirely what's being said.  The US currently does these things, in large part because that's been their role since WWII.  It doesn't mean they have to do these things, or that other nations or groups couldn't.  They simply haven't, and currently don't have the bandwidth to do so.

I think the US might have a fairly inflated idea of it's own global importance....
Pretty damn sure that China and Russia are more than capable of protecting their own shipping routes. If protection is even required.

To how much of China's South China Sea land and maritime claims do you suggest Indonesia, the Philippines, and other directly affected countries acquiesce?

It's probably not an issue of protecting China's shipping....

Bingo.  Also, it should be pointed out that the US does these things first and foremost because it's in the interests of the United States.  It's always been about protecting [our] global commerce.

Looking at it from a slightly New Zealand perspective, when freight is shipped to NZ from Bangkok or into the Med that route is largely secured via the US Navy and the US-backed NATO.

What a lot of utter bollocks. Feel free to take the US Navy and shove it where the sun don't shine. Pretty sure we'll all get along just fine without some self declared and painfully annoying "big brother".

When you say get along just fine, do you mean that New Zealand would be able to defend itself without US Naval support? Given that NZ has around 8 ships in it's Navy (2 of which are combat oriented) and only spends 5 billion NZD (~3 billion USD) a year on defense (roughly equivalent to 1.5% of GDP) do you think this would require a significant shift in spending priorities?

Who do you imagine is going to mount an attack on an island country as far away as we are???? Our armed forces are peacekeeping, search and rescue and patrolling our waters for incursions - and we're talking rickety old boats from asia with a crew of a dozen who come in to poach fish. We don't stomp around the globe making enemies, we have good relationships with our neighbours and the rest of the pacific, we're on respectful terms with superpowers. Seriously dude.

Maybe not an attack, but perhaps China or Russia decided one day that it was in their national interest to impose a tax all the output coming out of your country. Say that what were previously international waters and air space became the domain of China  after a massive naval build up and required paying money to transit. Say all fishing rights around NZ were annexed by China, etc. etc. It may be the very reason you are on respectful terms with the other superpowers, is that there is another countervailing superpower willing and able to step in if needed.

[LennStar]

Maybe not an attack, but perhaps China or Russia decided one day that it was in their national interest to impose a tax all the output coming out of your country. Say that what were previously international waters and air space became the domain of China  after a massive naval build up and required paying money to transit. Say all fishing rights around NZ were annexed by China, etc. etc. It may be the very reason you are on respectful terms with the other superpowers, is that there is another countervailing superpower willing and able to step in if needed.

Okay, let's say that happens in 2050. Unlikely, but assume that. In 30 years.

First of all, of course, they would still do it in case of NZ because China could steamroll all defence. But let's also assume they can't and compare the costs.

Let's further assume the difference is 3% of GDP to today. (Israel level, a small country with high military spending)

3% x30 years is 90%, and that is not even accounting for compound interest. So for easiness sake assume 100%, because then we can go for the 4% rule.

If 2050 China takes a toll of more than 4% (interest on the 3% 30 years) + 3% (GDP for additional military) = 7%, then it is more expensive. (That means China would need to take out (if we take todays level) $14 billion yearly before having military gets cheaper.)

Not impossible, but I don't think that is sustainable in the long run, and Chinese like the long run (which is one of the main reasons why they will take over number one from short sighted USA).

And again, not realistic, since even with 10% of GDP into military it would mean nothing against China, who has 26 times the expenses now.

---
(btw. I was slightly wrong in a former post. If the USA would halve their military expenses, they would not be slightly behind China, they would be slightly behind China and Russia and India together. It was the next three not only one.)

[Kris]

Maybe not an attack, but perhaps China or Russia decided one day that it was in their national interest to impose a tax all the output coming out of your country. Say that what were previously international waters and air space became the domain of China  after a massive naval build up and required paying money to transit. Say all fishing rights around NZ were annexed by China, etc. etc. It may be the very reason you are on respectful terms with the other superpowers, is that there is another countervailing superpower willing and able to step in if needed.

Okay, let's say that happens in 2050. Unlikely, but assume that. In 30 years.

First of all, of course, they would still do it in case of NZ because China could steamroll all defence. But let's also assume they can't and compare the costs.

Let's further assume the difference is 3% of GDP to today. (Israel level, a small country with high military spending)

3% x30 years is 90%, and that is not even accounting for compound interest. So for easiness sake assume 100%, because then we can go for the 4% rule.

If 2050 China takes a toll of more than 4% (interest on the 3% 30 years) + 3% (GDP for additional military) = 7%, then it is more expensive. (That means China would need to take out (if we take todays level) $14 billion yearly before having military gets cheaper.)

Not impossible, but I don't think that is sustainable in the long run, and Chinese like the long run (which is one of the main reasons why they will take over number one from short sighted USA).

And again, not realistic, since even with 10% of GDP into military it would mean nothing against China, who has 26 times the expenses now.

---
(btw. I was slightly wrong in a former post. If the USA would halve their military expenses, they would not be slightly behind China, they would be slightly behind China and Russia and India together. It was the next three not only one.)

And right now might be an opportune moment to point out the extremely lucrative business of US defense contracting, how many companies make incredible profits on wars and military spending...

And then ask again whether just possibly, a teensy part of the US military budget might be a teensy bit overblown for reasons of profit???

[GuitarStv]

Maybe not an attack, but perhaps China or Russia decided one day that it was in their national interest to impose a tax all the output coming out of your country. Say that what were previously international waters and air space became the domain of China  after a massive naval build up and required paying money to transit. Say all fishing rights around NZ were annexed by China, etc. etc. It may be the very reason you are on respectful terms with the other superpowers, is that there is another countervailing superpower willing and able to step in if needed.

Okay, let's say that happens in 2050. Unlikely, but assume that. In 30 years.

First of all, of course, they would still do it in case of NZ because China could steamroll all defence. But let's also assume they can't and compare the costs.

Let's further assume the difference is 3% of GDP to today. (Israel level, a small country with high military spending)

3% x30 years is 90%, and that is not even accounting for compound interest. So for easiness sake assume 100%, because then we can go for the 4% rule.

If 2050 China takes a toll of more than 4% (interest on the 3% 30 years) + 3% (GDP for additional military) = 7%, then it is more expensive. (That means China would need to take out (if we take todays level) $14 billion yearly before having military gets cheaper.)

Not impossible, but I don't think that is sustainable in the long run, and Chinese like the long run (which is one of the main reasons why they will take over number one from short sighted USA).

And again, not realistic, since even with 10% of GDP into military it would mean nothing against China, who has 26 times the expenses now.

---
(btw. I was slightly wrong in a former post. If the USA would halve their military expenses, they would not be slightly behind China, they would be slightly behind China and Russia and India together. It was the next three not only one.)

And right now might be an opportune moment to point out the extremely lucrative business of US defense contracting, how many companies make incredible profits on wars and military spending...

And then ask again whether just possibly, a teensy part of the US military budget might be a teensy bit overblown for reasons of profit???

Get out of here you commie.  How safe do you feel when it's only possible to blow up the world three times?  Wouldn't four be much safer?

[Glenstache]

Maybe not an attack, but perhaps China or Russia decided one day that it was in their national interest to impose a tax all the output coming out of your country. Say that what were previously international waters and air space became the domain of China  after a massive naval build up and required paying money to transit. Say all fishing rights around NZ were annexed by China, etc. etc. It may be the very reason you are on respectful terms with the other superpowers, is that there is another countervailing superpower willing and able to step in if needed.

Okay, let's say that happens in 2050. Unlikely, but assume that. In 30 years.

First of all, of course, they would still do it in case of NZ because China could steamroll all defence. But let's also assume they can't and compare the costs.

Let's further assume the difference is 3% of GDP to today. (Israel level, a small country with high military spending)

3% x30 years is 90%, and that is not even accounting for compound interest. So for easiness sake assume 100%, because then we can go for the 4% rule.

If 2050 China takes a toll of more than 4% (interest on the 3% 30 years) + 3% (GDP for additional military) = 7%, then it is more expensive. (That means China would need to take out (if we take todays level) $14 billion yearly before having military gets cheaper.)

Not impossible, but I don't think that is sustainable in the long run, and Chinese like the long run (which is one of the main reasons why they will take over number one from short sighted USA).

And again, not realistic, since even with 10% of GDP into military it would mean nothing against China, who has 26 times the expenses now.

---
(btw. I was slightly wrong in a former post. If the USA would halve their military expenses, they would not be slightly behind China, they would be slightly behind China and Russia and India together. It was the next three not only one.)

And right now might be an opportune moment to point out the extremely lucrative business of US defense contracting, how many companies make incredible profits on wars and military spending...

And then ask again whether just possibly, a teensy part of the US military budget might be a teensy bit overblown for reasons of profit???

Get out of here you commie.  How safe do you feel when it's only possible to blow up the world three times?  Wouldn't four be much safer?

You never know who might be after your precious bodily fluids.... (apologies to Dr Strangelove).

[kenmoremmm]

i'm sure china gets far far more for their $ on money spent on military compared to the US, even with its own form of corruption. they have no R&D needs; they just steal. and they can manufacture at a fraction of the cost.

[Gremlin]

Fuck only knows. Anyone wanting to target us would have to be based in Aus. And if you guys wanted to annex us, we'd probably just have a vote or something. Since you keep sending us back kiwi troublemakers, I'm guessing it's unlikely we'll be an aussie state anytime soon.

We don't want to annex you.  But some of us secretly wish you'd annex us...

[Gremlin]

First of all, we've had long lines at fast food outlets because we were in total lock down for 5 weeks. No shops were open at all except for supermarkets and pharmacies. The country is in fast food cold turkey!

Secondly, you're interpreting your posts in a way that takes into account your intent, and interpreting mine in a way that does not take into account mine. I'm not targeting you specifically. Despite the fact that your post could be interpreted as promoting a super-arrogant US attitude.

Thirdly, I'm not angry at the US. If the US was a person, it'd be an arrogant overbred fucktard of a man and I'd have to punch him. If NZ was a person, we'd be some slightly nerdy kid with an inferiority disorder who just wants to hang out with the big kids. If Aus was a person, it'd be the younger sidekick of the US who isn't too sure they really want to be in that position but enjoys yelling 'Yeah! What he said!".

This goes some of the way to explaining why Ashley Bloomfield is a sex symbol...

[Gremlin]

Maybe not an attack, but perhaps China or Russia decided one day that it was in their national interest to impose a tax all the output coming out of your country. Say that what were previously international waters and air space became the domain of China  after a massive naval build up and required paying money to transit. Say all fishing rights around NZ were annexed by China, etc. etc. It may be the very reason you are on respectful terms with the other superpowers, is that there is another countervailing superpower willing and able to step in if needed.

I genuinely laughed at this comment.  I don't think that it's China or Russia that the rest of us are concerned will unilaterally impose a tax tariff on their trading partners/allies...

[RetiredAt63]

Maybe not an attack, but perhaps China or Russia decided one day that it was in their national interest to impose a tax all the output coming out of your country. Say that what were previously international waters and air space became the domain of China  after a massive naval build up and required paying money to transit. Say all fishing rights around NZ were annexed by China, etc. etc. It may be the very reason you are on respectful terms with the other superpowers, is that there is another countervailing superpower willing and able to step in if needed.

I genuinely laughed at this comment.  I don't think that it's China or Russia that the rest of us are concerned will unilaterally impose a another tax tariff on their trading partners/allies...

Fixed that for you.   ;-)

[AnnaGrowsAMustache]

Maybe not an attack, but perhaps China or Russia decided one day that it was in their national interest to impose a tax all the output coming out of your country. Say that what were previously international waters and air space became the domain of China  after a massive naval build up and required paying money to transit. Say all fishing rights around NZ were annexed by China, etc. etc. It may be the very reason you are on respectful terms with the other superpowers, is that there is another countervailing superpower willing and able to step in if needed.

Okay, let's say that happens in 2050. Unlikely, but assume that. In 30 years.

First of all, of course, they would still do it in case of NZ because China could steamroll all defence. But let's also assume they can't and compare the costs.

Let's further assume the difference is 3% of GDP to today. (Israel level, a small country with high military spending)

3% x30 years is 90%, and that is not even accounting for compound interest. So for easiness sake assume 100%, because then we can go for the 4% rule.

If 2050 China takes a toll of more than 4% (interest on the 3% 30 years) + 3% (GDP for additional military) = 7%, then it is more expensive. (That means China would need to take out (if we take todays level) $14 billion yearly before having military gets cheaper.)

Not impossible, but I don't think that is sustainable in the long run, and Chinese like the long run (which is one of the main reasons why they will take over number one from short sighted USA).

And again, not realistic, since even with 10% of GDP into military it would mean nothing against China, who has 26 times the expenses now.

---
(btw. I was slightly wrong in a former post. If the USA would halve their military expenses, they would not be slightly behind China, they would be slightly behind China and Russia and India together. It was the next three not only one.)

And right now might be an opportune moment to point out the extremely lucrative business of US defense contracting, how many companies make incredible profits on wars and military spending...

And then ask again whether just possibly, a teensy part of the US military budget might be a teensy bit overblown for reasons of profit???

And maybe a teensy bit of the US economy depends on this??

[AnnaGrowsAMustache]

@nereo: No, her and my post were a direct answer of one or more people talking about "defending NZ".

Not about defending trade lines (btw. the most dangerous pirates are the Somali fisherman made unemployed by EU/American fish fleets. You get what you sow)
And even if it would be about trade - how the hell does an aircraft carrier group protect trade? By blocking so much sea that pirates can't move around anymore??

Fair enough, must have missed the other posts about directly defending NZ.

As for an aircraft carrier... isn’t it obvious?  They carry air craft.
, both fixed wing and rotary.

Look, I took the post of yours that I originally saw and kind of extrapolated your point. That's why I didn't quote you when I responded - because it wasn't a response to you direct post, but kind of off to one side of the argument you were making. Now the train of thread has no real relation to your post, and I think everyone responding to this bit gets that. It's not directed at you.

[AnnaGrowsAMustache]

Maybe not an attack, but perhaps China or Russia decided one day that it was in their national interest to impose a tax all the output coming out of your country. Say that what were previously international waters and air space became the domain of China  after a massive naval build up and required paying money to transit. Say all fishing rights around NZ were annexed by China, etc. etc. It may be the very reason you are on respectful terms with the other superpowers, is that there is another countervailing superpower willing and able to step in if needed.

I genuinely laughed at this comment.  I don't think that it's China or Russia that the rest of us are concerned will unilaterally impose a tax tariff on their trading partners/allies...

THIS!

[AnnaGrowsAMustache]

Fuck only knows. Anyone wanting to target us would have to be based in Aus. And if you guys wanted to annex us, we'd probably just have a vote or something. Since you keep sending us back kiwi troublemakers, I'm guessing it's unlikely we'll be an aussie state anytime soon.

We don't want to annex you.  But some of us secretly wish you'd annex us...

Well, it'd be a lot easier issue if Straya wasn't full of Srayans! And don't dis Ashley! He's the man of the hour. He even blushes on live TV when asked about his sex symbol status.

[AnnaGrowsAMustache]

While it may be hip/edgy to forecast the downfall of the USA, I don't think the USA is going anywhere. The military is too strong and too influential on the global economy. The US Navy controls all global shipping and the USAF controls all air shipping. In the global economy countries like China need goods both shipped to them and they need to ship goods to other countries. Their air force and navy is a loooooooooooooong way from being able to rival the USA and it's very possible they may never be able to. Until star trek style replicators are created whoever controls the flow of goods will control the global economy and the USA has such a head start and advantage that it will be so difficult/impossible for other countries to gain a foothold. There might be some fraying of the edges but that influence/control is not on the verge of collapse because Trump's a moron.

How does the US navy control all global shipping?? NZ ships stuff all over the place and I've never heard one single mention of the US navy being required. Do you even have a presence in the Tasman Sea?? Ditto air shipping?

Short version:  the USN patrols the overwhelming majority of international waters, and is the only country with a Navy even remotely large and diverse enough to do so.  It’s also the most often nation to respond to distress in international waters.  There’s a few hot-spots of pirate activity, but by-and-large cargo ships get to and from their destinations unmolested.

As for air shipping, as mentioned earlier the entire air traffic control network is underpinned by the US.  Which is why an international flight with a German pilot on a German airline coming into Berlin will still be directed in English until the flight is taken over by ground control in Germany.

Domestic flights and shipping are another story, handled entirely by the sovereign country (with some exceptions).

Are you under the impression that Europe could not manage it's own bloody flight traffic without the US??? You can't even manage your own domestic issues, currently.

No, not at all.  you're missing entirely what's being said.  The US currently does these things, in large part because that's been their role since WWII.  It doesn't mean they have to do these things, or that other nations or groups couldn't.  They simply haven't, and currently don't have the bandwidth to do so.

I think the US might have a fairly inflated idea of it's own global importance....
Pretty damn sure that China and Russia are more than capable of protecting their own shipping routes. If protection is even required.

To how much of China's South China Sea land and maritime claims do you suggest Indonesia, the Philippines, and other directly affected countries acquiesce?

It's probably not an issue of protecting China's shipping....

Bingo.  Also, it should be pointed out that the US does these things first and foremost because it's in the interests of the United States.  It's always been about protecting [our] global commerce.

Looking at it from a slightly New Zealand perspective, when freight is shipped to NZ from Bangkok or into the Med that route is largely secured via the US Navy and the US-backed NATO.

What a lot of utter bollocks. Feel free to take the US Navy and shove it where the sun don't shine. Pretty sure we'll all get along just fine without some self declared and painfully annoying "big brother".

When you say get along just fine, do you mean that New Zealand would be able to defend itself without US Naval support? Given that NZ has around 8 ships in it's Navy (2 of which are combat oriented) and only spends 5 billion NZD (~3 billion USD) a year on defense (roughly equivalent to 1.5% of GDP) do you think this would require a significant shift in spending priorities?

Who do you imagine is going to mount an attack on an island country as far away as we are???? Our armed forces are peacekeeping, search and rescue and patrolling our waters for incursions - and we're talking rickety old boats from asia with a crew of a dozen who come in to poach fish. We don't stomp around the globe making enemies, we have good relationships with our neighbours and the rest of the pacific, we're on respectful terms with superpowers. Seriously dude.

Maybe not an attack, but perhaps China or Russia decided one day that it was in their national interest to impose a tax all the output coming out of your country. Say that what were previously international waters and air space became the domain of China  after a massive naval build up and required paying money to transit. Say all fishing rights around NZ were annexed by China, etc. etc. It may be the very reason you are on respectful terms with the other superpowers, is that there is another countervailing superpower willing and able to step in if needed.

You know that your nuclear ships are banned in our waters, right?

[Gremlin]

Fuck only knows. Anyone wanting to target us would have to be based in Aus. And if you guys wanted to annex us, we'd probably just have a vote or something. Since you keep sending us back kiwi troublemakers, I'm guessing it's unlikely we'll be an aussie state anytime soon.

We don't want to annex you.  But some of us secretly wish you'd annex us...

Well, it'd be a lot easier issue if Straya wasn't full of Srayans! And don't dis Ashley! He's the man of the hour. He even blushes on live TV when asked about his sex symbol status.

*Sigh* Yeah, I get it.  Strayans give the rest of us a very bad rap.  But equally, I'm sure not all Americans are 'Muricans...

I'm not dissing Ashley at all.  As a slightly nerdy kid with an inferiority disorder myself, I may have found myself a second NZ mancrush.  Him and Daniel Vettori.  Yes.  Judge me. 

[marty998]

Fuck only knows. Anyone wanting to target us would have to be based in Aus. And if you guys wanted to annex us, we'd probably just have a vote or something. Since you keep sending us back kiwi troublemakers, I'm guessing it's unlikely we'll be an aussie state anytime soon.

We don't want to annex you.  But some of us secretly wish you'd annex us...

Well, it'd be a lot easier issue if Straya wasn't full of Srayans! And don't dis Ashley! He's the man of the hour. He even blushes on live TV when asked about his sex symbol status.

*Sigh* Yeah, I get it.  Strayans give the rest of us a very bad rap.  But equally, I'm sure not all Americans are 'Muricans...

I'm not dissing Ashley at all.  As a slightly nerdy kid with an inferiority disorder myself, I may have found myself a second NZ mancrush.  Him and Daniel Vettori.  Yes.  Judge me.

eh bro I was always a Dan Carter fan myself *blush*

[LennStar]

i'm sure china gets far far more for their $ on money spent on military compared to the US, even with its own form of corruption. they have no R&D needs; they just steal. and they can manufacture at a fraction of the cost.

You are aware that China has more new patents than anyone else in the world?

And was has man blushing about blushing man to do with Trump? evil question

[AnnaGrowsAMustache]

i'm sure china gets far far more for their $ on money spent on military compared to the US, even with its own form of corruption. they have no R&D needs; they just steal. and they can manufacture at a fraction of the cost.

You are aware that China has more new patents than anyone else in the world?

And was has man blushing about blushing man to do with Trump? evil question

It's taken a weird turn into cross-Tasman bromances.... Like Trump, I take no responsibility!

[AnnaGrowsAMustache]

Fuck only knows. Anyone wanting to target us would have to be based in Aus. And if you guys wanted to annex us, we'd probably just have a vote or something. Since you keep sending us back kiwi troublemakers, I'm guessing it's unlikely we'll be an aussie state anytime soon.

We don't want to annex you.  But some of us secretly wish you'd annex us...

Well, it'd be a lot easier issue if Straya wasn't full of Srayans! And don't dis Ashley! He's the man of the hour. He even blushes on live TV when asked about his sex symbol status.

*Sigh* Yeah, I get it.  Strayans give the rest of us a very bad rap.  But equally, I'm sure not all Americans are 'Muricans...

I'm not dissing Ashley at all.  As a slightly nerdy kid with an inferiority disorder myself, I may have found myself a second NZ mancrush.  Him and Daniel Vettori.  Yes.  Judge me.

eh bro I was always a Dan Carter fan myself *blush*

What about Richie McCaw? You can't forget the McCaw-some!

[Gremlin]

Fuck only knows. Anyone wanting to target us would have to be based in Aus. And if you guys wanted to annex us, we'd probably just have a vote or something. Since you keep sending us back kiwi troublemakers, I'm guessing it's unlikely we'll be an aussie state anytime soon.

We don't want to annex you.  But some of us secretly wish you'd annex us...

Well, it'd be a lot easier issue if Straya wasn't full of Srayans! And don't dis Ashley! He's the man of the hour. He even blushes on live TV when asked about his sex symbol status.

*Sigh* Yeah, I get it.  Strayans give the rest of us a very bad rap.  But equally, I'm sure not all Americans are 'Muricans...

I'm not dissing Ashley at all.  As a slightly nerdy kid with an inferiority disorder myself, I may have found myself a second NZ mancrush.  Him and Daniel Vettori.  Yes.  Judge me.

eh bro I was always a Dan Carter fan myself *blush*

What about Richie McCaw? You can't forget the McCaw-some!

*grits teeth*  No.  No.  Not Richie.  I think I speak for all Australians when I say we love our Kiwi cousins... with one exception...

[marty998]

Fuck only knows. Anyone wanting to target us would have to be based in Aus. And if you guys wanted to annex us, we'd probably just have a vote or something. Since you keep sending us back kiwi troublemakers, I'm guessing it's unlikely we'll be an aussie state anytime soon.

We don't want to annex you.  But some of us secretly wish you'd annex us...

Well, it'd be a lot easier issue if Straya wasn't full of Srayans! And don't dis Ashley! He's the man of the hour. He even blushes on live TV when asked about his sex symbol status.

*Sigh* Yeah, I get it.  Strayans give the rest of us a very bad rap.  But equally, I'm sure not all Americans are 'Muricans...

I'm not dissing Ashley at all.  As a slightly nerdy kid with an inferiority disorder myself, I may have found myself a second NZ mancrush.  Him and Daniel Vettori.  Yes.  Judge me.

eh bro I was always a Dan Carter fan myself *blush*

What about Richie McCaw? You can't forget the McCaw-some!

*grits teeth*  No.  No.  Not Richie.  I think I speak for all Australians when I say we love our Kiwi cousins... with one exception...

Agreed. Not Richie Offside McCaw. Not now, not ever.

Still don't know how he managed to get away with half the shit he did on the field.

[AnnaGrowsAMustache]

Fuck only knows. Anyone wanting to target us would have to be based in Aus. And if you guys wanted to annex us, we'd probably just have a vote or something. Since you keep sending us back kiwi troublemakers, I'm guessing it's unlikely we'll be an aussie state anytime soon.

We don't want to annex you.  But some of us secretly wish you'd annex us...

Well, it'd be a lot easier issue if Straya wasn't full of Srayans! And don't dis Ashley! He's the man of the hour. He even blushes on live TV when asked about his sex symbol status.

*Sigh* Yeah, I get it.  Strayans give the rest of us a very bad rap.  But equally, I'm sure not all Americans are 'Muricans...

I'm not dissing Ashley at all.  As a slightly nerdy kid with an inferiority disorder myself, I may have found myself a second NZ mancrush.  Him and Daniel Vettori.  Yes.  Judge me.

eh bro I was always a Dan Carter fan myself *blush*

What about Richie McCaw? You can't forget the McCaw-some!

*grits teeth*  No.  No.  Not Richie.  I think I speak for all Australians when I say we love our Kiwi cousins... with one exception...

Agreed. Not Richie Offside McCaw. Not now, not ever.

Still don't know how he managed to get away with half the shit he did on the field.

It's because he's purty ;)

[scottish]

i'm sure china gets far far more for their $ on money spent on military compared to the US, even with its own form of corruption. they have no R&D needs; they just steal. and they can manufacture at a fraction of the cost.

You are aware that China has more new patents than anyone else in the world?

And was has man blushing about blushing man to do with Trump? evil question

Indeed, China is starting to lead in certain areas of technology, notably 5g wireless.   You can expect their growth to slow down a bit as they have to lead instead of play catch up.

[ministashy]

Could we actually get back to the subject of the thread?  Posters who want to debate world politics and the U.S. and China's role in them can certainly start their own, if they want to continue their discussion, rather than continuing to derail this one.

[Kyle Schuant]

Could we actually get back to the subject of the thread?  Posters who want to debate world politics and the U.S. and China's role in them can certainly start their own, if they want to continue their discussion, rather than continuing to derail this one.

It's on topic: it shows that the problem isn't Trump himself, but goes far, far beyond that. You can change whichever particular drongo you have sitting in that office and it's not going to make much difference to the end result.

[talltexan]

Indeed I've become fascinated by the idea that--as terrible as he is--a lot of the outrages from the time of Trump rhyme with earlier things that other Presidents were doing.

We Texans revere the Bush family, so when these sexual harassment allegations surfaced a few years ago, we totally pushed them down the memory hole. https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=4&ved=2ahUKEwiOmcfHnp_pAhUDn-AKHZnCB-IQFjADegQIBBAB&url=https%3A%2F%2Fslate.com%2Fhuman-interest%2F2017%2F10%2Fgeorge-h-w-bush-groped-me-during-a-2014-photo-op.html&usg=AOvVaw38Lb0mJgDUnnlGMKXFz1Uf

[OtherJen]

Could we actually get back to the subject of the thread?  Posters who want to debate world politics and the U.S. and China's role in them can certainly start their own, if they want to continue their discussion, rather than continuing to derail this one.

It's on topic: it shows that the problem isn't Trump himself, but goes far, far beyond that. You can change whichever particular drongo you have sitting in that office and it's not going to make much difference to the end result.

The topic is Trump outrage of the day, and lord knows we have enough of those to keep the thread running. I’m sure you’d get plenty of hits if you created a separate thread to talk about shitty US foreign policy and/or the disaster that is our federal government (again, there’s certainly enough of that to fuel a large thread).

[LennStar]

Okay, okay, to be 100% on topic:

Trump visited a factory making N95 masks.

Without wearing a mask.

Fun topic for a psycology student test: Describe the messages that are send with that.

[talltexan]

I feel like all of these things can be true:

• US Foreign Policy involved abusing people around the world while giving voice to values of self-determination and economic liberalism.
• Many problems associated with managing large institutions were hampering the effectiveness of the Federal Government; these problems are not new, but they have been amplified by an American culture that has drifted toward conservatism over the past few decades.
• Donald Trump lacked the historical knowledge and skillset to be an effect manager of the Administrative State that had been built up over 230 years of Constitutional Order, with a misperception that people wanted him to be President by continuing to be what he'd been for his entire adult life. The median voter (who hasn't really had the time or interest to study the value in the administrative state that the President is supposed to manage) in 2016 hoped that the job would transform him into something different, but instead Trump has taken it upon himself to transform the job.
• When faced with a job he didn't expect to win and didn't understand, Trump's focus was on what he knew how to do all along: build his business and build his brand. His own personality led him to a place of seeing the Presidency as a mechanism for his own ambitions rather than as a vehicle for serving. He has performed in the job the way he would in a small, family business, where loyalty is elevated above all other considerations.

I've been public all along about being a Republican #nevertrumper, but I've tried to word these statements in a way that maybe even some Trump supporters would find acceptable.

[GuitarStv]

US Foreign Policy involved abusing people around the world while giving voice to values of self-determination and economic liberalism.

What about the many, many times that the US worked to remove a democratically elected leader to institute a dictator?  This common practice would seem to indicate that 'giving voice to values of self-determination' are not at all important to US foreign policy.

[OtherJen]

Okay, okay, to be 100% on topic:

Trump visited a factory making N95 masks.

Without wearing a mask.

Fun topic for a psycology student test: Describe the messages that are send with that.

It's no surprise that he is a liar and gaslighter.

But Honeywell employees working on the production line were wearing masks. And a sign in the factory said that everyone there is required to wear a mask.
---
Trump, who has consistently refused to wear a mask while interacting with others despite federal guidance urging all Americans to do so, earlier Tuesday had said that he would put on a mask if it was required at the Honeywell facility.
---
“If it’s a mask environment, I would certainly do that,” Trump had said Tuesday before boarding Air Force One to fly to Arizona.

“I would wear it. If it’s a mask environment, I would have no problem.”

source: https://www.cnbc.com/2020/05/05/coronavirus-trump-does-not-wear-covid-19-mask-at-honeywell-tour.html

[DoubleDown]

Seriously, please create the "Let's bash America and the people that live there" thread where everyone can voice their hatred and ignore all the good the far-from-perfect USA has done, safe in the belief that their own leaders and foreign policy are above reproach, then hopefully that thread can get shut down by the mods when it goes over the top, which probably won't take long.

As has been pointed out many times, there's so much fodder that's actually ON TOPIC that this thread could be named "Trump Outrage of the Hour or Minute" and yet it's continually derailed by criticisms of historical US foreign policy, ugly insinuations about the U.S. population (such as super-size colas), and bizarre Aus-NZ bromances. I, for one, would appreciate hearing people's thoughts about Trump outrages.

[DoubleDown]

Has anyone yet mentioned Trump calling the armed "protesters" storming state legislatures "very fine people." Sadly reminiscent, of course, of calling Neo-Nazis "very fine people." But Black Lives Matter protesters are thugs.

[OtherJen]

Has anyone yet mentioned Trump calling the armed "protesters" storming state legislatures "very fine people." Sadly reminiscent, of course, of calling Neo-Nazis "very fine people." But Black Lives Matter protesters are thugs.

God, I hope they have. Many of us in Michigan are pretty damned disgusted by the display of white privilege and supremacy in Lansing last week. I'm not surprised at all by Trump's response. Those protests temper tantrums were de facto Trump rallies.

[LennStar]

What about the many, many times that the US worked to remove a democratically elected leader to institute a dictator?  This common practice would seem to indicate that 'giving voice to values of self-determination' are not at all important to US foreign policy.

You confuse "give voice to" and "shoot the loudest that does it".

Has anyone yet mentioned Trump calling the armed "protesters" storming state legislatures "very fine people." Sadly reminiscent, of course, of calling Neo-Nazis "very fine people.

No wonder, those are likely the same people, judging by their looks.

On a side note, the UK has reached position 1 in the EU for Corona death, now having the largest death toll of industrialized countries after the US, of course. Has Trump already mused about adopting that Trump-Wannabe there?

And why does Trump keep the slaughterhouses open at all (human) costs? Does he own stocks in them or is it just that his favorite meal are burgers?

[DoubleDown]

I thought this was pretty interesting!

https://www.washingtonpost.com/lifestyle/style/that-ohio-protest-photo-looked-like-a-zombie-movie-zombie-movie-directors-think-so-too/2020/04/17/b518fc48-801c-11ea-9040-68981f488eed_story.html

[Glenstache]

Also this fine example of sidelining those with expertise for, well, whatever Kushner is. Incompetence seems the most apt descriptor.

https://www.nytimes.com/2020/05/05/us/jared-kushner-fema-coronavirus.html?action=click&module=Spotlight&pgtype=Homepage

[OtherJen]

Also this fine example of sidelining those with expertise for, well, whatever Kushner is. Incompetence seems the most apt descriptor.

https://www.nytimes.com/2020/05/05/us/jared-kushner-fema-coronavirus.html?action=click&module=Spotlight&pgtype=Homepage

Kushner, like his father-in-law, is a perfect example of both the Dunning-Kruger effect and someone who was born on third base and believes they hit a triple.

[MDM]

Sadly reminiscent, of course, of calling Neo-Nazis "very fine people."

Which, if one reads the transcript, he did not.  See PolitiFact | In Context: Donald Trump’s ‘very fine people on both sides’ remarks (transcript).

There are plenty of incorrect things Trump has said, and plenty of substantive policy differences one could have, without taking other things out of context in an attempt to score political points.

[former player]

Sadly reminiscent, of course, of calling Neo-Nazis "very fine people."

Which, if one reads the transcript, he did not.  See PolitiFact | In Context: Donald Trump’s ‘very fine people on both sides’ remarks (transcript).

There are plenty of incorrect things Trump has said, and plenty of substantive policy differences one could have, without taking other things out of context in an attempt to score political points.

So here's precisely what Donald "before I make a statement, I like to know the facts" Trump said according to that transcript-

"Reporter: "The neo-Nazis started this. They showed up in Charlottesville to protest --"
Trump: "Excuse me, excuse me. They didn’t put themselves -- and you had some very bad people in that group, but you also had people that were very fine people, on both sides. You had people in that group. Excuse me, excuse me. I saw the same pictures as you did. You had people in that group that were there to protest the taking down of, to them, a very, very important statue and the renaming of a park from Robert E. Lee to another name.""

So in trying to argue that Donald Trump didn't say that neo-Nazis are very fine people you need to be able to argue that there were people who protested the taking down of the statue who were in the company of neo-Nazis (while not themselves being neo-Nazis) and were protesting in favour of a symbol of fighting for the continuance of slavery but were nevertheless "very fine people".  That is splitting hairs fine enough to need an electron microscope to see the difference.

[MDM]

Sadly reminiscent, of course, of calling Neo-Nazis "very fine people."

Which, if one reads the transcript, he did not.  See PolitiFact | In Context: Donald Trump’s ‘very fine people on both sides’ remarks (transcript).

There are plenty of incorrect things Trump has said, and plenty of substantive policy differences one could have, without taking other things out of context in an attempt to score political points.

So here's precisely what Donald "before I make a statement, I like to know the facts" Trump said according to that transcript-

"Reporter: "The neo-Nazis started this. They showed up in Charlottesville to protest --"
Trump: "Excuse me, excuse me. They didn’t put themselves -- and you had some very bad people in that group, but you also had people that were very fine people, on both sides. You had people in that group. Excuse me, excuse me. I saw the same pictures as you did. You had people in that group that were there to protest the taking down of, to them, a very, very important statue and the renaming of a park from Robert E. Lee to another name.""

So in trying to argue that Donald Trump didn't say that neo-Nazis are very fine people you need to be able to argue that there were people who protested the taking down of the statue who were in the company of neo-Nazis (while not themselves being neo-Nazis) and were protesting in favour of a symbol of fighting for the continuance of slavery but were nevertheless "very fine people".  That is splitting hairs fine enough to need an electron microscope to see the difference.

You may be precise, but not accurate. ;)

Perhaps you missed this:

And you had people -- and I’m not talking about the neo-Nazis and the white nationalists -- because they should be condemned totally. But you had many people in that group other than neo-Nazis and white nationalists. Okay? And the press has treated them absolutely unfairly.

"Now, in the other group also, you had some fine people.

[former player]

Sadly reminiscent, of course, of calling Neo-Nazis "very fine people."

Which, if one reads the transcript, he did not.  See PolitiFact | In Context: Donald Trump’s ‘very fine people on both sides’ remarks (transcript).

There are plenty of incorrect things Trump has said, and plenty of substantive policy differences one could have, without taking other things out of context in an attempt to score political points.

So here's precisely what Donald "before I make a statement, I like to know the facts" Trump said according to that transcript-

"Reporter: "The neo-Nazis started this. They showed up in Charlottesville to protest --"
Trump: "Excuse me, excuse me. They didn’t put themselves -- and you had some very bad people in that group, but you also had people that were very fine people, on both sides. You had people in that group. Excuse me, excuse me. I saw the same pictures as you did. You had people in that group that were there to protest the taking down of, to them, a very, very important statue and the renaming of a park from Robert E. Lee to another name.""

So in trying to argue that Donald Trump didn't say that neo-Nazis are very fine people you need to be able to argue that there were people who protested the taking down of the statue who were in the company of neo-Nazis (while not themselves being neo-Nazis) and were protesting in favour of a symbol of fighting for the continuance of slavery but were nevertheless "very fine people".  That is splitting hairs fine enough to need an electron microscope to see the difference.

You may be precise, but not accurate. ;)

Perhaps you missed this:

And you had people -- and I’m not talking about the neo-Nazis and the white nationalists -- because they should be condemned totally. But you had many people in that group other than neo-Nazis and white nationalists. Okay? And the press has treated them absolutely unfairly.

"Now, in the other group also, you had some fine people.

[/quot
Right.  "Very fine people" who happily march in support of a symbol of slavery with people shouting "Jews will not replace us" but who are not themselves neo-Nazis.

I'm in favour of free speech and peaceful, lawful protest (I've been on a few myself) but if I found myself in that company (and it wasn't the first time that phrase was used in protests over that statue) I wouldn't be feeling "fine" about myself.

[MDM]

Then we agree that, rather than

Sadly reminiscent, of course, of calling Neo-Nazis "very fine people."

what Trump actually said was "I’m not talking about the neo-Nazis and the white nationalists -- because they should be condemned totally."?

[MasterStache]

Sadly reminiscent, of course, of calling Neo-Nazis "very fine people."

Which, if one reads the transcript, he did not.  See PolitiFact | In Context: Donald Trump’s ‘very fine people on both sides’ remarks (transcript).

There are plenty of incorrect things Trump has said, and plenty of substantive policy differences one could have, without taking other things out of context in an attempt to score political points.

So here's precisely what Donald "before I make a statement, I like to know the facts" Trump said according to that transcript-

"Reporter: "The neo-Nazis started this. They showed up in Charlottesville to protest --"
Trump: "Excuse me, excuse me. They didn’t put themselves -- and you had some very bad people in that group, but you also had people that were very fine people, on both sides. You had people in that group. Excuse me, excuse me. I saw the same pictures as you did. You had people in that group that were there to protest the taking down of, to them, a very, very important statue and the renaming of a park from Robert E. Lee to another name.""

So in trying to argue that Donald Trump didn't say that neo-Nazis are very fine people you need to be able to argue that there were people who protested the taking down of the statue who were in the company of neo-Nazis (while not themselves being neo-Nazis) and were protesting in favour of a symbol of fighting for the continuance of slavery but were nevertheless "very fine people".  That is splitting hairs fine enough to need an electron microscope to see the difference.

You may be precise, but not accurate. ;)

Perhaps you missed this:

And you had people -- and I’m not talking about the neo-Nazis and the white nationalists -- because they should be condemned totally. But you had many people in that group other than neo-Nazis and white nationalists. Okay? And the press has treated them absolutely unfairly.

"Now, in the other group also, you had some fine people.

This has been argued ad nauseam. You have to stop trying to defend this nonsense. The “Unite the Right” rally was organized by and intended for white supremacists and white nationalists. Feel free to grab the police affadavit and read it to understand the very specific ideological bent for the rally. It was crystal clear as to the intention of the rally, who was going to attend, etc. This wasn't some secret squirrel event. There were not any "very fine people" in that rally. 

You also are trying to defend Trump's remarks about the night before before in which more than 200 attendees held tiki torches on the campus of the University of Virginia and chanted “Jews will not replace us” and “Blood and soil.”

Trump's statement: "There were people in that rally, and I looked the night before. If you look, they were people protesting very quietly, the taking down the statue of Robert E. Lee. I’m sure in that group there were some bad ones."

NO! They were all chanting horrible shit and none of them were protesting quietly. Seriously, just stop. Be better than this.