Author Topic: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?  (Read 373221 times)

Lagom

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1258
  • Age: 35
  • Location: SF Bay Area
Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
« Reply #1950 on: February 12, 2017, 10:56:56 PM »
Well I definitely agree anyone who wants to effect change in the government is much better served focusing on congress than the president.
How did we venture so far away from the OP?  Oh yeah, Trump :)

Thanks Trump!

Metric Mouse

  • Walrus Stache
  • *******
  • Posts: 5306
  • FU @ 22. F.I.R.E before 23
Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
« Reply #1951 on: February 12, 2017, 11:43:25 PM »
Frankly, I'm over it.  I think we should stop pandering to the military.

I have huge respect for what the US military has done in about 75% of engagements in the past century, and some of the other 25% isn't even their fault.  But the world is changing, and we no longer need to devote a third of our GDP to supporting 1.5 million soldiers.  The US military is grossly oversized for modern warfare and should probably shrink by 5%/yr for the next decade.

Our current service members deserve to cash in on the luxurious promise that have been made.  Veterans deserve better than they have gotten.  But that does not mean that from this day forward every D student from backwoods Kentucky deserves a free college education and a lifetime of government welfare checks just because he signs up to cook powered eggs for a carrier group.   The military needs to evolve, and Trump's promises of increase spending are not the way to do it.

You can honor our servicemembers and our great military traditions without making asinine promise about saving rural America with expanded military recruiting/spending.  Those poor folks you saw are being lied to by a con man who does not care about them or their plight as he ransacks our country for his personal profit.  The military should be disgusted that a draft dodging failed businessman without an ounce of public service in his whole body is now commander in chief.  He disgraces everything our military stands for, and yet they love him because he panders to their own perceived self interest.
Have you served in the military? You seem to think you know how other people should feel.  If the military members support someone, shouldn't that be up to them to decide? And certainly pandering to the military has gotten him further than pandering to other groups.

Lagom

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1258
  • Age: 35
  • Location: SF Bay Area
Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
« Reply #1952 on: February 12, 2017, 11:50:45 PM »
Frankly, I'm over it.  I think we should stop pandering to the military.

I have huge respect for what the US military has done in about 75% of engagements in the past century, and some of the other 25% isn't even their fault.  But the world is changing, and we no longer need to devote a third of our GDP to supporting 1.5 million soldiers.  The US military is grossly oversized for modern warfare and should probably shrink by 5%/yr for the next decade.

Our current service members deserve to cash in on the luxurious promise that have been made.  Veterans deserve better than they have gotten.  But that does not mean that from this day forward every D student from backwoods Kentucky deserves a free college education and a lifetime of government welfare checks just because he signs up to cook powered eggs for a carrier group.   The military needs to evolve, and Trump's promises of increase spending are not the way to do it.

You can honor our servicemembers and our great military traditions without making asinine promise about saving rural America with expanded military recruiting/spending.  Those poor folks you saw are being lied to by a con man who does not care about them or their plight as he ransacks our country for his personal profit.  The military should be disgusted that a draft dodging failed businessman without an ounce of public service in his whole body is now commander in chief.  He disgraces everything our military stands for, and yet they love him because he panders to their own perceived self interest.
Have you served in the military? You seem to think you know how other people should feel.  If the military members support someone, shouldn't that be up to them to decide? And certainly pandering to the military has gotten him further than pandering to other groups.

I mean, all of the friends/family members in the military that I know personally are not Trump supporters, but then none of us really think that particular metric is particularly important, do we?

Metric Mouse

  • Walrus Stache
  • *******
  • Posts: 5306
  • FU @ 22. F.I.R.E before 23
Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
« Reply #1953 on: February 13, 2017, 12:02:18 AM »
I mean, all of the friends/family members in the military that I know personally are not Trump supporters, but then none of us really think that particular metric is particularly important, do we?
Only in the context that it allows one the more power and a much stronger position from which to enact their other policies. If a bit of pandering to the military is the worst one has to do to gain a position to do a lot of good, I would be willing to accept such a trade off. Whether military members actually support Trump, I can not say. Sol would be better to argue that.

NoStacheOhio

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 2152
  • Location: Cleveland
Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
« Reply #1954 on: February 13, 2017, 06:37:44 AM »
I mean, all of the friends/family members in the military that I know personally are not Trump supporters, but then none of us really think that particular metric is particularly important, do we?
Only in the context that it allows one the more power and a much stronger position from which to enact their other policies. If a bit of pandering to the military is the worst one has to do to gain a position to do a lot of good, I would be willing to accept such a trade off. Whether military members actually support Trump, I can not say. Sol would be better to argue that.

Anecdotally: http://foxtrotalpha.jalopnik.com/armored-humvee-convoy-flying-trump-flag-belonged-to-nav-1791801822

I'm starting to get more concerned about our special forces, honestly. We've been using them for a lot more than we had in the past, and putting them in pretty horrible situations.

https://theintercept.com/2017/01/10/the-crimes-of-seal-team-6/
http://foxtrotalpha.jalopnik.com/moron-seal-team-6-operatives-based-mutilations-off-of-f-1791069958

It appears to be taking a toll. I hesitate to call it extremist, but I don't really have a good word for it. Combine those sorts of actions with loyalty to a person instead of a country, and it's bad news.

Midwest

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1284
Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
« Reply #1955 on: February 13, 2017, 07:14:45 AM »

The enforcement policy has been focused on the southern border and criminals.  The focus on the southern border will show a clear bias towards hispanics because of the population in Mexico and South American.  That's not racist, we are just plugging the biggest hole first.  If Canadians were streaming across the border, I suspect we would do the same with the northern border.


If the purpose is keeping America safe, clearly we are not.
http://www.msn.com/en-us/news/us/fbi-docs-trump-fixated-on-wrong-border/ar-AAmGG2B?li=BBnb7Kz

Where is my Canadian border wall?

At least three quarters of those here illegally came from southern border.  My comment was in reference to that, not terrorism.  On the of those in this country illegally, Canada doesn't even make the top 10. Lastly, Canada has a stable govt and low level of violence.  Many areas of Mexico are in turmoil and the govt has lost control.  Given that set of facts, the southern border seems more relevant.

I am unable to find evidence to your claim that >75% of all undocumented immigrants come from our south border. I am seeing evidence that as many as 40% have come from the air, as many as 50% are here on expired visa's, and that southern border crossings have already been reduced by over 90% in the past decade. http://www.azcentral.com/story/news/politics/border-issues/2016/10/09/how-many-mexicans-actually-cross-border-illegally/91280026/

It appears to be true that for 10 states, 75% of the undocumented immigrants are from Mexico. It does not say how they arrived here. The threshold of 75% is not met for the other 40 states. Fact #5 here:
http://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2015/11/20/what-we-know-about-illegal-immigration-from-mexico/

I do understand that safety and illegal immigration are 2 separate issues. I took your comments regarding the Mexican Government to mean that the safety of the United States was one of the reasons for the wall. That is why I mentioned that in regard to SAFETY, a northern wall makes more sense than a southern one. In my opinion, both ideas are ridiculous.

Enjoy your evening.

Here is the source of my 75%.  I have no idea how these persons got to to the US, but over 75% are from Mexico, Latin America  and South America.

http://immigration.procon.org/view.resource.php?resourceID=000845

Regarding the article on Canada, I'm not sure how that proves the northern border is dangerous.  For example, the article indicates there were 538 encounters with terrorists or suspects and only 68 were at land borders.  A good portion were at airports which I assume already have fairly robust procedures.

In addition, Canada's only international border is with the US.  If someone is in Canada, they have presumably been screened by the competent Canadian authorities or are a resident.  Mexico, on the other hand, has a land border with South American and a distinct lack of control as compared to Canada or the US.


nereo

  • Walrus Stache
  • *******
  • Posts: 7997
  • Location: la belle province
    • Here's how you can support science today:
Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
« Reply #1956 on: February 13, 2017, 07:33:47 AM »
I mean, all of the friends/family members in the military that I know personally are not Trump supporters, but then none of us really think that particular metric is particularly important, do we?
Only in the context that it allows one the more power and a much stronger position from which to enact their other policies. If a bit of pandering to the military is the worst one has to do to gain a position to do a lot of good, I would be willing to accept such a trade off. Whether military members actually support Trump, I can not say. Sol would be better to argue that.

Anecdotally: http://foxtrotalpha.jalopnik.com/armored-humvee-convoy-flying-trump-flag-belonged-to-nav-1791801822

I'm starting to get more concerned about our special forces, honestly. We've been using them for a lot more than we had in the past, and putting them in pretty horrible situations.
...
Special forces have always taken the brunt of our military policy, and in our modern world where we fight insurgencies rather than defined military states it has only intensified.  Among the broader pool of soldiers, special forces are even more loyal, have more bravado and are asked to undertake missions that are often in the grey region of international legality (e.g. the Bin Laden raid in Pakistan).
It's sad but not really surprising that this reliance comes with a lot of longer-term problems.

radram

  • Pencil Stache
  • ****
  • Posts: 722
Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
« Reply #1957 on: February 13, 2017, 10:04:19 AM »

The enforcement policy has been focused on the southern border and criminals.  The focus on the southern border will show a clear bias towards hispanics because of the population in Mexico and South American.  That's not racist, we are just plugging the biggest hole first.  If Canadians were streaming across the border, I suspect we would do the same with the northern border.


If the purpose is keeping America safe, clearly we are not.
http://www.msn.com/en-us/news/us/fbi-docs-trump-fixated-on-wrong-border/ar-AAmGG2B?li=BBnb7Kz

Where is my Canadian border wall?

At least three quarters of those here illegally came from southern border.  My comment was in reference to that, not terrorism.  On the of those in this country illegally, Canada doesn't even make the top 10. Lastly, Canada has a stable govt and low level of violence.  Many areas of Mexico are in turmoil and the govt has lost control.  Given that set of facts, the southern border seems more relevant.

I am unable to find evidence to your claim that >75% of all undocumented immigrants come from our south border. I am seeing evidence that as many as 40% have come from the air, as many as 50% are here on expired visa's, and that southern border crossings have already been reduced by over 90% in the past decade. http://www.azcentral.com/story/news/politics/border-issues/2016/10/09/how-many-mexicans-actually-cross-border-illegally/91280026/

It appears to be true that for 10 states, 75% of the undocumented immigrants are from Mexico. It does not say how they arrived here. The threshold of 75% is not met for the other 40 states. Fact #5 here:
http://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2015/11/20/what-we-know-about-illegal-immigration-from-mexico/

I do understand that safety and illegal immigration are 2 separate issues. I took your comments regarding the Mexican Government to mean that the safety of the United States was one of the reasons for the wall. That is why I mentioned that in regard to SAFETY, a northern wall makes more sense than a southern one. In my opinion, both ideas are ridiculous.

Enjoy your evening.

Here is the source of my 75%.  I have no idea how these persons got to to the US, but over 75% are from Mexico, Latin America  and South America.

http://immigration.procon.org/view.resource.php?resourceID=000845

Regarding the article on Canada, I'm not sure how that proves the northern border is dangerous.  For example, the article indicates there were 538 encounters with terrorists or suspects and only 68 were at land borders.  A good portion were at airports which I assume already have fairly robust procedures.

In addition, Canada's only international border is with the US.  If someone is in Canada, they have presumably been screened by the competent Canadian authorities or are a resident.  Mexico, on the other hand, has a land border with South American and a distinct lack of control as compared to Canada or the US.

Thank you for your article link and the dialog. I do not dispute any of the data on the site. It provides a wealth of information that I do find very useful.

Where I completely disagree with you is that the southern border needs a wall due to the data on the site you linked. It does not at all try to conclude HOW these undocumented immigrants are entering this country. You must look elsewhere for that information, and all the data I have found is that fewer and fewer people are crossing the southern border, more and more are originally here legally and then allow there visa's to expire, and air entry seems to be increasing. None of these would allow me to conclude that a multi-billion dollar wall would be anything other than a complete waste of time, money and resources. This does not even take into account those with a ladder or shovel.

I still contend that walls are much better at keeping people in rather that keeping people out. The Berlin wall was great for that, since there were probably very few that tried to cross West to East, and those that were caught trying the other way met with a most unfortunate end. While I am certain there are those who want our undocumented southern border crossers to meet the same fate (some of them are relatives of mine who say it outright), I can not think of a worse endpoint for the country I still truly love.

I think we are in agreement that a northern border wall would not provide a benefit worth the cost.


Do you have other sources that show that a southern wall would actually decrease the number of undocumented immigrants that enter the US to any degree that would justify the cost? All of my research is showing 2005 would have been a better time to build it. 2017 does not show it to be worth the time in my opinion.

I still say a harsher penalty for hiring undocumented immigrants would completely solve the problem. KNOW ONE would hire an undocumented worker if the punishment was harsh enough. The result would eventually be that know one undocumented would want to stay.

sol

  • Walrus Stache
  • *******
  • Posts: 6794
  • Age: 41
  • Location: Pacific Northwest
Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
« Reply #1958 on: February 13, 2017, 10:16:19 AM »
Special forces have always taken the brunt of our military policy, and in our modern world where we fight insurgencies rather than defined military states it has only intensified.  Among the broader pool of soldiers, special forces are even more loyal, have more bravado and are asked to undertake missions that are often in the grey region of international legality (e.g. the Bin Laden raid in Pakistan).
It's sad but not really surprising that this reliance comes with a lot of longer-term problems.

See, I would argue that we need more special forces and fewer general admin troops.  The future of US military conflict looks more like quasi-legal bin Laden raids and less like colonizing chains of Pacific islands with air support bases.  We probably need more stealth helicopters and fewer carpenters and cooks.  More strategy, less manpower. 

We've already been through the same process for munitions, after the advent of nuclear weapons.  America's global presence is exerted by a handful of tactical submarines and missile silos, not by a huge standing army of young men with hand to hand combat training.  We don't buy many swords and pistols anymore, because the nature of war has changed.  I think it's about time our military HR department changed with it.

But I'm just some random dude on the internet.  I don't get to make any decisions, and I'm not privy to all of the relevant information.  You are each free to disagree with me, and concerns that nereo raised are a valid reason to do that.

Midwest

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1284
Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
« Reply #1959 on: February 13, 2017, 10:31:07 AM »

Thank you for your article link and the dialog. I do not dispute any of the data on the site. It provides a wealth of information that I do find very useful.

Where I completely disagree with you is that the southern border needs a wall due to the data on the site you linked. It does not at all try to conclude HOW these undocumented immigrants are entering this country. You must look elsewhere for that information, and all the data I have found is that fewer and fewer people are crossing the southern border, more and more are originally here legally and then allow there visa's to expire, and air entry seems to be increasing. None of these would allow me to conclude that a multi-billion dollar wall would be anything other than a complete waste of time, money and resources. This does not even take into account those with a ladder or shovel.

I still contend that walls are much better at keeping people in rather that keeping people out. The Berlin wall was great for that, since there were probably very few that tried to cross West to East, and those that were caught trying the other way met with a most unfortunate end. While I am certain there are those who want our undocumented southern border crossers to meet the same fate (some of them are relatives of mine who say it outright), I can not think of a worse endpoint for the country I still truly love.

I think we are in agreement that a northern border wall would not provide a benefit worth the cost.

Do you have other sources that show that a southern wall would actually decrease the number of undocumented immigrants that enter the US to any degree that would justify the cost? All of my research is showing 2005 would have been a better time to build it. 2017 does not show it to be worth the time in my opinion.

I still say a harsher penalty for hiring undocumented immigrants would completely solve the problem. KNOW ONE would hire an undocumented worker if the punishment was harsh enough. The result would eventually be that know one undocumented would want to stay.

Radram - I'm not arguing for or against a southern wall.  My comments were in response to the recent raids.  I will say even your sources indicate the incursions on the Southern border are still in the hundreds of thousands a year.  That's  a problem. 

In addition, the southern border is a significant source of drugs into this country (legalizing MJ would fix at least part of that problem w/o a wall) but it's still a very porous border with a country with significant issues.

I agree with you that stricter enforcement of employment laws would have a meaningful benefit.  What we have now, however, is selective enforcement of those laws.  In addition, when they are enforced, there is an outcry. 

Let's have laws we can enforce and enforce them.  If we did that, people would quit coming to the US illegally on the hope we might let them stay.  12M people are assuming they will get to stay because that's what happened in the past.  If we grant the majority legal standing w/o changing our practices, this cycle will continue.


nereo

  • Walrus Stache
  • *******
  • Posts: 7997
  • Location: la belle province
    • Here's how you can support science today:
Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
« Reply #1960 on: February 13, 2017, 11:05:49 AM »
Special forces have always taken the brunt of our military policy, and in our modern world where we fight insurgencies rather than defined military states it has only intensified.  Among the broader pool of soldiers, special forces are even more loyal, have more bravado and are asked to undertake missions that are often in the grey region of international legality (e.g. the Bin Laden raid in Pakistan).
It's sad but not really surprising that this reliance comes with a lot of longer-term problems.

See, I would argue that we need more special forces and fewer general admin troops.  The future of US military conflict looks more like quasi-legal bin Laden raids and less like colonizing chains of Pacific islands with air support bases.  We probably need more stealth helicopters and fewer carpenters and cooks.  More strategy, less manpower. 
...

I actually agree with you on this point.  Despite our increasing reliance on drones and special forces, we are still very much investing in a military designed to fight a more conventional war and deter large military states.  The F-35 and the Zumwalt-class of missile destroyers are two examples of this.  DJT's instance for increasing our nuclear strike capabilities (Submarines, bombers and ICBMs) is another.
If our military encounters continue to be these close quarters, small-strike engagements we've been involved with for the past decade+ we'll need more stealth helicopters and tactical strike teams, and fewer M1A2 tanks and basic combat units.

My comment was more about how, when you select for, use and rely on special forces they don't necessarily interact with the world the way a normal civilian would.  We wouldn't want them to.

Metric Mouse

  • Walrus Stache
  • *******
  • Posts: 5306
  • FU @ 22. F.I.R.E before 23
Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
« Reply #1961 on: February 13, 2017, 11:34:40 AM »
Special forces have always taken the brunt of our military policy, and in our modern world where we fight insurgencies rather than defined military states it has only intensified.  Among the broader pool of soldiers, special forces are even more loyal, have more bravado and are asked to undertake missions that are often in the grey region of international legality (e.g. the Bin Laden raid in Pakistan).
It's sad but not really surprising that this reliance comes with a lot of longer-term problems.

See, I would argue that we need more special forces and fewer general admin troops.  The future of US military conflict looks more like quasi-legal bin Laden raids and less like colonizing chains of Pacific islands with air support bases.  We probably need more stealth helicopters and fewer carpenters and cooks.  More strategy, less manpower. 
...

I actually agree with you on this point.  Despite our increasing reliance on drones and special forces, we are still very much investing in a military designed to fight a more conventional war and deter large military states.  The F-35 and the Zumwalt-class of missile destroyers are two examples of this.  DJT's instance for increasing our nuclear strike capabilities (Submarines, bombers and ICBMs) is another.
If our military encounters continue to be these close quarters, small-strike engagements we've been involved with for the past decade+ we'll need more stealth helicopters and tactical strike teams, and fewer M1A2 tanks and basic combat units.

My comment was more about how, when you select for, use and rely on special forces they don't necessarily interact with the world the way a normal civilian would.  We wouldn't want them to.
While i may concede that small scale assaults will continue to be a component of the military actions needed in the future, I'm not certain that we should base our entire military strategy on only combating the threats of the past decade and significantly reduce our ability to deter and combat conventional threats. It would seem to be forgetting the history of the past 200 years and only focusing on the present.

NoStacheOhio

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 2152
  • Location: Cleveland
Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
« Reply #1962 on: February 13, 2017, 11:38:52 AM »
My comment was more about how, when you select for, use and rely on special forces they don't necessarily interact with the world the way a normal civilian would.  We wouldn't want them to.

At what point does this become a negative though? Would increasing the number of special forces units decrease the individual demands on each one, making them less of a liability?

When they're blatantly ignoring clearly stated rules/objectives, I'd say that's a problem.

nereo

  • Walrus Stache
  • *******
  • Posts: 7997
  • Location: la belle province
    • Here's how you can support science today:
Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
« Reply #1963 on: February 13, 2017, 11:58:52 AM »

While i may concede that small scale assaults will continue to be a component of the military actions needed in the future, I'm not certain that we should base our entire military strategy on only combating the threats of the past decade and significantly reduce our ability to deter and combat conventional threats. It would seem to be forgetting the history of the past 200 years and only focusing on the present.

This is a good point - it's probably not a good idea to totally give up our ability to repell (or invade) a hostile nation. 
Counterpoint - we're spending more than the next 8 countries combined (which are: China, Saudi Arabia, Russia, the UK, India, France, Japan and Germany) - many of whom are close allies. My take is that we're up against a law of diminishing returns.  To gain/maintain superiority costs an order of magnitude more than simply matching their threat capabilities.


Quote
At what point does this become a negative though? Would increasing the number of special forces units decrease the individual demands on each one, making them less of a liability?
Not sure, though I hope reducing individual demands could lessen the negatives. Constant redeployment is a pretty well studied factor regarding broader integration into civilian society.

GuitarStv

  • Senior Mustachian
  • ********
  • Posts: 11329
  • Age: 37
  • Location: Toronto, Ontario, Canada
Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
« Reply #1964 on: February 13, 2017, 12:06:51 PM »
When they're blatantly ignoring clearly stated rules/objectives, I'd say that's a problem.

Disregard of rules demonstrably underpins the routine behaviour of the US army.  The US military has been torturing prisoners of war in Guantanamo Bay for a decade and a half now.  (This includes sexual torture, sleep deprivation, sensory deprivation, electric shock, mock execution, forced medication, temperature extremes, beatings, etc.)  That's against clearly stated rules and objectives.

How many in the military have been held accountable for their crimes?  (Hint: the number rhymes with 'hero'.)  If accountability has been completely ignored for something as serious as torture, why do you think that flying a flag is going to be a concern?

NoStacheOhio

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 2152
  • Location: Cleveland
Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
« Reply #1965 on: February 13, 2017, 01:10:52 PM »
How many in the military have been held accountable for their crimes?  (Hint: the number rhymes with 'hero'.)  If accountability has been completely ignored for something as serious as torture, why do you think that flying a flag is going to be a concern?

The flag flying is just sort of generally obnoxious to me, it's the shooting Bin Laden in the face when they were specifically ordered not to shoot him in the face bit that I'm really referring to.

nereo

  • Walrus Stache
  • *******
  • Posts: 7997
  • Location: la belle province
    • Here's how you can support science today:
Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
« Reply #1966 on: February 13, 2017, 01:28:32 PM »
How many in the military have been held accountable for their crimes?  (Hint: the number rhymes with 'hero'.)  If accountability has been completely ignored for something as serious as torture, why do you think that flying a flag is going to be a concern?

The flag flying is just sort of generally obnoxious to me, it's the shooting Bin Laden in the face when they were specifically ordered not to shoot him in the face bit that I'm really referring to.

I've wondered for a while why this wasn't a bigger deal in the US.  Certainly it would have been better to have captured Bin Laden alive and put him on trial.  By all the accounts I have read they just sprayed him with bullets after securing the rest of the compound when the immediate threat was relatively low. Most accounts say he wasn't even armed when he was shot.

accolay

  • Pencil Stache
  • ****
  • Posts: 736
Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
« Reply #1967 on: February 13, 2017, 01:45:48 PM »
When they're blatantly ignoring clearly stated rules/objectives, I'd say that's a problem.

Disregard of rules demonstrably underpins the routine behaviour of the US army.  The US military has been torturing prisoners of war in Guantanamo Bay for a decade and a half now.  (This includes sexual torture, sleep deprivation, sensory deprivation, electric shock, mock execution, forced medication, temperature extremes, beatings, etc.)  That's against clearly stated rules and objectives.

How many in the military have been held accountable for their crimes?  (Hint: the number rhymes with 'hero'.)  If accountability has been completely ignored for something as serious as torture, why do you think that flying a flag is going to be a concern?

Clearly off topic, but if one who went to Gitmo wasn't a terrorist when they went it, they sure as hell would be now.

nereo

  • Walrus Stache
  • *******
  • Posts: 7997
  • Location: la belle province
    • Here's how you can support science today:
Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
« Reply #1968 on: February 13, 2017, 02:17:01 PM »

Clearly off topic, but if one who went to Gitmo wasn't a terrorist when they went it, they sure as hell would be now.
...kind of like "the best way to turn a juvenile offender into a career criminal is to send him away to prison"

We aren't really into reform or rehabilitation in this country.

Metric Mouse

  • Walrus Stache
  • *******
  • Posts: 5306
  • FU @ 22. F.I.R.E before 23
Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
« Reply #1969 on: February 13, 2017, 02:25:21 PM »

While i may concede that small scale assaults will continue to be a component of the military actions needed in the future, I'm not certain that we should base our entire military strategy on only combating the threats of the past decade and significantly reduce our ability to deter and combat conventional threats. It would seem to be forgetting the history of the past 200 years and only focusing on the present.

This is a good point - it's probably not a good idea to totally give up our ability to repell (or invade) a hostile nation. 
Counterpoint - we're spending more than the next 8 countries combined (which are: China, Saudi Arabia, Russia, the UK, India, France, Japan and Germany) - many of whom are close allies. My take is that we're up against a law of diminishing returns.  To gain/maintain superiority costs an order of magnitude more than simply matching their threat capabilities.


Quote
At what point does this become a negative though? Would increasing the number of special forces units decrease the individual demands on each one, making them less of a liability?
Not sure, though I hope reducing individual demands could lessen the negatives. Constant redeployment is a pretty well studied factor regarding broader integration into civilian society.
To be fair, a large portion of the  budget goes towards securing our allies and protecting free trade. This helps stabilize the wirld and is one of the primary reasons for increased world peace over the past 70 years. Why this all falls on America's shoulders instead of their allies could be debated.

nereo

  • Walrus Stache
  • *******
  • Posts: 7997
  • Location: la belle province
    • Here's how you can support science today:
Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
« Reply #1970 on: February 13, 2017, 02:42:08 PM »

While i may concede that small scale assaults will continue to be a component of the military actions needed in the future, I'm not certain that we should base our entire military strategy on only combating the threats of the past decade and significantly reduce our ability to deter and combat conventional threats. It would seem to be forgetting the history of the past 200 years and only focusing on the present.

This is a good point - it's probably not a good idea to totally give up our ability to repell (or invade) a hostile nation. 
Counterpoint - we're spending more than the next 8 countries combined (which are: China, Saudi Arabia, Russia, the UK, India, France, Japan and Germany) - many of whom are close allies. My take is that we're up against a law of diminishing returns.  To gain/maintain superiority costs an order of magnitude more than simply matching their threat capabilities.


Quote
At what point does this become a negative though? Would increasing the number of special forces units decrease the individual demands on each one, making them less of a liability?
Not sure, though I hope reducing individual demands could lessen the negatives. Constant redeployment is a pretty well studied factor regarding broader integration into civilian society.
To be fair, a large portion of the  budget goes towards securing our allies and protecting free trade. This helps stabilize the wirld and is one of the primary reasons for increased world peace over the past 70 years. Why this all falls on America's shoulders instead of their allies could be debated.

Yeah, I get that a lot of our military's duties are spent protecting our allies and protecting free trade, and that its important for stabilizing the world.
Where I question our sanity is when people say we need 11 (or more) carrier strike groups, and how we need to spend a lot more money on the nuclear arsenal we've already sworn not to use.

Our approach since the cold war has been overwhelming force at an overwhelming cost. We could get similar results with considerably less, IMO.

Midwest

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1284
Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
« Reply #1971 on: February 13, 2017, 03:02:36 PM »

While i may concede that small scale assaults will continue to be a component of the military actions needed in the future, I'm not certain that we should base our entire military strategy on only combating the threats of the past decade and significantly reduce our ability to deter and combat conventional threats. It would seem to be forgetting the history of the past 200 years and only focusing on the present.

This is a good point - it's probably not a good idea to totally give up our ability to repell (or invade) a hostile nation. 
Counterpoint - we're spending more than the next 8 countries combined (which are: China, Saudi Arabia, Russia, the UK, India, France, Japan and Germany) - many of whom are close allies. My take is that we're up against a law of diminishing returns.  To gain/maintain superiority costs an order of magnitude more than simply matching their threat capabilities.


Quote
At what point does this become a negative though? Would increasing the number of special forces units decrease the individual demands on each one, making them less of a liability?
Not sure, though I hope reducing individual demands could lessen the negatives. Constant redeployment is a pretty well studied factor regarding broader integration into civilian society.
To be fair, a large portion of the  budget goes towards securing our allies and protecting free trade. This helps stabilize the wirld and is one of the primary reasons for increased world peace over the past 70 years. Why this all falls on America's shoulders instead of their allies could be debated.

Yeah, I get that a lot of our military's duties are spent protecting our allies and protecting free trade, and that its important for stabilizing the world.
Where I question our sanity is when people say we need 11 (or more) carrier strike groups, and how we need to spend a lot more money on the nuclear arsenal we've already sworn not to use.

Our approach since the cold war has been overwhelming force at an overwhelming cost. We could get similar results with considerably less, IMO.

I'm not a military strategist, but the carrier strike groups do allow us to project power around the world.  That sort of power is unique to the US.  Do we have too much and/or are these the most militarily effective?   I don't know.

One thing Trump has done right* is call out certain members of NATO for relying on the US to defend them.  If other countries were to meet their obligation, maybe the US budget could be cut more easily. 

http://www.defenseone.com/politics/2015/06/nato-members-defense-spending-two-charts/116008/

* I didn't agree with the tone, but did agree with the sentiment.

gaja

  • Pencil Stache
  • ****
  • Posts: 984
Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
« Reply #1972 on: February 13, 2017, 03:22:00 PM »
This discussion about NATO and military spending feels a bit like those discussions about the spouse that doesn't "help enough" with the cleaning and housekeeping. Who has decided which standard we are aiming for, and why isn't my (much lower) standard good enough? Why do these decision makers think we need 2% for tearing things down (military), and only 1% for building them back up (charity)?

Midwest

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1284
Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
« Reply #1973 on: February 13, 2017, 03:31:09 PM »
This discussion about NATO and military spending feels a bit like those discussions about the spouse that doesn't "help enough" with the cleaning and housekeeping. Who has decided which standard we are aiming for, and why isn't my (much lower) standard good enough? Why do these decision makers think we need 2% for tearing things down (military), and only 1% for building them back up (charity)?

It's more like the friend who always let's you pick up the check.  At some point, you quit going out to dinner with them.  If the US decides not to prop up NATO's European defenses, certain countries will be hurt more than the US.  Especially Eastern Europe.

Europe needs defense, especially with Russia making noise.  NATO set the goal at 2%.  I presume that was a joint decision.  I thought this was a pretty good article on the situation -

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/doug-bandow/us-to-spend-more-on-europ_b_9219754.html

Note, the article predates Trump and is written is in the Huffington post.
« Last Edit: February 13, 2017, 03:34:02 PM by Midwest »

NoStacheOhio

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 2152
  • Location: Cleveland
Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
« Reply #1974 on: February 13, 2017, 05:22:43 PM »
This discussion about NATO and military spending feels a bit like those discussions about the spouse that doesn't "help enough" with the cleaning and housekeeping. Who has decided which standard we are aiming for, and why isn't my (much lower) standard good enough? Why do these decision makers think we need 2% for tearing things down (military), and only 1% for building them back up (charity)?

They did agree to the treaty ...

accolay

  • Pencil Stache
  • ****
  • Posts: 736
Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
« Reply #1975 on: February 13, 2017, 06:23:39 PM »
Since we're on the topic of military spending, I'd like to go back to the idea of auditing the DOD. There is a shit ton of waste. Some of it you can't help. It's the military-not a business. But there is a lot that could be improved upon. There are the F-35 programs that cost millions, but there are also the nickel and dime wastefulness all around.

lost_in_the_endless_aisle

  • Pencil Stache
  • ****
  • Posts: 791
Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
« Reply #1976 on: February 13, 2017, 06:35:09 PM »

While i may concede that small scale assaults will continue to be a component of the military actions needed in the future, I'm not certain that we should base our entire military strategy on only combating the threats of the past decade and significantly reduce our ability to deter and combat conventional threats. It would seem to be forgetting the history of the past 200 years and only focusing on the present.

This is a good point - it's probably not a good idea to totally give up our ability to repell (or invade) a hostile nation. 
Counterpoint - we're spending more than the next 8 countries combined (which are: China, Saudi Arabia, Russia, the UK, India, France, Japan and Germany) - many of whom are close allies. My take is that we're up against a law of diminishing returns.  To gain/maintain superiority costs an order of magnitude more than simply matching their threat capabilities.


Quote
At what point does this become a negative though? Would increasing the number of special forces units decrease the individual demands on each one, making them less of a liability?
Not sure, though I hope reducing individual demands could lessen the negatives. Constant redeployment is a pretty well studied factor regarding broader integration into civilian society.
To be fair, a large portion of the  budget goes towards securing our allies and protecting free trade. This helps stabilize the wirld and is one of the primary reasons for increased world peace over the past 70 years. Why this all falls on America's shoulders instead of their allies could be debated.

Yeah, I get that a lot of our military's duties are spent protecting our allies and protecting free trade, and that its important for stabilizing the world.
Where I question our sanity is when people say we need 11 (or more) carrier strike groups, and how we need to spend a lot more money on the nuclear arsenal we've already sworn not to use.

Our approach since the cold war has been overwhelming force at an overwhelming cost. We could get similar results with considerably less, IMO.
You need three CSGs for every one you want deployed and fully operational at any given time, so part of the rationale for having 11 is to guarantee the availability of 3-4 minimum that would be capable of engaging in two simultaneous major operations.

The whole point of spending money on maintaining a nuclear arsenal is so you don't have to use it.

The final point is this is not a place where a large margin of error is acceptable. It's important to note liberal Western values and institutions are exceptions in the history of humanity and hang in the balance. There is no credible backstop in the world for the US military should it fail.

Metric Mouse

  • Walrus Stache
  • *******
  • Posts: 5306
  • FU @ 22. F.I.R.E before 23
Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
« Reply #1977 on: February 13, 2017, 06:44:23 PM »
This discussion about NATO and military spending feels a bit like those discussions about the spouse that doesn't "help enough" with the cleaning and housekeeping. Who has decided which standard we are aiming for, and why isn't my (much lower) standard good enough? Why do these decision makers think we need 2% for tearing things down (military), and only 1% for building them back up (charity)?

They did agree to the treaty ...
Maybe the USA should file for divorce and just pick up a few cool roommates for awhile.

Gin1984

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 4567
Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
« Reply #1978 on: February 14, 2017, 06:58:13 AM »
Well now we have ignore the needs of our citizens because they live in california. http://occupydemocrats.com/2017/02/13/california-asked-trump-federal-disaster-aid-response-shocking/

GuitarStv

  • Senior Mustachian
  • ********
  • Posts: 11329
  • Age: 37
  • Location: Toronto, Ontario, Canada
Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
« Reply #1979 on: February 14, 2017, 07:10:57 AM »
Well now we have ignore the needs of our citizens because they live in california. http://occupydemocrats.com/2017/02/13/california-asked-trump-federal-disaster-aid-response-shocking/

How could you make America great again without ignoring Americans?

cliffhanger

  • Stubble
  • **
  • Posts: 111
Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
« Reply #1980 on: February 14, 2017, 07:40:14 AM »
Well now we have ignore the needs of our citizens because they live in california. http://occupydemocrats.com/2017/02/13/california-asked-trump-federal-disaster-aid-response-shocking/

How could you make America great again without ignoring Americans?

Trump will declare this a Major Disaster and federal funds will be available to the state. You can quote me on this and hold me accountable to my words. However, by the time this is declared and funds are approved, the next several outrages will have passed and this premature outrage will be forgotten. Are you two going to rescind your statements once you're proven wrong??

golden1

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1498
  • Location: MA
Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
« Reply #1981 on: February 14, 2017, 07:43:50 AM »
Quote
Trump will declare this a Major Disaster and federal funds will be available to the state. You can quote me on this and hold me accountable to my words. However, by the time this is declared and funds are approved, the next several outrages will have passed and this premature outrage will be forgotten. Are you two going to rescind your statements once you're proven wrong??

I'll stop criticizing him when he meets the low bar for incompetence as a president by properly addressing disasters and not discussing national security issues openly at his hotel.  OKay, no I won't, but I might ease off a bit. 

Are you ever going to admit that he is a righteous tool that shouldn't be within 1000 ft of the White house?

Kris

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 3096
Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
« Reply #1982 on: February 14, 2017, 07:44:45 AM »
Well now we have ignore the needs of our citizens because they live in california. http://occupydemocrats.com/2017/02/13/california-asked-trump-federal-disaster-aid-response-shocking/

How could you make America great again without ignoring Americans?

Trump will declare this a Major Disaster and federal funds will be available to the state. You can quote me on this and hold me accountable to my words. However, by the time this is declared and funds are approved, the next several outrages will have passed and this premature outrage will be forgotten. Are you two going to rescind your statements once you're proven wrong??

Will it make any difference to you that the only reason he would relent and approve the funds would be if his advisors finally convinced him that it was a majorly bad political move not to? Based on past behavior, I cannot for an instant imagine he would do it on his own. His main reasons for doing anything seems to be vindictiveness or reward for someone kissing his ass. He is literally stalling on this because he's mad at Jerry Brown.

radram

  • Pencil Stache
  • ****
  • Posts: 722
Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
« Reply #1983 on: February 14, 2017, 07:48:18 AM »
Well now we have ignore the needs of our citizens because they live in california. http://occupydemocrats.com/2017/02/13/california-asked-trump-federal-disaster-aid-response-shocking/

How could you make America great again without ignoring Americans?

Trump will declare this a Major Disaster and federal funds will be available to the state. You can quote me on this and hold me accountable to my words. However, by the time this is declared and funds are approved, the next several outrages will have passed and this premature outrage will be forgotten. Are you two going to rescind your statements once you're proven wrong??

A demand that a correction is made after a possibly proven wrong statement? You have GOT to be joking. Best joke of the day. Thanks for the levity.

Inaya

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1512
  • Age: 33
  • Location: Chicago, IL
Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
« Reply #1984 on: February 14, 2017, 07:53:34 AM »
Well now we have ignore the needs of our citizens because they live in california. http://occupydemocrats.com/2017/02/13/california-asked-trump-federal-disaster-aid-response-shocking/

How could you make America great again without ignoring Americans?

Trump will declare this a Major Disaster and federal funds will be available to the state. You can quote me on this and hold me accountable to my words. However, by the time this is declared and funds are approved, the next several outrages will have passed and this premature outrage will be forgotten. Are you two going to rescind your statements once you're proven wrong??
Did he ever get around to sending help for Mississippi's tornadoes last month?

cliffhanger

  • Stubble
  • **
  • Posts: 111
Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
« Reply #1985 on: February 14, 2017, 07:58:26 AM »
Well now we have ignore the needs of our citizens because they live in california. http://occupydemocrats.com/2017/02/13/california-asked-trump-federal-disaster-aid-response-shocking/

How could you make America great again without ignoring Americans?

Trump will declare this a Major Disaster and federal funds will be available to the state. You can quote me on this and hold me accountable to my words. However, by the time this is declared and funds are approved, the next several outrages will have passed and this premature outrage will be forgotten. Are you two going to rescind your statements once you're proven wrong??

Will it make any difference to you that the only reason he would relent and approve the funds would be if his advisors finally convinced him that it was a majorly bad political move not to? Based on past behavior, I cannot for an instant imagine he would do it on his own. His main reasons for doing anything seems to be vindictiveness or reward for someone kissing his ass. He is literally stalling on this because he's mad at Jerry Brown.

Check out the FEMA Disaster page There's anywhere between 0-6 weeks delay on disaster declaration. The Occupy Democrats article is insinuating that Trump will withhold funding because there was no response after 2 days...

There are plenty of examples there of him and President Obama "stalling" as you say. It doesn't appear there's any pattern of stalling because of a state being red/blue. There are probably many factors that go into this process.

Do you have any examples of him withholding requested funds? This would be a very serious issue that affects many people.

cliffhanger

  • Stubble
  • **
  • Posts: 111
Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
« Reply #1986 on: February 14, 2017, 08:00:41 AM »
Well now we have ignore the needs of our citizens because they live in california. http://occupydemocrats.com/2017/02/13/california-asked-trump-federal-disaster-aid-response-shocking/

How could you make America great again without ignoring Americans?

Trump will declare this a Major Disaster and federal funds will be available to the state. You can quote me on this and hold me accountable to my words. However, by the time this is declared and funds are approved, the next several outrages will have passed and this premature outrage will be forgotten. Are you two going to rescind your statements once you're proven wrong??
Did he ever get around to sending help for Mississippi's tornadoes last month?

Yes

So far about $2.5 million has been approved.

Kris

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 3096
Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
« Reply #1987 on: February 14, 2017, 08:02:28 AM »
Well now we have ignore the needs of our citizens because they live in california. http://occupydemocrats.com/2017/02/13/california-asked-trump-federal-disaster-aid-response-shocking/

How could you make America great again without ignoring Americans?

Trump will declare this a Major Disaster and federal funds will be available to the state. You can quote me on this and hold me accountable to my words. However, by the time this is declared and funds are approved, the next several outrages will have passed and this premature outrage will be forgotten. Are you two going to rescind your statements once you're proven wrong??

Will it make any difference to you that the only reason he would relent and approve the funds would be if his advisors finally convinced him that it was a majorly bad political move not to? Based on past behavior, I cannot for an instant imagine he would do it on his own. His main reasons for doing anything seems to be vindictiveness or reward for someone kissing his ass. He is literally stalling on this because he's mad at Jerry Brown.

Check out the FEMA Disaster page There's anywhere between 0-6 weeks delay on disaster declaration. The Occupy Democrats article is insinuating that Trump will withhold funding because there was no response after 2 days...

There are plenty of examples there of him and President Obama "stalling" as you say. It doesn't appear there's any pattern of stalling because of a state being red/blue. There are probably many factors that go into this process.

Do you have any examples of him withholding requested funds? This would be a very serious issue that affects many people.

Why are you talking about Trump as though he is a regular president?

You do know that he literally promised to "defund California" if they didn't do what he wanted them to?  And that he has also implied he'll give more attention to states that voted for him in the election? Do you have any examples of other presidents doing such things?

Unique User

  • Bristles
  • ***
  • Posts: 407
Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
« Reply #1988 on: February 14, 2017, 08:06:19 AM »
Well now we have ignore the needs of our citizens because they live in california. http://occupydemocrats.com/2017/02/13/california-asked-trump-federal-disaster-aid-response-shocking/

Supposedly the GOP rep is in contact with the White House, I'm sure they will be pressured eventually to cave.  I thought he took about two to three days to respond to the Louisiana tornadoes and Alabama & Georgia tornadoes, but with the turmoil over Flynn who knows if it will be longer than that.  The Alabama and Georgia governors had to beg for help on the media.  It might take three days to get through to him that the residents of those counties in CA vote Republican. 

I was really worried about Trump and Bannon trying to seize more power at some point but with all the national security missteps (leaving a key in a classified bag, holding a national security meeting over N Korea in an unsecured location, etc.) and now the Flynn stuff, I am starting to feel like they couldn't pull off a power grab even if one presented itself.  I have a hard time believing that the ham handed statements by Miller "The President's power will not be questioned" sat well with the GOP.  They need to get a spine and this crap with Flynn might be what is needed.  Watergate took two years, two years mired in Russia scandal would put us at the 2018 mid-terms. 


MasterStache

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1562
Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
« Reply #1989 on: February 14, 2017, 08:23:24 AM »
Well now we have ignore the needs of our citizens because they live in california. http://occupydemocrats.com/2017/02/13/california-asked-trump-federal-disaster-aid-response-shocking/

How could you make America great again without ignoring Americans?

Trump will declare this a Major Disaster and federal funds will be available to the state. You can quote me on this and hold me accountable to my words. However, by the time this is declared and funds are approved, the next several outrages will have passed and this premature outrage will be forgotten. Are you two going to rescind your statements once you're proven wrong??

Will it make any difference to you that the only reason he would relent and approve the funds would be if his advisors finally convinced him that it was a majorly bad political move not to? Based on past behavior, I cannot for an instant imagine he would do it on his own. His main reasons for doing anything seems to be vindictiveness or reward for someone kissing his ass. He is literally stalling on this because he's mad at Jerry Brown.

Check out the FEMA Disaster page There's anywhere between 0-6 weeks delay on disaster declaration. The Occupy Democrats article is insinuating that Trump will withhold funding because there was no response after 2 days...

There are plenty of examples there of him and President Obama "stalling" as you say. It doesn't appear there's any pattern of stalling because of a state being red/blue. There are probably many factors that go into this process.

Do you have any examples of him withholding requested funds? This would be a very serious issue that affects many people.

Actually Obama ensured that FEMA was absolutely competent. Every single one of the over 900 disasters during Obama's tenure was considered handled competently and timely. He held annual meetings with them. Confidence in FEMA rose from 35 percent after the Bush-Katrina disaster to 75 percent after Super storm Sandy in 2012.  At times, even before request were made, there were boots on the ground. There were over 400 people mobilized and on-site before Sandy even hit.

Obama made FEMA great again.

EscapeVelocity2020

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1740
  • Age: 44
  • Location: Houston
    • EscapeVelocity2020
Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
« Reply #1990 on: February 14, 2017, 09:29:39 AM »

I was really worried about Trump and Bannon trying to seize more power at some point but with all the national security missteps (leaving a key in a classified bag, holding a national security meeting over N Korea in an unsecured location, etc.) and now the Flynn stuff, I am starting to feel like they couldn't pull off a power grab even if one presented itself.  I have a hard time believing that the ham handed statements by Miller "The President's power will not be questioned" sat well with the GOP.  They need to get a spine and this crap with Flynn might be what is needed.  Watergate took two years, two years mired in Russia scandal would put us at the 2018 mid-terms.

Ham handed?  Miller went full-on Dictator (watch some clips here).  Kinda invalidates all of your other conjectures.

cliffhanger

  • Stubble
  • **
  • Posts: 111
Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
« Reply #1991 on: February 14, 2017, 09:42:40 AM »

Why are you talking about Trump as though he is a regular president?

You do know that he literally promised to "defund California" if they didn't do what he wanted them to?  And that he has also implied he'll give more attention to states that voted for him in the election? Do you have any examples of other presidents doing such things?

I'm not asserting that Trump is a regular president. He spent his campaign making hyperbolic statements and lying. Why should I believe a tweet about defunding California?

I am asserting that FEMA will assist the people affected by flooding in CA based off of past actions in Trump's short presidency. You can still be a bad president and do this. How about let's wait and see what he does, then judge his actions?


Actually Obama ensured that FEMA was absolutely competent. Every single one of the over 900 disasters during Obama's tenure was considered handled competently and timely. He held annual meetings with them. Confidence in FEMA rose from 35 percent after the Bush-Katrina disaster to 75 percent after Super storm Sandy in 2012.  At times, even before request were made, there were boots on the ground. There were over 400 people mobilized and on-site before Sandy even hit.

Obama made FEMA great again.

I would be part of that statistic that went from disapprove to approve. Obama ensuring a competent FEMA is good for everybody.

Kris

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 3096
Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
« Reply #1992 on: February 14, 2017, 09:51:57 AM »

Why are you talking about Trump as though he is a regular president?

You do know that he literally promised to "defund California" if they didn't do what he wanted them to?  And that he has also implied he'll give more attention to states that voted for him in the election? Do you have any examples of other presidents doing such things?

I'm not asserting that Trump is a regular president. He spent his campaign making hyperbolic statements and lying. Why should I believe a tweet about defunding California?

I am asserting that FEMA will assist the people affected by flooding in CA based off of past actions in Trump's short presidency. You can still be a bad president and do this. How about let's wait and see what he does, then judge his actions?



Could you cite the past actions that tell you this?

And again, I stated above that I think eventually he will do this, but only after his advisors manage to convince him to not be a vindictive piece of sh*t.


cliffhanger

  • Stubble
  • **
  • Posts: 111
Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
« Reply #1993 on: February 14, 2017, 10:27:30 AM »
First off, let's use FEMA's Disaster Declaration Process as a reference. It appears that a Major Disaster Declaration is appropriate for any event that "has caused damage of such severity that it is beyond the combined capabilities of state and local governments to respond."

Now, according to California Governor Brown's request, the "storm system is of such severity and magnitude that continued effective response is beyond the capabilities of the State and affected local governments and supplemental federal assistance is necessary." Which appears to meet the requirements for a Major Disaster Declaration.

In theory, President Trump should approve Governor Brown's request. So far in his presidency, Trump has approved 97 Major Disaster Declarations according to FEMA's disaster site, including strong winter storms and flooding in Oregon last month. Based off of his previous declarations for appropriate disasters, I believe he will approve Governor Brown's request.

Is your evidence that he won't approve it based off of Trump's twitter account?

Edit: corrected number, forgot you said he would eventually approve
« Last Edit: February 14, 2017, 10:45:39 AM by cliffhanger »

Gondolin

  • Pencil Stache
  • ****
  • Posts: 502
  • Location: Northern VA
Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
« Reply #1994 on: February 14, 2017, 10:36:12 AM »
Quote
And again, I stated above that I think eventually he will do this, but only after his advisors manage to convince him to not be a vindictive piece of sh*t.

I don't really see that point of arguing about what Trump's motivations for potential actions might or might not be. Neither of you have relevant information so you're both just projecting your own feelings about the president.

Kris

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 3096
Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
« Reply #1995 on: February 14, 2017, 10:39:09 AM »
First off, let's use FEMA's Disaster Declaration Process as a reference. It appears that a Major Disaster Declaration is appropriate for any event that "has caused damage of such severity that it is beyond the combined capabilities of state and local governments to respond."

Now, according to California Governor Brown's request, the "storm system is of such severity and magnitude that continued effective response is beyond the capabilities of the State and affected local governments and supplemental federal assistance is necessary." Which appears to meet the requirements for a Major Disaster Declaration.

In theory, President Trump should approve Governor Brown's request. So far in his presidency, Trump has approved 9 Major Disaster Declarations according to FEMA's disaster site, including strong winter storms and flooding in Oregon last month. Based off of his previous declarations for appropriate disasters, I believe he will approve Governor Brown's request.

Is your evidence that he won't approve it based off of Trump's twitter account?

So, Oregon is the only state in the list that didn't vote for him, yes? And that disaster happened before he took office.

I would certainly expect him to approve FEMA funding for any state that voted for him, yes. So the others are no surprise.

And as far as Trump's Twitter account -- you say that as though his Twitter account isn't his main way of communicating with the American people. And no, actually, I'm primarily basing it on a Fox News interview he did with Bill O'Reilly that aired right before the Superbowl.

Kris

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 3096
Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
« Reply #1996 on: February 14, 2017, 10:40:20 AM »
Quote
And again, I stated above that I think eventually he will do this, but only after his advisors manage to convince him to not be a vindictive piece of sh*t.

I don't really see that point of arguing about what Trump's motivations for potential actions might or might not be. Neither of you have relevant information so you're both just projecting your own feelings about the president.

Quite true. Though I do think there are a fair number of indications of what motivates the president to act.

MasterStache

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1562
Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
« Reply #1997 on: February 14, 2017, 10:44:04 AM »

Why are you talking about Trump as though he is a regular president?

You do know that he literally promised to "defund California" if they didn't do what he wanted them to?  And that he has also implied he'll give more attention to states that voted for him in the election? Do you have any examples of other presidents doing such things?

I'm not asserting that Trump is a regular president. He spent his campaign making hyperbolic statements and lying. Why should I believe a tweet about defunding California?

I am asserting that FEMA will assist the people affected by flooding in CA based off of past actions in Trump's short presidency. You can still be a bad president and do this. How about let's wait and see what he does, then judge his actions?


Actually Obama ensured that FEMA was absolutely competent. Every single one of the over 900 disasters during Obama's tenure was considered handled competently and timely. He held annual meetings with them. Confidence in FEMA rose from 35 percent after the Bush-Katrina disaster to 75 percent after Super storm Sandy in 2012.  At times, even before request were made, there were boots on the ground. There were over 400 people mobilized and on-site before Sandy even hit.

Obama made FEMA great again.

I would be part of that statistic that went from disapprove to approve. Obama ensuring a competent FEMA is good for everybody.

Yep, let's hope Trump picks up where he left off. I would suggest he pick a competent and dedicated person to head up FEMA. So far he hasn't picked anyone.

cliffhanger

  • Stubble
  • **
  • Posts: 111
Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
« Reply #1998 on: February 14, 2017, 10:53:58 AM »
First off, let's use FEMA's Disaster Declaration Process as a reference. It appears that a Major Disaster Declaration is appropriate for any event that "has caused damage of such severity that it is beyond the combined capabilities of state and local governments to respond."

Now, according to California Governor Brown's request, the "storm system is of such severity and magnitude that continued effective response is beyond the capabilities of the State and affected local governments and supplemental federal assistance is necessary." Which appears to meet the requirements for a Major Disaster Declaration.

In theory, President Trump should approve Governor Brown's request. So far in his presidency, Trump has approved 9 Major Disaster Declarations according to FEMA's disaster site, including strong winter storms and flooding in Oregon last month. Based off of his previous declarations for appropriate disasters, I believe he will approve Governor Brown's request.

Is your evidence that he won't approve it based off of Trump's twitter account?

So, Oregon is the only state in the list that didn't vote for him, yes? And that disaster happened before he took office.

I would certainly expect him to approve FEMA funding for any state that voted for him, yes. So the others are no surprise.

And as far as Trump's Twitter account -- you say that as though his Twitter account isn't his main way of communicating with the American people. And no, actually, I'm primarily basing it on a Fox News interview he did with Bill O'Reilly that aired right before the Superbowl.

I picked Oregon because it was the most similar of that list to what's happening in California. Unless you can provide evidence of a Major Disaster Declaration that has been denied, I don't think it's prudent to argue this point. Weather is the driving factor here and the south has had more damaging storms recently.

Kris

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 3096
Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
« Reply #1999 on: February 14, 2017, 10:57:00 AM »
First off, let's use FEMA's Disaster Declaration Process as a reference. It appears that a Major Disaster Declaration is appropriate for any event that "has caused damage of such severity that it is beyond the combined capabilities of state and local governments to respond."

Now, according to California Governor Brown's request, the "storm system is of such severity and magnitude that continued effective response is beyond the capabilities of the State and affected local governments and supplemental federal assistance is necessary." Which appears to meet the requirements for a Major Disaster Declaration.

In theory, President Trump should approve Governor Brown's request. So far in his presidency, Trump has approved 9 Major Disaster Declarations according to FEMA's disaster site, including strong winter storms and flooding in Oregon last month. Based off of his previous declarations for appropriate disasters, I believe he will approve Governor Brown's request.

Is your evidence that he won't approve it based off of Trump's twitter account?

So, Oregon is the only state in the list that didn't vote for him, yes? And that disaster happened before he took office.

I would certainly expect him to approve FEMA funding for any state that voted for him, yes. So the others are no surprise.

And as far as Trump's Twitter account -- you say that as though his Twitter account isn't his main way of communicating with the American people. And no, actually, I'm primarily basing it on a Fox News interview he did with Bill O'Reilly that aired right before the Superbowl.

I picked Oregon because it was the most similar of that list to what's happening in California. Unless you can provide evidence of a Major Disaster Declaration that has been denied, I don't think it's prudent to argue this point. Weather is the driving factor here and the south has had more damaging storms recently.

No. I can't provide evidence of a declaration that has been denied. But I also can't provide any examples of other states that have filed for disaster relief where a sitting president has recently verbally threatened to "defund" the state for not doing what he wants.

And again, I do think he will eventually be convinced to provide disaster relief to CA by his staff. But I don't think he'll do it happily.
« Last Edit: February 14, 2017, 11:56:05 AM by Kris »