Jump to content
tanknet.org

Because Trump 2.0


Recommended Posts

Look at me, I was recently accused of being a Marxist because I can admit to being left leaning. Its this binary obsession among Americans that things must be one thing or the other, but deny any possiblity of middle ground, that I find absolutely bewildering.

 

That binary obsession is also convenient if winning is the only thing. Middle ground speaks to compromise and working with ideas and people not agreed with.

 

Winning is easier.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Replies 23.3k
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

  • Stuart Galbraith

    2009

  • DKTanker

    1550

  • Murph

    1521

  • Paul G.

    1455

Top Posters In This Topic

Posted Images

I found Governor Northam's exact words pretty quickly

 

"the infant would be kept comfortable"

 

and then

"a discussion would occur"

 

I tried to post a link but there appears to be some issue

 

Another thought does occur to me, the harvesting of tissue and organs is a pretty big business these days. I suppose the Chinese solution would work if the supply of fetus parts were to diminish

Ralph Northam: You know, I wasnt there, Julie, and I certainly cant speak for Delegate Tran, but I would tell you one, the first thing I would say is this is why decisions such as this should be made by [healthcare] providers, physicians, and the mothers and fathers that are involved. There are you know when we talk about third-trimester abortions, these are done with the consent of, obviously, the mother, with the consent of the physicians, more than one physician by the way. And its done in cases where there may be severe deformities, there may be a fetus thats non-viable. So in this particular example, if a mother is in labor, I can tell you exactly what would happen. The infant would be delivered, the infant would be kept comfortable, the infant would be resuscitated if thats what the mother and the family desired, and then a discussion would ensue between the physicians and the mother. So I think this was really blown out of proportion

Link to post
Share on other sites

Really? You think someone who still possesses a plausibility checking capability would fall for a hoax that born babies get killed by medical doctors?

No bullshit alarm regarding how this would get into trouble with the criminal code?

 

No one in this world, so far as I know — and I have searched the records for years, and employed agents to help me — has ever lost money by underestimating the intelligence of the great masses of the plain people. Nor has anyone ever lost public office thereby.

 

---HL Mencken

Edited by Nobu
Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

 

 

In the U.S., why is this so?

 

Because 25-30% of the population will find arguments of something being "anti-god", irrational and a sign of religious fundamentalism. If you want to promote understanding for your position, that might not be a good foundation to have a discussion on.

There is no higher authority than God and no higher law than the bible. America can only prosper if returns to be a Christian society in unity with God.

And yet somehow Asian nations prosper.

Link to post
Share on other sites

 

https://dailycaller.com/2019/11/15/flashback-obama-fires-bush-ambassadors/

 

 

The former U.S. ambassador to Ukraine Marie Yovanovitch testified Friday about President Donald Trump firing her amid an alleged “smear campaign,” but firing ambassadors appointed by former presidents is commonplace.

 

Former President Barack Obama fired all ambassadors appointed by former President George W. Bush in 2008, The Washington Post previously reported. Yovanovitch testified Friday that the Trump administration, including the president’s personal lawyer Rudy Giuliani, “kneecapped” her. She said State Department leaders did not support her after being recalled in May.

 

“Political ambassadors sometimes are permitted to stay on briefly during a new administration, but the sweeping nature of the directive suggests that Obama has little interest in retaining any of Bush’s ambassadorial appointees,” WaPo’s 2008 article about Obama’s decision to fire all political ambassadors reads.

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

Roger Stone found guilty on all seven counts.

This guy? GUILTY?! Who would've thought?! :lol:

 

roger-stone-court-01-rtr-jc-191105_hpMaiâ

Of course this means Stone lied to Mueller about the Trump campaign.

 

Oh, there they go separating Stone from his children.

Link to post
Share on other sites

 

https://dailycaller.com/2019/11/15/flashback-obama-fires-bush-ambassadors/

 

 

The former U.S. ambassador to Ukraine Marie Yovanovitch testified Friday about President Donald Trump firing her amid an alleged “smear campaign,” but firing ambassadors appointed by former presidents is commonplace.

 

Former President Barack Obama fired all ambassadors appointed by former President George W. Bush in 2008, The Washington Post previously reported. Yovanovitch testified Friday that the Trump administration, including the president’s personal lawyer Rudy Giuliani, “kneecapped” her. She said State Department leaders did not support her after being recalled in May.

 

“Political ambassadors sometimes are permitted to stay on briefly during a new administration, but the sweeping nature of the directive suggests that Obama has little interest in retaining any of Bush’s ambassadorial appointees,” WaPo’s 2008 article about Obama’s decision to fire all political ambassadors reads.

 

 

Yes, but her feelings were hurt. Besides, Orangeman bad.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Just a reminder that Trump has more convictions among his inner circle than any other president, ignoring the current investigation. Draining the swamp by hiring the swamp.

 

https://www.axios.com/trump-associates-convicted-mueller-investigations-206295a1-5abc-4573-be25-4da19d9adcc9.html

Edited by Josh
Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Look at me, I was recently accused of being a Marxist because I can admit to being left leaning. Its this binary obsession among Americans that things must be one thing or the other, but deny any possiblity of middle ground, that I find absolutely bewildering.

 

That binary obsession is also convenient if winning is the only thing. Middle ground speaks to compromise and working with ideas and people not agreed with.

 

Winning is easier.

 

 

It is, if you can actually win. What seems more popular these days is pretending to win, telling everyone very loudly you have won, and thereby convincing everyone you have won. Its rather like that bit in Restaurant at the End of the Universe where the scientist figured out that rather than making a mountain invisible, it was far easier to blow the thing into orbit so nobody would see it or remark on it.

 

Alright, bad analogy. But you get my point. Nobody in the US political establishment is achieving anything right now. As John McCain said, we are not getting anything done. Which seems to be the new normal.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Just a reminder that Trump has more convictions among his inner circle than any other president, ignoring the current investigation. Draining the swamp by hiring the swamp.

 

https://www.axios.com/trump-associates-convicted-mueller-investigations-206295a1-5abc-4573-be25-4da19d9adcc9.html

 

Who cares? Once people have convinced themselves that all politicians are criminals anyway, none of that matters any longer.

Link to post
Share on other sites

US asks Japan to pay more to host its bases

 

A US magazine says the administration of President Donald Trump has asked Japan to pay a much greater share of the cost to host US military bases.

 

Foreign Policy reported on Friday that then National Security Adviser John Bolton asked the Japanese government during a trip to Japan in July to pay roughly four times the amount it currently pays each year.

 

That would mean increasing its payments from 2 billion dollars a year to 8 billion dollars.

 

The two governments are scheduled to enter into talks next year to renegotiate Japan's payments.

 

A Japanese government official told NHK that he was unaware of the US request.

 

The Trump administration has said it wants South Korea to pay five times more than it does now to host US forces.

 

Some US government officials believe the high demands are simply a negotiating tactic.

 

Others point out that Japan has already made greater financial contributions than other US allies.

https://www.google.co.jp/amp/s/www3.nhk.or.jp/nhkworld/en/news/20191116_14/amp.html

 

Here's the Foreign Policy article mentioned in the NHK article.

 

As Washington seeks to renew denuclearization talks with Pyongyang, U.S. President Donald Trump is asking Japan, a longtime ally that the United States leans on for stability in the region, to pay drastically more to cover the cost of a continued U.S. military presence in that country.

 

The administration has asked Tokyo to pay roughly four times as much per year to offset the costs of stationing more than 50,000 U.S. troops there, current and former U.S. officials familiar with the matter told Foreign Policy. Then-National Security Advisor John Bolton and Matt Pottinger, the National Security Council’s Asia director at the time, delivered the request to Japanese officials during a trip to the region in July, the officials said.

 

Japan is not the only Asian ally the United States is asking to cough up more money for continued U.S. troop presence. The officials confirmed that during that same trip, Bolton and Pottinger made a similar demand of South Korea, which hosts 28,500 U.S. troops, asking Seoul to pay five times as much as it currently does. CNN and Reuters previously reported that Trump had demanded Seoul increase its contribution.

 

The move to pressure Asian allies to shell out more for the continued U.S. presence in the region, some experts warn, could exacerbate tensions between the United States and its Asian allies, playing into the hands of rivals such as China and North Korea.

 

“This kind of demand, not only the exorbitant number, but the way it is being done, could trigger anti-Americanism” in some of the United States’ historically closest allies, said Bruce Klingner, a scholar at the Heritage Foundation think tank and former CIA analyst. “If you weaken alliances, and potentially decrease deterrence and U.S. troop presence, that benefits North Korea, China, and Russia who see the potential for reduced U.S. influence and support for our allies.”

 

One current official put it more bluntly: “it completely misunderstands the value” of alliances and runs counter to the administration’s strategy of reorienting to focus on so-called great power competition with Russia and China.

 

The news that the White House is seeking to squeeze Tokyo and Seoul is part of the Trump administration’s broader push to get allies to pony up additional money for defense. The president has long criticized European allies, in particular, for not spending enough on their armed forces. His effort appears to be working—by the end of next year, NATO allies in Europe and Canada will have added more than $100 billion to their defense spending since 2016.

 

Now, Trump appears to be turning his attention to the Pacific amid China’s military buildup and renewed threats from North Korea. Both Japan and South Korea pay the United States billions of dollars to cover the cost of keeping tens of thousands of U.S. troops there, primarily under bilateral special measures agreements that are traditionally negotiated every five years.

 

“They have to be willing to pick up a larger share of the burden, as the president has emphasized globally, not just related to South Korea,” said Randall Schriver, the assistant secretary of defense for Asia-Pacific policy, this week, ahead of a visit by Defense Secretary Mark Esper to the region.

 

Under Japan’s special measures agreement, which expires in March 2021, Tokyo currently pays roughly $2 billion to offset the cost of 54,000 U.S. troops there, roughly half of which are stationed at the U.S. air base in Okinawa. Ahead of the deadline, the administration has demanded a price hike—to roughly $8 billion, or a 300 percent increase, according to three former defense officials.

 

Trump has asked Seoul for a similar price hike, but the deadline for negotiations will come sooner. Last year, when Korea’s five-year special measures agreement expired, Trump asked for a 50 percent increase from Seoul, which under the terms of the agreement pays roughly $1 billion to offset the cost of 28,500 U.S. troops there. After extended negotiations, the two sides agreed Seoul would pay 8 percent over the prior year’s cost but would renegotiate the agreement yearly.

 

READ MORE

 

This aerial view shows land reclamation work on the Henoko coastal district of Nago, Okinawa prefecture, on December 14, 2018, to build a new site for relocating a US military airbase.

American Bases in Japan Are Sitting Ducks

As the South Korean deal expires once again this year, Trump has raised the asking price to roughly $5 billion—a 400 percent increase, a former defense official said.

 

“The President has been clear in the expectation that our allies around the world, including Japan and South Korea, can and should contribute more,” said a senior administration official.

 

Other allies could face similar demands in the near future, Klingner said. The demands on South Korea are “the beginning of a new template for U.S. demands from our allies. It’ll be applied to South, then Japan, then to other areas where the U.S. has troops,” he said.

 

Since Japan has more time to negotiate its military agreement, Tokyo may look to Seoul for the kind of agreement it can expect to negotiate with Washington. “Tokyo is in a bit better spot, they can say, ‘South Korea, you go first, and we will look for the same deal,’” the former defense official said.

 

However, Tokyo gave up some of its leverage in signing a trade agreement with Washington in September, the official said. Under the deal, signed by Trump and Japanese Prime Minister Shinzo Abe on Sept. 25, Japan agreed to ease tariffs on U.S. agricultural products.

 

As Washington continues to demand allies pay more for defense, Japan is trying to “think creatively about burden sharing,” for example investing in building new infrastructure at U.S. bases in Japan or agreeing to deploy new U.S. ground-based missiles, the former defense official said.

 

Japan, other experts and former officials say, has highlighted its strides in defense spending during its preliminary discussions with U.S. officials on the next special measures agreement. Japanese officials point to their decision to purchase expensive U.S. military equipment, including F-35 fighter jets and V-22 Osprey tiltrotor aircraft, and to fund military realignment in Okinawa as signs they are already stepping up.

 

Other former officials point out that it would actually be more expensive in the long run for the United States to withdraw troops from Japan, in the unlikely event an agreement isn’t reached.

 

“If the United States were to move our armed forces out of Japan back home it would cost the U.S. taxpayer more money,” said James Zumwalt, a former senior U.S. diplomat who is now a nonresident fellow at the Sasakawa Peace Foundation, a nonprofit organization focused on U.S.-Japan relations. “The United States would then need to pick up costs currently paid by Japan such as the salaries of 24,000 civilian base workers and utilities costs for military families.”

 

Both Tokyo and Seoul pay a significant amount for U.S. military projects in the region. Japan pays for the majority of the costs associated with three of the largest international military base construction projects since World War II, according to a 2018 report by the Congressional Research Service: the Futenma Replacement Facility in Okinawa (Japan pays 100 percent of the $12.1 billion price tag), construction at the Marine Corps Air Station Iwakuni (Japan pays 94 percent, or $4.5 billion, of the $4.8 billion bill), and facilities on Guam to allow 4,800 Marines to move from Okinawa (Japan pays $3.1 billion, or 36 percent of the cost).

 

South Korea, meanwhile, pays $10 billion, or 93 percent, of the cost of new construction at Camp Humphreys.

 

Japan also buys over 90 percent of its defense equipment from U.S. companies, including Lockheed Martin’s F-35 fighter jets and Boeing KC-46 tankers, according to the Congressional Research Service.

 

“That can’t be left out of the equation,” the former official said.

 

The latest push is not the first time the Trump administration has mulled plans to try and extract more money from its allies for hosting U.S. troops. In March, reports emerged that the administration wanted allies to pay the full cost of the troops being hosted in their countries, plus 50 percent. Then-acting Defense Secretary Patrick Shanahan later told lawmakers the administration would not move forward with the so-called ‘Cost Plus 50’ plan, and reports it was doing so were erroneous.

 

https://foreignpolicy.com/2019/11/15/trump-asks-tokyo-quadruple-payments-us-troops-japan/

Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

 

Look at me, I was recently accused of being a Marxist because I can admit to being left leaning. Its this binary obsession among Americans that things must be one thing or the other, but deny any possiblity of middle ground, that I find absolutely bewildering.

That binary obsession is also convenient if winning is the only thing. Middle ground speaks to compromise and working with ideas and people not agreed with.

 

Winning is easier.

It is, if you can actually win. What seems more popular these days is pretending to win, telling everyone very loudly you have won, and thereby convincing everyone you have won. Its rather like that bit in Restaurant at the End of the Universe where the scientist figured out that rather than making a mountain invisible, it was far easier to blow the thing into orbit so nobody would see it or remark on it.

 

Alright, bad analogy. But you get my point. Nobody in the US political establishment is achieving anything right now. As John McCain said, we are not getting anything done. Which seems to be the new normal.

Indeed. Compromise and negotiation with those not agreed with sounds like work. Far easier to brand them evil incarnate and call it a day. Interestingly, it is also easier to monetize extremism at both ends of the spectrum this way.

Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

 

In the U.S., why is this so?

 

Because 25-30% of the population will find arguments of something being "anti-god", irrational and a sign of religious fundamentalism. If you want to promote understanding for your position, that might not be a good foundation to have a discussion on.

There is no higher authority than God and no higher law than the bible. America can only prosper if returns to be a Christian society in unity with God.

And yet somehow Asian nations prosper.

 

 

They are not America and they are not sharing American values. Wealth is one thing, moral superiority is another and America is only great because of the morals that made the country great.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Really? You think someone who still possesses a plausibility checking capability would fall for a hoax that born babies get killed by medical doctors?

No bullshit alarm regarding how this would get into trouble with the criminal code?

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

"...an American physician and former abortion provider who was convicted of murdering three infants who were born alive during attempted abortion procedures; he was also convicted of involuntary manslaughter of one woman during an abortion procedure."

Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Today's Democratic Party is anti-God, (...)

 

When you base your political arguments on metaphysical concepts that are dependent on individual faith and religiosity, you will find it increasingly difficult to find any common ground in these kinds of discussions.

 

The most accurate answer to your question would be:

 

https://www.manhattandeclaration.org

 

Now read, sit back and think if all governments, and more importantly people, did this.

Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Today's Democratic Party is anti-God, (...)

 

When you base your political arguments on metaphysical concepts that are dependent on individual faith and religiosity, you will find it increasingly difficult to find any common ground in these kinds of discussions.

 

The basic idea of where U.S. laws originate and what to do when they are manipulated into the liberal evil we are enduring today.

https://www.archives.gov/founding-docs/declaration-transcript

Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Today's Democratic Party is anti-God, (...)

 

When you base your political arguments on metaphysical concepts that are dependent on individual faith and religiosity, you will find it increasingly difficult to find any common ground in these kinds of discussions.

 

To extrapolate from the Declaration of Independence post on how it affects the U.S. now. My points in italics:

 

"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.--That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed."

 

The left believes the opposite, that rights flow from government, hence the phrase ' " The government giveth, the government taketh away, blessed be the name of government.' " Witness the outright lies brought forth by liberals in Supreme Court nominees!

Basic human rights have been written in stone by God. We have seen throughout history what happens when man thinks he is God.

 

"That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness. "

 

Witness the left -- the U.S. House of Representatives -- trying to overturn a duly elected President. The voters did not like the way the country was headed, hence the win of Trump to alter and abolish those aspects. The swamp does need to be drained.

 

"Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shewn, that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security."

 

This can be a long-winded discussion, but witness in the short time new laws establishing the wrongs of abortion, homosexuality and transgenderism or whatever word for such secular stupidity will be tomorrow. This has manifested itself into the political correctness that infests universities and governments today. The long list of non-necessary laws regarding for example businesses and property. The suffocating bureaucracy created by government which leads to my last phrase from the Declaration of Independence

 

"He has erected a multitude of New Offices, and sent hither swarms of Officers to harrass our people, and eat out their substance."
This was written over 200 years ago and more apparent today; government bureaucracy not only on the federal level, but on the state--witness California--and local level.
Edited by Rick
Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

 

Look at me, I was recently accused of being a Marxist because I can admit to being left leaning. Its this binary obsession among Americans that things must be one thing or the other, but deny any possiblity of middle ground, that I find absolutely bewildering.

That binary obsession is also convenient if winning is the only thing. Middle ground speaks to compromise and working with ideas and people not agreed with.

 

Winning is easier.

It is, if you can actually win. What seems more popular these days is pretending to win, telling everyone very loudly you have won, and thereby convincing everyone you have won. Its rather like that bit in Restaurant at the End of the Universe where the scientist figured out that rather than making a mountain invisible, it was far easier to blow the thing into orbit so nobody would see it or remark on it.

 

Alright, bad analogy. But you get my point. Nobody in the US political establishment is achieving anything right now. As John McCain said, we are not getting anything done. Which seems to be the new normal.

Indeed. Compromise and negotiation with those not agreed with sounds like work. Far easier to brand them evil incarnate and call it a day. Interestingly, it is also easier to monetize extremism at both ends of the spectrum this way.

 

I would think this depends on what you want to compromise on. What today on the federal level needs to be "compromised" on?

Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...

×
×
  • Create New...