US General Election 2016

brilliant

Wow, the quality of The Daily Show has really gone down the shitter.

I think the backup crew is still doing well, but nobody could manage them as artfully as Jon Stewart. I thought Hasan Minhaj was on point.

Damn doesn't play for me

http://www.nationalreview.com/article/428256/donald-trump-muslims-political-correctness

That does put a different spin on things. The difference is that they were steps to punish the state of Iran, rather than declaring Iranians as a class suspect. I don't really see how prohibiting immigration plays into this, admittedly.

Anyone got the times for when the debate is on?

The kids table debate begins in a few minutes at 6:30 PM Eastern (GMT-5).  The main debate will began at 8:30 PM Eastern, in about two and a half hours, which would be 1:30 AM in the UK.

Unless they put them all in a cage with brass knuckles, I see no reason to watch these debates anymore. Trump stopped being funny a couple weeks ago. I don't see why campaign season needs more than 3 debates per party.

Now I'm sorry I missed the latest debate. From CNN:

"From the beginning, the debate was an escalating series of alpha-dog displays, with casual talk of arming various groups, carpet bombing, killing the family members of terrorists, shutting down parts of the internet, and surveilling every conceivable form of communication.
Any vestigial attachment to civil liberties, or sobriety regarding America's ability to bend the world to its will, was quickly jettisoned amid the one-upmanship. Any time discussion strayed too close to the real world of governance — specific legislation, diplomatic difficulties, the differences between various Middle Eastern countries and organizations — New Jersey Gov. Chris Christie would thunder in with the equivalent of, "The American people don't care about these fancy words, they just want to kill, kill, kill the bad guys!" And so the band converged on one repeated note: America will win. It will destroy ISIS. You won't need to feel afraid anymore.

Watching this unfold, occasionally inserting a futile objection, Paul grew increasingly disgusted. The spectacle reached an early crescendo (one of many) with Christie, who has recently gained momentum in New Hampshire, proudly boasting that he would shoot down Russian warplanes — and look Putin in the eye while he did it.

Just for a moment, it seemed that Paul was fed up."

I only watched a few minutes towards the end so I missed most of the worst stuff, but it was still pretty painful. Rubio schooling Trump on the nuclear triad was pretty funny, though. {{{Is it really that obscure of a term? The moderator all but defined it in his question, too.}}}

"Nuclear Triad" basically means that if you give a red button to the Army, you've got to give red buttons to the Navy and the Air Force too to keep them from pouting, right?

Well ... I was going to talk about the typical reasoning given for the nuclear triad, but then I remembered that when the Air Force first got their nukes they tried to use that power to get rid of the Navy, so you might be on to something. A version of MAD specifically for inter-service rivalries, maybe?

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

There's no reason for having a Navy and Marine Corps. General Bradley tells me that amphibious operations are a thing of the past. We'll never have any more amphibious operations. That does away with the Marine Corps. And the Air Force can do anything the Navy can do nowadays, so that does away with the Navy.

Generals!
Sound strategic justifications not withstanding, one should never underestimate the influence of petty rivalries and porkbarrel politics, especially with something like nukes which have a pricetag that's a significant percentage of our national budget.

Just to clarify a point here- is Trump actually saying if President he would have America break with the Geneva Convention and deliberately target the family members of terrorists?
Or did I dream that a front runner to be President of the 'Free World' actually said that?
To rapturous applause....

I'm done with this election cycle. Let's start looking ahead to 2020. Maybe there will be some worthy candidates then.

Trump and Salmond comparing the size of their turnips.

Pettytyrant101 wrote:Just to clarify a point here- is Trump actually saying if President he would have America break with the Geneva Convention and deliberately target the family members of terrorists?
Or did I dream that a front runner to be President of the 'Free World' actually said that?
To rapturous applause....

I wish you'd dreamed it, but then I wish you'd just dreamed the Bush/Cheney administration too.
Look at it this way-- When it comes to the Geneva Convention Trump is saying things he'll never do, while Bush/Cheney were doing things they'll never say.

Actually Trumps golf resort in Scotland is an interesting insight to Trump.
Before it was Trump latest plaything it was a shooting estate. It employed about 100 people.
Trump promised all sorts when he started, fabulous hotel. luxury resort and clubhouse, employment for over a thousand staff.
It currently, 7 years later, employs 4 less staff than the shooting estate did, there is no luxury hotel and clubhouse either.
Instead Trump has spent his time and resources fighting the Scottish government over what should be, by now, the worlds largest offshore wind and wave testing facility off Aberdeen.
Trump has argued it will ruin his view from his golf course, despite the fact its so far away it will just be a blur on the horizon.
Last week he lost his second attempt to overturn the decision to site the facility there- he lost first in the Scottish High Court, so took it to the UK High Court, where he also lost.
Now he plans to take it to European court, where he is also destined to lose.
In the meantime an entire new facility and all the jobs it should have by now created- not to mention setting back the scientific work by years- has gone on hold whilst Trump fights it in the courts.

And if you want more of how he operates there is a group of locals who he has ruined, destroyed their land or otherwise made their lives a misery you can check out.




When it comes to the Geneva Convention Trump is saying things he'll never do, while Bush/Cheney were doing things they'll never say. - David

I have no idea which of those is better, or worse, or which scares me more. On the plus side I must commend you on a beautifully crafted sentence

Are we sure Trump would never do what he says? In the case of the wall you are probably right, but in special ops who knows. I'd like to think most of the special ops people would refuse.

Trump is a loose cannon and that mouth of his is a security risk. I don't foresee Trump ever being in that position, but if he ever were I don't see the military ever respecting him enough to give him anything more than the illusion of "command and control". Generals are very good at that for the most part.

I'd like to think most of the special ops people would refuse.- Halfwise

That would be a fascinating situation to arise in the Uk system- as of course unlike the US the army is not the governments, nor does it swear its loyalty to any politician. They are Her Majesties Forces, not the governments, its to Queen and Country they sweat their oaths, parade for, present arms too. Flag and Throne. The government are just their employers.
If a Trump came power in the UK and ordered our army to contravene International Law and the basic Human Right not be held guilty on a death penalty merely by association of blood or marriage to a criminal, I wonder what the Queen would do?

The US military actually swears to protect the constitution first.  The president is the "commander in chief" but they have a right to ignore his orders if they feel his orders contradict the constitution - they swear to obey 'lawful' orders.

As far as I know no soldier has disobeyed orders on this ground, but it's a common theme in fiction. It's also a murky question whether constitutional rights apply to non-americans, or to combat situations.

I suppose then the difference is that a US soldier has lawyers and paper to turn to in that event- whereas a UK soldier has a Head of State to give them their orders.
The question then is who do the Generals go with, government or Monarch? And that would almost certainly also depend on if the Monarch or Government had the public support- and that's where someone like Trump has the potential to be very dangerous- if their base popularity were to spread to the mass then they would have public support over the Monarch. And things could get messy.

Fortunately I don't forsee a Trump like candidate getting anywhere near power in the UK any time soon (and I find it hard still to conceive that when the time comes Americas will pick Trump either)