US General Election 2016

{{So Trump wants to increase military spending by a staggering 54 billion dollars. The question is why? Who is America planning to fight thats going to need all that? The US already outspends every other country on earth several times over in military spending. And what social and health programs will he jettison to pay for this madness?

- source BBC News


Though I see Trumps rich friends in the arms business are going to be richer as shares jumped immediately on the announcement.
Good to know that arms dealers, murders and those who profit from division, misery, suffering, pain and death are being so well rewarded! Trump- serving the people, if they are rich enough people that is.

But seriously, look at the numbers- why does America need to spend so much on the military? What for? Who are you fighting that costs this much?}}

America has to be able to fight off the rest of the world Petty. The U.S. is responsible for only 1/3 of the world's military spending, so we need to catch up so that we spend 51% of it!

You Scots don't have to worry about that. It's like if Mexico was responsible for making sure that no one bothered the U.S.

Yep, you see, Petty...you made the mistake of looking at the numbers. But there were alternate numbers you weren't considering.

Plus, with Trump it's even more likely we'll have to fight off the entire rest of the world. It all fits together once you see the big picture.

It's more that Petty was looking at things from the wrong! perspective. These other numbers are factual, not "alternate factual". I think the U.S. was responsible under Obama for something like 34% of the world's total military spending.

More weapons. More isolationism. More paranoia. More scared than I was yesterday.

Oh don't worry. The amount of alarmist bullshit going around is just spiking right now as everyone makes sure that the whole world knows where they stand on political issues.

Democracy has a habit of putting itself under intense scrutiny. Overall, it is a healthy thing to do. Trump is not the first and won't be the last in the belief that Great Leaders should run things totally. Democracy merely puts them on notice that there are limits to all things dictatorial in the Western World. Trump would like to be Putin. In won't happen. But it is wise the make sure it doesn't. That's why people criticise him. He needs to know that he is Chief Servant not Autocrat. Continuous criticism of his autocratism is healthy and a main plank of successful democracies.

Trump's spending increase isn't all going directly to the military; lots is going to research and related support. About $18 Billion is going directly to the armed forces, which is a drop in the bucket compared to the over $500 billion currently being spent.

http://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics/2017/2/28/14765492/trump-pentagon-budget-billion-state-department-misleading-54-billion

Well, it's somewhere around a 3.6% increase, so it's not merely a drop. But I see what you're saying.

{{{ Well Trumps big speech was, by far, the most Presidential to date. He also tried at least to strike a more optimistic tone than previously.
Though there were certainly moments more reminiscent to me of reality tv than politics- particularly bringing the widow of the killed soldier along- bit of human interest story there, and of course he didn't invite the families of the 14 civilians murdered in that raid by the 'heroes', or the father of the murdered soldier who thinks the whole things was botched.
And, like a true politician, that he is not supposed to be, he fudged facts and figures a fair bit too- such as claiming their had been a spike in crime- which is true and better than his previous blatantly false claims it was higher than in the last 45 years he had been spouting- so some points for coming closer to truth- but he left out context- that even last years higher figures are lower than in the 90's or before and that the year before that was the lowest in decades, so an increase this year is not as dramatic as it sounds.

And of course there was policy stuff he addressed well thats actually scary- such as his bit on education- where he gave a speech about choice, and opportunity and another reality tv human interest bit with a guest he brought along- but he also gave the nod to children being taught, basically any old nonsense, enforced on them by their parents. So if you don't want your kid to not know anything about evil science, or climate change and just creationism and faith then it seems you will be able too- which I consider a form of child abuse, denying a child knowledge and a proper education at the expense of unfounded faith. Religious teaching should be in the home and the church not in schools. Schools are for learning, knowledge facts and understanding the world we live in, which religion is the opposite of.

Still overall Trump did himself a lot more good with this speech I suspect than harm. The real issues however are still to come- as always we got a lot of big talk from Trump and almost no details. And of course he still contradicts himself- is he for or against NATO? Is it obsolete or essential? Seems to depend what mood and time of day you ask him!
On good thing from that speech though- Trump publicly declaring he doesn't represent the world just America- does that mean the US has officially abdicated its position as Leader of the Free World? Can but hope! }}}}}}

The only thing new about the speech was Trump for once not acting like he was far off the deep end. As far as content goes, there wasn't much there...though to be fair that's true of most presidential speeches.

Went on far too long with the killed soldier, passes into maudlin.

A couple good jokes.  

Does this belong in the serious thread? Ah whatever, it's Forumshire, who cares.

Ah whatever, it's Forumshire, who cares.- Forest

{{{ Thats the spirit! }}}

Why? Is Trump any more serious?

What the hell, Chris!? Care to explain that post?

I'm not sure how Wllie Wonka gets a look in, but the general point, I think, is reasonably clear. Though one suspects some Right Winger came up with the idea. .

Do they stone people in America then?

https://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/compost/wp/2017/03/01/if-you-thought-trumps-speech-was-presidential-you-probably-loved-scar-the-lions/

http://www.politico.eu/article/us-attorney-general-jeff-sessions-under-fire-over-russia-meetings/

Seems we have evidence of the next member of the Trump administration who had close contact with Russia during key moments of the campaign. A contact he denied during his confirmation hearing.

Orwell wrote:I'm not sure how Wllie Wonka gets a look in, but the general point, I think, is reasonably clear. Though one suspects some Right Winger came up with the idea. .

Willy has a lot to say about a lot of things. And he always uses the same profile picture. Suspicious dude, I say.

There are many reasons to post a meme like that. Could be trolling, could be to say "lol, look at what the idiots are saying now", could be "look what I brought to class today, please debate", could be to say "I so agree with this!", could be to inform us that Wonka is at it again.
And I thought it better to ask about that than spew out an angry rant. (It's not like this is the Who thread. )

Bluebottle wrote:Do they stone people in America then?

I wish I could say "no"....

Bluebottle wrote:http://www.politico.eu/article/us-attorney-general-jeff-sessions-under-fire-over-russia-meetings/

Seems we have evidence of the next member of the Trump administration who had close contact with Russia during key moments of the campaign. A contact he denied during his confirmation hearing.

Actually he denied discussing the campaign with the Russians, if I read it right; not meeting the Russians. He met the ambassador in his senate office - he's not fool enough to deny that.

I think there's bigger things to worry about with Trump than rather members of his staff were talking with the Russians. Would this have been a such problem if talking to the Brits? I doubt anyone was asking them to interfere with the election because that's outright treason. Feeling them out for policy is just sense, and nothing to get excited about. Let it go, there's bigger fish to fry.

I think democrats would do well to take a stance of helpful obstinance: willing to work together on things like simplifying regulations, but refuse to allow removing regulation. Help on reformulating healthcare, but balk at trashing previous gains unless something at least as good replaces it.

This Russian thing is wasting time. I'd rather force Trump to release his tax returns, but can understand republicans blocking it as a distraction.

Halfie, it is a problem because an almost unanimous American intelligence sector has publicly stated that Russia interfered with the US election. And that they did so going after one party only. The colluding of people in the Trump campaign with a Foreign power to tilt the American election is certainly very serious. And this is the second person out. If it wasn't a problem, would Trump have been forced to fire the  last person?

his meetings with Mr Kislyak came while he was a prominent part of Mr Trump's campaign team - a so-called surrogate - and amid growing reports of Russian meddling in the US election.

During his confirmation hearing on 10 January, Mr Sessions was asked by Democrat Senator Al Franken: "If there is any evidence that anyone affiliated with the Trump campaign communicated with the Russian government, in the course of this campaign, what will you do?"

Mr Sessions responded: "I'm not aware of any of those activities. I have been called a surrogate at a time or two in that campaign and I did not have communications with the Russians. And I'm unable to comment on it."

http://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-39136118

This story is only ramping up, and it's certainly not something anyone should dismiss as neglible.

An Obama White House national security official said the administration was gravely concerned in its final days about increasingly apparent ties between Trump associates and Russians, and about what appeared to be promises made by more than one individual to representatives of Russian President Vladimir Putin about policy changes that would occur once Trump was sworn in as president.

The senior Obama White House official was not told the names of the specific individuals involved because the official’s portfolio was foreign policy, not intelligence, so they were not briefed on aspects of the investigation involving U.S. persons.

“It seems pretty clear that [former National Security Adviser Michael Flynn] was not a rogue here,” the senior official said. “I don’t believe that Flynn was the only person promising things to the Russians, communicating to them what would happen once the Trump administration came in.”

The senior official was not aware of any specific information suggesting that Sessions was one of the Trump associates discussing potential changes in U.S.-Russia relations once Trump was sworn in.

http://www.politico.eu/article/us-attorney-general-jeff-sessions-under-fire-over-russia-meetings/

The last person out, Michael Flynn straight up lied. Let's say I'm not ready to believe this one is as innocent as the last one maintained he was.

The ball on the Russian affair is only starting to roll, but, as with Watergate, who knew a break in in the Democratic party offices would end with the sitting president stepping down before he could be impeached. This might be the beggining of the end of the Trump presidency. It all depends on what Trump and his campaign did. Going by what has been stated by the Obama administration, and the extraordinary lengths they went to to secure the evidence of what happened, that might not be as neglible as you seem to suggest.