You know things are wacky when G. W. Bush is a voice of reason.

[Revoltingest]

You know for someone who is so vocal about making sure we know that you voted because of lesser evil you do a fair share of defending the bad of what Trump has been doing.
Similarly to the dogmatic liberals defending Obama's drones and military involvement.

No, you're misreading.
I'm generally not defending Trump's policies at all.
(I disagree with many.)
Instead, I'm arguing against false & unsupported criticism.

This is similar to when at times I defend anti-abortion fundies against false criticism.
It's not that I side with them. (I'm pro-abortion.)
But at times, they're subject to criticism which is poorly reasoned.
I'll debunk that.

It's also similar to my arguing against the criticism that Obama is a Muslim who wants to destroy the country.
I don't like Obama or his most of his policies.
But neither do I like foaming at the mouth irrational criticism.

If you see me supporting something you find bad, feel free to deal with that specific policy.

 

[Revoltingest]

"defense spending, but not offense spending."

Too often those two can mean the same thing.

Which is why I make the distinction.
I like the idea of a strong defense, but I loathe invading other countries for other reasons.
And our self defense needs much attention because of the spendy distraction of foreign adventurism.

 

[Quetzal]

The President, or any one else, has the right not to be grilled by disingenuous partisans posing as real reporters.

Is being held accountable and fact checking what you would consider being grilled? Or is there another instance you are referring to? I will say, any sort of story that is presented as disingenuous/blatantly false for the sole purpose of slander is something I do not agree with.

 

[Revoltingest]

It took a while for Dubya to make his name. Trump is outrunning him in an impressive way.

I'm sure it seems that way to people who focus upon what they think he'll do.
But I don't think he's that predictable.
And Dubya did massive damage....a high hurdle for subsequent presidents who aspire to be bad.
So I'll judge based an upon actual record.

 

[Revoltingest]

How do you tell the one from the other?

I'll give some examples.....

Offensive:
Littoral combat ships designed to insert troops for small missions into countries are great for nation
building & policing the world, but won't protect us from first strikes by the China or Russia.

Defensive:
Directed energy weapons defend against ballistic missiles, but aren't useful attacking countries like Iraq, Iran
or Afghanistan, where we'd use troops, drones, bombs & missiles to kill bad guys while avoiding innocents.

 

[BSM1]

I'll give some examples.....

Offensive:
Littoral combat ships designed to insert troops for small missions into countries are great for nation
building & policing the world, but won't protect us from first strikes by the China or Russia.

Defensive:
Directed energy weapons defend against ballistic missiles, but aren't useful attacking countries like Iraq, Iran
or Afghanistan, where we'd use troops, drones, bombs & missiles to kill bad guys while avoiding innocents.

I agree with you on the littoral ships (which so far have been a huge 'meh') and other offense weapons. I also understand the need for troops etc., in some areas to neutralize a threat. However, how can we know when we have enough resources to do the job? Overkill (no pun intended) should be the order of the day simply because we cannot know what we may face tomorrow, IMHO.

 

[Revoltingest]

I agree with you on the littoral ships (which so far have been a huge 'meh') and other offense weapons. I also understand the need for troops etc., in some areas to neutralize a threat. However, how can we know when we have enough resources to do the job? Overkill (no pun intended) should be the order of the day simply because we cannot know what we may face tomorrow, IMHO.

I don't know how much is enuf.
I see several big problems.....
- The threats are complex & continually evolving.
- Pols don't recognize some of our needs, eg, more decentralized power generation, supply reserves in case of interruption.
- Confusing offense with defense.

 

[BSM1]

I don't know how much is enuf.
I see several big problems.....
- The threats are complex & continually evolving.
- Pols don't recognize some of our needs, eg, more decentralized power generation, supply reserves in case of interruption.
- Confusing offense with defense.

I am hoping the current administration will be using common sense and not political expediency in dealing with the issues you rightly point out.

 

[Quetzal]

I don't know how much is enuf.
I see several big problems.....
- The threats are complex & continually evolving.
- Pols don't recognize some of our needs, eg, more decentralized power generation, supply reserves in case of interruption.
- Confusing offense with defense.

We are also facing threats that are not traditional in their tactics. So long are the days of two opposing armies facing off.

 

[Revoltingest]

I am hoping the current administration will be using common sense and not political expediency in dealing with the issues you rightly point out.

I'm hoping.....but not betting on it.

 

[Revoltingest]

We are also facing threats that are not traditional in their tactics. So long are the days of two opposing armies facing off.

Aye dat.

 

[Quetzal]

I am hoping the current administration will be using common sense and not political expediency in dealing with the issues you rightly point out.

You and me both.

 

[Jeremiahcp]

Which is why I make the distinction.
I like the idea of a strong defense, but I loathe invading other countries for other reasons.
And our self defense needs much attention because of the spendy distraction of foreign adventurism.

Oh I know, people like you have been handing over my tax money for "defense" ever since I started paying taxes. We can't expand health care or education. . . . nope that would be socialism. Instead we have to throw more of my tax money at a run away bloated military budget for "defense".

This remarkable chart shows how U.S. defense spending dwarfs the rest of the world

The report did find, however, that there is a catch. New technologies mean that the West in general and the United States in particular are losing their technological edge, the report found. Countries such as Russia and China have been showcasing new systems and technological advances that show the balance of power may be shifting.

Of course the obvious solution to this is to give the military more money and not education. As education has nothing to do with developing new technologies.

 

[Revoltingest]

Oh I know, people like you have been handing over my tax money for "defense" ever since I started paying taxes.

Actually, no one like me has done that to you.
I've never voted for any pol elected to Congress or the presidency until Trump.
(The Libertarians....the ones who'd lower your taxes...always lose.)
And if you make no distinction between defense & offense (foreign adventurism), then you're a poopy head.

We can't expand health care or education. . . . nope that would be socialism. Instead we have to throw more of my tax money at a run away bloated military budget for "defense".

This remarkable chart shows how U.S. defense spending dwarfs the rest of the world

Did you vote for any presidents, congressmen or senators who won?
What is their record on the spending priorities you decry?

 

[Quetzal]

And if you make no distinction between defense & offense (foreign adventurism), then you're a poopy head.

Candidates don't do this either. But I would love to hear a few who voted for Trump, on the idea that he would stop military expansion, to hold their horse in the race accountable for what he is saying. You are the only one who has come close, which I respect.

 

[Revoltingest]

Candidates don't do this either. But I would love to hear a few who voted for Trump, on the idea that he would stop military expansion, to hold their horse in the race accountable for what he is saying. You are the only one who has come close, which I respect.

He's not my horse.....he's your president!
Anyway, politicians & I generally have different preferences.
We draft dodging weapon designers tend to not fit in.

 

[Quetzal]

He's not my horse.....he's your president!

Yes, he is. I made a thread dedicated to this. I will be clear about why this sort of political discussion irks me.

You were very vocal about Hillary and her war like tendencies. I agreed with you. But you brought it up over and over and over and over and over and over and over again.

But now, I am looking to you and the other Trump voters to join the rest of us in holding him accountable for what he is saying. The whole "lets wait and see" and "maybe congress..." is nice but meaningless because you are giving him a benefit of the doubt that you outright refused to give other candidates and voted on it. I am not saying any of this is your fault but I am hoping to see a balanced discussion in this regard because I think it is important.

 

[Revoltingest]

Yes, he is. I made a thread dedicated to this. I will be clear about why this sort of political discussion irks me.

You were very vocal about Hillary and her war like tendencies. I agreed with you. But you brought it up over and over and over and over and over and over and over again.

But now, I am looking to you and the other Trump voters to join the rest of us in holding him accountable for what he is saying. The whole "lets wait and see" and "maybe congress..." is nice but meaningless because you are giving him a benefit of the doubt that you outright refused to give other candidates and voted on it. I am not saying any of this is your fault but I am hoping to see a balanced discussion in this regard because I think it is important.

I can't hold him accountable...he doesn't return my calls.
But I can discuss what he does....approving of some things, disapproving of others.
You're mistaken about my giving other candidates the benefit of doubt, especially regarding Bernie.

Too often, people see others only as pro-Trump or anti-Trump.
(I'm neither.)
The leave no room for more complex positions.
Such prejudicies make discussion difficult.

 

[BSM1]

Too often, people see others only as pro-Trump or anti-Trump.
(I'm neither.)
The leave no room for more complex positions.
Such prejudicies make discussion difficult.

Amen. Unfortunately this leaves many of us to assume the mantle of "Pro-Trump" for the sake of sanity.

 

[Quetzal]

I can't hold him accountable...he doesn't return my calls.
But I can discuss what he does....approving of some things, disapproving of others.
You're mistaken about my giving other candidates the benefit of doubt, especially regarding Bernie.

Too often, people see others only as pro-Trump or anti-Trump.
(I'm neither.)
The leave no room for more complex positions.
Such prejudicies make discussion difficult.

I understand it is complicated and isn't cut and dry. But I would give my left shoe to hear a Trump voter on this forum say "You know what, he is acting against a platform that I voted on" instead of doubling down because they would then have to accept the fact a politician got em. But I have yet to see it.