Nov 2023 Mod notice:
There may be other, more specific, threads about some aspects of US politics, but this one tends to act as a hub for all sorts of related news and information, so it's usually one of the busiest OTC threads.
If you're new to OTC, it's worth reading the Introduction to On-Topic Conversations
and the On-Topic Conversations debate guidelines before posting here.
Rumor-based, fear-mongering and/or inflammatory statements that damage the quality of the thread will be thumped. Off-topic posts will also be thumped. Repeat offenders may be suspended.
If time spent moderating this thread remains a distraction from moderation of the wiki itself, the thread will need to be locked. We want to avoid that, so please follow the forum rules when posting here.
In line with the general forum rules, 'gravedancing' is prohibited here. If you're celebrating someone's death or hoping that they die, your post will get thumped. This rule applies regardless of what the person you're discussing has said or done.
Edited by Mrph1 on Nov 30th 2023 at 11:03:59 AM
Not as angry as the name would suggest.
As much as I love superheroes, I don’t think that how this would affect fictional characters is exactly an airtight argument here.
Though I do take some dark amusement that yes, this would technically make most superheroes illegal, though not, interestingly, Superman.
Oh God! Natural light!
Eh hed have to be arrested under a lot of laws.
State of Mind
![[up]](https://static.tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pub/smiles/arrow_up.png "[up]"){kind=icon}
I'm aware, I just thought it darkly amusing that the person who is supposed to exemplify the United States' greatest traits would be effectively banned by this bill.
Yes, there are some questions surrounding the gas pipeline...some of them are territorial, some of them are related to the fact that the former chancellor of Germany is now working for the Russian company responsible for the pipeline (let's just say there are multiple reasons why the SPD did so badly in the last election but the unwillingness of the party to disavow Schröder was certainly one of them). But none of those issues are in any way related to NATO nor are any of the claims Trump made factually correct. I mean, he was basically suggestion that Germany was wilfully sidestepping sanction and that it entirely dependent on the gas from Russia for its energy supply.
To put the last claim in context: Germany only covers around 13% of its energy supply with gas (the only resource with is lower is nuclear and the elusive "other" - the largest resource is renewable which make up a third of the energy supply). And those 13% are NOT all imported from Russia, there are other sources, too. Germany is very careful to not be dependent on only one supplier, for obvious reasons.
Yes, there are some questionmarks regarding how the project came surpass, but for the record, that was started in the 1990s. Before Putin was in power, long before the attack on the Ukraine and during a period in which there were serious attempts to build a peaceful relationship between Germany and Russia. Maybe Germany was naive back then, maybe the political changes in Russia itself are to blame for the outcome, but even though I am ready to bet that there was some corruption involved in the deal from Schröders side, it made sense for Merkel to not stop a project which was already far underway when she came into power.
And when it comes to trading with Russia, one should never forget that it was Merkel who spear-headed the sanctions against Russia and there is no other country which loses as much revenue due to them than Germany. And now Trump wants to make a fuss about some gas, shortly after he complained about Russia no longer being in the G-7/G-8? Give me a break.
as I said, to expect Trump to understand any of the actual issues around the pipeline is giving him way to much credit. I'm pretty sure all he knows about it is the sound bite he probably heard on Fox News.
This should be taken to be nothing more than projection.
Edited by megaeliz on Jul 11th 2018 at 1:29:43 PM
Sure, but this projection lead to Angela Merkel emphasising the political independence of Germany...in case someone didn't notice, this was Merkel speech for "f... off".
From the still developing WTF Just Happened Today Feed:
U.S. government officials told four immigrant women that they would have to pay for DNA tests in order to be reunited with their children. The tests are part of the Trump administration's latest effort to reunite families that it had separated at the U.S. southern border. The tests are being administered by a private contractor on behalf of the Office of Refugee Resettlement. The Department of Health and Human Services has refused to name the contractor, which many constitute a violation of federal law. The Office of Refugee Resettlement denied passing on the costs of the DNA tests to the four migrant women. (Daily Beast)
Some children who have been reunited with their families after being separated at the U.S.-Mexico border are unable to recognize their mothers. Other children who had been potty-trained before being separated had regressed back to diapers. (New York Times)
https://www.nytimes.com/2018/07/10/us/politics/trump-administration-catch-and-release-migrants.html
From the moment it went online in 2014, the web portal designed to keep track of unaccompanied children and process their release has experienced major technological problems. Among the issues users have encountered are a limited number of total concurrent users, lost saved data, poor searchability, and significant manual work for minor updates and patches. That same system is now being used as a key part of the Office of Refugee Resettlement's efforts to track the thousands of migrant children who were separated from their parents at the border under the Trump administration's "no tolerance policy." (Reuters)
That Facebook donation thing still going on?
Edited by sgamer82 on Jul 11th 2018 at 12:13:00 PM
The Wanderer
At NATO, Trump lashes out at allies and then asks them to double their defense spending goals:
The demand during a closed-door meeting of NATO leaders would radically increase the amount of money channeled toward military purposes in the Western alliance — and even the United States is currently falling well short of Trump’s new goal.
Although Trump joined fellow NATO leaders in approving a sweeping set of plans to bolster defenses against Russia and terrorism, the U.S. president has complained that Europe has been taking advantage of U.S. military support for the continent. He urged his counterparts to substantially raise targets that they are already missing.
The move would raise billions more for defense. But not even the United States — which spends more money on defense than any other nation in the world — meets Trump’s new goal of annual spending of 4 percent of nations’ gross domestic product. Washington spent 3.6 percent last year.
Edited by rmctagg09 on Jul 11th 2018 at 2:16:07 PM
Eating a Vanilluxe will give you frostbite.
He can ask, he won't get it. Especially not after THAT display, but also not in general.
btw, has anyone managed to explain to him yet that this money is not paid to the US but defence spending within the respective countries? And not exactly a boon to the US weapon industry either because Eu countries supply from their own production sites?
Or, to put it differently, is there one coherent thought in this orange?
Of course they haven't, he's an ignorant moron who might as well personify Dunning-Kruger. That's not conductive to learning... anything really.
"Sandwiches are probably easier to fix than the actual problems" -Hylarn
On the Germany thing, it's basically this.
You're the puppet!
Edited by megaeliz on Jul 11th 2018 at 2:40:09 PM
For the record, I was serious about the "is that Facebook charity for the families at the border still a thing" question.
https://whatthefuckjusthappenedtoday.com/2018/07/11/day-538/
1/ Trump accused Germany of being "totally controlled" and "a captive of Russia" because it pays "billions and billions of dollars a year" to Russia for energy. Germany doesn't meet its NATO spending commitments, but has started construction on a second natural gas pipeline to Russia. Germany argues that it has increased its contributions to NATO and plans to spend even more on the alliance in the coming years. A few hours later, Trump told reporters that the United States has a "tremendous relationship" with Germany. (Washington Post / NBC News / Politico)
https://www.politico.com/story/2018/07/11/trump-merkel-germany-comment-nato-summit-709311
This is the Russian pipeline to Germany that Trump is mad about: an 800-mile-long, planned pipeline beneath the Baltic Sea. The project would roughly double Russia's gas export volume via the Baltic route. (Washington Post)
2/ Trump wants NATO allies to double their military-spending target to 4% of gross domestic product despite allies not meeting the current 2% target. The 29 members – including the U.S. – agreed to a joint summit declaration to move toward the 2% target by 2024. The U.S. contributes 3.5% of its GDP. (Wall Street Journal)
NATO Summit Live Updates: Trump Pushes Allies to Increase Spending. (New York Times)
https://www.nytimes.com/2018/07/11/world/europe/trump-nato-live-updates.html
3/ The Senate approved a non-binding motion in support of NATO. The symbolic 97-2 vote expresses the Senate's support for NATO and calls on negotiators to reaffirm the U.S. commitment to it. (The Hill / Axios)
4/ The Trump administration plans to hit China with roughly $200 billion in additional tariffs. Beijing's commerce ministry said it was "shocked" by the U.S. action and that China "has no choice but to take necessary countermeasures." Days ago the U.S. imposed 25% tariffs on Chinese goods worth $34 billion, which Beijing immediately responded to with its own tariffs on $34 billion in U.S. goods. The latest tariffs will undergo a two-month review process, with hearings on Aug. 20-23. (CNBC / New York Times / Wall Street Journal / CNN / Politico)
https://www.politico.com/story/2018/07/10/trump-china-trade-tariffs-708707
The Senate voted to give Congress a role in overseeing Trump's tariff decisions when imposed in the name of national security. The 88-11 vote in favor is non-binding and part of an effort by members of Congress who are concerned that trade disputes with China and western European nations and Canada, could damage the U.S. economy by harming U.S. employers and raising prices for consumers. (Reuters / Washington Post)
5/ The Department of Justice admitted that it may have mistakenly separated a family of U.S. citizens for as long as a year "because the parent's location has been unknown." (The Guardian)
https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2018/jul/11/us-immigration-family-separations-doj-us-citizens
U.S. government officials told four immigrant women that they would have to pay for DNA tests in order to be reunited with their children. The tests are part of the Trump administration's latest effort to reunite families that it had separated at the U.S. southern border. The tests are being administered by a private contractor on behalf of the Office of Refugee Resettlement, which the Department of Health and Human Services has refused to name – a possible violation of federal law. (Daily Beast)
Some children have been unable to recognize their mother's when reunited with their families. Other children who had been potty-trained before being separated have regressed back to diapers. (New York Times)
https://www.nytimes.com/2018/07/10/us/politics/trump-administration-catch-and-release-migrants.html
From the moment it went online in 2014, the web portal designed to keep track of unaccompanied children and process their release has experienced major technological problems. Among the issues users have encountered are a limited number of total concurrent users, lost saved data, poor searchability, and significant manual work for minor updates and patches. That same system is now being used as a key part of the Office of Refugee Resettlement's efforts to track the thousands of migrant children who were separated from their parents at the border under the Trump administration's "no tolerance policy." (Reuters)
poll/ 54% of voters think the government should keep ICE, 25% believe ICE should be abolished, and 21% are undecided. (Politico)
https://www.politico.com/story/2018/07/11/immigration-ice-abolish-poll-708703
Notables. Paul Manafort says he is being treated like a "VIP" in jail, where he has a phone, computer, private bathroom and shower, and does not have to wear a uniform. Manafort filed to delay his July 25 trial, claiming that his incarceration at Virginia's Northern Neck Regional Jail left him without adequate time to prepare for trial. (Washington Post / The Hill)
Trump pardoned the two Oregon cattle ranchers who were sentenced to five years in prison for committing arson on federal land — punishments which led to the armed occupation of a wildlife refuge by the Bundy family in 2016. The pardons were the result of a months-long campaign by agricultural groups like the Oregon Cattlemen's Association, and Interior Secretary Ryan Zinke. The White House issued a statement claiming that the Obama administration had been "overzealous" in its pursuit of the cattle ranchers. "This was unjust," said Sarah Huckabee Sanders. (New York Times)
https://www.nytimes.com/2018/07/10/us/politics/trump-pardon-hammond-oregon.html
Pfizer said it would delay drug price increases for no more than six months after speaking with Trump. The conversation came after Trump tweeted that Pfizer and other U.S. drug manufacturers "should be ashamed" for raising prices on some of their medications. (Reuters)
Secretary of State Mike Pompeo's visit to Pyongyang last week went "as badly as it could have gone." North Korea accused the U.S. of a "gangster-like mindset" following the denuclearization negotiations. Pompeo's described the talks as "productive." (CNN)
https://www.cnn.com/2018/07/11/politics/pompeo-north-korea-intl/index.html
, with the NATO's best estimates that all of NATO's aircraft including the ones the US supplies would be dead within 3 weeks. Nearly every thing in the Russian military is designed to shoot down aircraft in some way or form so the attrition rate would just be immense.
...
And all this is assuming the aircraft even worked, and the simple fact is that dont, Only 4 Eurofighters are capable of fighting, and half of the Typhoons are unable to fly. These beasts need 24 to 48 hours of maintenance for EVERY HOUR that they fly, which they are not getting.
This post over here is honestly the best summation of what should happen with the whole issue thank you Megaliz.
While this is.... quite concerning... I have been told that most states already have anti-mask laws on the books, is this true? and how would this differ from them.
Oh come on.... I don't even feel right saying "Disgusted but not suprised" at this point because at some point you would think basic human decency would kick in.
Having no children of my own I am not quite sure how babies work... Is this more benign "They have been away too long and have forgot there parrents" or "We have given you back the wrong baby".... not that the former should realy be the benign one, but in this case ._.;
To be honest, it would if any thing hurt the US weapon industry because as you said, they make there own... and if less US guns are needed, the US arms industry looses cash.
....
Which makes me wonder why Trump is pushing this, it may be pretty standard for republicians, but Trump seems like he would be way more swayed by coprate greed.
2% is fine you Orange Buffoon, meet the current standards, not impose new ones.... this goes for you in general too actually.
Whats the point of a non-binding motion? Honest question, if they don't do any thing they seem like a waste of time and effort, especialy since Agent Orange is just going to ingnore them.
This seems like a rare bit of good news, what all is left for it to go in effect, and can they fix this?
Once agian reminding us that if you seize a goverment building with guns but your white, its a 1st amendment protest... But if you so much as block a road and your brown your a terrorist.
Those stats are specifically for A-10s, not all aircraft, and those estimates were made in the 70s. It's a different ball game these days.
That poster is half right in saying that NATO airpower would easily overwhelm the Russians, but as you pointed out airpower doesn't mean much if you can't get it off the ground and that's unfortunately the state most European air forces are in. Without US logistical support it's unlikely they could surge enough aircraft to mount a proper defense.
They should have sent a poet.
Trump seems to think that military spending can just be ramped up within weeks or months. If countries are investing in big ticket purchases, like new warships, vehicles, aircraft or general kit upgrades; procuring those takes years, and the costs/investments are spread out over decades sometimes.
Politics is the skilled use of blunt objects.
I'm sorry Tien, but I must go all out.
One thing I've learned in the last couple of years is that "basic human decency" isn't something everyone has. Some people are just evil, pure and simple.
I just went with the A-10, because Garcon is the one that has the actual simulation numbers, but he is not active right now so I couldn't poke him for them, if he has them on him still and would like to share when he sees this...
Like I mentioned, Cold War-era estimates are inevitably going to a ways off what you'd expect today. Those A-10 estimates are even further off. Not to say it would be easy, but Russia wouldn't win an air war with NATO (US included) under any circumstances and they know it. It's why they've invested so heavily in A2/AD capabilities.
This is probably a conversation for the military thread, though.
They should have sent a poet.
Blowout soon fellow Stalker
Between pilot losses, frame losses, fuel and ammo expenditure and the massive amount AA the Russians can bring to bear I've always heard three weeks as the general timeframe when NATO's airpower will be depleted to the point of strategic ineffectiveness in a hypothetical hot war.
I do know that due to the nature of their missions the A-10s were expected to be the first to go.
Also wow my phone butchered the grammar on this post.
Edited by LeGarcon on Jul 11th 2018 at 4:39:29 AM
Oh really when?
Oh no, the claim isn't that they would win an air war, far from it, there planes would burn out first.
The claim is that due to those air defenses they invest so heavily in, and the relative fragility of aircraft... and reliance on a permissive airspace to do most of the heavy work, that the victory would be pyrrhic, and not contribute too much to an overall war.
Sorry if there was a miss understanding there, there is a difference between "Looses" and "Burns out to fast after winning to be useful"
This is off topic though, if you want we could continue talking about it over in the airplane thread.
Edited by Imca on Jul 11th 2018 at 1:59:38 AM
Yeah, the anti-Antifa law probably wouldn't be so inflammatory at its face (ironically) if it were named anything else. But when it's literally called the "Unmasking Antifa Act", it's blatantly obvious that it's aimed at just that group.
"Why would I inflict myself on somebody else?"
Are we really surprised Trump has no idea how the fuck anything in government works?
"Yup. That tasted purple."
x3, x4 The "three weeks" estimate was based on 70s and 80s-era military capabilities. An A-10 would probably never even see action in a conventional conflict with Russia these days. The main threat Russia poses to NATO air wings now is the aforementioned A2/AD capabilities, the Ru AF itself doesn't stack up well against NATO air power.
I'm honestly not sure what the newer estimates would be, but if I had to guess I'd say maybe 5-6 weeks. We have much deeper stocks of weapons now, and a pretty significant technological edge. However, that assumes consistent quality of defense from the Russians, which isn't likely, and it assumes a "doomsday" scenario as well where everyone fights to the death. That's not what a modern war with Russia would look like.
Russia could probably capture parts of Eastern Europe, but they'd be repelled quickly. Depending on the speed with which they got their defenses in place they'd be able to hold onto at least a portion of what they captured, which is a favorable outcome for them, though their forces would be bloodied. We'd probably take heavy losses as well, but not to the same degree. It's sort of a "win the battle, lose the war" scenario, because while NATO would pretty much dominate most heads-up fights it's unlikely we could fully prevent Russia from seizing territory.
Edited by archonspeaks on Jul 11th 2018 at 2:07:00 AM
They should have sent a poet.
On top of it being somewhat redundant, since I'm pretty sure violence against protesters, masked or not, would already be charged as assault, couldn't this easily be co-opted by more liberal judges to put away any alt-right loonies and KKK types that show up in anything face-obscuring?
Edited by danime91 on Jul 11th 2018 at 2:08:28 AM
Captain America would have to be arrested under this law.
"What a century this week has been." - Seung Min Kim