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
Yes, even those who hate the president think that.
Quite. People in general seem to think the US President has more power then he has, especially with Domestic Policies — in fact, the President has more direct influence abroad then at home.
By the way, is it possible for Congress to instruct the Military to remove the President?
Keep Rolling OnYes, even those who hate the president think that.
Budgetary items always start in the House of Representatives, and, like all other bills, must be passed by both the House and the Senate before it goes to the President's signature. Anyone debating legislation ought to...well, know at least that much about the Constitution.
By the way, I was listening to a thing on NPR (Morning Edition specifically) this morning and they mentioned that the decades after WWII did have more progress, but it also had a Congress that was far more Democratic than Republican at times — sometimes 2:1 majorities. The commentator observed that — independent of any political particulars — a minority party stuck deep in the minority has relatively more incentive to negotiate, while a minority party that's within reach of the majority has more incentive to block and challenge. Basically, since the 80s, and especially now, the Republicans have less incentive, by game theory, to play nice and be productive.
edited 20th May '13 5:30:10 AM by GlennMagusHarvey
@Barkey: I wholeheartedly believe that the people who serve in our military have a right to be counted first when it comes to budget cuts — meaning they stay until/unless everything else has gone — and that we owe it to them to help them adjust to civilian life if/when they get out. The military-industrial complex has more than enough fat that we can trim it without firing soldiers.
That said, at some point, if we do our jobs properly, there won't be enough people to shoot at to justify such a large military.
@GMH: The question to be asked is: what allowed the Republicans to reassert their vocal minority status in Congress? And the answer is that it was the defection of the Dixiecrats during the Civil Rights movement. We're still deeply racist as a country and our current political schism is the legacy of that racism.
"It's Occam's Shuriken! If the answer is elusive, never rule out ninjas!"Justice Dept. Tracked Fox News Reporter James Rosen’s Movements, Obtained His Personal Emails
We really aren't all that huge compared to other countries in the top 10 for defense spending, personnel wise. The vast majority of that fat comes from contractors and R&D. The way things are supposed to work is that going for a government contract means the government gets several applicants and gets to bend them all over and pick whoever offers the best deal, we're supposed to be making people compete for the contract to work out in our favor, it doesn't really work like that anymore and that's the problem.
My thing is that we should go back to a self-sufficient military. We were able to do things massively cheaper in the era between the late 50's into the 80's. Yes, we had lots and lots of infrastructure and staff because of our cold war with the Russians, but the overall bang for our buck, the cost of what we had, was way more efficient back then. I like to think a lot of this had to do with the fact that many of our top scientists and designers of military equipment were actual troops assigned to R&D. We were taking dudes out of graduate school for various disciplines and making them military scientists, and now that practice has gone almost completely out the window in favor of civilian companies doing all the work and then just handing us prototypes to test, there isn't enough military control over the actual design process anymore.
I mean look at the different vehicles, equipment, and weapon systems that came out of the 60's until the fall of the berlin wall. We were able to make some pretty awesome shit for a good price. Yes, the defense budget is massive in the US, and fat needs to be trimmed, but I don't see why we can't just go back to the old ways. They worked way more efficiently than how we do things now. I think we could vastly reduce the defence budget while getting more value out of our current defense dollars, but DC is way too far into the pocket of the major defense contractors to do that.
Most of my family, including myself, are Law Enforcement in one way or another, and feel the same way I do. I figure we know a thing or two about guns ourselves. My dad is going on 24 years with LAPD now and retires next year.
There's no such thing as some one who can just show up with the credibility to say one opinion is right or wrong on that issue. Our entire profession is deeply divided on this issue. Plus, I don't trust cops who say those things, because when you're an LEO you can have those things even into retirement. It's the same reason most LEO's in California don't give a rats ass about our crappy gun laws, they don't have to follow them. If all LEO's had to turn in their guns when they got off duty and follow the same rules as civilians, the entire law enforcement community would be up in arms about gun bans and magazine limits, because most of them are avid shooters in their personal time, depending on where you go.
It's a rather divided issue, and it's all opinion based, there isn't really a right or wrong opinion on it.
edited 20th May '13 9:10:34 AM by Barkey
I would be more than happy to double soldier pay and benefits across the board, cut contractors almost completely out of the defense budget, create a nationalized arms company to compete with the private sector (basically a "public option" for the defense industry, to keep costs down), make soldiers' benefits ironclad for the next 100 years, roll back the unnecessary bases, and put soldiers to work building bridges or renovating Detroit or any number of huge peacetime projects, instead of invading people. I know there are many in the military who take pride at how good they are at shooting people, but it's really better if y'all aren't.
Share it so that people can get into this conversation, 'cause we're not the only ones who think like this.^^
Yeah, there isn't really anywhere in the US where our more martial aspects are useful beyond joint training with the police and such. Martial law is a sticky business, and there are a lot of laws involving domestic use of the military for a reason.
Honestly, I'd be down for a crusade through Africa to take down Kony and the Janjaweed Militias. Let me turn my skills on some people who deserve it, I feel like we could really make the world a better place if we were out there where people are being abused and there isn't really a shade of grey about it. Hell, turn some of us loose as UN Peacekeepers if we volunteer for it.. Pakistan does it more than anyone because it means they get to give their troops access to good training and field experience and for that duration they don't have to pay for them. Let us loose to go work for the UN for a while or something, don't just hang us out to dry.
That being said, take a big squad of grunts and tell them they're going to dig ditches for the day, and they'll do a damn good job. Most any of us in combat arms make really good day laborers.
As far as salary goes, honestly I feel we get paid pretty fairly. I mean I won't say no to a raise, but I feel pretty good about what I make.
One thing that makes us hesitant to ever work for the UN as blue helmets though, is their rules of engagement. I would only be down for hitting africa and other troubled places in the world if instead of just sitting on our asses as big blue targets, we were actively gathering intelligence and attacking the militias that are oppressing the people there. I won't go to just sit on my ass as a target, I want to go there to actually put some damn work in and eradicate groups like the Janjaweed and Kony.
edited 20th May '13 10:10:39 AM by Barkey
Nucla, Colorado Mandates Firearms in Households
If you guys read through the whole article, you can see that the "mandate" is completely symbolic. Exemptions include criminals, the mentally ill, people who can't afford to buy a gun and don't already have one, and anyone who opposes gun ownership for religious or "other" reasons.
In other words it's symbolic, it's saying "We'd like every house to have a gun in it, but if there isn't, no big deal."
Nucla is a mining town of less than a thousand people anyway, I've been through it, having spent most of my summers as a kid in Montrose county with my uncle. Also, being a rural town in Colorado, just about every family in Nucla probably has guns anyway.
I'm down with what they did to be honest, as long as its symbolic. I wouldn't think it right to force anyone to have guns in their home if they don't want to, but at the same time I'll be damned if anyone thinks they have the right to force me not to. That isn't their right either.
edited 20th May '13 10:51:05 AM by Barkey
Oh, whoopee. They mention the 'opt out' clause at the very last sentence of the damn article.
Journalistic integrity, what's that mythical creature....
Regardless, symbolic hypocrisy is still hypocrisy. Besides, what if I'm not opposed to it in principle but just don't want to own one right now?
Furthermore, I think Guantanamo must be destroyed.Qualifies under "Other" reasons I would assume.
Like I said, it's a town with around a thousand people, it's not like they are going to come to your house and tell you to move.
It's not any better than the folks trying to take them all away without a choice, so I'm not sweating it either way. Good for them for trying to make a statement.
I'm not a foaming at the mouth conservative, but these guys are in my corner, so it's nice to see some one there who is willing to try and say something about it. They're about the closest I've seen so far to some one sane standing up for my rights and getting some media attention, wish I could see more of that. More people taking a stand and saying "No, seriously, screw you Brady Campaign. You do you, we'll do us, and we can all get along that way. Stop trying to infringe on our rights."
edited 20th May '13 11:26:57 AM by Barkey
Meanwhile, three more people in the US probably got shot as we were talking about this.
The article itself is terrible, but setting that aside, I don't support the idea of 'symbolic' legislation at all - and Barkey, from the military threads I know you're a big on pragmatism and efficiency guy, so I think you'd be opposed to such things on principle, too. It's a waste of tax payer money solely for the purpose of ticking off the political opposition on a deeply-divided issue where both sides have (or at least, in theory, could have) valid reasons for their stances. And sure, maybe the residents of that town are fine with pissing away their money on such a gesture (most likely while simultaneously complaining about government spending), but it doesn't serve any constructive purpose in the national firearms debate.
At best, you're echo chambering. At worst, you're making the minority who disagrees with you feel oppressed by using the local government as a literal 'bully' pulpit. You're sending the message that people who don't take great pride in owning a gun are not welcome there socially, opt out or no opt out.
edited 20th May '13 11:45:50 AM by Karkadinn
Furthermore, I think Guantanamo must be destroyed.If that's the message the residents of that town want to send, then they are free to do so.
Normally I am a pragmatic kind of guy, until people start trying to pull sneaky political tricks to undermine things that I value. When they do that, pragmatism doesn't help defend those things, and the only thing I value more than pragmatism is doing anything to defend the things I care about and value, and the second amendment is one of those things to me.
I'm also big on local government. If the elected official of a town wants to pass an ordnance, then that is his right. If the people of that town see fit to keep re-electing him, then it continues to be his right. That particular town and many others in Colorado have a charter under the Colorado constitution that make them "Self-Governed" very specifically. It is very much their right to do what they did, regardless of if it makes a small few people uncomfortable(which knowing that area, I would say it doesn't.)
edited 20th May '13 11:58:42 AM by Barkey

The budget is indeed a Congressional issue. There, the defense contractors and plain military jobs (and more importantly, the jobs created by defense industry pork in the senators' and representatives' states/districts) that are the problem.
"For a successful technology, reality must take precedence over public relations, for Nature cannot be fooled." - Richard Feynman