CayceG

4 minutes ago, CitizenVectron said:

Is Canada the only other country that does this?

Hardly. There's like 30 more.

10 minutes ago, RedSoxFan9 said:

 

where the good republicans at

There are no good republicans.

I never said or intended to mean that this was a distraction. It absolutely isn't. It's a stunt born out of a deeply held nationalist belief. 

4 minutes ago, mclumber1 said:

I will reiterate what I said:

 

1. I don't believe that birthright citizenship is a thing based on my interpretation of the 14th amendment and based on legislation previously passed by Congress.

 

2.  By making this an issue, Trump is on shaky ground electorally - this will no doubt invigorate the left. 

 

3.  If pursued the wrong way, the Supreme Court could permanently decide against the anti-birthright opinion. 

1. Your interpretation of the 14th is by far the absolute minority when considering what legal scholars believe. 

2. And it will invigorate the racists that support Trump. It may even invite further violence against non-whites.

3. I don't believe this will amount to anything. I certainly don't believe SCOTUS will reverse plain english. 

We shouldn't even be talking about this. 

Just like deploying troops to the border, this is a political stunt intended to gin up feelings before the election. Now we're all talking about whether or not he can do this (he can't) as opposed to the mere fact that he's using troops as political props and is threatening to defy the constitution as a stunt. This is an outgrowth of his racist and nativist white-nationalism and it should be covered as such. 

11 minutes ago, Jason said:

 

CayceG is literally Thomas Friedman. 

The needle wasn't bad don't at me.

That tweet is well on its way to get ratio'd.

This is the author:

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

This article is purely an ad for this guy's new book:

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

And it is posted under a series called "TIME Ideas":

TIME Ideas hosts the world's leading voices, providing commentary on events in news, society, and culture. We welcome outside contributions. Opinions expressed do not necessarily reflect the views of TIME editors.

Stop amplifying morons. Good lord. 

29 minutes ago, Keyser_Soze said:

This is why I like paper ballots.

I knew there was disenfranchisement. I knew there was gerrymandering. I knew there were voter roll purges. I knew they closed polling places. I knew voter ID laws were a poll tax. 

But changing votes is another level. It's what tyrants do. The other shit is bad and shouldn't be done. This is another in the same bucket, but it just feels so much more egregious. 

This year (and the preceding two) is teaching me not to have faith in institutions as I had before. 

2 minutes ago, SaysWho? said:

 

Mass Effect 3? Really?

Political violence is what built this country. We should lean in to that. 

Mask up, brothers!

My grandmother died from complications from Alzheimer's early this year. She suffered (and so did we!) for 6 years. Fuck this awful disease. 

On 10/21/2018 at 11:08 AM, Zaku3 said:

 

Audiobook purchased

18 minutes ago, atom631 said:

me too. not to de-rail the discussion... but this 2020 Commission sounds interesting AF. Sometimes Im glad I have over an hr commute to work. 

Once you guys have finished the book, PM me or make a topic and at me. I'd love to talk it over with people.

37 minutes ago, Massdriver said:

My point is I question the idea that Trump is Russia's puppet. Trump is probably just miscalculating and thinking this will go down like the NAFTA deal. 

Exactly. 

Trump is not Russia's puppet. He received their support gladly in order to win. Since then, he's just not tried to piss them off because he's thinking about the business future. Same thing with Saudi Arabia. He is 100% self serving and at no point is Trump subservient to anyone or anything aside from his personal and financial interests. 

Corker's talking out of his ass because he's being mildly hopeful.

The summary I'm seeing from my arms control follows is that in the past, the US has pulled out of arms agreements (the ABM treaty specifically) because we want to develop new weapons. Now, we're pulling out of the INF because *Russia* wants to develop new weapons. There's no upside to our national interest. 

27 minutes ago, SFLUFAN said:

That's exactly what Bob Corker thinks.

Wait, what?

2 hours ago, SilentWorld said:

Nuclear war could be really exciting. I certainly wouldn’t kill myself immediately. At least see how the aftermath shakes out.

 

edit: is nuclear winter still believed to be a possibility or has that been debunked? Nuclear winter could make for some awesome skiing conditions. 

Nuclear winter is absolutely a thing. In the 2020 Commission I believe it mentions that after the exchanges the world suffers minor symptoms of it in terms of cooling. That then causes food shortages and famine that kills our displaces millions.

14 minutes ago, Jose said:

But how important is this treaty if Russia was just blatantly disregarding it to begin with?

Very important, as it eliminated an entire class of weapons. See my posts in the other thread:

But in terms of Russia cheating, that's a reason to go back to the table and reform the deal and update it, not to scrap it altogether. That's giving Russia (and the US) carte blanche to start a new arms race--and each party has stated their intention to do so. 

Also, the US has been cheating from Russia's point of view also. It's why the missile shield was such a big deal--it was probably an INF treaty violation. 

4 hours ago, Zaku3 said:

 

Audiobook purchased

Don't come crying to me when you wake up screaming in the night!

I'm not informed on that debate, so what follows is just my conjecture.

I would say that practically, these weapons are worthless outside of a first strike. And neither country wants to strike first, because that would invite a strategic response. 

However, these weapons are a strong deterrent. They allow for fast strikes that are extremely hard to detect until it is well too late. Russia has a policy that allows for nuclear responses to non-nuclear attacks or imminent threats mainly because of their gaps in conventional capability. These weapons Russia has are survivable in ways that ICBMs are not. They are easily mobile and concealable. We know where their ICBMs are. We know where their bombers are. We know where their nuclear attack subs are (in port. Hahaha get fukt). We can't find a forward deployed Iskander once it hits a million acres of forest. We can't find a silent diesel sub in the eastern Mediterranean loaded with cruise missiles. 

The problem is this. The weapons' usefulness is in that they are not used. But their ease of use (tactical level strikes and smaller, less destructive yields) encourages their use. Especially with a defensive posture such that Russia has. 

It's bad enough that Russia is circumventing. Our withdrawal will give them justification to continue pursuit. And it will remove our ability to address concerns with these weapons' development and deployment.

We need a new comprehension arms treaty that covers these weapons, new capabilities, and that includes China as one of the parties.

The INF Treaty got rid of an entire class of weapons like the American Ground Launched Cruise Missile and short-ranged (1,000km) Pershing missiles, as well as the Russian R-12, which was the subject of the Cuban Missile Crisis, SS-12s, which look exactly like Scuds, and the RSD-10, which caused a missile crisis in Europe in the late 70s. 

Now, I don't believe any of these will return. I don't believe that either the US or Russia will develop similar classes. 

What this means is that, like Wade says, Russia will be free to produce weapons of this class at will. As will the US. Here are two examples:

1. Russia currently has deployed a missile system called the Iskander-K. It is a mobile, ground launched cruise missile with a range of up to 5,000 km that violates the INF treaty. It could strike Europe within 10 minutes of launch. It is nuclear capable. The US has called Russia out on this before and now that Trump is in office, we have begun research into developing a response to this. That response would involve tactical (low-yield) nuclear-armed cruise missiles on our submarines. I don't have to tell you that tactical nuclear weapons are still nuclear weapons, and that their use will escalate a conflict into the nuclear realm. 

2. Remember the US missile shield in Europe back in 2008? It's online with two sites in Europe - Poland and Romania. It comprises a long range radar, and a stationary vertical launch missile platform called AEGIS Ashore. It is equipped as a ballistic missile interceptor site to defend against an attack from Iran. The problem, however, is that the system is basically taken straight from a naval destroyer. That involves the Mk 41 VLS. The Mk 41 carries the SM-3 interceptor used by AEGIS Ashore. BUT, as it is a universal VLS used by the Navy, it is also capable of loading  the Tomahawk missile. The Tomahawk missile is what the Ground Launched Cruise Missile system eliminated under the INF used. What this means is that the US could load cruise missiles into the AEGIS Ashore launchers and strike Russia with tactical nuclear weapons, again, within 10 minutes of launch. 

This is fucked. 

This is incredibly unsafe.