America - The Official Thread
- Thread starter ///M-Spec
- 38,707 comments
- 1,594,090 views
Joey D
Premium
- 47,160
- Boyne Falls, MI
- GTP_Joey
- GTP Joey
I don't believe I was hating on him with that post. I was just pointing out that who's in office has little effect for the short term economy. They do have a minor impact on the long term economy though, which is why I said any boost we are seeing now is likely due to Obama if we want to credit a president. Even then though, I don't think I'd really give Obama and more credit than Trump.
Bloomberg breaks it down, at least in terms of the stock market: https://www.bloomberg.com/view/arti...-doesn-t-matter-that-much-to-the-stock-market
Trump will affect the market with his foreign policy though. If a war breaks out in North Korea, there's a real possibility the market will falter.
Also depending on how NAFTA goes, it could turn the economy for the worse too, but we really don't know yet.
Not any of the auto manufactures in Detroit.
The biggest reason for a mass exodus from Detroit for the Big 3 primarily results in building poor quality products that no one wanted to buy. The companies were making less money and the UAW didn't want to make concessions. So they moved the plants elsewhere where it's cheaper to build vehicles. Now that these companies no longer make garbage vehicles, it makes more sense to move the plants back to the US to reduce shipping costs and trade tariffs.
- 2,851
- Australia
"We put the serve in conservative"?
Now we just need a good-news story about a bar chain, so we can whip out "We put the publican in Republican".
- 2,620
- Lincoln, NE
- huskeR_32
So businesses failing when Trump is president = nothing to do with the president.
But businesses failing when Obama is president = entirely the president's fault.
Come on man, at least try and hide your shameless bias.
Oh, and as for your claim that those Carrier jobs are coming back because of Trump... maybe check some facts before posting?
- 6,047
- Simcoeace
My biggest fear is that an improving economy will boost Trump's poll numbers & we (& by "we" I mean The World) will be stuck with him for another 4 years. The economy is largely cyclical - it goes through boom & bust phases. These tend to have their own logical progression, although they can be moderated or controlled, to some extent, by government policies. However, there's no question that bad policy can lead to bad outcomes, as we saw with the housing fiasco leading up to the 2008 financial crisis.
Trump & his policies, specifically his tax "reforms" have definitely contributed to the rise in the stock market. It's significant that the article you link to, Joey, is from way back in January 2017. The rise has continued at a rapid pace since then. The irony of this is that the "Trump voter", at least the archetypical blue-collar Trump voter, will likely not have directly benefitted from this at all, as the poorest 50% of the US population typically own no investment portfolio (& often no savings at all). So, the richest Americans see a large increase in their wealth, while the rest wait, yet again, for "trickle-down".
The long game of the GOP, in my opinion, is to convince as many Americans as possible that government spending doesn't represent a benefit to them personally, so that they can continue to erode public services. At the same time, lowered tax rates on the wealthy will result in increasing deficits, which will require the government to further cut public spending. Brilliant.
- 5,588
- Dahlonega, GA
- ryzno
Nobody else is hiding their political bias...
The man was destroying America and we did lose jobs and companies during his time which was my original point.
As usual y'all would rather pick at my words than admit it.
And even though y'all think I'm posting stupidity I do learn and will consider the info.
Also I did admit we lost jobs under Trump earlier. But I also mentioned companies were coming back, something Obama told us was the new norm for America.(losing jobs)
Last edited:
Dotini
(Banned)
- 15,742
- Seattle
- CR80_Shifty
Everyone will be delighted to know that our long war on terrorism is over, and won. Now, reduction of the overinflated nation states Russia and China is our #1 priority. Thank God we have General "Mad Dog" Mattis - not to mention the towering genius of Donald Trump - to guide us in our noble duty toward mankind's glorious destiny here on Earth. 
https://www.cbsnews.com/news/terrorism-no-longer-the-militarys-top-priority-mattis-says/
Terrorism no longer the military's top priority, Mattis says
WASHINGTON - There is a major change in U.S. military strategy. On Friday, more than 16 years after the 9/11 attacks, U.S. Defense Secretary Jim Mattis said terrorism is no longer the No. 1 priority.
Mock ships the size of American destroyers are laid out in China's missile impact test range on the edge of the Gobi Desert. They are the mirror image of the U.S. Navy base in Yokosuka, Japan, headquarters of the 7th Fleet. An impact crater next to one of the mock ships is close enough to have destroyed all three.
Mock ships the size of American destroyers are laid out in China's missile impact test range
CBS NEWS
Pentagon officials cite analysis by a U.S. Navy officer assigned to a Washington think tank as one of many reasons why China and Russia have replaced terrorism as the primary focus of the new national defense strategy. Maintaining a military advantage over China and Russia is now Defense Secretary Mattis' top priority.
https://www.cbsnews.com/news/terrorism-no-longer-the-militarys-top-priority-mattis-says/
Joey D
Premium
- 47,160
- Boyne Falls, MI
- GTP_Joey
- GTP Joey
It takes some major cajones to say something like that. I mean for Christ sake the proposed budget is what, $630 billion or something like that?
If there ever was a major fleecing of the taxpayers, it's defense spending.
I mean looking at a graph like this:
I don't think we really need to worry about an increase in China's spending.
Plus, they're probably trying to ready themselves if war breaks out in the region. If the US starts a conflict with North Korea, that's right in China's backyard. I don't really blame them for wanting to be prepared if the region destabilizes even more.
UKMikey
Premium
- 17,473
- Grea'er Laandan
- UKMikeyA
- UKMikeyA
This is an interesting chart but the US is a much bigger country than the others in the list and has to defend a greater geographical area. I wonder whether the infographic represents absolute spending per country or the proportion of total budget spent.It takes some major cajones to say something like that. I mean for Christ sake the proposed budget is what, $630 billion or something like that?
If there ever was a major fleecing of the taxpayers, it's defense spending.
I mean looking at a graph like this:
[EDIT] I'm guessing it represents total size of budget in absolute terms after looking at these three year old figures from the Forbes website which cover defence spending as a proportion of GDP by country. Admittedly they're from the time when Obama was supposed to have been "destroying America" so military spending may have risen since then.
Last edited:
- 9,401
- Western Sydney
- mustafur
The funny thing is that doesn't exactly give you an indication of military strength, for example Russia makes massive money selling it's equipment to other countries and despite the low budget their arsenal is much more advanced then China's (apart from the navy.)
- 13,830
- Adelaide
- Neomone
Shall we look at number two?
China.
Population: 1.4 billion.
Land area: 9.6 million square kilometers.
The US has 9.8 million square kilometers so you're about even there. I don't think 200 thousand square kilometers is worth writing home about. I'm not so sure that the US population is bigger than China though.
Dotini
(Banned)
- 15,742
- Seattle
- CR80_Shifty
Tech companies see no Russian influence on the 2017 election. IMO, should the Mueller investigation fail, look for an instant massive counterattack against all things Obama, Clinton and Democrat. Firings, arrests, indictments, fire and blood against the Deep State.
https://news.antiwar.com/2018/01/26...vidence-of-russian-influence-in-us-elections/
US war on North Korea now seems inevitable. Likely Trump will try for a sneak low-yield nuclear strike in an effort to limit casualties to less than 100. Good luck with that. A retaliation could see millions dead, even a civilization-ending WW3. IMO an effort should be made to evacuate Seoul if this thing goes down.
https://www.theatlantic.com/international/archive/2018/01/duckworth-trump-north-korea/551381/
https://news.antiwar.com/2018/01/26...g-for-tactical-nuclear-strike-on-north-korea/
https://news.antiwar.com/2018/01/26...vidence-of-russian-influence-in-us-elections/
US war on North Korea now seems inevitable. Likely Trump will try for a sneak low-yield nuclear strike in an effort to limit casualties to less than 100. Good luck with that. A retaliation could see millions dead, even a civilization-ending WW3. IMO an effort should be made to evacuate Seoul if this thing goes down.
https://www.theatlantic.com/international/archive/2018/01/duckworth-trump-north-korea/551381/
https://news.antiwar.com/2018/01/26...g-for-tactical-nuclear-strike-on-north-korea/
- 6,047
- Simcoeace
This is an interesting chart but the US is a much bigger country than the others in the list and has to defend a greater geographical area. I wonder whether the infographic represents absolute spending per country or the proportion of total budget spent.
[EDIT] I'm guessing it represents total size of budget in absolute terms after looking at these three year old figures from the Forbes website which cover defence spending as a proportion of GDP by country. Admittedly they're from the time when Obama was supposed to have been "destroying America" so military spending may have risen since then.
It's an interesting chart (assuming it's more or less accurate). The extreme outlier is Saudia Arabia - not surprising considering it has a quasi-feudal social structure in which the ruling class has access to huge amounts of money. Israel - not surprising considering the hostility of the surrounding states. The US doesn't seem so extreme considered on a GDP basis - only about 60% more than the UK, France & China. The sad reality with Russia is that it has a large population, a vast resource-rich land area, sophisticated technological know-how ... & a pathetically low GDP.
- 13,830
- Adelaide
- Neomone
I wonder if South Korea knows this and the most recent push for talks and cooperation is to try and deflect any retaliation away from them and onto the correct target, which would be whoever attacks North Korea. I can't imagine SK wants to take it on the chin for the US president's warmongering.
McLaren
Premium
- 45,190
- Texas
These stores have been going out of business for years now. They're going the way of Circuit City, or do we get to push fault at Trump for that chain as well?
It's just the way the business world has worked decades as times changed. The online world has had a big hand in putting the final blow to physical retail stores.
Danoff
Premium
- 33,604
- Mile High City
Yes you can! Why on earth could you not say that? Math. Add more than you subtract and it's a net gain. Good grief.
Seems like the kind of thing that should actually be tabulated by people who want to compile the numbers too: http://www.deptofnumbers.com/employment/us/
Dotini
(Banned)
- 15,742
- Seattle
- CR80_Shifty
The #2 man at the FBI is dismissed as the House intel committee votes to release the memo and lets the FBI director read it. **** storm to follow!
McCabe was former FBI Director James Comey's right-hand man (Copyright 2017 The Associated Press. All rights reserved.)
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/201...ontroversial-surveillance-memo-to-public.html
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/201...rector-andrew-mccabe-removed-from-bureau.html
McCabe was former FBI Director James Comey's right-hand man (Copyright 2017 The Associated Press. All rights reserved.)
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/201...ontroversial-surveillance-memo-to-public.html
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/201...rector-andrew-mccabe-removed-from-bureau.html
Last edited:
- 29,329
- Bratvegas
- GTP_Liquid
Additionally both China and Russia have 14 international land borders each and a greater land border to secure. Not to say that maritime borders with Cuba and several Mexican crossings aren't hazardous but the borders that the USA have to defend are much more stable and less threatening than those of China and Russia. Yet the USA has a military budget larger than the next seven combined. Bigly!
I'm also not really sure what "we have big borders" has to do with justifying military budgets. Is most of the US armed forces stationed around the edges of the country?
Dotini
(Banned)
- 15,742
- Seattle
- CR80_Shifty
Borders? What borders? The US military goes almost wherever it wants. A maze of satellites keep watch everywhere from above.
The US has about 800 military installations in about 70 countries and territories around the world, despite many recently closed in Iraq and Afghanistan. There are (maybe) ~440 installations in the continental US. These numbers do not includes classified installations , nor CIA, etc.
If you were just arriving from off-planet, you might be forgiven for concluding the US is in fact a global military empire.
IMO, the CIA has calculated a ~99% probability of an inevitable nuclear WW3, most likely with China. You would likely be amazed at the scope of classified underground installations and tunnels in place to ensure continuity of government, industry and agriculture.
Last edited:
Dotini
(Banned)
- 15,742
- Seattle
- CR80_Shifty
This is close to what the aliens actually look like, according to CIA agent Chase Brandon - except they have 4 arms, not two. Height 8', with a 5' tail.
"We'll know our disinformation program is complete when everything the American public believes is false".
- 1981 quip of William J. Casey, Director of CIA, 1981-1987
“I think over the past several decades there have been a number of phenomena that have been observed by pilots, both commercial pilots, both military pilots, that are basically unexplained. Maybe it’s the result of some type of atmospheric conditions or something else. And so I think the Pentagon rightly is trying to understand whether or not any of these phenomena have implications as far as national security is concerned. Some people refer to it as UFO, an unidentified flying object, it’s something that is observed but there is no determination about what its origin or provenance is.
“During the course of my career, both in the CIA as well as the White House, I was aware that there were endeavors to try to discern what some of these phenomena are. Most of them remain unexplained."
- January 22, 2018 statement of John O. Brennan, Director of CIA, 2013-2017
Last edited:
- 7,436
- Canada
- photonrider
The Truman Doctrine is still alive. 
Americans - as I said before; the depth of your political knowledge (and additionally your obvious interest in the truth about your nation) brings tears to my eyes. I do miss FK, but the rest of you make up for it.
H.
Americans - as I said before; the depth of your political knowledge (and additionally your obvious interest in the truth about your nation) brings tears to my eyes. I do miss FK, but the rest of you make up for it.
H.
- 28,470
- Windsor, Ontario, Canada
- Johnnypenso
- 13,959
- Ireland
- driftking18594
- CiaranGTR94
Hey, maybe that was Trump's thought process when he missed the deadline to enforce sanctioning powers granted by CAATSA.
- 2,188
- Northwest Passage
I don't think that's possible. Say we did actually launch missiles at North Korea out of the South Pacific (although it would probably coincide with strategic drone and airstrikes that immobilize nuclear facilities and launchsites). Couple scenarios for North Korea now. They might react too slowly and can't launch an effective counter. They might react and launch their whole arsenal, though we wouldn't know if they could do it before their launchsites get immobilized and destroyed, but odds are some of them would still be able to launch something somewhere, if they can actually launch something in a 15-30 minutes notice. And the actual launching of the missiles. We know that they can fire a missile into the sky, and we know they can detonate bombs, but can they launch a missile accurately into the sky with it detonating at the right location, say Seoul, without completely overshooting or undershooting the target, or without a premature mid-flight explosion, or without any sort of other failure mid-flight. And will they be able to penetrate the Patriot and THAAD (although it's range supposedly doesn't cover Seoul) missile defense systems, if they can actually get a launch off? And if they can be stopped mid-flight, will the fallout have a massive effect, affecting Seoul and the surrounding areas?
I doubt that China would join in a counter attack with North Korea, knowing the stakes. I don't think that China and North Korea are as close as the media likes to portray them to be. But you never know with the Paper Tiger.
