America - The Official Thread

[ryzno]

allusions made in texts between individuals in a relationship, you want somebody's head on a pike.

They said what they said, being in a relationship has nothing to do with collusion.

 

[Danoff]

The Air Force handles that.

It was intended to read... who should handle that.

NASA does some military space work (although I think it's a tiny fraction of the administration). Air Force handles stuff like NORAD. Navy handles sea-based ICBMs.

 

[TexRex]

They said what they said, being in a relationship has nothing to do with collusion.

Disagree.

It's been my experience that people are less likely to withhold certain comments when communicating with someone with whom they're swapping fluids--you're likely more comfortable with them than you are your co-workers. And given that that relationship was being kept under wraps due to its doubly extramarital nature, one might assume comments would be treated in a manner similar to other...*cough*...activities, inviting such comments by removing fear of them being discovered.

 

[ryzno]

Disagree.

It's been my experience that people are less likely to withhold certain comments when communicating with someone with whom they're swapping fluids--you're likely more comfortable with them than you are your co-workers. And given that that relationship was being kept under wraps due to its doubly extramarital nature, one might assume comments would be treated in a manner similar to other...*cough*...activities, inviting such comments by removing fear of them being discovered.

So you agree they meant what they said... But cause they are in a relationship it's ok.

 

[TexRex]

So you agree they meant what they said...

There's a difference between a willingness to say something in present company and meaning it. Beyond that, there's a difference between meaning something and acting on it.

 

[eran0004]

It was intended to read... who should handle that.

Still the Air Force. What do you gain by creating a separate branch?

What’s weird about the current organisation though is that the Space Command also deals with cyberspace. Is there any reason for why it’s there other than that it ends with -space?

 

[ryzno]

There's a difference between a willingness to say something in present company and meaning it. Beyond that, there's a difference between meaning something and acting on it.

So what? That's what happens when you use a government issued phone...

 

[Danoff]

What’s weird about the current organisation though is that the Space Command also deals with cyberspace. Is there any reason for why it’s there other than that it ends with -space?

I'm not aware of that but... no reason I can think of.

 

[TexRex]

So what? That's what happens when you use a government issued phone...

If they were genuinely conspiring to act in the manner that some are accusing them of, why would they leave a trail of bread delivery vans like that?

Surely you've made comments--jokes, even--in the company of individuals with whom you were comfortable, that you wouldn't make in the company of just anyone.

 

[TenEightyOne]

the Space Command also deals with cyberspace. Is there any reason for why it’s there other than that it ends with -space?

Sesnsibly... that's not the reason. Nowadays who knows?

 

[Dotini]

Still the Air Force. What do you gain by creating a separate branch?

What’s weird about the current organisation though is that the Space Command also deals with cyberspace. Is there any reason for why it’s there other than that it ends with -space?

Brilliant questions.

Go back to the reason The Don stated for the creation of the new force: "Dominance".
What does dominance mean other than total control? We become the gatekeepers of space, controllers of the high ground and final frontier. Nobody on Earth gets anything into space, hardware or signals, without either cooperating with or paying us. Moo-haw-haw! Mad, maniacal and right out the pages of a James Bond thriller.

General Buck Turgidson tapped for command of new Space Force.



Please deposit 25¢ in the slot at the bottom of this post.

 

[TenEightyOne]

Brilliant questions.

Go back to the reason The Don stated for the creation of the new force: "Dominance".
What does dominance mean other than total control? We become the gatekeepers of space, controllers of the high ground and final frontier. Nobody on Earth gets anything into space, hardware or signals, without either cooperating with or paying us. Moo-haw-haw! Mad, maniacal and right out the pages of a James Bond thriller.

I couldn't care less who is running the space exploration for any given country - what is bothering me is that this seems like a militaristic move into a place that most of the planet agrees is non-military. Of course, Donald Trump .vs. The Rest of the Planet is top of the bill right now.

Spoiler

There ya go, new avatar!

 

[TexRex]

*pushes*

 

[Northstar]

what is bothering me is that this seems like a militaristic move into a place that most of the planet agrees is non-military.

When did this happen? Or are we not including all the spy satellites in orbit?

 

[UKMikey]

Will the President be able to commandeer an orbiter vehicle for use as Space Force One?

 

[Northstar]

Will the President be able to commandeer an orbiter vehicle for use as Space For One?

Yes, but unfortunately the program is young so options are limited.

 

[Eunos_Cosmo]

Brilliant questions.

Go back to the reason The Don stated for the creation of the new force: "Dominance".
What does dominance mean other than total control? We become the gatekeepers of space, controllers of the high ground and final frontier. Nobody on Earth gets anything into space, hardware or signals, without either cooperating with or paying us. Moo-haw-haw! Mad, maniacal and right out the pages of a James Bond thriller.

General Buck Turgidson tapped for command of new Space Force.



Please deposit 25¢ in the slot at the bottom of this post.

Gee, I wish we had one of them Doomsday Machines

 

[ryzno]

If they were genuinely conspiring to act in the manner that some are accusing them of, why would they leave a trail of bread delivery vans like that?

Surely you've made comments--jokes, even--in the company of individuals with whom you were comfortable, that you wouldn't make in the company of just anyone.

I have. I've also searched for porn on my work tablet. Guess what happened the next morning.
You can sugar coat it all you want. They did it on work/GOVERNMENT devices. They get NO privacy. What is so hard to understand? Why are you defending them so hard? Cause Trump?

 

[TexRex]

They did it on work/GOVERNMENT devices. They get NO privacy. What is so hard to understand?

Did what? No assumptions, no speculations--just what did the dump of texts sent between them actually yield?

Why are you defending them so hard? Cause Trump?

I'm not defending anything, but I'm not speculating either. If anything happened, I believe appropriate punishment should be passed down, however I have no reason to believe communication led to commission. I mean...maybe my gut instinct isn't as attuned as yours, but when I see a pallet of cash and get a logical explanation for why it's being flown off to a foreign land, I don't willfully ignore that explanation in favor of pea-brained theories.

Why are you hitting one investigation so hard and decrying the other? Because Trump?

 

[TenEightyOne]

I have. I've also searched for porn on my work tablet. Guess what happened the next morning.

Sore hand?

You can sugar coat it all you want. They did it on work/GOVERNMENT devices. They get NO privacy.

Not quite how it works. They have a 'reasonable expectation of privacy' but, given recent SC judgements, that's easily bypassed for any justifiable reason. That leads one to wonder just how deeply nefarious these texts actually were - if it was all part of a big anti-Trump plot then any decent FBI agent would have been using a burner. The fact that they were texting in the clear makes it hard to believe that this was anything other than a text conversation about their own personal views on the upcoming Presidential candidates. There are probably similar messages about sports teams.

What is so hard to understand?

It's interesting that Strzok wrote the memo that arguably lost Clinton the election, it wasn't much of a master stroke, was it? It seems that you're taking a normal adult-to-adult conversation and deciding that it constitutes absolute proof of an active plot without considering any other possibility. You're particularly ignoring that there were no findings that Strzok didn't discharge his professional duties exactly as he should have done.

Why are you defending them so hard? Cause Trump?

I can't speak for anyone else here but I've definitely never defended anything hard enough to cause a trump.

 

[TexRex]

Sore hand?

 

[baldgye]

The US leaves the UN Human Rights Council due to ‘political bias’

 

[eran0004]

Will the President be able to commandeer an orbiter vehicle for use as Space Force One?

Not only that, but he’ll make ESA pay for it.

 

[Mr Tree]

The US leaves the UN Human Rights Council due to ‘political bias’

I'm sorry but americans really need to start doing something...

You're leaving the human rights counsil, that is highly hypocritical but leaving it doesn't seem for the reasons I find it to be a bad counsil. It's hypocritical.in nature but trump.doesn't like that it's not hypocritical enough for america and Israel.


Ow yeah and you're seperating children from their parents. Think about that one being seperated from your parents no.mater what age you are.
Before you had plausible deniability but now, Nazi america here you come. How can you justify seperating children from their parents, considering when the parents get free they habe the right to search for their children. But the government shouldn't reunite them.

This is pure psychological torture.

 

[baldgye]

I'm sorry but americans really need to start doing something...

You're leaving the human rights counsil, that is highly hypocritical but leaving it doesn't seem for the reasons I find it to be a bad counsil. It's hypocritical.in nature but trump.doesn't like that it's not hypocritical enough for america and Israel.


Ow yeah and you're seperating children from there parents. Think about that one being seperated from your parents no.mater what age you are.
Before you had plausible deniability but now, Nazi america here you come. How can you justify seperating children from their parents, considering when the parents get free they habe the right to search for their children. But the government shouldn't reunite them.

This is pure psychological torture.

Yeah, but Space...


It’s surprising how this isn’t a bigger issue for people here

 

[Scaff]

It’s surprising how this isn’t a bigger issue for people here

It is for me, but I'm not sure I can stomach the attempts at justification that will be almost certain to com and remain within the AUP.

 

[Touring Mars]

What is particularly distasteful, even by his own low standards, is Trump's attempt to deflect the blame on to the Democrats, despite the fact that it is completely within his power to suspend the policy of family separations - instead, he is opting to make any change in policy that would end family separations contingent upon the Democrats supporting his proposed amendments to immigration law (e.g. funding for his wall etc.).

Trump, of course, is unlikely to be swayed by the negative publicity - indeed, if they didn't want images of these places being reported, then why were the press invited in to some of these facilities? The intent is to publicise the fact that the US border is well and truly closed to illegal immigrants and this is what will happen if you try. But with a bit of luck, the massive negative publicity, coupled with the ham-fisted and typically obtuse way that some of Trump's most outspoken advocates have handled it (Coulter, Conway etc.), might just make enough of his 'base' sit up and take notice.

Another female conservative commentator said last night that it is entirely the fault of refugees for choosing to enter the US illegally (as opposed to claiming asylum legitimately at a designated border post). This kind of attitude, sadly, is neither untypical nor unexpected, but I believe it is also disingenuous - they can't honestly expect a Honduran woman fleeing with her children to be fully versed in US laws on immigration and asylum. That attitude frankly beggars belief, but that is exactly what these conservatives are saying.

Granted, however, there is a problem with illegal immigration and something has to be done about people who are not only exploiting the weaknesses of US policies on immigration, but who are also exploiting refugees (and children) in order to access the US illegitimately. On this front, Trump is right that something more needs to be done, but unfortunately for the huge numbers of legitimate asylum seekers who make it as far as the US border, Trump's blunderbuss approach to, well, everything is tarring all illegal entrants to the US with the same brush - yes, it will stop unscrupulous people from entering the US illegally and it will probably act as a deterrent to many people as well, but the cost of such a 'one size fits all' policy is a blight on the reputation of America and a stain on the conscience of all those responsible for treating innocent children in such a horrific manner.

 

[baldgye]

What is particularly distasteful, even by his low standard, is Trump's attempt to deflect the blame on to the Democrats, despite the fact that it is completely within his power to suspend the policy - instead, he is opting to make any change in policy (that would end family separations) contingent upon the Democrats supporting his proposed amendments to immigration law (e.g. funding for his wall etc.).

Trump, of course, is unlikely to be swayed by the negative publicity - indeed, if they didn't want images of these places being reported, then why were the press invited in to some of these facilities? The intent is to publicise the fact that the US border is well and truly closed to illegal immigrants and this is what will happen if you try. But with a bit of luck, the massive negative publicity, coupled with the ham-fisted (and typically obtuse) way that some of Trump's most outspoken advocates have handled it (Coulter, Conway etc.), might just make enough of his 'base' sit up and take notice.

Another female conservative commentator said last night that it is entirely the fault of refugees for choosing to enter the US illegally (as opposed to claiming asylum legitimately at a designated border post). This kind of attitude, sadly, is neither untypical nor unexpected, but I believe it is also disingenuous - they can't honestly expect a Honduran woman fleeing with her children to be fully versed in US laws on immigration and asylum. That attitude frankly beggars belief, but that is exactly what these conservatives are saying.

Granted, however, there is a problem with illegal immigration and something has to be done about people who are not only exploiting the weaknesses of US policies on immigration, but who are also exploiting refugees (and children) in order to access the US. On this front, Trump is right that something needs to be done, but unfortunately for the huge numbers of legitimate asylum seekers who make it as far as the US border, Trump's blunderbuss approach to, well, everything is tarring all illegal entrants to the US with the same brush - yes, it will stop unscrupulous people from entering the US illegally and it will probably act as a deterrent to many people as well, but the cost of such a 'one size fits all' policy is a blight on the reputation of America and a stain on the conscience of all those responsible for treating innocent children in such a horrific manner.

It's par for the course though isn't it?
Create insane, inhumane laws/rulings (I'm unsure of the exact American technical terms). Then claim that the only way to solve this issues is with even more insane and inhumane laws/rulings. In the meantime blame everything and everyone else, claim anyone opposed is lying, push conspiracy theories and belittle any remaining opposition as being 'liberal' (and thus the root of an evil agenda).

At this point, even if Trump is removed from office by the FBI investigation, what would change? The political climate that created Trump hasn't changed, Fox News openly mock disabled children who have been taken from their parents and imprisoned in cages...

 

[UKMikey]

If you're the leader of a first world country and Amnesty International are accusing you of straight up torture of innocent people, it's not really a good look.

https://www.amnesty.org/en/latest/news/2018/06/usa-family-separation-torture/

 

[Mr Tree]

What is particularly distasteful, even by his low standard, is Trump's attempt to deflect the blame on to the Democrats, despite the fact that it is completely within his power to suspend the policy - instead, he is opting to make any change in policy (that would end family separations) contingent upon the Democrats supporting his proposed amendments to immigration law (e.g. funding for his wall etc.).

Trump, of course, is unlikely to be swayed by the negative publicity - indeed, if they didn't want images of these places being reported, then why were the press invited in to some of these facilities? The intent is to publicise the fact that the US border is well and truly closed to illegal immigrants and this is what will happen if you try. But with a bit of luck, the massive negative publicity, coupled with the ham-fisted (and typically obtuse) way that some of Trump's most outspoken advocates have handled it (Coulter, Conway etc.), might just make enough of his 'base' sit up and take notice.

Another female conservative commentator said last night that it is entirely the fault of refugees for choosing to enter the US illegally (as opposed to claiming asylum legitimately at a designated border post). This kind of attitude, sadly, is neither untypical nor unexpected, but I believe it is also disingenuous - they can't honestly expect a Honduran woman fleeing with her children to be fully versed in US laws on immigration and asylum. That attitude frankly beggars belief, but that is exactly what these conservatives are saying.

Granted, however, there is a problem with illegal immigration and something has to be done about people who are not only exploiting the weaknesses of US policies on immigration, but who are also exploiting refugees (and children) in order to access the US. On this front, Trump is right that something needs to be done, but unfortunately for the huge numbers of legitimate asylum seekers who make it as far as the US border, Trump's blunderbuss approach to, well, everything is tarring all illegal entrants to the US with the same brush - yes, it will stop unscrupulous people from entering the US illegally and it will probably act as a deterrent to many people as well, but the cost of such a 'one size fits all' policy is a blight on the reputation of America and a stain on the conscience of all those responsible for treating innocent children in such a horrific manner.

What amazes me the most is the border patrols compliance. Why would anyone enforce such a policy? If trump wants to play hardball play hardball back, as long as this policy is in place you coincidently stop finding any illegal border crossings... it's that simple as I can't find it in my heart to call these things that enforce this policy people.

Isn't there this qoute that says something about if a law is unjust it not only right to disobey it's you obligation.

Or an easy one all it takes for evil to prevail is for good man to do nothing.

Also I agree there are some.issues with illegal immigration but like you I disagree with Trumps continious blackmail. It's it only negotiationtactic and might work once or twice on a guy but the world gets it now so it's not really that strong of a tactic no more.