but I don't see how it's a problem that he chooses to say that stuff.
Even when the things he says are obviously, demonstrably, and repeatedly incorrect? Don't you expect more from your leaders? I sure as hell do.
About nothing that really matters, while his statements are picked apart, made into sound bites and bandied about as if they are proof of things which are totally out of context.
I never said Trump isn't hard to listen to, but I do say that it takes a lot of critical thinking to understand what he means. You have to actually listen to him IN CONTEXT and stop trying to listen to the pundits who are spouting sound bites. Yea, he's said some stuff that wasn't true, he speaks off the cuff and sometimes is less informed than he realizes or getting information from bad sources, who among us isn't guilty of that? But he is not pathological or trying to deceive in these cases, he's just misinformed, much like the media darling AOC who is woefully misinformed and runs off her mouth all the time.
Then, there is the whole pundit sound bite cherry picking that goes on in the news. That is TOTALY unfair to Trump. I've listened to pressers where Trump was speaking and heard him say things which where ostensibly true if taken in context, but because he was less than artful in his choice of words, the media took the quote, supplied their own context and made it sound like it was a lie. The sound bite would make it around the world before the retraction got its shoes on and that's the default setting for some in the media.
Am I wrong? Are the media not ready to pronounce the demise of Trump at a moment's notice? Do they not drop "bombshell" after "bombshell" report that turns out to be ostensibly false all the while ignoring good things that Trump does and says? Google "Buzzfeed and Cohen" and see how ready the media is to attack Trump, or consider the story of the young men who got castigated for being racist protestors in DC by nearly everybody, when their only crime was standing in a public place wearing a MAGA hat?
Step back a bit. Trump isn't a bad guy who's self serving and lying about it. He's legitimately trying to do the right thing, as he sees it. You may not like what he does, but because you disagree with his actions and guiding principals doesn't mean he's some awful guy. Of course, it's easier to just pronounce judgment on another than it is to actually try to understand their position and negotiate with them.
I understand what you are saying.. I just don't agree that the USA wields enough influence, either by force or reward, to control other countries in this area.
India isn't going to knuckle under and we cannot pay them enough to curb their CO2 emissions. Folks would die in India if they tried some of this, lots of them, their leaders don't want to go there. China might bend to our economic threats in some ways, but again I seriously doubt they are going to care enough to reduce CO2 emissions for domestic production purposes and they are rapidly developing a military that prevents us from forcing the issue (without serious costs in blood and materials). Russia is less of a military threat, but they simply don't care. Russia figures that the USA isn't going to force anything due to the costs and they are quite content being on their own.
I don't see where carrots or sticks are possible ways to get the results you want.
Which begs the question.. WHAT do you actually want? What's going to fix this problem we are trying to address? Do you know?
Well, we have a disagreement for which there are no objective criteria to resolve as you are arguing from a subjective stance now.
It's obvious that he doesn't have any serious mental issues which can be debated on objective criteria, all we have are subjective "I don't like his tone" or "I don't like his personality" statements from you.
So if you think he sounds like an angry Uncle Joe, so be it, that's your opinion. He doesn't sound like that guy to me. He sounds like a guy who is too quick to speak at times but speaks his mind regularly, but that's no big deal for me. I don't always agree with what he says, but I don't see how it's a problem that he chooses to say that stuff. In fact, it's kind of refreshing that he's not afraid of speaking his mind, instead of falling back on political speak all the time.
Political leaders are usually narcissists as are CEO's and executive officers of large successful companies. It kind of runs with the territory.
But the question really is if that's a problem for a president to be one? I don't think so.
I was raised by a narcissist, so I'm quite familiar with their personality traits. Where I don't envy the folks who work for them, they tend to burn folks up with their demands, they can be very effective managers and good leaders at times.
I thought the president is already suffering from dementia.
I am not trying to troll.
Of course you are trolling. Trump's mental status is not a question here, he's just fine in that regard. I fear some mistake Trump's lack of political sharpness as a mental problem, but it's really not.
Trump's problem is he's unskilled in political speak, which starts with controlling what comes out of your mouth and the substituting the proper focus group tested catch phrases instead. He just says what comes to mind, which is often something which is ill advised. He's learning to not do this, but his first instincts about what to say are not tempered in the political correctness of the day.
Also, Trump isn't taking guff off of anybody, politically, personally or otherwise. When he's attacked, he responds. Again, this is lack of political experience and caring for political correctness and is often seen as petty and vindictive. This is unusual behavior for political figures, but it's understandable.
None of the above reflect on his mental status, but are personality traits. So you are trolling. Trump's mental status is just fine.
So, that's a nice theory you have there but the question is "What will China actually do?"
Seems likely to me that they will happily go on consuming fossil fuels and building their economy as fast as they can, emissions be damned. You may consider this stupid, but what you think doesn't matter, unless you happen to be in charge over there and can actually change something.
So, what's going to happen if China does what seems likely? How do we setup to deal with it?
It might be a good time to work on alternative crops and develop alternative water supplies for existing crops in places like California where lots of the world's food is grown. Build desalinization plants and use the water we have to better effect perhaps? Stay the world's leader in food production would be a good idea, we can do it, we can apply technology to this goal.
You see, that's the kind of thing I'm talking about. Forget this hopeless fascination with CO2 emission reductions and concentrate on the problems we will ultimately face, because China IS going to do the "stupid" thing in your view. Best we prepare for the worst, because to hear the left talk, it's already a given it's going to happen.
I'm not one to down play the USA's role in the world, but pray tell what kind of persuasive power do you think we currently have? "Talk softly and carry a big stick" used to be effective, but everybody knows that we won't use the stick. We are left with what? Economic sanctions? Yea, we don't have the public will to do that at all.
Take the "trade war" with China of late. Half the country is for it, half is ardently not supporting it. How do you suppose such political realities play over seas? Just like OBL thought, we are wishy washy. Yea we may gripe and complain, even send troops, but we are unwilling to see it though or do what it takes to win. We may stick around for a few years, but we tire easily and leave. As a result, nobody really takes our soft words seriously.
Short of using force, we cannot make them change if they don't want to. Say they refuse. Are you saying we should engage our *military* to fight carbon emissions for those countries who refuse to willingly do so? How else do we get them to stop?
So what's my duty now? Allow myself to be destroyed or prepare for the inevitable?
And don't be fooled, the choice is just that simple. Disarm, unilaterally, and throw yourself at the mercy of those who won't be merciful, or prepare for what's coming, keeping your arms and survive.
Japan gets all the credit for getting the US into the fight. The last thing the Germans wanted was for the US to enter the war. Japan handed Roosevelt the ammunition he needed to shit can the Neutrality Act which was supported by almost 80% of the US public before Pearl Harbor. Once the US formally declared war on Japan the Germans were forced to declare war on the US in support of their allie. Roosevelt had already exceeded his authority with his novel interpretation of the Neutrality Act. He had already unilaterally extended US territorial waters in the Atlantic to make it harder for the German U-boats to sink supply convoys to England.
The 20th century power curve was defined by two of the most boneheaded military decisions. Japans bright idea to hit Pearl Harbor and Hitler's decision to invade Russia. The Pearl Harbor decision was bold but Japan miscalculated the effect their attack would have on US public. And Hitler would have been better served reading up on Napoleon's misadventures during a Russian winter.
Some historians argue that getting Japan and the USA involved in a dust up was EXACTLY what Germany needed, and indeed encouraged. Japan and Germany didn't have a mutual defense treaty, not really, they had an "understanding" but Germany was NOT committed to enter the war when the US declared war on Japan. Yes they had talked, but Hitler would NOT have allowed himself to be drawn into that conflict as he was busy enough and stretched thin already fighting two fronts in Europe.
Hitler was very much unwilling to fight on more and more fronts, he didn't need the formal involvement of the USA (though "Lend Lease" had already started to creep the US into the war in Europe) and although he encouraged Japan to harass the USA and keep them engaged in the Pacific, I don't think he expected they'd do what they did. I guess he figured that once the fight was joined by the Japanese, he really didn't have much choice but roll the dice, hoping this would take the pressure off of him in Europe. And if you think about it, it almost worked. What sunk him was the industrial production capacity of the USA for making the materials for war and his inability to blockade the UK well enough to invade and take the island before the Russian front sucked all his power east and the opening of the African campaign drained more resources trying to control ports in the med and forestall an invasion from the south of Europe.
And, the Russian campaign was inevitable. He gravely underestimated the logistics and distances involved so his plans where very optimistic about how long it would take, but it was a war he HAD to have and one he had to complete BEFORE the USA came on the scenes. Napoleon would have cleaned the Russian's clocks had it been him instead of Hitler. Hitler's problem was he obviously over confident in his abilities.... Not that invading Russian was impossible, but that he didn't recognize the obvious tactical risks that his plans involved and didn't effectively deal with these risks, even when the Russians used them over and over to bludgeon him. Then, when winter came, the Russians just let the weather do what they could not. Hitler could have had that front licked, he just was stupid about logistics until it was way too late to do anything. (And let's not forget that was a really bad winter too. )
Riiight.. Even though such "weather" events are not happening more often (actually less) and have been obviously happening for a long time, even before we started keeping records.
The only thing that's really changed here is how many houses we have near the dangerous shores and how many folks get impacted when one of these monsters come ashore. Well, that and how they are reported on...
I'm on the right. My reasons for disagreeing with most of the suggestions made by the left on this subject is that they tend to always increase the size and impact of government which I see is generally bad. Also, the majority of the suggested efforts largely ignore the geo-political impact of the proposed solutions will have as we unilaterally destroy our economy and thus reduce our ability to maintain our standards of living and freedoms.
Let's face it, there is zero chance we can have ANY effect on the amounts of carbon emitted by countries outside our borders. We can ask nicely I suppose, but do you think our competitors will willingly do this? Both China and Russia would be more than willing to keep burning fossil fuels for a competitive advantage over the free world and would be happy to keep burring by while we unilaterally stopped and made their fuel costs go down. In the long term, the world's CO2 load won't decrease anyway (at least while there are fossil fuels to burn), so what ever the bad effects of Global Warming turn out to be we will have to deal with them.
So, from my perspective, looking long term, if the left is correct, there isn't any way to avoid what's coming, no matter how hard the western world tries. So the right's approach seems the best one to me. Sure, do what we reasonably can with conservation and "green" energy, but let's not get so crazy about this as to hurt our geopolitical standing and vibrant economy. In the mean time, we should prepare for the effects of Global Warming as a higher priority than trying to avoid them so if/when they do come, we can effectively deal with them.
Why is it then predominantly only the left that pushes the cataclysmic effects of climate change, while those on the right tend not to see it as a dire threat (if they acknowledge it exists)?
Is it the those on the left are just so wise, and those on the right are dumb?
Or is it that the left has been attaching climate change to all of their favorite other ideas, making it even less of an attractive/plausible issue to those on the right?
I'll bite... Folks on the right tend to think of government in smaller terms. We want it out of your life as much as possible, as small as possible. So, we tend to not to want to apply the government solution to problems, until absolutely necessary... BUT, the left is generally a fan of bigger and more invasive government involvement, inventing all sorts of programs and services for government to deliver. Climate change hysteria plays into bigger and invasive government programs and is thus used as justification for the same.
So, because there remains plausible doubt about what the actual effects of Global warming will be and serious doubt about if it's even possible to change any of our behaviors enough to actually fix the supposed problem in any meaningful way, why go though all the government induced pain and suffering? At least that's the right's logic. The left is simply left to continue to ratchet up the hysteria in an effort to get their views to win the day, so they keep getting more shrill as their desperation grows.
In the end, not much will get done really. I suspect that we'd best start trying to figure out how we are going to live with Global Warming, because it's clear to me that the world's governments are NOT going to work together on this and take the economic hit together, and the idiots who unilaterally try to reduce emissions will end up like France, with rioting and protests over their government's CO2 emission reduction efforts and suffer greatly on the world stage as their economies take the hit, removing their power and prestige, while those countries who ignore the issue prosper and dominate the world.
So, are you going to let yourself be dominated by those who don't have your best interests at heart trying to undo Global Warming or are we going to deal with the coming climate issues that we cannot avoid anyway, and protect our freedoms?
....of my life being effected that can be 100% linked undoubtedly to Global Warming.
How, exactly is this touching me in my daily life?
Well, obviously you are not looking at the yearly weather stats... I'm seeing fewer tornados where I live in tornado alley. Also a lot fewer sunspots than I expected to see too.. Hmmm....
You know Hitler did just this, he'd just go on and invade, forget the formality of declaring war. It just wastes time.
In fact, some argue that it was his departure from this principle, declaring war on the USA, that eventually got his head handed to him. Had he not formally got the USA into a war with Germany, it's possible that with the provocation of Japan's bombing of Pearl Harbor the USA would have been content with "Lend Lease" a lot longer, perhaps long enough for Germany to lock up Europe and get Russia to surrender before having to fight the USA on a second front.
But, it doesn't matter. In my estimation, you will have wars where you have them and declaring them isn't but a formality anyway.
The problem here is that you have to at least demonstrate that you have the capability to destroy your enemies or it's kind of pointless and very dangerous to try this tactic. You are just asking for trouble if you cannot back it up. I'm thinking this is misguided.
Has France invented something more effective hacking tools than their Maginot line was during WWII? (Asking for a friend...)
You may say you are an expert, but in border controls? What kinds of things do you claim to protect?
We have walls around prisons, we have walls on the border now, shall we just rip these down? IF they are not effective as you say and you really are an expert then tell us how to proceed? No physical barriers? No fences? What?
I dare say that if you listened to what the guy was actually saying and not the democratic talking points, you'd find that he's being reasonable and thoughtful about what he's intending to do with the 5.7 Billion. IF you listen to the border patrol experts, they are ASKING for the wall to be extended and improved, I think we should give them what they are asking for myself. Besides, I"m of the opinion that "expert" advice usually amounts to the application of common sense and unless the "expert" can clearly explain why their advice is good and it flies in the face of the obvious (like walls work), they are just blowing smoke.
No offence, but until you clearly explain what you'd do and why the wall doesn't help, I'm not going to accept your "expert" advice as valid, but as an appeal to the logic of saying "I know more than you, so I'm right" kind of logical fallacy. Care to change that impression?
A false hood? Tell that to the OMB... I've seen their projections. Are they lying about this?
Social Security is tracking to insolvency in about a decade, unless you expect to up the death rate and lower life expectancy by putting huge curbs on Medicare expenses which are on track to exceed 10% of GDP... Involuntary assisted suicide for old people might work I guess.
I suppose the "solution" is to move the retirement age to the right, alot.... but ho boy, you know what would break lose if anybody suggested any such thing.
I know of folks in Canada who are not happy with their nationalized health care. Folks in the UK generally don't like it either. And by personal experience I can tell you that Medicare is not something you'd like.
I had to manage my Mother's Medicare coverage as she went through cancer treatments and I can tell you that they DO ration care when you are on such government plans. Ration such things as PET scans (necessary to diagnose and track cancer's spread) which my mother was denied because she'd had her lifetime maximum allowed scans (two). Finally, after YEARS of trying we broke down and paid for a scan ourselves, only to discover that she only had months to live. She died from cancer within a month, cancer that might have been treatable had we known sooner. Medicare is great for hospice care at least, they don't mind paying for that at all... Hurry up and die, especially if you are sick with something expensive to treat.
Personally, I fully understand the TRUTH about single payer healthcare. I had to renew my driver's license in December. It took me 6 hours, 3 of which I spent standing outside in the blowing rain because the building was full, then 3 hours inside waiting to spend 5 min to check my vision, take my thumb prints and get a picture. Like my mother, if you are healthy, government run healthcare is great and cheap, but if you are sick, it's sometimes a death sentence and often involves waiting in LONG lines to get basic care.
The reason it's "cheaper" is because it's rationed and care is limited and tailored for the average person. If you are unique or your ailment is expensive to treat, you are going to die. It's also more expensive now because WE fund the R&D for the rest of the world. You recommend that we start to ration care and stop spending on R&D? Yea, that's a good solution, it might be cheaper, but are you sure you want that? My DMV experience, and my Mother's loosing fight with Medicare says it won't be good....
Don't confuse having a wall with controlling borders. The former has vanishingly little to do with the latter.
Only in your addled brain. You are being lied to and are mistaken, walls DO help with the issues we face on the border.
Trump isn't building a complete wall, he's only trying to add to and upgrade the existing walls. Existing walls which actually DO work quite well.
Also, if you want to spend money on more technology and more agents, by all means. But let's take the border patrol's advice and build longer and higher walls where they say they would do the most good and make their lives safer and easier. They are not crying for more "electronic watch dogs" they are asking for better barriers (higher and longer walls) first, as the best bang for the buck.
Not a single one of them would be addressed by a wall.
OH really?
Again, that's obviously a false statement. How can I assert this? Because we ALREADY have walls for the very purposes I outline above. Take a look at El Paso and the crime ridden city of Juarez on the Mexico side of the river. We have a wall there because they work. Also, in case you haven't heard, the 5.7 Billion is for additional mileage and upgrades to the existing wall, not a completely walled border. This is about adding security by extending the walls we have further so they are harder to walk around.
But your argument makes the perfect the enemy of the good. You argue that because it's not perfect, it's not good enough to do. Well, nothing is perfect. The question is will the extended walls help? That is a resounding YES. Now if you are honest, you are really arguing that it's not worth the expense, but you obviously cannot say that because you will lose the debate on those grounds.
My goal was to walk away peacefully, not ratchet up the conflict by involving the police, doing stuff to tick them off or get to even. I wanted out. It was they who decided to file the lawsuit and force all this garbage to happen. At that point I had no choice but to defend myself, so that's what we did. I wasn't looking for a fight.
You might try that approach some time.
It's like when you deal with the police. I recommend you try what I do. Be respectful, say "Yes sir" and comply with their instructions. Even if they are being unreasonable, COMPLY! The idea is you need to live long enough to file the formal complaint later and give the officer no reason to escalate the situation and draw his weapon. Believe me, he just wants to go home at the end of his shift alive not spend days filling out paperwork and idling in court because he shot you. So if you don't act like an ass who's likely to try and do harm to him, he is unlikely to just off and shoot you, despite what you see in the media and hear from the likes of BLM.
Slashdot Mirror
Even when the things he says are obviously, demonstrably, and repeatedly incorrect? Don't you expect more from your leaders? I sure as hell do.
About nothing that really matters, while his statements are picked apart, made into sound bites and bandied about as if they are proof of things which are totally out of context.
I never said Trump isn't hard to listen to, but I do say that it takes a lot of critical thinking to understand what he means. You have to actually listen to him IN CONTEXT and stop trying to listen to the pundits who are spouting sound bites. Yea, he's said some stuff that wasn't true, he speaks off the cuff and sometimes is less informed than he realizes or getting information from bad sources, who among us isn't guilty of that? But he is not pathological or trying to deceive in these cases, he's just misinformed, much like the media darling AOC who is woefully misinformed and runs off her mouth all the time.
Then, there is the whole pundit sound bite cherry picking that goes on in the news. That is TOTALY unfair to Trump. I've listened to pressers where Trump was speaking and heard him say things which where ostensibly true if taken in context, but because he was less than artful in his choice of words, the media took the quote, supplied their own context and made it sound like it was a lie. The sound bite would make it around the world before the retraction got its shoes on and that's the default setting for some in the media.
Am I wrong? Are the media not ready to pronounce the demise of Trump at a moment's notice? Do they not drop "bombshell" after "bombshell" report that turns out to be ostensibly false all the while ignoring good things that Trump does and says? Google "Buzzfeed and Cohen" and see how ready the media is to attack Trump, or consider the story of the young men who got castigated for being racist protestors in DC by nearly everybody, when their only crime was standing in a public place wearing a MAGA hat?
Step back a bit. Trump isn't a bad guy who's self serving and lying about it. He's legitimately trying to do the right thing, as he sees it. You may not like what he does, but because you disagree with his actions and guiding principals doesn't mean he's some awful guy. Of course, it's easier to just pronounce judgment on another than it is to actually try to understand their position and negotiate with them.
After being out of school for 25+ years I just started my masters in CS. Should be done in about 28 months.
This explains why the classes are ALL 100% full with students sitting on the floor.
I understand what you are saying.. I just don't agree that the USA wields enough influence, either by force or reward, to control other countries in this area.
India isn't going to knuckle under and we cannot pay them enough to curb their CO2 emissions. Folks would die in India if they tried some of this, lots of them, their leaders don't want to go there. China might bend to our economic threats in some ways, but again I seriously doubt they are going to care enough to reduce CO2 emissions for domestic production purposes and they are rapidly developing a military that prevents us from forcing the issue (without serious costs in blood and materials). Russia is less of a military threat, but they simply don't care. Russia figures that the USA isn't going to force anything due to the costs and they are quite content being on their own.
I don't see where carrots or sticks are possible ways to get the results you want.
Which begs the question.. WHAT do you actually want? What's going to fix this problem we are trying to address? Do you know?
Well, we have a disagreement for which there are no objective criteria to resolve as you are arguing from a subjective stance now.
It's obvious that he doesn't have any serious mental issues which can be debated on objective criteria, all we have are subjective "I don't like his tone" or "I don't like his personality" statements from you.
So if you think he sounds like an angry Uncle Joe, so be it, that's your opinion. He doesn't sound like that guy to me. He sounds like a guy who is too quick to speak at times but speaks his mind regularly, but that's no big deal for me. I don't always agree with what he says, but I don't see how it's a problem that he chooses to say that stuff. In fact, it's kind of refreshing that he's not afraid of speaking his mind, instead of falling back on political speak all the time.
until you factor in the inevitable greed variable from the Pharmaceutical Cartel. You know as well as I what they're going to do.
They'll buy it up, crank the price to the point of sheer lunacy and charge folks something like $100,000+ for the treatment.
My God! They will be charging more for dental floss! What's next?
Political leaders are usually narcissists as are CEO's and executive officers of large successful companies. It kind of runs with the territory.
But the question really is if that's a problem for a president to be one? I don't think so.
I was raised by a narcissist, so I'm quite familiar with their personality traits. Where I don't envy the folks who work for them, they tend to burn folks up with their demands, they can be very effective managers and good leaders at times.
I thought the president is already suffering from dementia. I am not trying to troll.
Of course you are trolling. Trump's mental status is not a question here, he's just fine in that regard. I fear some mistake Trump's lack of political sharpness as a mental problem, but it's really not.
Trump's problem is he's unskilled in political speak, which starts with controlling what comes out of your mouth and the substituting the proper focus group tested catch phrases instead. He just says what comes to mind, which is often something which is ill advised. He's learning to not do this, but his first instincts about what to say are not tempered in the political correctness of the day.
Also, Trump isn't taking guff off of anybody, politically, personally or otherwise. When he's attacked, he responds. Again, this is lack of political experience and caring for political correctness and is often seen as petty and vindictive. This is unusual behavior for political figures, but it's understandable.
None of the above reflect on his mental status, but are personality traits. So you are trolling. Trump's mental status is just fine.
So, that's a nice theory you have there but the question is "What will China actually do?"
Seems likely to me that they will happily go on consuming fossil fuels and building their economy as fast as they can, emissions be damned. You may consider this stupid, but what you think doesn't matter, unless you happen to be in charge over there and can actually change something.
So, what's going to happen if China does what seems likely? How do we setup to deal with it?
It might be a good time to work on alternative crops and develop alternative water supplies for existing crops in places like California where lots of the world's food is grown. Build desalinization plants and use the water we have to better effect perhaps? Stay the world's leader in food production would be a good idea, we can do it, we can apply technology to this goal.
You see, that's the kind of thing I'm talking about. Forget this hopeless fascination with CO2 emission reductions and concentrate on the problems we will ultimately face, because China IS going to do the "stupid" thing in your view. Best we prepare for the worst, because to hear the left talk, it's already a given it's going to happen.
The way we used to?
I'm not one to down play the USA's role in the world, but pray tell what kind of persuasive power do you think we currently have? "Talk softly and carry a big stick" used to be effective, but everybody knows that we won't use the stick. We are left with what? Economic sanctions? Yea, we don't have the public will to do that at all.
Take the "trade war" with China of late. Half the country is for it, half is ardently not supporting it. How do you suppose such political realities play over seas? Just like OBL thought, we are wishy washy. Yea we may gripe and complain, even send troops, but we are unwilling to see it though or do what it takes to win. We may stick around for a few years, but we tire easily and leave. As a result, nobody really takes our soft words seriously.
Short of using force, we cannot make them change if they don't want to. Say they refuse. Are you saying we should engage our *military* to fight carbon emissions for those countries who refuse to willingly do so? How else do we get them to stop?
So what's my duty now? Allow myself to be destroyed or prepare for the inevitable?
And don't be fooled, the choice is just that simple. Disarm, unilaterally, and throw yourself at the mercy of those who won't be merciful, or prepare for what's coming, keeping your arms and survive.
Japan gets all the credit for getting the US into the fight. The last thing the Germans wanted was for the US to enter the war. Japan handed Roosevelt the ammunition he needed to shit can the Neutrality Act which was supported by almost 80% of the US public before Pearl Harbor. Once the US formally declared war on Japan the Germans were forced to declare war on the US in support of their allie. Roosevelt had already exceeded his authority with his novel interpretation of the Neutrality Act. He had already unilaterally extended US territorial waters in the Atlantic to make it harder for the German U-boats to sink supply convoys to England.
The 20th century power curve was defined by two of the most boneheaded military decisions. Japans bright idea to hit Pearl Harbor and Hitler's decision to invade Russia. The Pearl Harbor decision was bold but Japan miscalculated the effect their attack would have on US public. And Hitler would have been better served reading up on Napoleon's misadventures during a Russian winter.
Some historians argue that getting Japan and the USA involved in a dust up was EXACTLY what Germany needed, and indeed encouraged. Japan and Germany didn't have a mutual defense treaty, not really, they had an "understanding" but Germany was NOT committed to enter the war when the US declared war on Japan. Yes they had talked, but Hitler would NOT have allowed himself to be drawn into that conflict as he was busy enough and stretched thin already fighting two fronts in Europe.
Hitler was very much unwilling to fight on more and more fronts, he didn't need the formal involvement of the USA (though "Lend Lease" had already started to creep the US into the war in Europe) and although he encouraged Japan to harass the USA and keep them engaged in the Pacific, I don't think he expected they'd do what they did. I guess he figured that once the fight was joined by the Japanese, he really didn't have much choice but roll the dice, hoping this would take the pressure off of him in Europe. And if you think about it, it almost worked. What sunk him was the industrial production capacity of the USA for making the materials for war and his inability to blockade the UK well enough to invade and take the island before the Russian front sucked all his power east and the opening of the African campaign drained more resources trying to control ports in the med and forestall an invasion from the south of Europe.
And, the Russian campaign was inevitable. He gravely underestimated the logistics and distances involved so his plans where very optimistic about how long it would take, but it was a war he HAD to have and one he had to complete BEFORE the USA came on the scenes. Napoleon would have cleaned the Russian's clocks had it been him instead of Hitler. Hitler's problem was he obviously over confident in his abilities.... Not that invading Russian was impossible, but that he didn't recognize the obvious tactical risks that his plans involved and didn't effectively deal with these risks, even when the Russians used them over and over to bludgeon him. Then, when winter came, the Russians just let the weather do what they could not. Hitler could have had that front licked, he just was stupid about logistics until it was way too late to do anything. (And let's not forget that was a really bad winter too. )
Riiight.. Even though such "weather" events are not happening more often (actually less) and have been obviously happening for a long time, even before we started keeping records.
The only thing that's really changed here is how many houses we have near the dangerous shores and how many folks get impacted when one of these monsters come ashore. Well, that and how they are reported on...
Sort of...
I'm on the right. My reasons for disagreeing with most of the suggestions made by the left on this subject is that they tend to always increase the size and impact of government which I see is generally bad. Also, the majority of the suggested efforts largely ignore the geo-political impact of the proposed solutions will have as we unilaterally destroy our economy and thus reduce our ability to maintain our standards of living and freedoms.
Let's face it, there is zero chance we can have ANY effect on the amounts of carbon emitted by countries outside our borders. We can ask nicely I suppose, but do you think our competitors will willingly do this? Both China and Russia would be more than willing to keep burning fossil fuels for a competitive advantage over the free world and would be happy to keep burring by while we unilaterally stopped and made their fuel costs go down. In the long term, the world's CO2 load won't decrease anyway (at least while there are fossil fuels to burn), so what ever the bad effects of Global Warming turn out to be we will have to deal with them.
So, from my perspective, looking long term, if the left is correct, there isn't any way to avoid what's coming, no matter how hard the western world tries. So the right's approach seems the best one to me. Sure, do what we reasonably can with conservation and "green" energy, but let's not get so crazy about this as to hurt our geopolitical standing and vibrant economy. In the mean time, we should prepare for the effects of Global Warming as a higher priority than trying to avoid them so if/when they do come, we can effectively deal with them.
Why is it then predominantly only the left that pushes the cataclysmic effects of climate change, while those on the right tend not to see it as a dire threat (if they acknowledge it exists)?
Is it the those on the left are just so wise, and those on the right are dumb?
Or is it that the left has been attaching climate change to all of their favorite other ideas, making it even less of an attractive/plausible issue to those on the right?
I'll bite... Folks on the right tend to think of government in smaller terms. We want it out of your life as much as possible, as small as possible. So, we tend to not to want to apply the government solution to problems, until absolutely necessary... BUT, the left is generally a fan of bigger and more invasive government involvement, inventing all sorts of programs and services for government to deliver. Climate change hysteria plays into bigger and invasive government programs and is thus used as justification for the same.
So, because there remains plausible doubt about what the actual effects of Global warming will be and serious doubt about if it's even possible to change any of our behaviors enough to actually fix the supposed problem in any meaningful way, why go though all the government induced pain and suffering? At least that's the right's logic. The left is simply left to continue to ratchet up the hysteria in an effort to get their views to win the day, so they keep getting more shrill as their desperation grows.
In the end, not much will get done really. I suspect that we'd best start trying to figure out how we are going to live with Global Warming, because it's clear to me that the world's governments are NOT going to work together on this and take the economic hit together, and the idiots who unilaterally try to reduce emissions will end up like France, with rioting and protests over their government's CO2 emission reduction efforts and suffer greatly on the world stage as their economies take the hit, removing their power and prestige, while those countries who ignore the issue prosper and dominate the world.
So, are you going to let yourself be dominated by those who don't have your best interests at heart trying to undo Global Warming or are we going to deal with the coming climate issues that we cannot avoid anyway, and protect our freedoms?
....of my life being effected that can be 100% linked undoubtedly to Global Warming.
How, exactly is this touching me in my daily life?
Well, obviously you are not looking at the yearly weather stats... I'm seeing fewer tornados where I live in tornado alley. Also a lot fewer sunspots than I expected to see too.. Hmmm....
Until the Germans drove around the end of it, took Paris then attacked from the rear. Sure... But effective as what?
You know Hitler did just this, he'd just go on and invade, forget the formality of declaring war. It just wastes time.
In fact, some argue that it was his departure from this principle, declaring war on the USA, that eventually got his head handed to him. Had he not formally got the USA into a war with Germany, it's possible that with the provocation of Japan's bombing of Pearl Harbor the USA would have been content with "Lend Lease" a lot longer, perhaps long enough for Germany to lock up Europe and get Russia to surrender before having to fight the USA on a second front.
But, it doesn't matter. In my estimation, you will have wars where you have them and declaring them isn't but a formality anyway.
The problem here is that you have to at least demonstrate that you have the capability to destroy your enemies or it's kind of pointless and very dangerous to try this tactic. You are just asking for trouble if you cannot back it up. I'm thinking this is misguided.
Has France invented something more effective hacking tools than their Maginot line was during WWII? (Asking for a friend...)
Well, obviously.... NOT.
You may say you are an expert, but in border controls? What kinds of things do you claim to protect?
We have walls around prisons, we have walls on the border now, shall we just rip these down? IF they are not effective as you say and you really are an expert then tell us how to proceed? No physical barriers? No fences? What?
I dare say that if you listened to what the guy was actually saying and not the democratic talking points, you'd find that he's being reasonable and thoughtful about what he's intending to do with the 5.7 Billion. IF you listen to the border patrol experts, they are ASKING for the wall to be extended and improved, I think we should give them what they are asking for myself. Besides, I"m of the opinion that "expert" advice usually amounts to the application of common sense and unless the "expert" can clearly explain why their advice is good and it flies in the face of the obvious (like walls work), they are just blowing smoke.
No offence, but until you clearly explain what you'd do and why the wall doesn't help, I'm not going to accept your "expert" advice as valid, but as an appeal to the logic of saying "I know more than you, so I'm right" kind of logical fallacy. Care to change that impression?
Boss says. "I'm shocked to find out companies are manipulating their ratings like this... I won't stand for this unethical behavior at THIS company!"
Employee walks by, "I put in that positive review like you asked boss, who do I ask in HR to get the gift card?"
A false hood? Tell that to the OMB... I've seen their projections. Are they lying about this?
Social Security is tracking to insolvency in about a decade, unless you expect to up the death rate and lower life expectancy by putting huge curbs on Medicare expenses which are on track to exceed 10% of GDP... Involuntary assisted suicide for old people might work I guess.
I suppose the "solution" is to move the retirement age to the right, alot.... but ho boy, you know what would break lose if anybody suggested any such thing.
Ah the "it's cheaper" canard.
I know of folks in Canada who are not happy with their nationalized health care. Folks in the UK generally don't like it either. And by personal experience I can tell you that Medicare is not something you'd like.
I had to manage my Mother's Medicare coverage as she went through cancer treatments and I can tell you that they DO ration care when you are on such government plans. Ration such things as PET scans (necessary to diagnose and track cancer's spread) which my mother was denied because she'd had her lifetime maximum allowed scans (two). Finally, after YEARS of trying we broke down and paid for a scan ourselves, only to discover that she only had months to live. She died from cancer within a month, cancer that might have been treatable had we known sooner. Medicare is great for hospice care at least, they don't mind paying for that at all... Hurry up and die, especially if you are sick with something expensive to treat.
Personally, I fully understand the TRUTH about single payer healthcare. I had to renew my driver's license in December. It took me 6 hours, 3 of which I spent standing outside in the blowing rain because the building was full, then 3 hours inside waiting to spend 5 min to check my vision, take my thumb prints and get a picture. Like my mother, if you are healthy, government run healthcare is great and cheap, but if you are sick, it's sometimes a death sentence and often involves waiting in LONG lines to get basic care.
The reason it's "cheaper" is because it's rationed and care is limited and tailored for the average person. If you are unique or your ailment is expensive to treat, you are going to die. It's also more expensive now because WE fund the R&D for the rest of the world. You recommend that we start to ration care and stop spending on R&D? Yea, that's a good solution, it might be cheaper, but are you sure you want that? My DMV experience, and my Mother's loosing fight with Medicare says it won't be good....
Don't confuse having a wall with controlling borders. The former has vanishingly little to do with the latter.
Only in your addled brain. You are being lied to and are mistaken, walls DO help with the issues we face on the border.
Trump isn't building a complete wall, he's only trying to add to and upgrade the existing walls. Existing walls which actually DO work quite well.
Also, if you want to spend money on more technology and more agents, by all means. But let's take the border patrol's advice and build longer and higher walls where they say they would do the most good and make their lives safer and easier. They are not crying for more "electronic watch dogs" they are asking for better barriers (higher and longer walls) first, as the best bang for the buck.
All of the things you mention are important.
Not a single one of them would be addressed by a wall.
OH really?
Again, that's obviously a false statement. How can I assert this? Because we ALREADY have walls for the very purposes I outline above. Take a look at El Paso and the crime ridden city of Juarez on the Mexico side of the river. We have a wall there because they work. Also, in case you haven't heard, the 5.7 Billion is for additional mileage and upgrades to the existing wall, not a completely walled border. This is about adding security by extending the walls we have further so they are harder to walk around.
But your argument makes the perfect the enemy of the good. You argue that because it's not perfect, it's not good enough to do. Well, nothing is perfect. The question is will the extended walls help? That is a resounding YES. Now if you are honest, you are really arguing that it's not worth the expense, but you obviously cannot say that because you will lose the debate on those grounds.
My goal was to walk away peacefully, not ratchet up the conflict by involving the police, doing stuff to tick them off or get to even. I wanted out. It was they who decided to file the lawsuit and force all this garbage to happen. At that point I had no choice but to defend myself, so that's what we did. I wasn't looking for a fight.
You might try that approach some time.
It's like when you deal with the police. I recommend you try what I do. Be respectful, say "Yes sir" and comply with their instructions. Even if they are being unreasonable, COMPLY! The idea is you need to live long enough to file the formal complaint later and give the officer no reason to escalate the situation and draw his weapon. Believe me, he just wants to go home at the end of his shift alive not spend days filling out paperwork and idling in court because he shot you. So if you don't act like an ass who's likely to try and do harm to him, he is unlikely to just off and shoot you, despite what you see in the media and hear from the likes of BLM.