Just about any policy has been justified with science and facts
I think you're more in disagreement with me on what constitutes a fact rather than politicians liking or disliking them. For example, tariffs cannot be logically argued as economically beneficial so long as the other side can enact counter-tariffs which are equally damaging. No such argument can be made because there is no evidence -- hence no facts -- to support such an argument.
What's really going on here is a misrepresentation of facts, a purposeful twisting of data or omission of data to the contrary in order to support an otherwise-insupportable argument. This is what happens when personal biases, ideologies, and quests for power are the true goal as opposed to the actual argument. A machine would, unless influenced otherwise, not make such an argument and could perfectly refute anyone trying to do so.
If this AI truly uses real facts in a debate it would be wonderful. One thing most "debaters" these days seem to despise is actual facts. They get in the way of an emotional argument, something I (sadly) see as most prevalent in the SJW crowd. They have nice-sounding ideas that appeal to emotion but do not stand up in the face of factual examination.
This is also going to derail politicians in a big way, especially if it sticks to facts. Politicians hate facts. They bank on their constituents not knowing the facts and being too lazy to check them.
This is the point Hillary defenders/anti-Trumpers always miss, either due to ignorance or willful design. The statute for handling classified material makes no mention whatsoever about intent being required. If you handle the material improperly you violate the statute. Period. There is no gray area, no wiggle room, no get-out-of-jail-free card. Comey invented the "there was no intent" defense for Hillary before he usurped the legal authority of the Justice Department in deciding there would be no prosecution. Saying Hillary shouldn't be prosecuted because "there was no intent" is like saying you shouldn't prosecute a drunk driver because "well, nobody got hurt." Try that defense at your next DUI trial and see how well it goes.
Let's also not forget the Comey's drafts being "corrected" to remove phrases that automatically made Clinton's actions a violation. The only "intent" in this whole farce is the FBI's willingness to defend the indefensible in an attempt to cozy up to the then-presumed new Commander In Chief. That the FBI bungled it so badly it ended up throwing the election to Trump is both an example of how stunningly incompetent they were and how blatantly political they still are.
The funny thing is that we've all seen this before.
If you mean "Christians" in the sense (and time frame) of The Crusades then you'd be correct.
A far more recent example would be the Communist Revolution in Russia around the turn of the century. They promised the overthrow of an (admittedly) corrupt and failing monarchy would usher in a socialist Utopia free of class distinction. In reality they replaced the monarchy with a ruling elite that was just as bad or worse. The problem is most people don't want true freedom. True freedom requires you take responsibility for your actions, that there are consequences both good and bad which are inescapable. What they really want is freedom from responsibility of those actions, something fundamentally impossible. The elites knew that then and they know it now, hence they use the lure of false freedom to manipulate those too ignorant to realize it.
Sad thing is I don't see people getting any less ignorant. If anything the trend is increasing thanks in no small part to an education system which discourages critical thinking and won't tolerate dissenting ideologies.
Their goals are well-meaning today so that people will get behind the efforts and help, tomorrow their goals may be different.
EXACTLY! This is what the SJW's asking for more government intervention never seem to grasp. Today's noble cause is tomorrow's tool of the oppressor/tyrant. Those who want to empower the government (and/or large corps with government's help) to effect social change refuse to understand this.
Like any liberal, you immediately jump to the conclusion that if someone is against a concept they must be in favor of the diametric opposite of it. Taxing homelessness would be pointless as they have no assets to tax. Building cheap apartments for corporate moguls would be pointless because they wouldn't want to live in cheap apartments.
What I am saying is taxing successful people to subsidize people who have failed to become productive members of society sends the exact message that success is punished and failure is rewarded. Nobody likes to be homeless but if you make it comfortable enough for them you remove any incentive for them expend their own effort to get themselves out of the situation. You end up with a bunch of unemployable, non-productive people living off the government handouts in perpetuity. Meanwhile the taxes on productive people go up and up until they decide to move elsewhere, remove themselves from the tax base, and the government handouts bankrupt the government. This cycle has been amply demonstrated time and time again at the city, state, and national level in this country and many others yet people like you never learn.
Remind me again why these homeless people can't move somewhere else where there are jobs and cheaper housing available? There are cities in Nebraska right this second so desperate for labor they're offering $10,000 for you to move there. Jobs are available. These homeless people just don't want to expend the effort. And why should they when people like you are willing to let the government steal from successful people in order to prop up their non-successful lifestyles?
Poverty? This is caused by unemployment and underemployment in conjunction with high costs of living, both of which I already listed as causal.
Unemployment? Ditto.
Personal crisis? Put on your big girl panties. Life is tough. Life is unfair. Get over it, deal with it, and quit expecting the almighty Hand Of Government to come to your rescue. Christ, if these limp-wristed wimps were all we had to work with back when Seattle was first being settled there would be no Seattle. They'd have been too terrified to head west.
Mental illness? Sure would mean a lot of crazies in Seattle which, come to think of it, may not be far off base given the composition of the city and state governments.
Substance abuse? Sorry, not my problem, nor anyone else's except those who are abusing. Responsibility for your own actions comes along with being an adult. Apparently a lot of grown-up kids in Seattle.
Raise your hand if you were the least bit surprised this "legislation" came out of California?
Exactly. More pointless government intrusiveness and overreach. The end effects of this will be higher costs on businesses, higher costs to consumers, no measurable benefits anywhere to anyone except lawyers and politicians.
There is an old saying: if you want to discourage something, tax it. If you want to encourage it, subsidize it. What Seattle is saying is "success is bad, therefore we will tax you for it! Homelessness is good, therefore we will subsidize it!" Only in a socialist worker's paradise like Seattle could such economic idiocy even be proposed much less seriously considered.
Come to Atlanta. We have cheap power, cheap gas, cheap office space, low taxes, plenty of skilled workers, and a climate much nicer than Seattle. Our economy is doing quite well compared to various high-tax states. Last I checked Atlanta was still on the short list for Amazon's "HQ2". Maybe it's time for it to be "HQ1" instead.
If Amazon left, there would still be tech and engineering firms in Seattle
And an enormous chunk of Seattle's tax base would be removed, thus lowering total city tax income, thus exacerbating the problem. This is Economics 101 kind of stuff. You cannot tax, regulate, or legislate your way into prosperity. As long as businesses can move to a less-oppressive state, they will.
Next I expect someone to suggest a private company like Amazon somehow be prevented by force of law from relocating "for the good of the people." Land of the free?
The only other (reasonable) cause for homelessness would be chronic unemployment. Seattle has 3.6% unemployment which is below the national average of 4.1% so that's not a reasonable cause for chronic homelessness.
However, Seattle's unemployment rate had been in steady decline until recently when it flattened out. The recent introduction of a $15/hr minimum wage has impacted employment negatively.
So basically everything Seattle is doing to supposedly help the lower classes is having the opposite effect -- exactly as economists predicted. Yet they keep on shooting themselves in the foot regardless with idiotic things like this head tax. When will they learn you can't tax, regulate, or legislate your way to prosperity?
Agreed, but given how many missions prior to Columbia didn't have catastrophic failure the odds were against a similar repeat incident. Based on post-disaster comments, every astronaut at NASA would've volunteered for the mission immediately. If it'd been successful it not only would've saved the crew of Columbia, it would've been an incredible demonstration of what NASA can do when management gets out of the way and lets the engineers do what they do best. The rescue of Columbia could've been a rallying call for NASA just like Apollo 13 was. Instead seven people lost their lives and NASA's credibility to do anything right was dealt a serious -- perhaps permanent -- blow.
NASA has some of the most exceptional people on the planet in its ranks. Unfortunately it also has some of the most bureaucratic and inept managers as well. Pity the latter makes more decisions than the former.
While I agree there was no way to assure Atlantis wouldn't have a similar issue, the odds were against it. Coupled with the fact NASA had astronauts that would've lined up to volunteer for the mission it was something that should have been at least explored rather than dismissed out of hand. NASA has a history of coming through when management gets out of the way and the engineers are allowed to do what they do best.
o what end? They didn't have a patch kit, there was no rescue rocket on standby.
Go read Comm Check. A Shuttle was close enough in pre-lauch prep that it could have been viable for a rescue. It would've required Columbia to power down everything and extend consumables as long as possible along with a faster-than-normal prep of the rescue Shuttle, but it was withing the bounds of possible. NASA simply decided not to even try.
That's not adequate justification for throwing caution to the wind.
You realize you're backing the same agency that decided to fly the very first Shuttle mission as a manned mission without a full-up unmanned test beforehand. That had never been done in all of NASA's history. You're also backing the agency that decided to fly manned missions with strap-on solid rocket boosters, something also not done in any of NASA's history since they cannot be throttled and there is no survivable abort mode while they're firing. You're also backing the agency that allowed a heat shield specified to not be impacted by debris and then stuck it on the side of a giant cryogenic fuel tank guaranteed to cause ice debris (indeed, debris damage to the heat tiles was consistently noted and ignored from the very first mission). You're also backing an agency that specifically designed a Shuttle that has no reasonably-survivable abort modes other than Abort-to-Orbit (ATO) and no survivable aborts if anything goes wrong during re-entry or landing.
When compared to that, SpaceX looks downright hypercautious.
Does anyone else find it convenient the guy most closely associated with Boeing -- you know, that company with the multibillion-dollar vaporware SLS rocket contract -- is squawking the loudest about this?
Nah, no conflict of interest here. Move along folks.
Oh I almost forgot: the 1960's called. They want their communist propaganda slogans back along with your entire collection of Che Guevara t-shirts. Peace out Comrade!
All that belligerence delayed the collapse of the USSR as aggressive foreign threats only inspire patriotism among the people.
As usual, your ideology so blinds you to reality you cannot see the forest for the trees. Reagan realized the USA could never compete with the USSR in a straight-up conventional conflict. The USSR had too much manpower and conventional resources (tanks, planes, etc.). So Reagan came up with the novel idea of playing to the USA's strengths, mainly technology and the economic benefits of capitalism. In essence, we spent the USSR to death by rendering their massive conventional strengths obsolete with, among other things, stealth technology. Had SDI become a reality we'd have rendered their strategic forces largely obsolete as well, although I'll freely admit the USA might've spent itself into oblivion implementing it. The socialist planned economy of the USSR was horrifically inefficient and could not compete. The Cold War was won economically, not militarily.
As for the "illegal" Korean War...just stop. Please. The United Nations Participation Act of 1945 authorized the President to provide US troops for UN missions. If you wish to insist the Act itself is unconstitutional then please get the SCOTUS to agree with you and then I'll agree with you. Until then, you're just frothing. Missouri v. Holland (1920) holds treaty obligations may empower the Federal Government powers otherwise outside its domestic constraints and provided the basis for the UNPA.
He's willing to act outside the box. I don't think thinking comes into it very much.
Thinking without acting sure got Obama a long way towards solving the Korean Peninsula situation didn't it?
You're the one stuck in the box, unable -- no, unwilling -- to consider that Trump's tactics, while distasteful and odious to you, worked whereas the more genteel, cultured, thoughtful Obama didn't. To consider Trump successful would endanger your worldview. Hence you must assume Trump is a lunatic who by complete accident managed to bring NK to heel after decades worth of other administrations had failed.
I've said it since the election and I stand by it: people like you aren't afraid of Trump being a bad President; you're terrified he will be a good one who succeeds where his predecessors failed. You're fearful such successes will prove your ideas and ideologies don't actually work in the real world. Therefore you deny them any credit for their accomplishments in order to protect your pride. You'll never learn, not because you're stupid but because you're stubborn.
Nothing you've posted suggests that Trump was doing anything other than being a belligerent asshole rather than acting like one as part of a cunning plan.
And nothing you've observed has made a dent in that hardened cranium of yours to make you understand that Kim wouldn't have buckled to anyone except a belligerent asshole.
Obama wouldn't and couldn't have done it for many reasons, not least that NK would never have bought it coming from him.
Which, whether you realize it or not, proves my point. NK took Trump's threats seriously because they knew he was serious. Obama they laughed at and manipulated him like a child.
Trump being a gibbering lunatic might just be one of several factors that contribute to a lasting peace between NK and SK. That doesn't make him any less of a gibbering lunatic.
It's easier for you to chalk this up to total chance by a gibbering lunatic than to even consider the possibility this was all planned. This despite all the evidence in front of you that Trump's visit to China, Kim's subsequent visit to China, and Kim's sudden about face are very much intertwined.
It's very childish to go stating your baseless conclusions as to what I'm thinking as fact, when you could instead argue your own point constructively.
I have argued it constructively, even to the point of giving a numbered list backed up with observable evidence. You're just too stuck in your own mindset to listen to it. Hence I'm mocking you, as your response is exactly what I expected.
She's more useful not being in jail. Imprison her and she becomes a martyr. Right now she's a washed-up has-been that's so toxic even Democrats don't want anything to do with her anymore.
Trust me, the sting of losing to Trump and having to live in political exile having never eclipsed her philandering husband's name is far more punishing than any cell could ever be.
The Nobel committee would have a collective aneurysm before they'd even consider giving Trump any credit whatsoever for this. Meanwhile they're happy to give Nobel's to terrorists (Arafat) and people who've accomplished nothing except getting elected (Obama).
People like you said the same BS about Reagan and the dissolution of the USSR: it was all accidental, would've happened anyway, Reagan was an incompetent warmonger, blah blah blah. You simply refuse to grasp that a hardline, belligerent stance backed up with credible threats of military action actually work when facing down tyrannical dictatorships.
Here's what really happened, and none of it was by accident:
1. NK developed their nukes with the intention of saber rattling and getting their way since it's worked so well for the last 70 years. 2. Trump let NK know we can and will turn them into a glowing parking lot if they don't stop doing that. 3. Trump let China know he's quite serious about pushing the Big Red Button on NK and put pressure on China via tariffs, probably with the deal being China pushes NK to start behaving and Trump will remove the tariffs. 4. China values their economic ties with the US far more than anything they're getting from NK, and further NK embarrassed the Chinese leadership with his nuclear testing. 5. China, seeing it in their best interests to reign in NK, told them they wouldn't step in if Trump pushed the Big Red Button and Kim finally figured out he's playing with something that will get him burned. China also probably threatened severe economic pressure on NK if they continued to misbehave. 6. NK, unable to survive economically without China and unable to withstand a US military without Chinese backing, wisely decided it's time to come to the the peace table before things get out of control.
Even you ought to be able to put the pieces together. Trump visits China. Then Kim visits China. Shortly thereafter Kim changes its stance. Only a fool would consider this accidental. Trump leaned on China and China leaned on Kim. This is something Obama could've easily done -- and maybe earned a Nobel instead of being given one for "participation" -- but was too naive to do. But no doubt had this happened on his watch you'd have given him full credit and claimed him a master politician. But since it happened on Trump's watch it has to be accidental, right? Can't give Trump credit. That might validate his ideology and invalidate yours and that simply can't be allowed.
Also Trump pushed China hard to put pressure on North Korea, so that surely helped, too.
The point being Obama had eight years in which he could've done exactly the same things and had this happen on his watch...but didn't. Same goes for Clinton. If nothing else it proves the touchy-feely-hug-them-and-they'll-love-us approach was and remains the most idiotic way to influence tyrannical dictators. You'd think we'd have learned that given how well it worked in the 1930's but Obama was apparently too naive -- or too prideful -- to learn from history.
Some of you here may not be old enough to remember liberals everywhere demonized Reagan the same way they're demonizing Trump now. "OMG HE'S A MADMAN WHO'S GOING TO START ARMAGEDDON!" They didn't realize that such a perception was the fucking point. People like Hitler, Kruschev, Saddam Hussein, Ghadaffi, and the Kim clan only respect one thing: power. So long as they perceived America as unwilling to pull the trigger, they acted however they saw fit. As soon as the Oval Office was occupied by someone they knew would pull that trigger, they changed their tone. It's an ugly way to play the game but sometimes it's the only option. Shrinking from it only emboldens people like Kim.
Slashdot Mirror
Just about any policy has been justified with science and facts
I think you're more in disagreement with me on what constitutes a fact rather than politicians liking or disliking them. For example, tariffs cannot be logically argued as economically beneficial so long as the other side can enact counter-tariffs which are equally damaging. No such argument can be made because there is no evidence -- hence no facts -- to support such an argument.
What's really going on here is a misrepresentation of facts, a purposeful twisting of data or omission of data to the contrary in order to support an otherwise-insupportable argument. This is what happens when personal biases, ideologies, and quests for power are the true goal as opposed to the actual argument. A machine would, unless influenced otherwise, not make such an argument and could perfectly refute anyone trying to do so.
If this AI truly uses real facts in a debate it would be wonderful. One thing most "debaters" these days seem to despise is actual facts. They get in the way of an emotional argument, something I (sadly) see as most prevalent in the SJW crowd. They have nice-sounding ideas that appeal to emotion but do not stand up in the face of factual examination.
This is also going to derail politicians in a big way, especially if it sticks to facts. Politicians hate facts. They bank on their constituents not knowing the facts and being too lazy to check them.
This is the point Hillary defenders/anti-Trumpers always miss, either due to ignorance or willful design. The statute for handling classified material makes no mention whatsoever about intent being required. If you handle the material improperly you violate the statute. Period. There is no gray area, no wiggle room, no get-out-of-jail-free card. Comey invented the "there was no intent" defense for Hillary before he usurped the legal authority of the Justice Department in deciding there would be no prosecution. Saying Hillary shouldn't be prosecuted because "there was no intent" is like saying you shouldn't prosecute a drunk driver because "well, nobody got hurt." Try that defense at your next DUI trial and see how well it goes.
Let's also not forget the Comey's drafts being "corrected" to remove phrases that automatically made Clinton's actions a violation. The only "intent" in this whole farce is the FBI's willingness to defend the indefensible in an attempt to cozy up to the then-presumed new Commander In Chief. That the FBI bungled it so badly it ended up throwing the election to Trump is both an example of how stunningly incompetent they were and how blatantly political they still are.
The funny thing is that we've all seen this before.
If you mean "Christians" in the sense (and time frame) of The Crusades then you'd be correct.
A far more recent example would be the Communist Revolution in Russia around the turn of the century. They promised the overthrow of an (admittedly) corrupt and failing monarchy would usher in a socialist Utopia free of class distinction. In reality they replaced the monarchy with a ruling elite that was just as bad or worse. The problem is most people don't want true freedom. True freedom requires you take responsibility for your actions, that there are consequences both good and bad which are inescapable. What they really want is freedom from responsibility of those actions, something fundamentally impossible. The elites knew that then and they know it now, hence they use the lure of false freedom to manipulate those too ignorant to realize it.
Sad thing is I don't see people getting any less ignorant. If anything the trend is increasing thanks in no small part to an education system which discourages critical thinking and won't tolerate dissenting ideologies.
Guilt. That and riding the SJW bandwagon to get more popularity.
Their goals are well-meaning today so that people will get behind the efforts and help, tomorrow their goals may be different.
EXACTLY! This is what the SJW's asking for more government intervention never seem to grasp. Today's noble cause is tomorrow's tool of the oppressor/tyrant. Those who want to empower the government (and/or large corps with government's help) to effect social change refuse to understand this.
Like any liberal, you immediately jump to the conclusion that if someone is against a concept they must be in favor of the diametric opposite of it. Taxing homelessness would be pointless as they have no assets to tax. Building cheap apartments for corporate moguls would be pointless because they wouldn't want to live in cheap apartments.
What I am saying is taxing successful people to subsidize people who have failed to become productive members of society sends the exact message that success is punished and failure is rewarded. Nobody likes to be homeless but if you make it comfortable enough for them you remove any incentive for them expend their own effort to get themselves out of the situation. You end up with a bunch of unemployable, non-productive people living off the government handouts in perpetuity. Meanwhile the taxes on productive people go up and up until they decide to move elsewhere, remove themselves from the tax base, and the government handouts bankrupt the government. This cycle has been amply demonstrated time and time again at the city, state, and national level in this country and many others yet people like you never learn.
Remind me again why these homeless people can't move somewhere else where there are jobs and cheaper housing available? There are cities in Nebraska right this second so desperate for labor they're offering $10,000 for you to move there. Jobs are available. These homeless people just don't want to expend the effort. And why should they when people like you are willing to let the government steal from successful people in order to prop up their non-successful lifestyles?
Poverty? This is caused by unemployment and underemployment in conjunction with high costs of living, both of which I already listed as causal.
Unemployment? Ditto.
Personal crisis? Put on your big girl panties. Life is tough. Life is unfair. Get over it, deal with it, and quit expecting the almighty Hand Of Government to come to your rescue. Christ, if these limp-wristed wimps were all we had to work with back when Seattle was first being settled there would be no Seattle. They'd have been too terrified to head west.
Mental illness? Sure would mean a lot of crazies in Seattle which, come to think of it, may not be far off base given the composition of the city and state governments.
Substance abuse? Sorry, not my problem, nor anyone else's except those who are abusing. Responsibility for your own actions comes along with being an adult. Apparently a lot of grown-up kids in Seattle.
Raise your hand if you were the least bit surprised this "legislation" came out of California?
Exactly. More pointless government intrusiveness and overreach. The end effects of this will be higher costs on businesses, higher costs to consumers, no measurable benefits anywhere to anyone except lawyers and politicians.
There is an old saying: if you want to discourage something, tax it. If you want to encourage it, subsidize it. What Seattle is saying is "success is bad, therefore we will tax you for it! Homelessness is good, therefore we will subsidize it!" Only in a socialist worker's paradise like Seattle could such economic idiocy even be proposed much less seriously considered.
Come to Atlanta. We have cheap power, cheap gas, cheap office space, low taxes, plenty of skilled workers, and a climate much nicer than Seattle. Our economy is doing quite well compared to various high-tax states. Last I checked Atlanta was still on the short list for Amazon's "HQ2". Maybe it's time for it to be "HQ1" instead.
If Amazon left, there would still be tech and engineering firms in Seattle
And an enormous chunk of Seattle's tax base would be removed, thus lowering total city tax income, thus exacerbating the problem. This is Economics 101 kind of stuff. You cannot tax, regulate, or legislate your way into prosperity. As long as businesses can move to a less-oppressive state, they will.
Next I expect someone to suggest a private company like Amazon somehow be prevented by force of law from relocating "for the good of the people." Land of the free?
The only other (reasonable) cause for homelessness would be chronic unemployment. Seattle has 3.6% unemployment which is below the national average of 4.1% so that's not a reasonable cause for chronic homelessness.
However, Seattle's unemployment rate had been in steady decline until recently when it flattened out. The recent introduction of a $15/hr minimum wage has impacted employment negatively.
So basically everything Seattle is doing to supposedly help the lower classes is having the opposite effect -- exactly as economists predicted. Yet they keep on shooting themselves in the foot regardless with idiotic things like this head tax. When will they learn you can't tax, regulate, or legislate your way to prosperity?
Agreed, but given how many missions prior to Columbia didn't have catastrophic failure the odds were against a similar repeat incident. Based on post-disaster comments, every astronaut at NASA would've volunteered for the mission immediately. If it'd been successful it not only would've saved the crew of Columbia, it would've been an incredible demonstration of what NASA can do when management gets out of the way and lets the engineers do what they do best. The rescue of Columbia could've been a rallying call for NASA just like Apollo 13 was. Instead seven people lost their lives and NASA's credibility to do anything right was dealt a serious -- perhaps permanent -- blow.
NASA has some of the most exceptional people on the planet in its ranks. Unfortunately it also has some of the most bureaucratic and inept managers as well. Pity the latter makes more decisions than the former.
While I agree there was no way to assure Atlantis wouldn't have a similar issue, the odds were against it. Coupled with the fact NASA had astronauts that would've lined up to volunteer for the mission it was something that should have been at least explored rather than dismissed out of hand. NASA has a history of coming through when management gets out of the way and the engineers are allowed to do what they do best.
o what end? They didn't have a patch kit, there was no rescue rocket on standby.
Go read Comm Check. A Shuttle was close enough in pre-lauch prep that it could have been viable for a rescue. It would've required Columbia to power down everything and extend consumables as long as possible along with a faster-than-normal prep of the rescue Shuttle, but it was withing the bounds of possible. NASA simply decided not to even try.
That's not adequate justification for throwing caution to the wind.
You realize you're backing the same agency that decided to fly the very first Shuttle mission as a manned mission without a full-up unmanned test beforehand. That had never been done in all of NASA's history. You're also backing the agency that decided to fly manned missions with strap-on solid rocket boosters, something also not done in any of NASA's history since they cannot be throttled and there is no survivable abort mode while they're firing. You're also backing the agency that allowed a heat shield specified to not be impacted by debris and then stuck it on the side of a giant cryogenic fuel tank guaranteed to cause ice debris (indeed, debris damage to the heat tiles was consistently noted and ignored from the very first mission). You're also backing an agency that specifically designed a Shuttle that has no reasonably-survivable abort modes other than Abort-to-Orbit (ATO) and no survivable aborts if anything goes wrong during re-entry or landing.
When compared to that, SpaceX looks downright hypercautious.
Does anyone else find it convenient the guy most closely associated with Boeing -- you know, that company with the multibillion-dollar vaporware SLS rocket contract -- is squawking the loudest about this?
Nah, no conflict of interest here. Move along folks.
your imperial warmongering
Oh I almost forgot: the 1960's called. They want their communist propaganda slogans back along with your entire collection of Che Guevara t-shirts. Peace out Comrade!
All that belligerence delayed the collapse of the USSR as aggressive foreign threats only inspire patriotism among the people.
As usual, your ideology so blinds you to reality you cannot see the forest for the trees. Reagan realized the USA could never compete with the USSR in a straight-up conventional conflict. The USSR had too much manpower and conventional resources (tanks, planes, etc.). So Reagan came up with the novel idea of playing to the USA's strengths, mainly technology and the economic benefits of capitalism. In essence, we spent the USSR to death by rendering their massive conventional strengths obsolete with, among other things, stealth technology. Had SDI become a reality we'd have rendered their strategic forces largely obsolete as well, although I'll freely admit the USA might've spent itself into oblivion implementing it. The socialist planned economy of the USSR was horrifically inefficient and could not compete. The Cold War was won economically, not militarily.
As for the "illegal" Korean War...just stop. Please. The United Nations Participation Act of 1945 authorized the President to provide US troops for UN missions. If you wish to insist the Act itself is unconstitutional then please get the SCOTUS to agree with you and then I'll agree with you. Until then, you're just frothing. Missouri v. Holland (1920) holds treaty obligations may empower the Federal Government powers otherwise outside its domestic constraints and provided the basis for the UNPA.
He's willing to act outside the box. I don't think thinking comes into it very much.
Thinking without acting sure got Obama a long way towards solving the Korean Peninsula situation didn't it?
You're the one stuck in the box, unable -- no, unwilling -- to consider that Trump's tactics, while distasteful and odious to you, worked whereas the more genteel, cultured, thoughtful Obama didn't. To consider Trump successful would endanger your worldview. Hence you must assume Trump is a lunatic who by complete accident managed to bring NK to heel after decades worth of other administrations had failed.
I've said it since the election and I stand by it: people like you aren't afraid of Trump being a bad President; you're terrified he will be a good one who succeeds where his predecessors failed. You're fearful such successes will prove your ideas and ideologies don't actually work in the real world. Therefore you deny them any credit for their accomplishments in order to protect your pride. You'll never learn, not because you're stupid but because you're stubborn.
Nothing you've posted suggests that Trump was doing anything other than being a belligerent asshole rather than acting like one as part of a cunning plan.
And nothing you've observed has made a dent in that hardened cranium of yours to make you understand that Kim wouldn't have buckled to anyone except a belligerent asshole.
Obama wouldn't and couldn't have done it for many reasons, not least that NK would never have bought it coming from him.
Which, whether you realize it or not, proves my point. NK took Trump's threats seriously because they knew he was serious. Obama they laughed at and manipulated him like a child.
Trump being a gibbering lunatic might just be one of several factors that contribute to a lasting peace between NK and SK. That doesn't make him any less of a gibbering lunatic.
It's easier for you to chalk this up to total chance by a gibbering lunatic than to even consider the possibility this was all planned. This despite all the evidence in front of you that Trump's visit to China, Kim's subsequent visit to China, and Kim's sudden about face are very much intertwined.
It's very childish to go stating your baseless conclusions as to what I'm thinking as fact, when you could instead argue your own point constructively.
I have argued it constructively, even to the point of giving a numbered list backed up with observable evidence. You're just too stuck in your own mindset to listen to it. Hence I'm mocking you, as your response is exactly what I expected.
She's more useful not being in jail. Imprison her and she becomes a martyr. Right now she's a washed-up has-been that's so toxic even Democrats don't want anything to do with her anymore.
Trust me, the sting of losing to Trump and having to live in political exile having never eclipsed her philandering husband's name is far more punishing than any cell could ever be.
The Nobel committee would have a collective aneurysm before they'd even consider giving Trump any credit whatsoever for this. Meanwhile they're happy to give Nobel's to terrorists (Arafat) and people who've accomplished nothing except getting elected (Obama).
People like you said the same BS about Reagan and the dissolution of the USSR: it was all accidental, would've happened anyway, Reagan was an incompetent warmonger, blah blah blah. You simply refuse to grasp that a hardline, belligerent stance backed up with credible threats of military action actually work when facing down tyrannical dictatorships.
Here's what really happened, and none of it was by accident:
1. NK developed their nukes with the intention of saber rattling and getting their way since it's worked so well for the last 70 years.
2. Trump let NK know we can and will turn them into a glowing parking lot if they don't stop doing that.
3. Trump let China know he's quite serious about pushing the Big Red Button on NK and put pressure on China via tariffs, probably with the deal being China pushes NK to start behaving and Trump will remove the tariffs.
4. China values their economic ties with the US far more than anything they're getting from NK, and further NK embarrassed the Chinese leadership with his nuclear testing.
5. China, seeing it in their best interests to reign in NK, told them they wouldn't step in if Trump pushed the Big Red Button and Kim finally figured out he's playing with something that will get him burned. China also probably threatened severe economic pressure on NK if they continued to misbehave.
6. NK, unable to survive economically without China and unable to withstand a US military without Chinese backing, wisely decided it's time to come to the the peace table before things get out of control.
Even you ought to be able to put the pieces together. Trump visits China. Then Kim visits China. Shortly thereafter Kim changes its stance. Only a fool would consider this accidental. Trump leaned on China and China leaned on Kim. This is something Obama could've easily done -- and maybe earned a Nobel instead of being given one for "participation" -- but was too naive to do. But no doubt had this happened on his watch you'd have given him full credit and claimed him a master politician. But since it happened on Trump's watch it has to be accidental, right? Can't give Trump credit. That might validate his ideology and invalidate yours and that simply can't be allowed.
Also Trump pushed China hard to put pressure on North Korea, so that surely helped, too.
The point being Obama had eight years in which he could've done exactly the same things and had this happen on his watch...but didn't. Same goes for Clinton. If nothing else it proves the touchy-feely-hug-them-and-they'll-love-us approach was and remains the most idiotic way to influence tyrannical dictators. You'd think we'd have learned that given how well it worked in the 1930's but Obama was apparently too naive -- or too prideful -- to learn from history.
Some of you here may not be old enough to remember liberals everywhere demonized Reagan the same way they're demonizing Trump now. "OMG HE'S A MADMAN WHO'S GOING TO START ARMAGEDDON!" They didn't realize that such a perception was the fucking point. People like Hitler, Kruschev, Saddam Hussein, Ghadaffi, and the Kim clan only respect one thing: power. So long as they perceived America as unwilling to pull the trigger, they acted however they saw fit. As soon as the Oval Office was occupied by someone they knew would pull that trigger, they changed their tone. It's an ugly way to play the game but sometimes it's the only option. Shrinking from it only emboldens people like Kim.