Trump cutting military budget?
The famous checks and balances are clearly going to have their work cut out until he grows tired of his new toy.
Join Date: Feb 2013
Location: England
Posts: 924
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Pissed.
"The United States must greatly strengthen and expand its nuclear capability until such time as the world comes to its senses regarding nukes"
quoted from his twitter account via this evenings online Daily Telegraph.
I am amazed. But how can the Americans do this?
And will the world ever come to its senses?
He has to be continually pissed.
quoted from his twitter account via this evenings online Daily Telegraph.
I am amazed. But how can the Americans do this?
And will the world ever come to its senses?
He has to be continually pissed.
greatly expand nuclear capabilities
Nuclear weapons and nuclear capability are related but not identical terms. Then again, I suggest you check context: in that article you posted, the announcement came shortly after Mr Putin said something about Russia's military posture.
Mr Trump spoke hours after President Vladimir Putin said Russia needs to bolster its military nuclear potential.
(On the other hand, one wonders what he thought he was saying, as spokesman came by later to do the old "what the Pres Elect meant was ....")
All in all, a lot of hot air.
The famous checks and balances are clearly going to have their work cut out until he grows tired of his new toy.
When will America realise he is a complete fruitcake?
Here's the deal: in this past election, there were no good choices by the time the ballots were being cast. So, one bad choice or another one. Ya know that old adage "the lesser of two evils is still evil" well "the lesser of two bad choices is still not a good choice."
But that's the prom date, now go out there and dance. Have fun.
Heh, there's a T-shirt that ought to sell well. 
The thing to remember about Trump is that he means what he says until he says something else. His only core belief is in the greater glory of Donald Trump. Everything else is negotiable.
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: Hotel Gypsy
Posts: 2,821
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Lone wolf, you are correct I'm not American and I'm proud of that. 
I agree that Americans weren't presented with an outstanding choice but they actually voted for Clinton, by about 3M votes. It's only the stupidity of your electoral system (ours isn't perfect either, by a long shot) that got him to the White House. Now, is it too much to expect that most sane president-elects would recognise this fact and present a balanced set of policies? Right now, Trump appears to react to the last thing that he has heard and the Tweets and instant response - my teenage daughter behaves like that. Is this really the way America now wants to do business?
I agree that Americans weren't presented with an outstanding choice but they actually voted for Clinton, by about 3M votes. It's only the stupidity of your electoral system (ours isn't perfect either, by a long shot) that got him to the White House. Now, is it too much to expect that most sane president-elects would recognise this fact and present a balanced set of policies? Right now, Trump appears to react to the last thing that he has heard and the Tweets and instant response - my teenage daughter behaves like that. Is this really the way America now wants to do business?
Last edited by Cows getting bigger; 23rd Dec 2016 at 06:26.
Ecce Homo! Loquitur...
I am bemused at so much instinctive bile - when all he is doing in reiterating Obama's planned upgrade to US nuclear forces........
https://www.armscontrol.org/factshee...rModernization
Obama?s Trillion Dollar Nuclear Weapons Gamble - Defense One
https://www.armscontrol.org/factshee...rModernization
Obama?s Trillion Dollar Nuclear Weapons Gamble - Defense One
Join Date: May 2012
Location: Moscow region
Age: 65
Posts: 567
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
My HO from another side of the canyon :-)
Though the role of the President in the US is high (as compared with so-called parliamentary republics), but he can't manage the budget any way he likes. Congress is ruling there (isn't it?). In the previous several years there were progressive slow cuttings in the US military budget, now the trend may change the direction, but it would still be a slow growth (even if the President would like to double it). This was the case for many previous decades and nobody cares here in my country.
As for particular Mr. Trump, AFAIK and what I heard from the media (which I always take with reservations) is that the budget components would be re-balanced. E.g., instead of spending blns for expeditionary forces and expansion of bases abroad, these blns might go for a high-tech new stuff. Is it good or bad for my country - difficult to say (perhaps equally bad). But if I were a taxpayer, this would sound reasonable.
Though the role of the President in the US is high (as compared with so-called parliamentary republics), but he can't manage the budget any way he likes. Congress is ruling there (isn't it?). In the previous several years there were progressive slow cuttings in the US military budget, now the trend may change the direction, but it would still be a slow growth (even if the President would like to double it). This was the case for many previous decades and nobody cares here in my country.
As for particular Mr. Trump, AFAIK and what I heard from the media (which I always take with reservations) is that the budget components would be re-balanced. E.g., instead of spending blns for expeditionary forces and expansion of bases abroad, these blns might go for a high-tech new stuff. Is it good or bad for my country - difficult to say (perhaps equally bad). But if I were a taxpayer, this would sound reasonable.
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: deepest darkest recess of your mind
Posts: 1,017
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
CGB, your calling the American electoral system stupid merely indicates you do not understand it's origins and intent. A little study before such pronouncements usually helps. You are correct however about your own system, it is far from perfect itself, like most.
I agree that Americans weren't presented with an outstanding choice but they actually voted for Clinton, by about 3M votes. It's only the stupidity of your electoral system (ours isn't perfect either, by a long shot) that got him to the White House.
In UK you are voting for an MP only. This MP may vote for a PM candidate but they may abstain and vote for nobody. There is no requirement to vote for anything or even attend Parliment.
In US 46% of the people who voted did so for Trump, in UK 37% vote for Tory MPs.
Join Date: Nov 2010
Location: Tamworth, UK / Nairobi, Kenya
Posts: 614
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
it amazes me how people don't want to know about the electoral system, or why it's there.
The US is not a democracy, it's a republic. It's a group of states that share a central federal government.
If the vote was a pure democracy, then very large cities such as New York and Los Angeles would decide the presidency for all the rest of the nation.
If you take the 5 biggest areas of the US, and count up the difference between Hillary and Donald votes, you get more than the total difference between the two.
So the whole country, except for those 5 areas, voted for... Trump.
In the past, whenever a small area controlled a very large area, there were revolutions (think Empires overthrown).
The purpose of the electoral system, and the number of senators per state, and the number of representatives, is to ensure that a small state, like Main, or New Hampshire, is not "ruled" by a large state like New York. The electoral system ensures that every state has representation.
And that was the whole reason for the US revolution - to get representation.
The US is not a democracy, it's a republic. It's a group of states that share a central federal government.
If the vote was a pure democracy, then very large cities such as New York and Los Angeles would decide the presidency for all the rest of the nation.
If you take the 5 biggest areas of the US, and count up the difference between Hillary and Donald votes, you get more than the total difference between the two.
So the whole country, except for those 5 areas, voted for... Trump.
In the past, whenever a small area controlled a very large area, there were revolutions (think Empires overthrown).
The purpose of the electoral system, and the number of senators per state, and the number of representatives, is to ensure that a small state, like Main, or New Hampshire, is not "ruled" by a large state like New York. The electoral system ensures that every state has representation.
And that was the whole reason for the US revolution - to get representation.
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: London, New York, Paris, Moscow.
Posts: 3,632
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
A simple explanation thank you.
It is exactly the same position with the SNP in Scotland.
It is exactly the same position with the SNP in Scotland.
Last edited by glad rag; 23rd Dec 2016 at 13:28. Reason: updated to say thank you.
The problem is not the Electoral System
Like it or not, it has served the US well over 200 years. May not be perfect, but it wasn't the electoral system that put Trump into the presidency. It was a combination of our broken political parties, both GOP and Democrats, a screwed up media that popularizes only what will sell advertising, and a very angry, dissatisfied electorate, tired of money interests, alone, driving the train without real concern for the common man.
The media spent more time on Trump than anyone else I think, which strangled meaningful possibilities of his GOP opponents. I don't know how any American can be proud of the fact that someone, unashamedly narcissistic, and Twitter-minded (it's not just the way he communicates, its the way he thinks) will be our President. But we will have to live with it.
Hard to imagine that he won't screw up everything he touches, unless the competence of his cabinet and VP can keep it from happening. Congress sure as h*** will be as lame as ever.
The media spent more time on Trump than anyone else I think, which strangled meaningful possibilities of his GOP opponents. I don't know how any American can be proud of the fact that someone, unashamedly narcissistic, and Twitter-minded (it's not just the way he communicates, its the way he thinks) will be our President. But we will have to live with it.
Hard to imagine that he won't screw up everything he touches, unless the competence of his cabinet and VP can keep it from happening. Congress sure as h*** will be as lame as ever.
Lone wolf, you are correct I'm not American and I'm proud of that.
I agree that Americans weren't presented with an outstanding choice but they actually voted for Clinton, by about 3M votes. It's only the stupidity of your electoral system (ours isn't perfect either, by a long shot) that got him to the White House. Now, is it too much to expect that most sane president-elects would recognise this fact and present a balanced set of policies? Right now, Trump appears to react to the last thing that he has heard and the Tweets and instant response - my teenage daughter behaves like that. Is this really the way America now wants to do business?
I agree that Americans weren't presented with an outstanding choice but they actually voted for Clinton, by about 3M votes. It's only the stupidity of your electoral system (ours isn't perfect either, by a long shot) that got him to the White House. Now, is it too much to expect that most sane president-elects would recognise this fact and present a balanced set of policies? Right now, Trump appears to react to the last thing that he has heard and the Tweets and instant response - my teenage daughter behaves like that. Is this really the way America now wants to do business?
Also, it is well to understand that about 1/3 of the population who are eligible to vote didn't vote. So with 2/3 eligible voting, even a 50/50 split decided by a thin margin is still a majority of Americans NOT voting for the eventual winner. (And about 6 million didn't vote for either ...) The Electoral College helps to mitigate that kind of problem. We get a decision. (Among other things). Once again, words have meanings. The Majority of Americans did NOT vote for Hillary Clinton. (Nor for the Donald!)
Our system works well enough for us, and has done since about 1789 ... back when a lot of you were still bowing to kings and queens.
Trump? He'll either grow into the job, as his predecessor did, or he won't. That it really bothers a lot of foreigners is mostly amusing, given the amount of international whinging that gets tossed our way. That it bothers a lot of Americans who aren't on the extreme right, or the extreme left, is less amusing. Me, I am not amused, and am still looking at the confirmation battle in the Senate over cabinet appointments. Once his team is set, I'll see how whether or not optimism, pessimism, or just more drinking will be in order.
As above to Langly, the checks and balances will be put to work. I'd suggest you buy some pop corn and enjoy the show.
So, what does all of the above have to do with military aviation? The theme seems to be "stop overpaying for overpriced aircraft." That resonates with a lot of citizens, and would probably resonate with a lot of foreign folks who are strapped into the F-35 program, which was born during Bill Clinton's administration. How is that relevant? In a time of very austere DoD budgeting, the "one size fits all" solution for the follow on jet to the F-18, F-16, F-15 was believed to be "cheaper."
We see how that has worked out, eh?
Last edited by Lonewolf_50; 23rd Dec 2016 at 14:02.
In the past, whenever a small area controlled a very large area, there were revolutions (think Empires overthrown).
Join Date: May 2012
Location: Moscow region
Age: 65
Posts: 567
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I agree that finding an absolutely fair electoral system is a difficult task. Also agree that for a federation some measures should be undertaken to avoid dominance of big members over small ones.
However, in this case The Equality is sacrificed.
I was curious how many "heads" are served by a single college voter in different states and looked into the records (I rounded the numbers).
4 most populated states: CA - 720K (i.e. 1 elector represents c.a. 720 000 people), TX - 770K, FL - 680K, NY - 680K.
Some small states: WY - 200K, MT - 300K, NM - 400K.
Thus, on a personal level a question may arise why the vote of an elk hunter in Jackson Hole (Wyoming) has 3.5 times more weight than a vote of an airospace engineer in Pasadena (Ca)? I respect both... Or, why a farmer in Texas "costs" only half of his neighbor in New Mexico?
No sarcasm, just my thinking outloud....
However, in this case The Equality is sacrificed.
I was curious how many "heads" are served by a single college voter in different states and looked into the records (I rounded the numbers).
4 most populated states: CA - 720K (i.e. 1 elector represents c.a. 720 000 people), TX - 770K, FL - 680K, NY - 680K.
Some small states: WY - 200K, MT - 300K, NM - 400K.
Thus, on a personal level a question may arise why the vote of an elk hunter in Jackson Hole (Wyoming) has 3.5 times more weight than a vote of an airospace engineer in Pasadena (Ca)? I respect both... Or, why a farmer in Texas "costs" only half of his neighbor in New Mexico?
No sarcasm, just my thinking outloud....