The famous checks and balances are clearly going to have their work cut out until he grows tired of his new toy.

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.

When will America realise he is a complete fruitcake?

Pegasus, it would be helpful if you actually said the words used. It would be helpful if the journos did likewise.

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.
Telling half the story is a short trip to telling a lie.
(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.
Langly, that is a good thing. The American system was designed to benefit from the tension created by the checks and balances system. It's good that they'll get into a bun fight to sort it out. That's a feature, not a bug.
Why do you make the erroneous assumption that America doesn't? I note by your spelling that you aren't from America. That explains your clueless question.

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. :D:D

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.

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 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

Obama said he wanted to get rid of Nukes, how did that go?

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.

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.

You really don't understand US political system. Voters vote to send people to Electoral College to vote for a Presidential candidate. Doesn't really matter whether a candidate wins by 1 vote in each of the 30 states that voted for Trump but voted in Millions more for Clinton. At least in US you know you are voting for a President.

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.

.... and 48% voted for Clinton. :ugh:

Democracy, don't you just love it.

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.

A simple explanation thank you.

It is exactly the same position with the SNP in Scotland.

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.

You are again unfamiliar with the system, so you denigrate it. Pay attention. Neither won a majority, it was as with Bill Clinton, victory by a plurality and the electoral votes. I find that a nice irony on Hillary: she got into the White House by being associated with Bill through a victory via plurality and that association allowed her to enter the political system via the Senatorial gift wrap in 2000. So the plurality that was to her benefit now works against her.

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?

I went through civics classes eons ago, part of which is making my peace with the electoral system. As I put the pieces together, I also came to the conclusion fot the same reasons that the US would fracture if small population centers ruled the nation. The electoral system is an insurance policy against it.

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....