2016 Presidential Election

[UtahsMrSports]

At each and every one of these 'thanks for voting for me!' rallies, mr drumpf has gone after Evan McMullin, never calling him by name but still going out of his way to trash him and gloat over his victory in Utah.

McMullin seems to be getting his name out there and I'm genuinely curious to see if he takes another run in 2020. I feel like the country needs time to get to know him and scrutinize him but I feel like he could be a candidate that most people could at least be ok with.

I am just praying that someone puts out a real candidate in 2020 so that drumpf is a one hit wonder.

[Ma'ake]

More like "Previet, Officer! We are fortunate to have such a wonderful leader as Trump, who has promised us a return to our elections, when the nation has been stabilized. Dos-vo-danya!"

lol - good stuff.

Perhaps Comrade DevilDog you will come to understand the AK-47 was the correct choice all along, superior to that M-16 with the plastic parts.

With the civilian massacre in Aleppo, who can guess Trump's reaction, should he decide to hold a press conference again and is asked about it?

A) - "What's an Aleppo?"

B) - "Those were UN observers, and we're pulling our funding for that anti-American organization, too!"

C) - "The Clinton campaign just doesn't give up. You have to hand it to them".

[Applejack]

At each and every one of these 'thanks for voting for me!' rallies, mr drumpf has gone after Evan McMullin, never calling him by name but still going out of his way to trash him and gloat over his victory in Utah.

McMullin seems to be getting his name out there and I'm genuinely curious to see if he takes another run in 2020. I feel like the country needs time to get to know him and scrutinize him but I feel like he could be a candidate that most people could at least be ok with.

I am just praying that someone puts out a real candidate in 2020 so that drumpf is a one hit wonder.

For president? No way. He's a mid-level government employee.

Now as a Congressman from Utah? I think that is definitely on the table.

[Diehard Ute]

For president? No way. He's a mid-level government employee.

Now as a Congressman from Utah? I think that is definitely on the table.

Maybe after he shaves Vince McMahon's head he'll have a better resume




Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[pangloss]

"[I]t is more likely that the U.S. intelligence community's earlier assessment, that Russian hacking was intended to sow general confusion in the American political process, is the more logical interpretation of Russian actions."

http://www.weeklystandard.com/what-g...rticle/2005814

I guess it's a step in the right direction that the neo-Con Weekly Standard has accepted that the Russians interfered in the election. I'm dubious about the conclusion that the Russians motivation was to mess with out heads and were agnostic in the outcome. The Bush administration tried to convince us the terrorists hated and killed us because they hated us for our freedom. I think both conclusions about bad guy motivations are wrong.

Whatever the Russian motivation, I think an independent commission needs to be stood up to investigate. A congressional investigation would be inadequate due to a presumption of political bias.

[pangloss]

This seems like a decent breakdown, even though it is too kind to the NY Times and the Washington Post, IMO.



For the online image go here:

http://m.imgur.com/7xHaUXf

That's pretty good. I think the description "Sensational or Clickbait" is too benign. Incendiary Propaganda is closer to the truth for some.

Where would you place The Weekly Standard and The National Review?

Today's NY Times has an in-depth article on the Russian interference in the election. This could be as consequential as Watergate, even if as I assume, Trump and his campaign did not coordinate with the Russians.

[pangloss]

This is a remarkable article done by real journalists. This is not fake news. The Russians aren't coming, they're here.

The Perfect Weapon: How Russian Cyberpower Invaded the U.S.

During the campaign, Trump said Clinton's use of a private email server while she was Secretary of State was 'worse than Watergate'. That was ridiculous political hyperbole. Russia mucking with the election may not be worse than Watergate, but it's on a par with Watergate and it isn't going away. Again, I'm not saying it's the same, I'm not saying the money will lead to Trump or his campaign. It leads to the Kremlin and that's worse.

If a market existed for 'profession futures contracts', I'd buy a huge position in IT Security on margin. Those folks will be gods (not that they don't think they are already). Ma'ake is set.

[LA Ute]

That's pretty good. I think the description "Sensational or Clickbait" is too benign. Incendiary Propaganda is closer to the truth for some.

Where would you place The Weekly Standard and The National Review?

They'd be in the same place on the right side as The New Republic would be on the left. Maybe right on the line between "Skews" and "Hyper-partisan," because both of them run counter to partisan views from time to time. But all of those are pretty smart publications.

[USS Utah]

Also, how Trump should handle Russia going forward.

[concerned]

They'd be in the same place on the right side as The New Republic would be on the left. Maybe right on the line between "Skews" and "Hyper-partisan," because both of them run counter to partisan views from time to time. But all of those are pretty smart publications.

I don't see the comparison to NR at all. For one thing, NR has a history of right of center commentators, like John Podhoretz and Judis, stc. Nobody at NR (so far as I know) has inserted him/herself into policy making like Bill Kristol has, or some of the other neo-cons who beat the drum for the Iraq invasion. Where would Sarah Palin be today if not for Bill K? Will be interesting to see what happens now that he is stepping down.

Plus, NR does not have anything close to the influence that WS and Nat Review have.

[USS Utah]

Just hours after the President-Elect tweeted F-35 costs were “out of control,” sending manufacturer Lockheed Martin‘s stock price into a nosedive, the first two F-35s to be based abroad landed in their new home country, Israel. Is the famously hard-nosed Israeli Defense Force deceived about what they’re getting for their money? Or is the F-35 — being bought by the US, Israel, and at least eight other countries around the world — actually a pretty good deal?

http://flattopshistorywarpolitics.yu...1#.WFGqG7nSN3E

[NorthwestUteFan]

Yes, the F-35 is a pretty good deal. Especially when compared to the F-22, which cost upwards of $360M a piece depending on trim and load out.

Good write-up, Flattop.

[pangloss]

Just hours after the President-Elect tweeted F-35 costs were “out of control,” sending manufacturer Lockheed Martin‘s stock price into a nosedive, the first two F-35s to be based abroad landed in their new home country, Israel. Is the famously hard-nosed Israeli Defense Force deceived about what they’re getting for their money? Or is the F-35 — being bought by the US, Israel, and at least eight other countries around the world — actually a pretty good deal?

http://flattopshistorywarpolitics.yu...1#.WFGqG7nSN3E

I can't remember the statistic exactly, and maybe I'm thinking of rockets rather than airplanes, but I believe something like 60 or 70% of the life cycle costs are committed by the time of the IOC - initial operational capability. The F-35 IOC was over a year ago. So even if Trump were to lower the hammer and cancel the program, it wouldn't save much money and would stop delivery of future jets. A termination for convenience is like a money fountain in defense contracting. Costs that companies couldn't charge for while the program was ongoing, and costs that wouldn't have been incurred suddenly become allowable - like employee termination and retraining, and plant closings. Costs that would have been allocated over future jet deliveries are still paid. And not just Lock-Mart, but all the lower tier subs get in on the feeding frenzy. Also, Lock-Mart knows what it's doing contracting wise - I know that first hand. They are smart, really tough, and really good. Trump would not know what hit him. They would eat his arrogant ass for lunch and spit out the bones.

Canceling the F-35 at this point would be painfully stupid for the taxpayer and more importantly, the Air Force warfighters.

[Diehard Ute]

Yes, the F-35 is a pretty good deal. Especially when compared to the F-22, which cost upwards of $360M a piece depending on trim and load out.

Good write-up, Flattop.

The F-22 cost was artificially inflated by congress.

They slashed the project after it had been started thus spreading the research and development cost over far fewer planes making the cost per plane much higher.

Congress has a very bad habit of getting cold feet after the expensive parts of defense projects are done. They seem to not realize they've already spent the majority of the money. Yes the plane itself is expensive to build, but the most expensive part was the 10-20 years it took to develop it.

(The F-35, so far, is still a high volume plane. If they slash the numbers the cost per plane will skyrocket. The B-2 and B-1 programs suffered the exact same problem)


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[LA Ute]

I don't see the comparison to NR at all. For one thing, NR has a history of right of center commentators, like John Podhoretz and Judis, stc. Nobody at NR (so far as I know) has inserted him/herself into policy making like Bill Kristol has, or some of the other neo-cons who beat the drum for the Iraq invasion. Where would Sarah Palin be today if not for Bill K? Will be interesting to see what happens now that he is stepping down.

Plus, NR does not have anything close to the influence that WS and Nat Review have.

What do you think are the progressive counterparts to National Review and The Weekly Standard? NR is mainly paleocons and TWS has a strong neocon foundation. Maybe there are not as many strains of progressivism?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[pangloss]

What do you think are the progressive counterparts to National Review and The Weekly Standard? NR is mainly paleocons and TWS has a strong neocon foundation. Maybe there are not as many strains of progressivism?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Mother Jones, Rolling Stone, and The Nation come to mind.

[concerned]

Mother Jones, Rolling Stone, and The Nation come to mind.

Daily Kos

[Two Utes]

This is a remarkable article done by real journalists. This is not fake news. The Russians aren't coming, they're here.

The Perfect Weapon: How Russian Cyberpower Invaded the U.S.

During the campaign, Trump said Clinton's use of a private email server while she was Secretary of State was 'worse than Watergate'. That was ridiculous political hyperbole. Russia mucking with the election may not be worse than Watergate, but it's on a par with Watergate and it isn't going away. Again, I'm not saying it's the same, I'm not saying the money will lead to Trump or his campaign. It leads to the Kremlin and that's worse.

If a market existed for 'profession futures contracts', I'd buy a huge position in IT Security on margin. Those folks will be gods (not that they don't think they are already). Ma'ake is set.

Democrats claiming the only reason Trump won is because the people who voted for him got tricked is simply not going to sell well to the voters who voted for Trump.

[Diehard Ute]

Democrats claiming the only reason Trump won is because the people who voted for him got tricked is simply not going to sell well to the voters who voted for Trump.

Usually people who get conned don't take it well


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Irving Washington]

Democrats claiming the only reason Trump won is because the people who voted for him got tricked is simply not going to sell well to the voters who voted for Trump.

It's also massive denial, which is the last thing we need.

[NorthwestUteFan]

Democrats claiming the only reason Trump won is because the people who voted for him got tricked is simply not going to sell well to the voters who voted for Trump.

I think a better tactic is to stop pretending to be elitist Wall Street lackeys running as Republican Lite, and actually get back to their core values. This is the perhaps Hillary Clinton's weakest link. She didn't connect with Main Street, although her actual policies were great for Main Street.

They need to stand for opportunity and equality for all, for a stronger middle class, better jobs for a better way of life, and better and more efficient investments in the future (education, healthcare, future technologies and manufacturing - especially energy, and MASSIVE INVESTMENTS IN INFRASTRUCTURE).

I hope this last election, and the shellacking the Democrats have taken since 2008, will force a change of direction.

If the Dems put the same old people into leadership positions they should be ready to lose repeatedly for the next decade at least. With redistricting coming up in 2020, and with Republicans controlling nearly 2/3 of state houses and more than 2/3 of Governorships, things could get very ugly.

Even after they win back the White House after the Republicans lead the impeachment of Donald Trump in 2019.

[Ma'ake]

The F-35 is a remarkable weapons system. The expense is high, about what you might expect for a 5th generation fighter jet.

Threats to the F-35:

- Cost. Will taxpayers have the deep pockets to get this thing paid for?

- Drones. Based on US R&D, you could build 50+ drones, that are highly maneuverable, smaller, disposable (no pilot life to have to protect or recover).

- Allies getting cold feet on the cost.

- Allies getting cold feet because of erratic US leadership / concerns the F-35 technology lead may evaporate quickly, from China's hacking, from Russia more on the inside, now, etc.

If Europe pursues building their own defense technologies, expect them to pour money into advanced drone technologies. There's not enough time or money for them to produce a "clean sheet" 5th-6th generation, human-flown fighter jet.

[pangloss]

Democrats claiming the only reason Trump won is because the people who voted for him got tricked is simply not going to sell well to the voters who voted for Trump.

The subject of the article you responded to is not the one or many reasons Trump won. It is a well researched and well sourced article on Russian interference in one of the fundamental institutions of US democracy. Regardless of whether that interference helped or hurt the candidate you supported, it ought to pucker your sphincter. It's kind of an important event in our country's history, if true.

If you disagree, I'd be interested in your reasons.

[LA Ute]

DHS Chief: 'No Evidence That Hacking by Any Actor Altered the Ballot Count'

https://pjmedia.com/election/2016/12...allot-count/1/

Pretty factual article (straight-ahead news reporting). Jeh Johnson said:

“It’s important for the American public and for the U.S. government to understand fully what happened and how we better prepare ourselves for the future."

Yep.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Diehard Ute]

DHS Chief: 'No Evidence That Hacking by Any Actor Altered the Ballot Count'

https://pjmedia.com/election/2016/12...allot-count/1/

Pretty factual article (straight-ahead news reporting). Jeh Johnson said:

“It’s important for the American public and for the U.S. government to understand fully what happened and how we better prepare ourselves for the future."

Yep.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Actors usually are crappy hackers. They just pretend to be one.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[pangloss]

The F-35 is a remarkable weapons system. The expense is high, about what you might expect for a 5th generation fighter jet.

Threats to the F-35:

- Cost. Will taxpayers have the deep pockets to get this thing paid for?

- Drones. Based on US R&D, you could build 50+ drones, that are highly maneuverable, smaller, disposable (no pilot life to have to protect or recover).

- Allies getting cold feet on the cost.

- Allies getting cold feet because of erratic US leadership / concerns the F-35 technology lead may evaporate quickly, from China's hacking, from Russia more on the inside, now, etc.

If Europe pursues building their own defense technologies, expect them to pour money into advanced drone technologies. There's not enough time or money for them to produce a "clean sheet" 5th-6th generation, human-flown fighter jet.

Good points. There's a lot of institutional support for piloted fighters. Most Air Force generals are pilots, think all generals should be pilots, support sexy new airplane programs, and I believe they think pilot-less drones eliminate the last vestiges of gallantry.

One of the smart aspects of F-35 program planning was getting lots of countries financially entangled in its production. Final assembly will be accomplished at the Lock-Mart facility in Fort Worth, by Alenia Aermacchi in Italy and in Japan. Key sections of it are made in the Northrop Grumman facility in Palmdale, by Turkish Aerospace in Turkey and by BAE in the UK. About 1/2 of each F-35 is made by non-US suppliers. Cancellation or production quantity reductions will financially and militarily affect nearly all of our allies. Production is ramping up now. More F-35s have now been delivered than F-22s were built.

This is my theory on one of the reasons behind the F-35s cost problems - too many chefs. Every major defense program that starts with a J has problems. J stands for Joint, which means more than one service gets to 'help' design & muck with it. (The F-35 is the JSF, Joint Strike Fighter) The requirements for the Air Force, Navy and Marines are very different. Landing on an aircraft carrier, for example, takes much beefier landing gear. The vertical take-off Marine version is dramatically different from the Navy & AF versions. Fitting the AF, Navy & Marine requirements into one package was quite a trick, and extraordinarily expensive to pull off. The program, and all programs starting with J, was oversold as a cost saving approach - one plane for all reduces program management, etc. I don't buy it. The F-35 is one hell of a jet, but I believe they could have designed two or three new jets for less than the F-35.
I suspect incorporating BAE, Northrop Grumman, and all the other international subcontractors was also very expensive - but I haven't formed a theory on that - maybe it's self-evident?

[pangloss]

Good points. There's a lot of institutional support for piloted fighters. Most Air Force generals are pilots, think all generals should be pilots, support sexy new airplane programs, and I believe they think pilot-less drones eliminate the last vestiges of gallantry.

One of the smart aspects of F-35 program planning was getting lots of countries financially entangled in its production. Final assembly will be accomplished at the Lock-Mart facility in Fort Worth, by Alenia Aermacchi in Italy and in Japan. Key sections of it are made in the Northrop Grumman facility in Palmdale, by Turkish Aerospace in Turkey and by BAE in the UK. About 1/2 of each F-35 is made by non-US suppliers. Cancellation or production quantity reductions will financially and militarily affect nearly all of our allies. Production is ramping up now. More F-35s have now been delivered than F-22s were built.

This is my theory on one of the reasons behind the F-35s cost problems - too many chefs. Every major defense program that starts with a J has problems. J stands for Joint, which means more than one service gets to 'help' design & muck with it. (The F-35 is the JSF, Joint Strike Fighter) The requirements for the Air Force, Navy and Marines are very different. Landing on an aircraft carrier, for example, takes much beefier landing gear. The vertical take-off Marine version is dramatically different from the Navy & AF versions. Fitting the AF, Navy & Marine requirements into one package was quite a trick, and extraordinarily expensive to pull off. The program, and all programs starting with J, was oversold as a cost saving approach - one plane for all reduces program management, etc. I don't buy it. The F-35 is one hell of a jet, but I believe they could have designed two or three new jets for less than the F-35.

I suspect incorporating BAE, Northrop Grumman, and all the other international subcontractors was also very expensive - but I haven't formed a theory on that.

Several years ago, I got a tour of the Fort Worth plant. The in-process jets don't even look like airplanes - the fuselage is plastic and a sickly light green. The plant is huge, spotless and highly automated.

defense-large.jpg

[LA Ute]

It’s easy to mock Mitt Romney. We should praise him.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/...-mitt-romneys/

Some good points here.

[USS Utah]

Good points. There's a lot of institutional support for piloted fighters. Most Air Force generals are pilots, think all generals should be pilots, support sexy new airplane programs, and I believe they think pilot-less drones eliminate the last vestiges of gallantry.

One of the smart aspects of F-35 program planning was getting lots of countries financially entangled in its production. Final assembly will be accomplished at the Lock-Mart facility in Fort Worth, by Alenia Aermacchi in Italy and in Japan. Key sections of it are made in the Northrop Grumman facility in Palmdale, by Turkish Aerospace in Turkey and by BAE in the UK. About 1/2 of each F-35 is made by non-US suppliers. Cancellation or production quantity reductions will financially and militarily affect nearly all of our allies. Production is ramping up now. More F-35s have now been delivered than F-22s were built.

This is my theory on one of the reasons behind the F-35s cost problems - too many chefs. Every major defense program that starts with a J has problems. J stands for Joint, which means more than one service gets to 'help' design & muck with it. (The F-35 is the JSF, Joint Strike Fighter) The requirements for the Air Force, Navy and Marines are very different. Landing on an aircraft carrier, for example, takes much beefier landing gear. The vertical take-off Marine version is dramatically different from the Navy & AF versions. Fitting the AF, Navy & Marine requirements into one package was quite a trick, and extraordinarily expensive to pull off. The program, and all programs starting with J, was oversold as a cost saving approach - one plane for all reduces program management, etc. I don't buy it. The F-35 is one hell of a jet, but I believe they could have designed two or three new jets for less than the F-35.
I suspect incorporating BAE, Northrop Grumman, and all the other international subcontractors was also very expensive - but I haven't formed a theory on that - maybe it's self-evident?

Better yet, design a plane for the Navy, then go to the Air Force and offer a modified version (i.e. the F-4 Phantom). You would still have to design a STOVL aircraft for the Marines, though.

[Applejack]

It’s easy to mock Mitt Romney. We should praise him.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/...-mitt-romneys/

Some good points here.

I'm shocked you like the article, based purely on the title.