Trump

[wufan]

You want USA to have the most influence in the world, then yeah, we will have more burden. Again, we are the only country to implement article 4 so they actually have helped us.

And the filibuster thing is relevant as this thread is all about trump.

The two topics in one post is a bad idea. Separate them for ease of discussion.

[wufan]

okay, I get that but what about this:

The four main deterrents against a Eurasian aggressor into Europe are:

US missile siting / nuclear umbrella
US nuclear sharing
US forward deployed bases
Article 5 of NATO / US Commitment to redeploy to Europe in case of war
Let's be real: Man With Half A Potato Latvia may spend its dutiful 2% of GDP on defense but the Baltics' existence in NATO is (pick your favored theory) either A) as a buffer state whose mission is to slow the Russian tanks to buy time for USA's redeployment / mobilization plan to make Germany defensible, or B) an aggressive, Kissingerian attempt to pressure the Russian state into balkanization by overloading its defense needs. The important point is that in either scenario, the actual strategic value of Latvia is its geographic position vis a vis the Russian state, NOT ITS DEFENSE BUDGET. The same goes for many other NATO states, such as Iceland and Turkey. The actual strategic value of Iceland is the GIUK Gap which enables the US to track and kill Russian subs if they try to enter the Atlantic. What's the value of that compared to how far Iceland is falling short of the 2% goal? Well, since Iceland spends just 0.1% of its GDP on defense, the shortfall is 1.9% of Iceland's GDP. That's not very impressive: 315 million dollars, or five hundredths of a percent of the Pentagon's annual budget. The in-kind value of having anti-sub warfare capabilities based in Iceland dwarf that figure, considering that a single current generation Russian sub costs on the order of a billion dollars.

Now you might accuse me of choosing an easy to defend example since Iceland has tremendous (yuge) geographic value and is a small economy. What about those freeloading Frenchies and other West Europeans who make up "Not-So-Secret Real NATO"1 and benefit from a security umbrella while not living up to that 2% commitment? But the same logic of in-kind contributions still applies. Two of the most important of the Not So Secret Real NATO states, UK and France, provide immense diplomatic/strategic value for the US just by having their own sovereign nuclear arsenals sited in WEU. The dollar value of maintaining these arsenals is totally incommensurate with their military value. So why are we talking money again?

It's important to be clear about this ****. Don't accept Trump's premise that we're getting screwed if the allies don't pay 2%. The fact is the USA gets a fantastic geostrategic bargain if the allies pay 0%.

Seeing things in this light is important for another reason. It underlines the most significant fact about this debate.

These are good points. There is an inherent value in geographic location. These countries should use these as bargaining chips. We should barter back, and doing so is a sensible thing in my mind.

[wufan]

I dont give a rats A who started it. The fact is it shouldn't happen no matter what. The fact the president wants this is bad for democracy rather you are a demo or a rep. Why is everything so dang one side or another. I can think both sides are stupid. It doesbt matter that one side started.

I agree that separation of power is important. It's one of the reasons we have an electoral college instead of popular vote for the POTUS. I also think that additional powers should be left up to the states. Going in that direction would make me much happier than trying to eliminate a beuricratic blockade.

[wufan]

I dont give a rats A who started it. The fact is it shouldn't happen no matter what. The fact the president wants this is bad for democracy rather you are a demo or a rep. Why is everything so dang one side or another. I can think both sides are stupid. It doesbt matter that one side started.

I don't believe you will be taken serious on this matter until you show evidence that you support some conservative ideals. It might be the case that you 100% align with liberals, and that's fine, but if you show you are unhappy about particinship only when it impacts the liberal agenda it presents its own problems.

[jdshock]

Voting is corrupt. Both parties have participated in this corruption at some point in the past and probably still do. An appropriate voter ID is one way to lessen the corruption even if there is some inherent corruption in the selection of IDs.

@jdshock, what's your take?

Conversation kind of took off in a different direction after this post. I kind of go back and forth on voter ID stuff. All the stats I've seen say that voter fraud is incredibly rare. I also believe that if there is a requirement to have an ID to vote, that ID definitely needs to be free. Even $10 is a poll tax. To me, a state offering free IDs but requiring IDs to vote is probably a somewhat neutral compromise both sides should be happy with. Free IDs probably also have the added benefit of helping disenfranchised folks have access to other services that require an ID.

The real debate tends to come down to stuff about access to IDs aside from money. I've seen people talk about how DMVs are only open 9-5 but citizens in the lower class tend to work jobs that make it harder to visit a DMV during working hours. Like was mentioned in this thread, birth certificate availability can be an issue. There's also some concern about homelessness. Let's say you don't have a physical address, how do you get an ID/choose what precinct to vote in?

All of those are definitely problems, but I also feel like they're not insurmountable. I just did a quick search on Google and this website says Oregon allows residents to use motel or campground receipts to establish residency. As long as states make getting an ID incredibly accessible, I think it's probably not that bad. But the test can't be "well, you'd have to have these documents to work so you have to have them to vote." In my opinion, the right to vote is as fundamental as the right to free speech, and I don't need any paperwork to take advantage of that right. We should be very wary of any extra requirements to exercise the right to vote.

[MoValley John]

Conversation kind of took off in a different direction after this post. I kind of go back and forth on voter ID stuff. All the stats I've seen say that voter fraud is incredibly rare. I also believe that if there is a requirement to have an ID to vote, that ID definitely needs to be free. Even $10 is a poll tax. To me, a state offering free IDs but requiring IDs to vote is probably a somewhat neutral compromise both sides should be happy with. Free IDs probably also have the added benefit of helping disenfranchised folks have access to other services that require an ID.

The real debate tends to come down to stuff about access to IDs aside from money. I've seen people talk about how DMVs are only open 9-5 but citizens in the lower class tend to work jobs that make it harder to visit a DMV during working hours. Like was mentioned in this thread, birth certificate availability can be an issue. There's also some concern about homelessness. Let's say you don't have a physical address, how do you get an ID/choose what precinct to vote in?

All of those are definitely problems, but I also feel like they're not insurmountable. I just did a quick search on Google and this website says Oregon allows residents to use motel or campground receipts to establish residency. As long as states make getting an ID incredibly accessible, I think it's probably not that bad. But the test can't be "well, you'd have to have these documents to work so you have to have them to vote." In my opinion, the right to vote is as fundamental as the right to free speech, and I don't need any paperwork to take advantage of that right. We should be very wary of any extra requirements to exercise the right to vote.

This has always been my position, require id's, but provide state id's for free. That said, this will never come to fruition because neither side will budge on such a simple compromise.

[ShockTalk]

This has always been my position, require id's, but provide state id's for free. That said, this will never come to fruition because neither side will budge on such a simple compromise.

This is what is wrong with both sides. They both need to compromise.

BINGO!!

[SHOXJOCK]

It is. It changes the balance of power. There is a reason for more than majority rule and that would be that sides would work together. I'm sure you wouldn't have been pleased if the democratics did it.

A filibuster is the exact opposite of working together. Do away with the filibuster for both sides. It will never happen but what needs to be done is get congress together in cession. At the beginning of the day, we tell them we are going to tackle immigration today. If anyone leaves before a immigration bill is passed they will be sent back home. They will give up their seat and all benefits including healthcare and retirement. Then move on to next problem. My guess is that in about six months congress approver rating would be around 75% instead of 18%. A small disclaimer all bills passed would need to be funded and or cuts made to pay for them.

[wufan]

I've stated multiple times that both sides need to compromise. Pf course I currently have more issues with the Republican sidw of things because they are in power and thus make more of an impact right now instead of democrats.

I know you've stated it multiple times, and I can appreciate that, but it's always been (that I can recall) in situations where the Republicans were being obtuse.

[wufan]

Conversation kind of took off in a different direction after this post. I kind of go back and forth on voter ID stuff. All the stats I've seen say that voter fraud is incredibly rare. I also believe that if there is a requirement to have an ID to vote, that ID definitely needs to be free. Even $10 is a poll tax. To me, a state offering free IDs but requiring IDs to vote is probably a somewhat neutral compromise both sides should be happy with. Free IDs probably also have the added benefit of helping disenfranchised folks have access to other services that require an ID.

The real debate tends to come down to stuff about access to IDs aside from money. I've seen people talk about how DMVs are only open 9-5 but citizens in the lower class tend to work jobs that make it harder to visit a DMV during working hours. Like was mentioned in this thread, birth certificate availability can be an issue. There's also some concern about homelessness. Let's say you don't have a physical address, how do you get an ID/choose what precinct to vote in?

All of those are definitely problems, but I also feel like they're not insurmountable. I just did a quick search on Google and this website says Oregon allows residents to use motel or campground receipts to establish residency. As long as states make getting an ID incredibly accessible, I think it's probably not that bad. But the test can't be "well, you'd have to have these documents to work so you have to have them to vote." In my opinion, the right to vote is as fundamental as the right to free speech, and I don't need any paperwork to take advantage of that right. We should be very wary of any extra requirements to exercise the right to vote.

We agree, and I think a majority of the public agrees as well.

[ShockCrazy]

A filibuster is the exact opposite of working together. Do away with the filibuster for both sides. It will never happen but what needs to be done is get congress together in cession. At the beginning of the day, we tell them we are going to tackle immigration today. If anyone leaves before a immigration bill is passed they will be sent back home. They will give up their seat and all benefits including healthcare and retirement. Then move on to next problem. My guess is that in about six months congress approver rating would be around 75% instead of 18%. A small disclaimer all bills passed would need to be funded and or cuts made to pay for them.

I don't think you have any idea the purpose of the filibuster is. Removing the filibuster would absolutely unequivocally make things worse, and both parties are responsible for it. The filibuster is to protect the 49% from the unregulated will of the 51%. Without a filibuster a simple majority would prevent all discussion, negotiation and cooperation with the minorities of the country(political or social). This would cause each congress to be hyper-reactive to undo or redo everything the previous leadership did, sound familiar? Now, double the issues we are facing because there can be no objecting to a simple majority. no party in charge would even pretend those outside their base matters. The filibuster is a valuable tool to democracy, but it can be misused. This has lead to both parties steadily tearing it down.

[ShockerPrez]

My understanding and belief is that the constitution was designed so that it would be very difficult to get laws passed at the federal level. The natural state of Washington should be gridlock. Honestly, I believe that strongly.

The Clinton administration was largely successful economically because of gridlock. I believe the American economy can thrive at nearly every level of taxation and regulation, so long as the rules change very rarely. Businesses will adapt so long as they dont have to constantly change their practices to adhere to a ever changing legal and regulatory landscape driven by the governments need to control the market.

[MoValley John]

My understanding and belief is that the constitution was designed so that it would be very difficult to get laws passed at the federal level. The natural state of Washington should be gridlock. Honestly, I believe that strongly.

The Clinton administration was largely successful economically because of gridlock.

The Clinton economy was largely successful because he presided over the advent of public adoption of the internet. There literally was a paradigm shift in technology and economy during his administration. The dot-com bubble burst tamed that economy.

[SB Shock]

My understanding and belief is that the constitution was designed so that it would be very difficult to get laws passed at the federal level. The natural state of Washington should be gridlock. Honestly, I believe that strongly.

The Clinton administration was largely successful economically because of gridlock. I believe the American economy can thrive at nearly every level of taxation and regulation, so long as the rules change very rarely. Businesses will adapt so long as they dont have to constantly change their practices to adhere to a ever changing legal and regulatory landscape driven by the governments need to control the market.

Yip - I agree. Our framers were pretty smart.

[pinstripers]

http://www.dailywire.com/news/17086/excellent-trump-5-reasons-trump-right-pull-out-ben-shapiro