Basejumper.com - archive

Just want some thoughts on Trump for president and his effects on BASE jumping? International views would be appreciated ?

I may be wrong but I thought I heard somewhere that he got BASE jumping made illegal in Atlantic City because jumpers were jumping his casino.

Just another nail in the "that-shithole-I'll-never-visit"-coffin!

Trump should try wingsuit base jumping. I bet he'd be really good at it. think of the precise aerodynamic control he'd have with those tiny-ass fingers of his.

If he gets in i honestly think his affect on jumping will be the least of you worries

Law and Order buddy, Law and Order!

Are you people retards? Masculinity is toxic in femmetard world and risk taking masculine recreation will be (more) illegal under cunton. Only fags vote for wimmen.

He will legalise it if Putin tells him to.

-
It's fact the Donald has precise aerodynamic control he'd have with those tiny-ass fingers of his . I suspect, If it were a WS race between him and HRC . She would lose just from the fact of extra drag with Her ruddering her large penis .
.

I can't stop imagining his hair while he is flying a wingsuit now

so true lol her balls would probably drag on the ground too

To be fair, it's more or less "dumb and dumber" for president this year. Either candidate is likely to be a disaster, but then that's more or less what we've gotten for the entire modern era.

Moving to Switzerland looks better every year.

You say that like it's been any different in the past years

How high would be the wall he's planning to build?
Asking for a friend...

haha, nice one

Funny you mention the wall, I've been contemplating jumping with a Donald trump mask, to promote building a wall high enough to BASE jump off of!

To be fair I did say "that's more or less what we've gotten for the entire modern era."

Strange, when the rest of the world looking at Obama as the most Intelligent president you ever had! And the most liked one

Bill Clinton is going to make an excellent First Lady , so what if his bitch wife belongs in prison . Trump is an imbecile .

-
Personally I would like to see ALL Politicians get the largest and fastest Wingsuit manufactured free of charge and a 1st class plane ticket to any Big Wall they Choose . The Douche Bags Deserve it . Fuck Politics and the self-serving party Politicians who just Flat Ass Fucking Suck, Fuck all of them .
. I 'think still ? ' people still have the freedom to vote for whomever they choose in the United States, ' I think ? ' . it really tough to tell anymore these days . Vote/Speech/freedom to assemble, just the basics are teetering on the edge since those last 3 POUTS,two-face cocksuckers Bill, Bush & Obama took there tole . I am So fucking tired of getting kicked in the Nuts and being told to like it . FUCK THEM .
. Right now, Really for me it not about who is not the worst party subsidized devil or even the least socially retarded that just won't get along with the 50% of common folk who actually pay the entire gross Fed. revenue received in this country . It now more about which one will least tear down/remove what is left of who I am .
. Truthfully, I find it really hard for me to vote for the well established Clinton organized crime family because it is tough for me to just Vote for a liar and a really greedy stupid thief . I am stubborn to a fault and can't just roll-over and just say ..."fuck it, I give-up". The Donald is no politician but I Got to vote for Trump anyway so he might have an honest chance to possibly Not FUCK things up more than they already are .
.

ok, i'll bite. how so?

America ... You got to love it or leave it

I left , 5 years there was plenty.

Sounds like you're sick of the place too

Try Canada , I found it to be a very civilised country.

-
I love America and will never leave . I probably was just ranting because I just got my new propriety Tax Bill in the mail .
.

.
don't want to be a dick but I cant waist time, I have to be productive . typing on the internet, droning on for pages about 'my personal' politic option is a waist of my time and anyone else reading . go Learn and self-inform what is being taken from you .
.

That's fine, no dickishness taken. though I obviously don't feel affected the same way you do. Voting, speech, assembly, being impinged upon--really??

voting - because I'm a privileged white male with a state issued photo ID, I have no problems voting. I suppose you are complaining that many minority, disabled, or elderly subpopulations are victims of voter suppresion tactics (usually from the extreme-right political sector)... I'd have to agree with you on that to some degree.

Speech - i can't fathom what you are possibly complaining about here. if anything the "citizens united" ruling suggests the opposite

assembly - hardly. even that fucktwat bundy and his 6 mouth-breathing co-conspirators got acquitted today. if they can get away with that, then you can truly assemble any way you want.

maybe you are upset about your taxes, man! that's understandable. taxes suck. but public roads, public education, having a strong national defense, well i think they are worth paying for... if i'm uninformed about what is being taken from me i really do want to hear about it.

Yeah, he somehow figured out how to win a Nobel Peace Prize while escalating imperialistic wars in the middle east.

No one is saying he's dumb, that's for sure.

Well,

Usa 1
Europe 1
China -1

No one understand the mess the Nobel comitee creates and why!

Still it have nothing to do with your man in the house that he won Nobel price or what?

Since he was awarded the prize before he took office, I'd say no, definitely not. Extremely clever of him to do that, though.

But, tell me, do you truly believe he planned and motivated the jury to give him the price?

. It is no hidden picture what Obama is, arguing for what should only be missed by the blind is a pure waste of time . And it is a hell of a lot more then pissed-off about paying tax's . Easy most times to deal with that, Participation payment in extortion from State & Fed. Gov. that is just a fact of life like death .
. Also I am no special snowflake but Being self-employed most of my life while also trying to be self-relent as possible . in the past 30 years I have worked struggling against the wall of bureaucracy's regulation both state and Fed. getting hit by it's grab for control and feel of it pushing the thumb down . It is no Bullshit that Me and millions of others are Pissed off that the government works stealing away the simple gift of just exercising the ability of working to be your own man .

I ran across this a few days ago and it made me smile, spoken from a guy that does his trade well .
Oct.- 13 - 2016
https://www.youtube.com/...amp;feature=youtu.be

.

"Voter Suppression" is just fucking bullshit!
In the USA voter turnout runs 40% to 60%
depending on the type of election being held.

Next tell me how I as an 'Evil Demographic'
am prohibiting people from jury duty or
volunteering with Big Brothers/Sisters.

Freedom of speech is working, you can
tell by the fuck-faces on the "news"...
who parade their opinions as facts.

Freedom of assembly is working, see
the idiots wo have blocked interstates.

Obama did not deserve the Peace prize!
The committee that awards them was
simply wanting to make a statement.

As for taxes, that is a long discussion...


Evil Demographic = white, male, straight,
aged 25 to 55, not homeless, not disabled.

Funny thing is: a homeless, black, lesbian,
wheelchair user had the exact same input
on choosing those variables as mine.

None of us filled out a form and selected
right handed or left handed but I should
"Feel" guilty because I'm Ambidextrous.

And here are some examples of the so-called "bullshit":
here
here
here
here
here
here
Arguments published in the mass media, that voter suppression is real, from what I've read, seem to center on presenting examples representing vulnerable populations. If anyone wants to reference actual scholarly articles, identifying voter suppression, send them out because I haven't had time to do a real literature review myself, and I'm not convinced the corpus of research is robust.

an opposing view:
here
similar to most other opposing views I have found, this argument seems to rely on saying, "look, minority voter rates are rising, therefore, by definition they can't possible be repressed!" however this is clearly a non-sequitur, ...at best. (at worst, it's a deliberate attempt to confuse people by propping up sham research).

So basically I haven't seen the pro-"it's a problem" side pose any large-scale data showing the problem exists, only anecdote and theory. And the "it's a myth" side (at least the little i've read) relies on utterly retarded logic and also fails to provide any scholarly demonstration, i.e. a valid study looking for voter suppression that has a negative result.

Overall I guess I'm sympathetic to the poor underprivileged minority who faces legitimate obstacles to voting, whether it's related to financial reasons, poor health, lack of education, or what-have-you. But I'm not convinced it sways many elections. I think general unexcused apathy is a way bigger problem than voter suppression, but that doesn't mean we should tolerate deliberate voter suppression.

Voter fraud, on the other hand, I get the impression (based on 5 minutes of google searching), that it has been more closely studied by real researchers. Seems to me like the scope of the problem is better defined in terms of scholarly works, and the conclusion among people who know what they are talking about is that, basically, the kind of voter fraud people (i.e. conservatives) are afraid of is not the same as the kind of voter fraud that does actually occur. And as much as it pisses me off, this doesn't appear to really impact election results, either.

 



.

winning a Nobel Prize is kinda strange these days .. even Bob Dylan gets one ...
.. o tempora, o mores ....

Funny: what sounds more similar to "dumb"? Obama or ...?

Voter Suppression, Voter Fraud, and abortions done
because the mother was raped all fall into the same
category for me, they all happen but are uncommon.

Because he is going to fuck you too
https://youtu.be/LmsIlLPK4ug

This one is funnier:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GLAh3pui-CI

Not sure what termination of a rape-related pregnancy has to do with it...

fraudulent in-person ballots are probably no more than double-digits per year [1] [2]
abortions due to rape are in the at least 5-digits annually [3]
voter suppression-- I have no idea how this should be quantified.

But there is good news! One thing Mr. Akin is fairly sure of, all you have to do is "not enjoy it" and you can't actually get pregnant

[1] https://www.washingtonpost.com/...illion-ballots-cast/

[2] https://www.washingtonpost.com/...rson-voter-fraud-is/

[3] https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/8765248

Any more thoughts on this now he has won ?
my guess is that Americans voted for him because they figured him the more honest of the two, regardless of the stupid shit that comes out of his mouth .

Im sure I'm not the only one watching on in horror with some popcorn as the worlds greatest democracy descends into a third world spectacle rioting looting in the finest Nigerian tradition.

Here in the "Land of the Free" it seems like people voted for the lesser of two evils. I personally think they are both wrong on so many levels. It appears that "the Don" is doing some back peddling from his campaign promises. But to my original question, could Trump negatively impact BASE jumping? He's so out there that he might endorse it under certain circumstances. I'd love too see Jumpers around the world jumping in trump masks as a silent protest!

   I am far from being a expert on the Vote . but the media/info propaganda pushed-out say's, It looks that the basic USA design of the founders might have worked in this case . The Popular Vote, Hillary won . But the State Electoral said enough of this 'hope & change' joke that was elected and the shit being pushed the last 8 years .
. With State electoral also having pressure from the people the electoral override the popular and moved to Vote Trump and move away from having the Clinton crime family takeover again for the 2nd time as POTUS .
( for example:) WITH ENOUGH electoral vote you can actually override a huge Democrat controlled voting machine like California which holds the highest '55 electoral votes' and has est. 18-Million registered voters . It's the pressure valve and least violent way to turn things around . and if you discount all the private funded/agitated violent protests organized in select Democratic controlled cities in the US, It all went pretty smoothly .
.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-OGZRRtD6Vk
,

What happened to these guys? This will be my indicator on how the Trump presidency will go.

http://www.basejumper.com/...ump%20tower;#2965638

I think he has a better chance than any other recent president, of an executive order legalizing BASE jumping in national parks.

Which is to say, it is a fractional % above zero. But why not try

yeah, way better they put a 13-year-old-raping, endorsed-by-the-KKK, veteran-insulting, racist, sexist, least-popular candidate in history (& can't even win the popular vote) in there, than one the smartest people in Washington. Well, at least he knows more about ISIS than the Generals. He says "drain the swamp" but he's already planning to put some of the least-honest career lobbyists in his cabinet that he can find (i.e. Myron Ebell).

Let's face it, we all forgive people on our own side, and hold our nose and vote for them. And we all find any excuse to delegitimize our political opponents. But, this year, it has really made people show their true personal values. Politics or not, I'll pick "lying hacker-bait", over "lying sexual predator racist bully egotistical buffoon" any day. I'm moderate enough that I don't have to care what the political platform is.

Lets you swapped each candidate's scandals & fuckups? Which people would honestly vote, or not vote, for the same candidate? At least say, "he's (she's) a fucking asshat but at least will push my political ideology"-- that's worth some honesty points.

Thank goodness there are still some honest Republicans in DC who saw what a disaster Trump was, I can respect them more than I can respect someone like Wasserman-Schultz (scumbag democrat) or Chris Christie (disgusting fatbody)

For the record I voted for Cruz in the primary. Trump was not my first or even second choice. I was very annoyed and it just got worse from there. I'm very disappointed in how he conducted him self in the campaign. If my boy Cruz had been in there it wouldn't have even been a race. He would have been wiping the floor with her like a cheep mop. The bottom line is that he is not a carrier politician. He has not spent the last twenty years editing every word coming out of his mouth. And it doesn't look like he's going to be able to learn to do so. I think he could have at least conducted him self much better at times. But the bottom line is this. He some how pulled it out of his ass. He took what should have been an easy win and turned it into the tightest most nail biting race I've ever seen. All he really had to do is stand there and say, "I'm not her. Vote for me." and he would have won in a land slide. I wish he had shown up at a debate and answered every question with those two sentences.

So, yes, I voted for him. And, yes, he is a fucking ass hat. But he WILL push my political ideology. And any thing is better then the fucking apocalyptic holocaust that would have been our fate if we had lost the election. I hope that we turned the corner and will now move away from the edge that we were teetering on, in danger of collapsing into some kind of socialist hell from whitch we would never have recovered.

So he's not the man I would have chosen, but he's the leader we have. I actually think that he will be very good at some things. I just hope that he will gather enough smart people around him to make up for his short comings. Right now I'm optimistic and that's more then I've been able to say for eight years.

Lee

.

Hahaha yeah that about sums up this election!

Well that's an honest answer alright... Sadly for you and for me, instead of being an election about actual political policies, it was a struggle of one candidate desperately trying to claw her way out of scandal, and another candidate just as desperately trying to dig himself deeper into it.

Do you think Bernie would have beaten Trump?

So you're one of the 0.1% that's getting tax-cuts, you dont care about our planet and let me guess, you give two shits about minorities and bitches. BRING THE WHITE BACK INTO THE WHITE HOUSE! WHITE POWER!!!

Good for you.

LOL..
you should stick to just spewing shit about basejumping.
at least you may know a 'little' about that.

Except for the taxes point, I'm going to respectfully stick up for BASE1817 on this one. Edit to clarify- only sticking up for his points against Trump. Not any implicit attack on RiggerLee who graciously answered the question I asked

On taxes:
The non-partisan Tax Policy Center projects that most americans would see some kind of tax cut. Though, the biggest benefit would be to the highest-income people.

However, Lily Batchelder of the same Tax Policy Center, is quoted: "A single parent who's earning $75,000 and has two school-age children, they would face a tax increase of over $2,400," due to changes in rules on deductions and credits (despite possibly being in a lower tax bracket... they actually pay more)

So most americans may get a tax break of some kind, even if it is only a small amount. Some people will pay more, but they won't be the high-earners. So BASE1817 is technically wrong, but not in a way that makes Trump look like a good guy all of a sudden. And hey, where are all the conservatives who, in recent years, wanted to shut down the government over the budget deficit & spending?

On racism:
Donald Trump has uttered numerous racist statements, is closely associated with alt-right douchebag Steve Bannon, and, was literally endorsed by the KKK. All that is well documented in the public record. I think BASE1817 can rest his case.

On sexism:

On "caring about the planet": BASE1817 can sum up his argument succinctly in 2 words: "Myron Ebell". If someone wanted to debate the scientific consensus on global warming, that is another matter.

For the record, as much as I love to rip on him (and troll his supporters, yes I admit that), there are a few things I do agree with Trump on. He seems to be pro-LGBT rights even if he's afraid to admit it. He says he is pro-military spending, but lets see if he actually has the balls to stand up to Russia. He wants to reform the VA (good luck, I hope he can).

Trolling political discussions is a lot more fun than participating in them, but...


If you don't believe in climate change, you're in the same category as people who proclaim "jet fuel can't melt steel beams" (it actually can't, and you're an idiot for thinking it's worth mentioning) and those who think cavemen rode dinosaurs (yes, like in the Flintstones). The "if I can't see it it's not there" crowd needs to get off their computers, because it's doubtful you know what a proton is. The internet might as well be black magic, which basically makes you a witch.


Let us please draw a line between being pro-military and pro-military spending. Supporting Soldiers and supporting mega projects are two very different things. If you disagree, I recommend referencing President Eisenhower's Farewell Address.

Drifting here... but jet fuel "can"... You can even boil steel with it. You have to create the right circumstances though. Burning fuel doesn't make a temperature. It makes heat. But I get your point (steel softening temp /= melting temp).


Generally agree. I actually almost typed "pro-military" and left it at that, but it's hard to really be pro-military when you insult Gold Star families & ex-POWs, denigrate the knowledge of general officers, and promise to give illegal orders. If "pro-military spending" is the best I can get out of him, I'll take it. I think our military readiness suffers because of modernization delays and training cuts, that are both directly linked to budget constraints. I'll leave it at that for now.

It's interesting to look at the polls done after the election, of people who voted for Trump and what they wanted.

Largely, it appears that the swing votes here (actually, the people who haven't turned out at an election in years and came out this time), were the blue collar "Reagan Democrats".

They're not racists, and they mostly don't care about wars in the middle east.

They're not quite single issue voters, but their major concern seems to be the decay of heavy industry in the American midwest. Unfortunately, that seems to be a symptom of modern global economic growth, rather than something amenable to government policies in the USA.

But their real motivating issue is basically anger at Washington DC. For the last 20 years (give or take) these people have been told that they are ignorant (at least--more often just dumb), racist hicks, who need to be consigned to the dustbin of history. The message from the democratic party (to which most of them ostensibly belong) was "we're just waiting for you all to die of old age so we can move forward into our new century."

Can you fault them for being angry? I can't--not really.

I can object to their choice of voting for Donald Trump as the outlet for their anger, but I can totally understand where they are coming from.

Spend years insulting your supporters and calling them irrelevant, and it's likely they will turn on you with a lot of pent up anger. People who are angry often take rash actions without considering the consequences.

If you want to look for the reasons that the nation (and by and large in this case that means historically democratic party voters in places like Pennsylvania, Wisconsin and Michigan) rejected the democratic party apparatus (and Hilary Clinton is the ultimate party apparatchik), look no further than the public statements of that party since 1992.

Why do you think that Trump was pushing so hard in states that were taken for granted as "solid blue"? Because his campaign had figured out that when people are insulted repeatedly and then taken for granted, they become angry. Kudos to the Trump campaign for figuring that out.

Serious question: Why do you care?

I honestly don't know (or care) who's holding the reins of power in Switzerland. What is it that motivates you to care what happens in the USA?

If I lived in Switzerland, I'd honestly just be thankful to live there and happy to let the rest of the world go on doing it's thing while I ignored it.

Why are so many Americans so pro-military (genuine question)? When I think of the American, UK or French modern military, I mostly see mafia-style organisations which exist to intimidate other countries and project power and influence.

People who choose to join these organisations do so knowing they are much more likely to be involved in the deaths of innocents than to be killed themselves. Why so much respect for them?

And please don't tell me their foreign interventions are keeping me safe. Terrorist attacks are very often a reaction to these.

I don't recall how many systems he bought from the BASE gear manufacturer I used to work for, but Donald Trump will be the first President to actually own a BASE rig. He purchased at least several of them shortly after 9/11. These are custom built pre-packed round parachute systems with a static line that just needs to be clipped into a strong point.

And now as the Secret Service figures out ways to protect "Penthouse One" from attack I'm sure the subject of these rigs came up. Would have been an interesting conversation to overhear.

NickD :-)
BASE 194

This just in! U.S. BASE jumping community vowes to defend the Trump wall between Mexico, so long as its over 300 feet tall.

Good post. Ya know I can't really find fault with that argument. Yes a lot of those blue collar folks feel left behind, whether the reasons are gov't controlled or not. That is not a group (white men) that is used to feeling disenfranchised too often, and they struck back.

So I can understand the roots of their viewpoint even if I really disagree with their logic. No I don't think they are serving their own, or the country's, long-term strategic & economic interests by voting for Trump. But that's the cool thing about democracy, we get to vote it out and debate it without fear of the state. (Theoretically)

The republican and democratic party have both taken turns, historically, carrying the progressive banner of politics. A lot of observers think we are at (or beyond) an inflection point, where the makeup of each party is making a big swap. Remember when international free trade was a conservative principle?

Another interesting dimension to look at it from, which doesn't get hardly any press time compared to the "liberal-conservative" schism, is the "libertarian-authoritarian" divide and it's funny how that often breaks up party lines.

Edit: spelling

Originally, it was a cultural issue. Now, it's a political calculus actively engaged in by our national leadership.

In the last 15 years, though, both our big political parties have figured out that they can pander to the jingoism in our culture, so they've both been pushing for the same "support our troops" mentality because they see it as a win-win (no cost to them, helps them win votes).

Now, being "anti-war" automatically draws out a "why don't you support our troops? Those brave men and women are laying their lives on the line for your freedom" response that is actively encouraged by both sides of our major political debate.

The "anti-war" group in American politics pretty much evaporated with the election of "anti-war" candidate Obama, who quickly morphed into "pro-war" president Obama, escalating both the scope and schedule of the old "pro-war" administration beyond Dick Cheney's wildest dreams.

Speaking generally (not necessarily my own beliefs):

-Long-standing cultural tradition, military has generally always been a respected class in American society

-It is the most advanced military in the history of the world, and being "the most" anything is usually something that garners pride

-Most of our conflicts being fought on foreign shores, the devastation of true warfare is unknown to a lot of the population (individually and culturally)-- i.e. a lot of folks just don't know how awful war really is.

-A military career can be a huge stepping stone to success in the civilian sector, including a lot of upward economic mobility.

-Cultural momentum from the cold war, fear of rising great powers

-A lot of us have family members or are/were personally in the military (though that is at historic lows now)

-Machismo

-It gives some people something to be proud of if they are otherwise not as well-off

-many people genuinely do believe, (and I'm not taking a position on it here, I'm just trying to answer your question) that foreign interventions do keep them safe, or at least, help keep safe a vulnerable group.

there are probably plenty other reasons too, that's just my off-hand guess. The claim about more likely to kill civilians than self ...whether it's true or not, it's not something most people here think about when signing up. the perception these days is that collateral innocent deaths are decreasing as weapons technology improves. despite high-profile fuck-ups I think that's actually hugely true. You can't even begin to compare the firebombings of WWII to today's precision strike ability, strict ROEs, and the fact the modern media is way better at exposing heinous acts.

> That is not a group (white men) that is used to feeling disenfranchised too often, and they struck back.

White women voted for Trump over Clinton as well. That's a group that voted for Obama last time around, in the aggregate.


> The republican and democratic party have both taken turns, historically, carrying the progressive banner of politics. A lot of observers think we are at (or beyond) an inflection point, where the makeup of each party is making a big swap. Remember when international free trade was a conservative principal?

I'm not sure what exactly constitutes "progressive" but in general I've found that term used to support policies that increase government intervention in peoples lives, which is something that I oppose.

Remember when personal freedom was a liberal principle?

I'd love to ditch the "progressives" in American politics and replace them with some good old fashioned liberals.



Hilary Clinton opposed gay marriage even longer than Dick Cheney. She's the ultimate "get in front of the crowd" political operator, which didn't play well this time around.

Interesting article here: http://www.nytimes.com/...hillary-clinton.html

Yes, probably similar within households, & still totally consistent with the big picture. If you are a woman and perceive another woman has gotten ahead by breaking the rules, maybe that would piss you off. I dunno I'm not a woman.


I'm not exactly sure what "progressive" is either, it's kind of like "porn" in that way... you know it when you see it. Both parties have taken their turns with it over the centuries. The abolitionists were considered progressives. Women's suffragists were progressives. Generally, republicans. Child labor laws, anti-corruption campaigns, are some other good things that came out of it. They've had some really bad ideas too, i.e. prohibition yeah that was a mistake. So I think they are more of a mixed-bag than a pure ideology.


That's exactly what I'm talking about. Liberty vs. Authority, and Liberalism vs. Conservatism, are totally different things. Fareed Zakariah made that point pretty well in The Future of Freedom.




That fact is an interesting quirk of modern politics. She and Obama both tried to play it really "safe" on that one.

It kind of begs the question: is it better to have a representative that suppresses their own personal beliefs, to try to enact the beliefs of those they represent, or is it better to have a representative that crusades for their own honest beliefs even if it's not popular? (Assuming you can't have your cake and eat it, too, because, lets face it we rarely get that in reality)

Thanks Tom and Colm for your genuine answers to my genuine question! :)

It sounds like you're laying out the defining characteristic of "Progressivism" as "pushing for a major social change." Is that a fair read on what you're saying?

If that's the case, then the "progressives" (group pushing for the most radical social changes and disruption of the status quo) definitely won this last round of voting.

I wouldn't necessarily make that specific case, myself. Historically I have the vague sense that progressivists were generally leftists pushing for change, but you could probably argue your interpretation too. Particularly in the way there is some overlap between supporters of Bernie Sanders and Trump. But even Trump's campaign slogan "Make America Great Again" tries to harken back to the good ol' days... that strikes me as anti-progressivist. Maybe in some meta-kind of way it is progressive anti-progressivism!

I think that highlights kind of the difference idemallie was trying to make, between being "pro-military" and "pro-military spending". To a lot of people, "supporting the troops" means bringing them home ASAP, but nuances like that get lost in the loud noises & short attention spans in today's media climate.


How so? Some accuse him of not being hawkish enough. I'm curious to hear more of this line of reasoning.

President Obama increased both the budget (money) and the total manpower (formal military and contract military) committed to US adventurism in the middle east.

Article here: http://www.alternet.org/...rs_will_surprise_you

So prohibition was a leftist social agenda?

Prohibition of alcohol was "progressive" while prohibition of other drugs is "conservative"?

It's very confusing.

He did... temporarily. But in contrast, a handful years later, total troops deployed to the CENTCOM AOR was less than the number of troops deployed to Japan. Also dovish, he let Syrian president Assad cross a "red line" with respect to chemical weapon use, and that he negotiated with Iran, and preferred de-escalation approaches to minor events (such as aggressive Russian AF air intercepts, or the US Navy ship getting detained in Iranian waters).

I'm not saying I disagree with you (In fact I'd probably more agree with you than disagree-- I think the difference lies in Obama having a more surgical approach than Bush). I honestly just wanted to hear your thoughts. A lot of other people have made the case that Obama was more hawkish than Bush too. My point is, there are lots of ways to measure hawkishness, i.e. how much weight you give to regular troop deployment numbers & massive theater campaigns, vs. the Spec Ops and limited air campaigns.

Ultimately I think history is going to find Obama moderately hawkish, but particularly note his administration as a watershed for co-opting emerging military technology*, broadening special operations, and employing very much a "discretion is the better part of valor" approach which Bush-Cheney lacked. And generally compliment his approach, but some will accuse him of not being proactive enough against ISIS. Future Joint Chiefs aren't going to get as nuanced of a military vision from Donald "Bomb the shit out of them" Trump as they did from Obama, and the need for discretion is not actually going away, so I predict that the gaps between Trump's broad brushstrokes, will get filled in by legacy approaches from Obama.

Then again, some partisans are always just going to label presidents as hawkish/dovish depending if they want to praise or criticize. Not much to learn by doing that though.

* Edit to add- I don't mean that prior Commanders-in-Chief didn't also adapt new technology. I'm talking specifically about drone strikes, new surveillance technology, and other specific things


Hell yeah it's confusing to me too. Prohibition was a very odd alliance of left-wing and right-wing forces, in its day. By today's standards it's too easy to label it as simply a moral crusade of the religious right, but I think that overlooks a lot of historical connections.

Getting back to "progressivism," I merely said my (subjective) impression is that it "generally" involves leftist agendas. That doesn't mean "exclusively"-- so, sure, the right wing or the left wing could act "progressively" I suppose. I'm not sure any more if you're trying to make your own case, or trying to re-interpret what I'm saying :)

Usa economic and foreign affairs affects us, why shouldnt we Care?

I agree with most of what Tom A. typed.
Colm, you are biased, just like NPR...

The USA has a political Duopoly and BOTH
parties have changed so much in the last
2 decades that Republicans and Democrats
from 1972 through 1999 would say "Huh?!".

RE: Progressivism

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Progressivism

1964 - Civil Rights Act is signed into law
wanting all people to have equal rights.

1980 - Affirmative Action is full swing to
help make the necessary gains happen.

2016 - If you are white, straight, male
then you should kill yourself for both the
good of the planet and the species...

Utter Fucking Bullshit !!!

What about a cool white dude who marries
a hot black chick, and they have a couple
beautiful mulatto babies, is that guy okay
or is he also "deplorable" ???

PS: My wife works with a slew of women
who all "self-identify" as Democrats and
one of them tried to call in the day after
the election because she was so upset.

To which I replied:

So Susan tried to call in 'Democrat' ??

IF you wanna chat up that topic
then please start a new thread.

>I agree with most of what Tom A. typed.
>Colm, you are biased, just like NPR...


Agree, & NPR tries to hide their bias, I don't hide mine. Are you saying Tom A is not, because you agree with him? NPR, Fox News, Breitbart, WaPo, all biased. I read all of em. You are biased, so is Tom, so is everybody. It's not a bad thing. Bias isn't really the problem, this is. Facts inform bias, garbage in -> garbage out.

Shouldn't we just know our biases and check our facts...

(I'm not saying you personally don't check your facts, you really do seem to. I'm saying it's a problem in society though. Do you see your students ever use shoddy sources?)


> 1964 ... 1980 ... 2016

Just clarifying, what exactly were you trying to point out with this timeline?


>What about a cool white dude who marries
>a hot black chick, and they have a couple
>beautiful mulatto babies, is that guy okay
>or is he also "deplorable" ???


"some Trump supporters are deplorable" does not equal "if you are a Trump supporter, you are deplorable." No one is calling you deplorable. Are you saying, that "the deplorables" were not a significant minority in Trump's victory coalition? Without his racist supporters, his vote count would not have won enough states. The majority of his supporters are not deplorable and understandably get offended when it is pointed out who they allied with, but that is just what it is.

This thread has been good at getting at some Trump supporters to say non-deplorable reasons why they like him. The liberal media neglected to do enough of that. And I think this thread is awesome for that.

I actually know of three cases in which professors told (college level or higher) students that assignments would not be collected or scheduled exams would not be given because of the emotional distress of the election results.

Even I think that's pretty fucking retarded.

classic haha

 - 2 years in... thoughts on how things have turned out so far?

Still waiting for the executive order, legalizing BASE in national parks...

... but I'm biased

He’s an embarrassing buffoon and the 2nd most dishonest person in America after Hillary.

What about Nixon?

Real question... how should we quantify dishonesty in a politician? It would be great to see them all ranked, but Snopes didn't exist before, like, Lincoln or somebody

Nixon is dead

Bernie Sanders for president next.