Thread for when someone on the other side does something good

[michigancat]

strong enough to prevent anyone from invading the united states, sure.  but much weaker than our current military.

If preventing an invasion of the US is the objective you could cut way more than half.

What current military objectives couldn't be fulfilled if we cut the budget in half?

people that know way more about this stuff than i do think it would be pretty touch and go if we became involved in a war with china with the military as is, so i think it's fair to say that if we cut spending in half that we'd be in much worse shape on that front.

by the same token, we are running into hard limits on being able to send aid to ukraine without going below the levels of munitions (and in some cases weapons systems) we consider acceptable for our own use.  so, again, seems pretty clear that cutting everything in half would make those limitations even more severe.


honestly, cutting the budget in half isn't even close to a realistic debate.  you aren't doing that without violating treaty obligations, diplomatic promises, firing millions of people that signed up with the promise of a steady govt job, health care and pension, etc.

Well, you wouldn't cut it in half all at once. I'm just saying that transitioning to that amount over time should still leave us with the strongest military in the world and likely could meet most of its current objectives. I do like that you care about the workers though.

[Cire]

https://twitter.com/nataliebetance/status/1591886306535440384?s=46&t=vRmn769o6vbksy1cMEN7Fw


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Pete]

I think maybe Bezos will give us $100M to continue to the great unifying work of this thread.

[Sandstone Outcropping]

https://twitter.com/POTUS/status/1598714500286406657?s=20&t=x8-jPmAq6VWXVKO-bVCV9w

[bucket]

https://twitter.com/axios/status/1765151624425525400

I feel like there must be some play or ulterior motive that's going over my head.

[Sandstone Outcropping]

That's a great start. Navalny's widow should be invited also.

[Kat Kid]

strong enough to prevent anyone from invading the united states, sure.  but much weaker than our current military.

If preventing an invasion of the US is the objective you could cut way more than half.

What current military objectives couldn't be fulfilled if we cut the budget in half?

people that know way more about this stuff than i do think it would be pretty touch and go if we became involved in a war with china with the military as is, so i think it's fair to say that if we cut spending in half that we'd be in much worse shape on that front.

by the same token, we are running into hard limits on being able to send aid to ukraine without going below the levels of munitions (and in some cases weapons systems) we consider acceptable for our own use.  so, again, seems pretty clear that cutting everything in half would make those limitations even more severe.


honestly, cutting the budget in half isn't even close to a realistic debate.  you aren't doing that without violating treaty obligations, diplomatic promises, firing millions of people that signed up with the promise of a steady govt job, health care and pension, etc.

Arguing that we should sustain or increase our military budget so that we can be prepared for a war with China is a completely insane thing to say. What do people forsee a war with China looking like? Do they imagine it would be some kind of small contained thing? We are talking about two countries with massive nuclear arsenals. What are we even talking about? It should be avoided at nearly any cost for the sake of the entire planet's survival!

[Pete]

strong enough to prevent anyone from invading the united states, sure.  but much weaker than our current military.

If preventing an invasion of the US is the objective you could cut way more than half.

What current military objectives couldn't be fulfilled if we cut the budget in half?

people that know way more about this stuff than i do think it would be pretty touch and go if we became involved in a war with china with the military as is, so i think it's fair to say that if we cut spending in half that we'd be in much worse shape on that front.

by the same token, we are running into hard limits on being able to send aid to ukraine without going below the levels of munitions (and in some cases weapons systems) we consider acceptable for our own use.  so, again, seems pretty clear that cutting everything in half would make those limitations even more severe.


honestly, cutting the budget in half isn't even close to a realistic debate.  you aren't doing that without violating treaty obligations, diplomatic promises, firing millions of people that signed up with the promise of a steady govt job, health care and pension, etc.

Arguing that we should sustain or increase our military budget so that we can be prepared for a war with China is a completely insane thing to say. What do people forsee a war with China looking like? Do they imagine it would be some kind of small contained thing? We are talking about two countries with massive nuclear arsenals. What are we even talking about? It should be avoided at nearly any cost for the sake of the entire planet's survival!

Deterrence matters

[mocat]

Love, love deterrence apart, again

[Kat Kid]

strong enough to prevent anyone from invading the united states, sure.  but much weaker than our current military.

If preventing an invasion of the US is the objective you could cut way more than half.

What current military objectives couldn't be fulfilled if we cut the budget in half?

people that know way more about this stuff than i do think it would be pretty touch and go if we became involved in a war with china with the military as is, so i think it's fair to say that if we cut spending in half that we'd be in much worse shape on that front.

by the same token, we are running into hard limits on being able to send aid to ukraine without going below the levels of munitions (and in some cases weapons systems) we consider acceptable for our own use.  so, again, seems pretty clear that cutting everything in half would make those limitations even more severe.


honestly, cutting the budget in half isn't even close to a realistic debate.  you aren't doing that without violating treaty obligations, diplomatic promises, firing millions of people that signed up with the promise of a steady govt job, health care and pension, etc.

Arguing that we should sustain or increase our military budget so that we can be prepared for a war with China is a completely insane thing to say. What do people forsee a war with China looking like? Do they imagine it would be some kind of small contained thing? We are talking about two countries with massive nuclear arsenals. What are we even talking about? It should be avoided at nearly any cost for the sake of the entire planet's survival!

Deterrence matters

Isn't that what the nukes are for?

[Pete]

YES! And, I've actually read the original manuscript and edits for the Atoms for Peace speech from Ike (available for checkout at his library in ksu_Fan's hometown).

Nukes are necessary, but not sufficient.  Being able to show up anywhere on the globe, quickly, and absolutely unleash hell has a wonderful way of deterring many sorts of actions. 

[Pete]

Put another way, I think most reasonable minds would agree that there are situations where military action is called for, AND the action required is less than a nuke.  Almost universal agreement on that point.

Then, most reasonable minds also agree that bad guys tend to do fewer bad things if they have a legitimate expectation of adverse consequences.  Again, almost universal agreement on that point as well.

So, we all agree that not every situation requires us nuking someone, and we also agree that something less than nukes is required to deter bad guys. 

[Spracne]

YES! And, I've actually read the original manuscript and edits for the Atoms for Peace speech from Ike (available for checkout at his library in ksu_Fan's hometown).

Nukes are necessary, but not sufficient.  Being able to show up anywhere on the globe, quickly, and absolutely unleash hell has a wonderful way of deterring many sorts of actions.

I guess xpost with Pet Peeves, but as a logic hobbyist, the misuse of necessary/sufficient conditions bugs me almost as much as the misuse of "begs the question." But I've given up, at this point, and accepted that language evolves.

[Dugout DickStone]

Looks like both sides are about to grease tik tok.  Good on them

[michigancat]

Looks like both sides are about to grease tik tok.  Good on them

they should get rid of insta and facebook and twitter too if they really care about kids or spying on people or whatever they're using to justify it

[steve dave]

PRY TWITTER FROM MY COLD DEAD HANDS YOU COMMUNIST BASTARDS!


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Dugout DickStone]

PRY TWITTER FROM MY COLD DEAD HANDS YOU COMMUNIST BASTARDS!


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

twitter isn't going anywhere.

[sys]

Looks like both sides are about to grease tik tok.  Good on them

yeah, good.  ridiculous that we would allow the chinese govt to have a media platform here.

[Dugout DickStone]

Looks like both sides are about to grease tik tok.  Good on them

yeah, good.  ridiculous that we would allow the chinese govt to have a media platform here.

Something trump did right.

[star seed 7]

100% agree

[sys]

Something trump did right.

a pretty impressive for it before he was against it.

[star seed 7]

https://twitter.com/unusual_whales/status/1768357177356427668

As someone who first accessed internet porn in grade school, it's insane to me that there's still essentially no actual restrictions on this stuff.

[Spracne]

You want to give up your anonymity?

[star seed 7]

I think the best way to handle this is an opt-in from your isp. I'm sure there are other issues that arise from that.  Making each site do verification is probably not a good solution either, but the "do you promise you're 18?" button is not sufficient.

[Spracne]

I think the best way to handle this is an opt-in from your isp. I'm sure there are other issues that arise from that.  Making each site do verification is probably not a good solution either, but the "do you promise you're 18?" button is not sufficient.

It is a universal truth that children will find a way to access porn.