Printable View
They also need to get rid of Pelosi. She has led the House Dems incompetently for almost 15 years, and is an easy talking point against Democratic congressional candidates. "Vote for me, or Pelosi will be in charge again!"Quote:
Originally Posted by Strike For The South
Parnell did pretty well in the South Carolina 5th election, lost by ~3 points. Not bad overall, considering how red both districts were.
The entire Democratic party needs to take a step back and re-evaluate whats going wrong. For one thing, the loss of the blue-dog Dems led to the GOP taking over most of the state legislatures. And then the Berniecrats came along and brought the purity tests to a new level. You can't run a Bernie-level progressive in red districts and expect to win much. Campaigning on raising the minimum wage will not have any impact on the wealthy voters who make up a large chunk of the 6th. Also, just campaigning on "fight Trump" doesnt seem to be working, just like "vote against Trump" didnt work last November.
And while I do think Pelosi needs to step back, they dont need to get rid of her. Because if its not Pelosi they will find someone else as their scarecrow. I mean I saw flyers out here which tried to scare voters away from Ossoff because of John Lewis, and hes a hero of the Civil Rights era.
The draft of the Senate bill to replace the ACA has been released.
It is everything you would expect:
-attempts to effectively defund Planned Parenthood
-reduces and then eliminates the Medicaid expansion
-premium support seems to be coming in the form of credits which are less generous
-includes a waiver which allows states to offer plans that do not cover essential services (as enumerated in the ACA); allows them to offer cheaper plans with high deductibles
and much more; it is everything the GOP promised, including a rather beautiful tax reduction for the wealthy.
http://www.businessinsider.com/senat...details-2017-6
It is a draft, so it can change before going to a vote. McConnell wishes for a short time frame for debate/amendment/passage so changes could be limited.
It has been attacked for not going far enough (hawks think it does not go far enough) and going to far (moderates in GOP feel it is cruel)
It will be a balancing act to ensure the votes needed to get passage, and that's only if they can keep the bill under the no filibuster reconciliation method; the defunding of Planned Parenthood may have to be separated.
If you or someone you know is receiving assistance in battling substance abuse, it was nice while it lasted
http://www.motherjones.com/politics/...e-devastating/
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/...ion-americans/
'Who the heck is George Will', but the line
is fantastic trash talk.Quote:
Today, conservatism is soiled by scowling primitives whose irritable gestures lack mental ingredients.
Not Trump, but an article about a certain brand of libertarian ideology and the efforts of an oligarchic fifth column to enlist white supremacy in ensuring the supremacy and domination of capital over labor.
Summary of the CBO's findings with a link on the page to the text:
https://www.cbo.gov/publication/52752
I was confused; it turns out this was for the House Version.Quote:
Originally Posted by HopAlongBunny
The Senate version is here.
ooops! sorry :blush:Quote:
Originally Posted by Montmorency
thank you for the correct link :)
It will pass. I have never seen McConnell unable to control his party
Turtle power! :cthulhu:Quote:
Originally Posted by a completely inoffensive name
Slave colony on Mars!
NASA has a top secret project kidnapping children to work a slave colony on Mars!
http://www.slate.com/blogs/the_slate...ve_colony.html
Remember when science fiction used to be a niche category of literature? Now its mainstream baby, and Whoa! if true...:laugh4:
https://youtu.be/l3Boz0O1SqM
Could've just said that it's InfoWars, "Trump-endorsed media outlet" sounds very much like a vain attempt at attacking Trump by rabid leftists.
The last paragraph is just more needless drama because hardly anybody gives a shit about what InfoWars say. Although it would be hilarious if Trump said he will look into it.
You can thank Ted Turner for this turn of events.Quote:
Originally Posted by Husar
So North Korea apparently has an ICBM capable of hitting Alaska;
http://www.bbc.com/news/world-asia-40502031
What effective response does the U.S. actually have?
Sanctions? The hermit kingdom has endured those and will likely continue to persevere.
War? Well there goes the neighbourhood; even without nuclear arms there are enough missiles on both sides of the border to flatten both countries.
China? Really? If China was interested in doing something it would have acted by now; the "deal maker" will get a chance to show his chops finding a way to leverage the Chinese into doing anything.
Time to reunite the peninsular before they make a nuke small enough to fit that ICBM. Get china to look the other way, evacuate the border of civillians and pour so much airpower into the korean theatre the south korean army wont even need to bring any helmets.
North Korea is an oversized bunker with human shields. Which makes it very difficult. Though there is the argument that a regime change would bring about desired results.
The terrain itself negates a lot of our military 'force multipliers.'
It's one of those terrible situations where only a war could undo it but a is a war worth that cost? There's no way we'd be able to do limited strikes on anything in N. Korea without it escalating into a general peninsular war too.
Greyblades, I don't think there's a way we could get China to look the other way. They have too much old political capital invested in keeping N. Korea as a crazy deterrent/distraction. Even now it is their bargaining chip in trying to get us to ignore their artificial islands. Additionally they don't want to deal with the refugee crisis that would undoubtedly happen or having a strong unified independent pro-US Korea on it's border giving us access to even more of the Yellow Sea for military drills and a military threat to its Manchurian industrial centers in the event of a US/Korea/Japan vs PRC scenario.
As for Trump specific, I just hope he doesn't say anything crazy this trip though that's probably asking too much. Please re-affirm NATO again, don't undermine EU, France, and Germany, and stand by the little allies of ours in the Baltic. Would be nice if the trip to Poland is used to reassert our commitment to our East European allies.
Exactly, nobody wants to deal with the huge ramifications that liberating NK would bring. Good luck re-educating millions of people. As others have said, nothing is going to happen without China's approval, so nothing is going to happen. Unless NK shoots first. Or Trump says something colossally stupid.Quote:
Originally Posted by spmetla
Based upon the signs of increased lack of chinese influence over Kim that have been exhibited over the last year; I do not share your convictions on China's continued unconditional support. North korea is becoming a liability greater than a unified korea would present.
Thier millitary is increasingly outdated but thier nuclear capacity is likely to rise over the next decade; I see now as the last window to deal with this problem before retaliation becomes a magnitude more damaging, for all sides. As much as China will drag it's feet I do not think they are short sighted enough to let that window pass.
I agree that China doesn't have as much support for North Korea as they did in the past, however their being as a liability isn't clear yet. The increased tensions haven't hurt China and instead have been used as a bargaining chip instead. They share a goal of wanting US-ROK wargames to cease as well as the US to depart the peninsula, a nuclear armed DPRK at least provides bargaining chips toward achieving that goal. The continuance of the status quo or any escalation of tension short of war only increases China's role as chief mediator and lynch pin for any peaceful solution for which untold concessions will be given. I don't see what liability DPRK actually provides to China short of getting into a real war.
Their military is increasingly outdated but this is mitigated largely by terrain. Unlike the Iraqis fighting in the desert the USAF can't bomb them to impotence, it would take a lot of close fighting at ranges dictated by terrain as well which negate the range advantage of many of our weapons systems. It would be a meatgrinder of a war at the start and would have massive ROK causalities followed by relatively heavy (by our standard) US causalities as our forces piecemeal into theater due to the lack of large nearby formations.
I will agree that this is the last window for the US to deal with it without nuclear missiles raining down on the US and territories (my state of Hawaii is supposedly in range as well). The best window was of course during the mid-90s but Clinton would never have started a war with the DPRK even for the legitimate humanitarian reasons that could have been created and the post-Tiananmen PRC would never have stood by and watched their ally destroyed.
If military force is the only option left then the time is very close indeed. The situation is like a light version of the cuban missile crisis (not quite to M.A.D. level yet). I don't have confidence however that our president could do the diplomatic work needed to put us in the right light in view of Russia, PRC, ROK, and Japan if were to embark on military strikes on nuclear and ballistic missile facilities. I hope that McMaster and Mattis force the type of foresight and planning required but it doesn't look like their advice is heeded by the POTUS very much.
I fear greatly that we might blunder our way into a war instead of actually preparing for one and using that state of preparedness to negotiate from a position of strength (the US Army is not prepared for war in Korea right now). Remember that Saddam thought that George W. was just playing hardball and wouldn't invade without explicit okay from the UNSC. Having more US forces in Korea would also force China to actually take us seriously. The danger that they think we're bluffing is very real given that in the past we've been the restraining influence to ROK's wanted revenge for all sorts of outright acts of war by the north.
As I mentioned in the other thread, the terrain works in US favor too, partly vis-a-vis simultaneous Chinese incursions, and partly with the understanding that forcing through the DPRK field armies to control of the coasts and the cities allows Coalition forces to confine the enemy to hillside bunkers, from which projection will not be possible for long.Quote:
Originally Posted by spmetla
From there, in other words, it's a matter of waiting for the final surrender without needless and risky offensive action to wipe out every last formation. The first week of conflict, or even the first 24 hours, is where the largest loss of life will occur for all parties.
But different scenarios do emerge depending on how pre-emptively Kim Jong Un acts against assembling forces, and how much of the total force the Americans can field in the earliest stages.
The Chinese would be in the best position if they could Trojan Horse an expeditionary force into occupying the country before the full outbreak of hostilities, under the guise of deterring/contributing against the US. That would be pretty anticlimactic, and contrary to US interests, but I suppose it would mean the least loss of life (other than the political executions among the DPRK elites).
In August 1945 it didn't make Japan very difficult. For the US bombs.Quote:
Originally Posted by Beskar
That's 100% incorrect.Quote:
Originally Posted by Gilrandir
We need North Korea's yin as the natural opposite to the USA's yang.
Destroying North Korea now would upset the balance and make us lose our moral compass. We might forget how yang Trump actually is.
So the way to deal with this crazy country who are developing a nuclear deterrent is to nuke them?Quote:
Originally Posted by Gilrandir
I wonder why they are developing this deterrent...
Quote:
Originally Posted by a completely inoffensive name
My remark is to show that in 1945 the Allies brushed aside bunker/human shield considerations about Berlin and Hiroshima. Was it correct? Has anything changed since then?Quote:
Originally Posted by Idaho
Brushed aside? This is Total War you're talking about. Considerations only generally came on a reciprocal basis, else the victims were lucky to get anything. Germany and Japan would happily have used nuclear weapons on the Allies. Missiles were raining on SE England on a daily basis with zero regard for targeting, except for where the biggest concentrations of people are. Japan were even more indiscriminate.Quote:
Originally Posted by Gilrandir
I have suspected the desire to dispell ideas of american bluffing has been the main motivation behind trump's actions on syria.Quote:
Originally Posted by spmetla
I believe North Korea is a liability to china for one simple reason: kim jong-un is not cooperating.
While under Jong-il North Korea barked but heeled, it was a satistfactorial political tool, now the certainty that China can keep the mad dog under control is in doubt it's political value is diminished. Even now China hesitates to crack the whip, lest the whip fails and the political tool fails with it.
The way I see it, as amature as I admit my analysis may be, the key will be getting the south korean army to do the majority of the wetwork. American troops on the front line, or god forbid japanese, will only cement the individual north koreans reluctance to surrender. Any chance of a north korean rout will wither on the vine of it is the "hated white devils" chasing them.
Yes simply bombing the north into submission is out of the question but ensuring that the RoK cannot so much as take a step out of cover without being turned into red mist will give an undeniable advantage to the South.
America should secure the airspace, kill the navy, bomb what can be bombed and help the south do what it's ostensibly been preparing to do for 65 years.
Our media barely mentions the test and its implications. All of the focus is on Putin and Trump mano a mano.