NATO during a Trump Presidency: Stay, Pay, or why don't you all just f-f-fade away?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Gilrandir

Saying things during the election campaign (aka promising) and implementing those things after one has been elected are often two different things. I heard that Trump's site has removed his promises not to let muslims in. Perhaps the same is in store for his other outrageous promises (for the example, the Wall financed by Mexicans). Hopefully, his surrounding and Congress won't allow him move beyond ordinary Republican agenda.

---

Like the Euro-Leave campaign repudiated its more concrete promises on the day of the result, but then made new demands of the government since. The much reviled New Labour had a timetable to implement many of its manifesto promises in the first 100 days of office, with the rot only coming in once they'd run out of promises to keep, and tried to look for new ones.

On a tangent, today I had the opportunity to meet and speak with retired General Philip Breedlove, former Supreme Allied Commander Europe of NATO. He's a pretty cool guy. Okay sorry back to the topic at hand, I just wanted to brag a bit. :grin3:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Seamus Fermanagh

Our system will not let him use religion as a reason for additional screening prior to coming here. He will probably be able to get additional screening for those arriving from or connected to areas of concern internationally -- but that is about it.

---

If you can't directly base it on religion, you can surely add weight to enough related facets that put them into some "high risk" category which requires extensive vetting.

~:smoking:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Hooahguy

On a tangent, today I had the opportunity to meet and speak with retired General Philip Breedlove, former Supreme Allied Commander Europe of NATO. He's a pretty cool guy. Okay sorry back to the topic at hand, I just wanted to brag a bit. :grin3:

---

Tautology.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Pannonian

Like the Euro-Leave campaign repudiated its more concrete promises on the day of the result, but then made new demands of the government since. The much reviled New Labour had a timetable to implement many of its manifesto promises in the first 100 days of office, with the rot only coming in once they'd run out of promises to keep, and tried to look for new ones.

---

And a curious fact: most polls in both cases (I mean US elections and Brexit) predicted just the opposite of what happened later. Do we still need sociology?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Gilrandir

And a curious fact: most polls in both cases (I mean US elections and Brexit) predicted just the opposite of what happened later. Do we still need sociology?

---

Yes.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Husar

Yes.

---

Even if it is not able to deliver what it is paid for?

Let's say you ordered a weather forecast for the next week since you are going to do some building work outside. They said it would be sunny, so you accepted the deadline of a week and started construction. In two days there came a storm which scattered all the stuff you needed for building about the construction site, ruined what you had already built and prevented you from meeting the deadline. Would you not say that meteorologists took money and didn't cope with the task?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Gilrandir

And a curious fact: most polls in both cases (I mean US elections and Brexit) predicted just the opposite of what happened later. Do we still need sociology?

---

Shy Tories are a known polling tendency. Even in 1997, with the Tories having been in freefall for years and with Labour having a massive polling lead, Blair and co prepared for the polls to drastically understate the Tory position. In the event, the polls only slightly understated the Tory position, but was more than balanced out by tactical voting. And that's as good as Labour's got in my lifetime. Anyone who is prepared to work from evidence rather than impose their dreams on reality will start by assuming that polls will understate the position of the right. Look at what the polls say, and assume that the right's position will be slightly to somewhat better than stated. Just how much better will depend on the figures for key issues.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Gilrandir

Even if it is not able to deliver what it is paid for?

Let's say you ordered a weather forecast for the next week since you are going to do some building work outside. They said it would be sunny, so you accepted the deadline of a week and started construction. In two days there came a storm which scattered all the stuff you needed for building about the construction site, ruined what you had already built and prevented you from meeting the deadline. Would you not say that meteorologists took money and didn't cope with the task?

---

You seem to have a very weird view on science.
Can you show me the weather service that guarantees a result and/or makes a special weather report just for you on request?
What are the results "it" is being paid for and why do you think "it" did not fulfill what "it" was/is paid for?
You sound like sociology around the world was a project with one specific goal and a deadline after which sociology should have been "complete" and shut down. If you took that same approach with physics for example, you might have stopped with the "discovery" of Newtonian physics and shut the whole field down. Or you could complain that he was useless and overpaid because he didn't discover the theory of relativity. :dizzy2:

Better to point out that calling polling services "sociology" is like calling members of Parliament "political scientists". You've got some things confused.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Montmorency

Better to point out that calling polling services "sociology" is like calling members of Parliament "political scientists". You've got some things confused.

---

Absolutely, forgot to mention that.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Seamus Fermanagh

Interesting point. Maybe the "revamping" is more important than the monies per se. Though a fairer share of the new target figure would probably need to be part of it.

---

Apparently the land component US Army Europe has at its use is 2nd Cavalry Regiment, equipped with Stryker´s at Germany, 173rd Airborne Brigade at Italy and US Army NATO Brigade with one infantry Battalion at Netherlands and second one at Southern Italy. So basically three Brigade sized formations, so i dont think that is a huge portion of the US military budget.

The problem with most if not all Western militaries is that they all lack boots on the ground. After the cold war most of European conscripted armies were replaced with small professional ones, with emphasis towards light troops. Some countries have a small reserve force, but maybe a solution would be to start training a larger reserve from volunteers and stockpile equipment for those reserves as well? Even more important would be to reserve enough munitions to the current troops, which seem to be seriously lacking in every field, which was shown for example when US had to supply ammunition to European air components during the bombing campaign at Libya.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Kagemusha

Apparently the land component US Army Europe has at its use is 2nd Cavalry Regiment, equipped with Stryker´s at Germany, 173rd Airborne Brigade at Italy and US Army NATO Brigade with one infantry Battalion at Netherlands and second one at Southern Italy. So basically three Brigade sized formations, so i dont think that is a huge portion of the US military budget.

The problem with most if not all Western militaries is that they all lack boots on the ground. After the cold war most of European conscripted armies were replaced with small professional ones, with emphasis towards light troops. Some countries have a small reserve force, but maybe a solution would be to start training a larger reserve from volunteers and stockpile equipment for those reserves as well? Even more important would be to reserve enough munitions to the current troops, which seem to be seriously lacking in every field, which was shown for example when US had to supply ammunition to European air components during the bombing campaign at Libya.

---

If a Labour government is elected, the UK can supply the rest of Europe, as Corbyn favours keeping a military for the job creation purposes, but without equipping it with nasty people-killing ammunition. Our subs can be used to ram enemy vessels, while our missiles can be given to someone else who will actually have the will to use them.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Husar

You seem to have a very weird view on science.
Can you show me the weather service that guarantees a result and/or makes a special weather report just for you on request?
What are the results "it" is being paid for and why do you think "it" did not fulfill what "it" was/is paid for?
You sound like sociology around the world was a project with one specific goal and a deadline after which sociology should have been "complete" and shut down. If you took that same approach with physics for example, you might have stopped with the "discovery" of Newtonian physics and shut the whole field down. Or you could complain that he was useless and overpaid because he didn't discover the theory of relativity. :dizzy2:

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Montmorency

Better to point out that calling polling services "sociology" is like calling members of Parliament "political scientists". You've got some things confused.

---

I didn't make myself clear, so I apologize. Of course, I didn't mean the whole science, I meant polling services. Yet they ARE a part of sociology, aren't they? They are applied sociology, same as being an MP you are involved into practical application of political science.

Yet it doesn't cancel what I said - doing a crappy job for (I assume) substantial payment. And no punishment? I wonder if one can demand his money back. Especially if one incurred some financial damage.

For example: I was in doubt whether to invest into some British-EU project and wanted to be sure Britain stays in the EU. I ordered a survey the result of which said it would. I invest money and then pop goes Brexit. My investment goes down the drain. Could I sue the services that conducted the survey? If not, it seems like they may not bother to leave their office, just invent the figures and take the payment.

Quote:

---

They are applied sociology, same as being an MP you are involved into practical application of political science.

---

Generally, politicians do not perform in some way following their studies of their profession, or else you might as well call generals historians and landscapers engineers. They could (and often do) study these things, but they are independent; a politician is a politician by virtue of their employment, not by virtue of their readings or their formal education. A member of a profession need not act upon any academic substance to carry out their job, but their job easily lends itself to academic substance.

Notice, for instance, that translation and language teaching are relevant to the field of applied linguistics, but it would be trivial to call a translator or a language teacher an "applied linguist". Translators and language teachers can be applied linguists pursuant to their careers, but their careers do not entail it.

Quote:

---

For example: I was in doubt whether to invest into some British-EU project and wanted to be sure Britain stays in the EU. I ordered a survey the result of which said it would. I invest money and then pop goes Brexit. My investment goes down the drain. Could I sue the services that conducted the survey? If not, it seems like they may not bother to leave their office, just invent the figures and take the payment.

---

That's "risk". A king who would execute all his advisers because they are not soothsayers would be considered by all a foolish tyrant, and here it is no different.

The questions of how to poll effectively and how to interpret the data in an actionable way obviously have many interpretations among differing organizations and theorists, but the fact remains that polling in all forms has been for many years considered indispensable to assessment and decision-making, not because it offers deterministic solutions but because it offers useful insights toward careful questions.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Montmorency

Generally, politicians do not perform in some way following their studies of their profession, or else you might as well call generals historians and landscapers engineers. They could (and often do) study these things, but they are independent; a politician is a politician by virtue of their employment, not by virtue of their readings or their formal education. A member of a profession need not act upon any academic substance to carry out their job, but their job easily lends itself to academic substance.

Notice, for instance, that translation and language teaching are relevant to the field of applied linguistics, but it would be trivial to call a translator or a language teacher an "applied linguist". Translators and language teachers can be applied linguists pursuant to their careers, but their careers do not entail it.



That's "risk". A king who would execute all his advisers because they are not soothsayers would be considered by all a foolish tyrant, and here it is no different.

The questions of how to poll effectively and how to interpret the data in an actionable way obviously have many interpretations among differing organizations and theorists, but the fact remains that polling in all forms has been for many years considered indispensable to assessment and decision-making, not because it offers deterministic solutions but because it offers useful insights toward careful questions.

---

Politicians in a western liberal democracy are lawyers.

Quote:

---

Politicians in a western liberal democracy are lawyers.

---

Law is a popular field of study for aspiring politicians, but they shouldn't be conflated. At any rate, given the popularity of "lifelong politicians" in America at least, a minority of our legislators have backgrounds in law.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Montmorency

Law is a popular field of study for aspiring politicians, but they shouldn't be conflated. At any rate, given the popularity of "lifelong politicians" in America at least, a minority of our legislators have backgrounds in law.

---

40% of legislators in USA are lawyers, actually. By far the most numerous group.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Sarmatian

40% of legislators

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Montmorency

a minority of our legislators

---

:yes:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Montmorency

A king who would execute all his advisers because they are not soothsayers would be considered by all a foolish tyrant, and here it is no different.

---

Adisers do not give a surety of something happening, while polling pretends it does.

Still there is no answer to the question whether polling agencies are legally/financially responsible for financial losses caused by the poll results.

A related thought: I wonder if financial damage could be a lawsuit issue against a football referee who made a mistake which led to a team losing the game.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Gilrandir

And a curious fact: most polls in both cases (I mean US elections and Brexit) predicted just the opposite of what happened later. Do we still need sociology?

---

Brexit polls were within the error margin for a whole week leading up to the actual vote. They didn't miss, you read them wrong.

Election polls actually did put the US election on the knife's edge on election day, with the momentum in Trump's direction. The only State that they truly missed was Wisconsin (which they also badly missed in both primaries). The pundit's didn't want to admit what the data showed, just as they dragged their heels on calling the obvious Arizona result when it would put Trump over the top. That doesn't mean the data wasn't there.

Here, have a pair of aggragator results that show just how tight the race was.

Correct. Polling services rarely make firm predictions or take stances. They give their customers - for example news media - interpretations of collected data, and what the customers do with this data and other forms of information are their own responsibility.

Pollers cannot and do not pretend to be able to spoonfeed you the future.

Polls are polls - aggregators of information, with error margins and can swing wildly, depending on who you ask. And in a lot of cases, they're really wrong. (see NYT Election Forecast for this election)

So take all of them with a pinch of salt.

Also - electoral college. Almost everywhere else in the world a hundred votes is a hundred votes. In America a hundred votes can be 20 000 000 votes.

Electoral college was thought out as a very smart idea by the Founding Fathers, but the problem nowadays is that it doesn't hold much equality in this current political state. It doesn't accurately represent the way voters express their desires.

Hence why you have two modern occasions where you have the winners of the popular vote who actually lose the election. (Al Gore and Hillary)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by edyzmedieval

Electoral college was thought out as a very smart idea by the Founding Fathers, but the problem nowadays is that it doesn't hold much equality in this current political state. It doesn't accurately represent the way voters express their desires.

Hence why you have two modern occasions where you have the winners of the popular vote who actually lose the election. (Al Gore and Hillary)

---

Does Clement Attlee count? His Labour got half a million more votes than Churchill's Tories (out of a total population including children of around 30 million), but due to the distribution, the Tories got a majority of MPs in the Commons.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by edyzmedieval

Electoral college was thought out as a very smart idea by the Founding Fathers, but the problem nowadays is that it doesn't hold much equality in this current political state. It doesn't accurately represent the way voters express their desires.

Hence why you have two modern occasions where you have the winners of the popular vote who actually lose the election. (Al Gore and Hillary)

---

The idea behind Electoral College was smart, but I'm not really sure it would have really been effective.

But, regardless of that, nowadays it is just a relic of olden times which doesn't do what it was supposed to do (case in point - Trump), and furthermore is the prime reason USA is a two party country.

The EC was effective during the 18th and 19th century, but once demographics exploded and the industrial revolution evolved, a lot of people moved to cities, leaving a whole gap to fill in the rural states.

Hence why the huge discrepancy in votes for Hillary and Trump. Hillary, mostly cities. Trump, the opposite.

The EC was supposed to do two things: 1. protect the power of the states by making sure that they were NOT irrelevant due to size (Virginia, at the time, dwarfed the others). You couldn't ignore all the small states and still get enough electors. 2. Make it harder for a demagogue to be elected simply by pandering to the people.

At the time of the founding, Electors were expected to be persons of substance in the community and who were NOT in office or holding a position of trust/remuneration by the government. While many electors were selected as a consequence of the popular vote, fully or more of the electors were selected by the various state legislators influenced by the votes of the general population but not necessarily bound by it. Furthermore, even though electors (even early on) were expected to vote for the candidate that they had been deputed to vote for, there were no laws requiring them to vote the way they were pledged.

So the President was actually being selected by the "wiser heads" of the states -- at least in theory -- and not by the "mob." This was the safeguard against a true demagogue buying votes etc. This worked perfectly for two elections. Since the winner of both was Geo Washington (everybody's hero at the time) it was not much of a test. By the time it was to go to election #3, Alex Hamilton had already enacted a letter writing campaign to coordinate elector votes and pick the candidate of the party he founded. Jefferson fought back and be election #4 the first deadlock occurred. This was handled by changing the EC voting process a bit.

Over the years, more and more pressure has been exerted on electors to vote as the popular vote indicates, with state parties selecting electors from party ranks to enact these votes. Moreover, 25 states and the district have laws on the books mandating electors vote as indicated by the popular plurality. Penalties range up to a 4th class felony for not doing so, depending on the state.

Without the electoral college, the largest collections of people are in cities which vote heavily for Democrat candidates and most of the counties in the USA become irrelevant politically as the cities vote one way and tell the rural folks to go &^$% themselves.

Attachment 19168

This is a 2012 image, but reflects much of the same pattern as will be seen in 2016 when the results are finalized.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Sarmatian

and furthermore is the prime reason USA is a two party country.

---

This is an inane assertion. Strategic voting would actually be far more prevalent in a straight popularity vote. The Electoral College makes it somewhat more difficult to reform the vote in general, but this would still require an amendment. On the other hand, reforming the way that Electors are selected in a given State is much easier as a result of the Electoral College.

As to what the Electoral College was supposed to do and how it works now, the tripartite relationship between the people, States and Federal Government has been far more substantially altered. It still does, however, maintain one of the important functions it was designed for, being the insurance that all States have some degree of representation.