Found this reading about WW1

Quote :

"“There are citizens of the United States, I blush to admit, born under other flags but welcomed under our generous naturalization laws to the full freedom and opportunity of America, who have poured the poison of disloyalty into the very arteries of our national life; who have sought to bring the authority and good name of our Government into contempt, to destroy our industries wherever they thought it effective for their vindictive purposes to strike at them, and to debase our politics to the uses of foreign intrigue. Their number is not great as compared with the whole number of those sturdy hosts by which our nation has been enriched in recent generations out of virile foreign stock; but it is great enough to have brought deep disgrace upon us and to have made it necessary that we should promptly make use of processes of law by which we may be purged of their corrupt distempers. America never witnessed anything like this before.”"

Thought I should leave it here.

2/1/2018 11:15:13 PM

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Timeline_of_labor_issues_and_events#1910s
Thought I should leave it here.

2/2/2018 8:35:28 AM

https://washingtonpost.com/world/national-security/pentagon-unveils-new-nuclear-weapons-strategy-ending-obama-era-push-to-reduce-us-arsenal/2018/02/02/fd72ad34-0839-11e8-ae28-e370b74ea9a7_story.html

Officially announced they’re expanding us nuclear weapons pile

This seems like a really, really dumb idea

2/2/2018 6:38:02 PM

I'm conflicted on this. We should be leading efforts to reduce arms globally but given the current climate, China and Russia are in expansion mode and doing this very thing. We would be stupid not to at least match them.

2/2/2018 6:45:45 PM

so we should lead efforts to reduce proliferation while also making sure we follow the world leaders in expanding proliferation.

that actually checks out with typical american foreign policy logic

2/2/2018 7:03:17 PM

Actually, it checks with a combination of attempted diplomacy and a realistic assessment of what we can and cannot be certain about as it relates to enemies and their intents and capabilities to render us extinct.

But your genius president has kind of crippled us on the diplomatic side so....

2/2/2018 7:43:06 PM

^^^
we're not behind them, there's nothing to match
http://infographic.statista.com/normal/chartoftheday_3653_the_countries_with_the_biggest_nuclear_arsenals_n.jpg

2/2/2018 9:00:16 PM

I don't think it's about the numbers so much as it is the types of weapons and their applications. For instance, Russia is aggressively pursuing new nuclear cruise and low yield nuclear weapons as well as upgrading their ballistic missile submarine fleet.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/theworldpost/wp/2018/01/22/trump-nuclear/?utm_term=.5172a870d66d

Quote :

"The common ground for such talks is not technical or even cyber-specific — it is strategic. The authors of the Nuclear Posture Review (NPR), a policy document written at the Pentagon that was leaked in early January, write that while “the United States has continued to reduce the number and salience of nuclear weapons, others, including Russia and China, have moved in the opposite direction. They have added new types of nuclear capabilities to their arsenals, increased the salience of nuclear forces in their strategies and plans, and engaged in increasingly aggressive behavior, including in outer space and cyber space.”"

Quote :

"But the great-power triumvirate can create its own reality, and it must be said that neither Russia nor China is likely to quibble with being assigned great-power status by the hegemon. One could argue that their nuclear acquisitions were aimed at just such a result."

https://www.defensenews.com/space/2018/01/12/russias-nuclear-underwater-drone-is-real-and-in-the-nuclear-posture-review/

Quote :

"WASHINGTON — A draft of the Pentagon’s Nuclear Posture Review confirms the existence of an underwater nuclear drone made and operated by Russia, a capability the U.S. Defense Department had not previously publicly acknowledged. “In addition to modernizing ‘legacy’ Soviet nuclear systems, Russia is developing and deploying new nuclear warheads and launchers,” stated an unclassified draft of the nuclear posture review first published by the Huffington Post. “These efforts include multiple upgrades for every leg of the Russian nuclear triad of strategic bombers, sea-based missiles and land-based missiles. Russia is also developing at least two new intercontinental range systems, a hypersonic glide vehicle and a new intercontinental, nuclear-armed undersea autonomous torpedo.”"

Quote :

"On Nov. 27, 2016, U.S. intelligence detected Status-6 after it was launched from a Sarov-class submarine used to test and validate new tech, the Washington Free Beacon reported in December 2016, citing unnamed Pentagon sources. Russian reports indicate it could be outfitted with a 100-megaton nuclear warhead. Status-6 was built by Rubin Design Bureau, the largest of Russia’s three submarine manufacturers. According to a document shown on Russian television, the drone has a range of 6,200 miles, a top speed in excess of 56 knots and can descend to depths of 3,280 feet below sea level, the Beacon reported."

https://www.defensenews.com/space/2018/02/02/nuclear-posture-review-puts-russia-firmly-in-crosshairs/

Quote :

"Russia in recent years have invested heavily in lower-yield, so-called “tactical” nuclear weapons, which are designed to pair with a strategy of “escalate to deescalate.” Under that concept, if fighting broke out between NATO forces and Russia, Moscow would move quickly to use a tactical nuclear weapon. The assumption would be that the U.S., armed only with large, world-ending strategic weapons, would be unable to retaliate appropriately and essentially stand down in the face of Russian aggression. It’s a philosophy whose efficacy — and indeed, existence — is debated, with members of the nonproliferation community arguing that any use of a tactical nuke would inevitably lead to larger nuclear exchanges, not the end of conflict. But Weaver argues that the U.S. has no choice but to take Russia at its word on that strategy — and to act accordingly. “We do not believe Russia would be expanding their limited resources to modernize and expand their nonstrategic nuclear forces if they had little or no confidence in this strategy,” Weaver said. “Why would they throw good money after bad? So we concluded that the current disparity and the range of low-yield nuclear options available to the two sides increases the risk of deterrence failure.” As a result, the NPR proposes introducing two capabilities into the U.S. arsenal — a low-yield warhead for the submarine launched ballistic missile, as well as the development of a new submarine launched cruise missile. Those weapons would be used to deter Russia from thinking the U.S. would not respond to its use of tactical nuclear weapons by, essentially, threatening to use similar weapons in response."

Quote :

"“Clearly the Russians believe that they could possibly pop off a low yield nuke and we would not have an appropriate response, and our only option would essentially be to end the war rather than go all-in with strategic nuclear weapons,” she said. “The Pentagon is trying to get the Russians to rethink the strategy and raise the threshold. We’re not going to have a ton of tactical nuclear weapons. That’s not what this NPR is about in terms of overall cost and investment.”"

https://www.russiamatters.org/analysis/russian-nuclear-forces-buildup-or-modernization



[Edited on February 2, 2018 at 9:22 PM. Reason : A]

2/2/2018 9:11:46 PM

then just admit you are in favour of nuclear proliferation.

Quote :

" and a realistic assessment of what we can and cannot be certain about as it relates to enemies and their intents and capabilities to render us extinct."

this is a reality of humanity that will never go away so just admit where you stand.

2/2/2018 10:18:12 PM

I'm in favor of surviving so that with my existence I can continue to push towards a world where these weapons don't exist. Right now, guaranteeing survival means possessing a competitive nuclear deterrent.

I am not in favor of nuclear proliferation.

Quote :

"Nuclear proliferation is the spread of nuclear weapons, fissionable material, and weapons-applicable nuclear technology and information to nations not recognized as "Nuclear Weapon States" by the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons, commonly known as the Non-Proliferation Treaty or NPT."

2/2/2018 10:53:35 PM

ok. i'm glad you admit you are in favor of proliferation and security for your country but not others.


Akin to saying you should be able to own a gun because you want to protect yourself and survive but you don't think other people should be able to own a gun because other people owning guns isn't going to help you survive.

Your egocentric stance also checks out.

[Edited on February 2, 2018 at 11:01 PM. Reason : tirbalism/chauvinism]

2/2/2018 10:59:21 PM

Your lack of knowledge of how human and group psychology works is troubling in this area. What's more troubling is your inability to recognize that treaties don't ultimately mean shit without all information on everything from all parties available to all members of all parties. Until that is solved, guess what? Have to operate on the assumption that people are cheating the system. Otherwise you risk extinction.

People won't just play along because you say they should.

[Edited on February 2, 2018 at 11:12 PM. Reason : a]

2/2/2018 11:10:21 PM

I completely recognize all of that which is exactly why I think your idea of nonproliferation is bullshit.

Take a step back. You are the one who said you believe in non proliferation. I'm pro-nuclear weapons for the record but am calling you out on your flip flops. I'm not saying anyone should play along with anything except the rules they set for themselves.

"If you don't like nuclear weapons, don't make them" etc. If you want to use them as a deterrence, then go right ahead. I believe in freedom. You continue to speak about your desire for self-preservation but are incapable of empathizing with the other's desire of self-preservation.

Its not a lack of knowledge but more of just me being someone thinks everyone deserves equal rights and equal treatment. I admit that the idea that my family, tribe, race, society is NOT superior to any other family, tribe, race, or society is counter to the ideals that have dominated human history.

Your ideology and inability to put yourself in the shoes of others is the one that serves as the basis for racism, genocide, and all of the ugliest aspects of humanity.

[Edited on February 3, 2018 at 2:59 AM. Reason : don't confuse rejection of the status quo with ignorance]

2/3/2018 2:57:28 AM

Nuclear proliferation is allowing other nations, not party to the treaty I referenced above, to obtain nuclear weapons.

I am not in favor of nuclear proliferation.

I fully understand and empathize with the fact that other nations that do not have nuclear weapons would want them in order to ensure their long term survival. I would rather enter into a treaty with them where we guarantee their security than see nuclear weapons spread to more nations, thus exponentially increasing the risk of a nuclear war. I.e., I am not for nuclear proliferation.

In line with this and not conflicting with it at all, I am absolutely for maintaining a nuclear deterrent that prevents our nuclear PEERS from obtaining a tactical or strategic advantage that allows them to take over other nations (Ukraine) or spread their horrific forms of government (China's communist nonsense and Russia's mafia state).

You, on the other hand, and many who agree with you (because you certainly are not the only one by far) think that if we all just walk out in the street and say "no more nukes" then suddenly every single person on earth will just dismantle them all. That will NOT happen. It simply cannot happen. It cannot happen until there is a way to know with 100% certainty what other people, specifically adversaries are going to do.

So, I'll say it again. I am not in favor of increasing the number of people with nuclear weapons because that exponentially increases the risk of them being stolen and used or simply used by their own people. I am in favor of maintaining a deterrent equal to our peers in order to ensure that they cannot eventually take us down or take over larger swaths of territories and take over other countries and eventually put us out of the picture.

It's not hard to understand, but apparently it's very hard for a lot of you to accept. This is not a kindergarten playground. "Play nice with every one in the sandbox" doesn't work. Not yet, at least. Unfortunate? Absolutely. Realistic? Yep.

[Edited on February 3, 2018 at 10:36 AM. Reason : a]

2/3/2018 10:36:18 AM

Quote :

"I fully understand and empathize with the fact that other nations that do not have nuclear weapons would want them in order to ensure their long term survival. I would rather enter into a treaty with them where we guarantee their security than see nuclear weapons spread to more nations, thus exponentially increasing the risk of a nuclear war. I.e., I am not for nuclear proliferation."

This bold part IS nuclear proliferation and involves putting our nuclear weapons all over the world. This is actually giving countries more reason to build nuclear weapons and no, other nations having nuclear weapons does not increase the risk of nuclear war for the reasons you stated when you explained your reasoning for wanted an updated arsenal. Like I said, you think the US wants to use them as a deterrent but other nations are incapable of securing them or want to use them to kill everyone but somehow the US is not part of that risk assessment.

This "risk" you speak of is rooted in fantasy and your own xenophobia. If your risk assessment was based on history, it would be very different. You would consider these countries and conclude that the exempt nations are the ones that would account for most of the risk with the US clearly being the highest risk.

Which countries have had major weapons stolen?
Which countries have used WMD on populations?
Which countries have had near mistakes with their WMD?
Which countries have the means to launch an offensive attack?

Hiroshima, Nagasaki, Marshall Islands and South Carolina have been the biggest events related to nuclear risk and have all been at the hands of the US. No objective risk assessment would overlook the facts.

Quote :

" that allows them to take over other nations (Ukraine)"

Iraq?

Quote :

"or spread their horrific forms of government (China's communist nonsense"

your opinion. i think china's government is extremely effective and efficient. The fact has accounted for the highest rate of progress on the planet.

Quote :

"You, on the other hand, and many who agree with you (because you certainly are not the only one by far) think that if we all just walk out in the street and say "no more nukes" then suddenly every single person on earth will just dismantle them all. That will NOT happen. It simply cannot happen. It cannot happen until there is a way to know with 100% certainty what other people, specifically adversaries are going to do."

No. All I'm saying is that if you destroy your nukes, there will be less nukes in the world and your actions would consistent with your views. Some would follow your lead and some would not. I see it as a similar situation as climate change mitigation. Powerful countries can afford to give up their nuclear weapons but if they don't set the example, the world will never change.

Quote :

"So, I'll say it again. I am not in favor of increasing the number of people with nuclear weapons because that exponentially increases the risk of them being stolen and used or simply used by their own people."

Again, you are conflating your own personal fears with "risk"

Quote :

"I am in favor of maintaining a deterrent equal to our peers in order to ensure that they cannot eventually take us down or take over larger swaths of territories and take over other countries and eventually put us out of the picture."

By this logic, everyone having nuclear weapons would create a universal deterrent. Unless of course, certain types of people are intrinsically inferior.

Quote :

"It's not hard to understand, but apparently it's very hard for a lot of you to accept. This is not a kindergarten playground. "Play nice with everyone in the sandbox" doesn't work. Not yet, at least. Unfortunate? Absolutely. Realistic? Yep."

Again, you're putting words in my mouth. You are the one who claims to support non-proliferation. I'm simply trying to hold you accountable for your own position. My position is that nations should be allowed to develop nuclear weapons.

2/3/2018 1:47:22 PM

does r/the_donald ban you if you mention any russian or soviet nuclear accidents on another website?

2/3/2018 1:51:28 PM

Quote :

"You are the one who claims to support non-proliferation. I'm simply trying to hold you accountable for your own position. My position is that nations should be allowed to develop nuclear weapons."

The definition of nuclear proliferation is: Nuclear proliferation is the spread of nuclear weapons, fissionable material, and weapons-applicable nuclear technology and information to nations not recognized as "Nuclear Weapon States" by the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons, commonly known as the Non-Proliferation Treaty or NPT. Proliferation has been opposed by many nations with and without nuclear weapons, the governments of which fear that more countries with nuclear weapons may increase the possibility of nuclear warfare (up to and including the so-called "countervalue" targeting of civilians with nuclear weapons), de-stabilize international or regional relations, or infringe upon the national sovereignty of states.

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

Done on this until you can learn how to interpret definitions and apply them.

[Edited on February 3, 2018 at 2:59 PM. Reason : a]

2/3/2018 2:58:53 PM

You already posted that. I know both the treaty defined term and the actual definition.

Proliferation-

Quote :

"a rapid and often excessive spread or increase:"

http://www.dictionary.com/browse/proliferation

The word proliferation can mean spread or increase but the treaty doesn't really limit either as "nuclear weapons states" can and have both spread and increased their numbers in compliance with the treaty. This so-called "non-proliferation" is really just "nuclear exclusivity" and that treaty would be more appropriately named if it were called that but the name is a PR scheme.

Quote :

"does r/the_donald ban you if you mention any russian or soviet nuclear accidents on another website?"

another "nuclear weapons state" that is allowed to build as much as they want under the so-called "non proliferation treaty". All of the foul players are allowed to proliferate.

2/3/2018 5:33:01 PM

There is a reason why it was idiotic for Trump to boast so much about the stock market (besides the whole being a fraud populist).

2/5/2018 2:19:16 PM

the stock market would be something to brag about if we weren’t in the largest income inequality crisis of our lifetimes. as it stands it’s just a slap in the face.

2/5/2018 2:26:39 PM

The ironic thing is everyone's 401k does great when the stocks do great. The stocks are falling now because companies are having to pay higher wages. To the people who have the 401ks.

Complete fuckery no matter how you cut it.

2/5/2018 2:28:11 PM

Wage growth was actually pretty damn good for service and blue collar jobs too. Which is a good thing but also the natural progression as the business cycle matures. It’s been a really long, steady growth so I don’t know how useful looking at historical data will be to predict when we hit contraction. Probably a year or two out.

We should also see some stronger GDP growth in the short-term but Trump’s immigration desires would blow that up pretty bigly.

2/5/2018 2:46:04 PM

Wage growth is barely keeping up with inflation. If the goal is to normalize inequality, it should be far surpassing inflation. And combined with accelerating costs in the housing and healthcare markets, we are on a seriously bad ride.

Definitely thankful to have a good 401k with my company, but most people are fucked.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/wonk/wp/2018/01/04/massive-new-data-set-suggests-inequality-is-about-to-get-even-worse/?utm_term=.735af0cfa956

[Edited on February 5, 2018 at 3:16 PM. Reason : v noted]

2/5/2018 2:56:05 PM

FWIW, I was talking about the most recent jobs report and not the medium-term trend.

[Edited on February 5, 2018 at 3:09 PM. Reason : And I agree]

2/5/2018 3:08:53 PM

This is some fascist shit

https://www.npr.org/2018/02/05/583447413/trump-democrats-un-american-treasonous-during-state-of-the-union

Quote :

""Even on positive news — really positive news, like that — they were like death and un-American. Un-American," Trump complained. "Somebody said treasonous. Yeah, I guess, why not? Can we call that treason? Why not? I mean, they certainly didn't seem to love our country very much." "

And this is just crazy.

https://www.politico.com/story/2018/02/05/trump-tax-speech-ohio-democrats-treason-391356

Quote :

"“Oh, but did we catch them in the act or what? You know what I’m — oh did we catch them in the act,” Trump said, not elaborating on who was caught. “They are very embarrassed. They never thought they were going to get caught. We caught ‘em! We caught ‘em. It’s so much fun. We’re like the great sleuth.”"

It's especially crazy to hear the way he says this.

2/6/2018 10:45:54 AM

https://twitter.com/SenDuckworth/status/960665400643080193

Quote :

"Tammy Duckworth @SenDuckworth We don't live in a dictatorship or a monarchy. I swore an oath—in the military and in the Senate—to preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States, not to mindlessly cater to the whims of Cadet Bone Spurs and clap when he demands I clap"

lol at Cadet Bone Spurs

she's previously called him out for being a five-deferment draft dodger while claiming to be a military expert

2/6/2018 10:50:18 AM

https://twitter.com/kaitlancollins/status/960905092621840384

Lol, do people actually fall for this nonsense? I hope the FBI publically agrees to releasing it but I suspect they won’t.

[Edited on February 6, 2018 at 11:03 AM. Reason : From a political standpoint not releasing it has to be and for Trump, no? But nothing matters.]

2/6/2018 11:03:23 AM

in general i am 100% for dodging the draft

but you can't dodge the draft and then threaten to send other people to war

2/6/2018 11:06:30 AM

the stock market didnt even crash. the media just found a way to make a few days of losses sound epic and you guys obviously ate it up. its literally only back to the level it was at a few months ago.

2/6/2018 12:32:32 PM

who here is eating it up? it's pretty obviously at an unsustainable level, that's the point people were making

[Edited on February 6, 2018 at 12:44 PM. Reason : .]

2/6/2018 12:42:57 PM

He’s trolling.

Or arguing against arguments that weren’t made if that sounds better.

The average correction in a mid-term election year has been 18%, which this wasn’t even close to.

(The point I was making initially that a self-proclaimed populist shouldn’t be touting the stock market good or bad because only x% if the nation is even investing).

2/6/2018 12:47:53 PM

i did misread your post but people on news feed and cnn were saying "trump touted the stock market gains but now that it has suffered its largest single day point loss in history, does he still own it?"

2/6/2018 3:50:35 PM

2/6/2018 3:57:34 PM

Quote :

".@PressSec: “President Trump is incredibly supportive of America’s great service members who risk their lives every day to keep our country safe. He has asked the Department of Defense to explore a celebration at which all Americans can show their appreciation.”"

Ffs

2/6/2018 7:37:11 PM

DoD should tweet @POTUS Wikipedia links to Armed Forces Day, Veteran's Day, and Memorial Day.

2/6/2018 7:48:37 PM

^^The fact that you're not excited about a parade for something you're ok with spending so much money on is worrisome.

Oh wait, do you support the troops? Do you support the flag no matter what? Then you should have no problem spending even more money to celebrate all of the money we spend on deoffense.

2/6/2018 9:07:16 PM

Huh? Do you think I’m someone else?

2/7/2018 6:27:58 AM

He apparently didn’t learn anything his first 2 decades on earth and his brain is vomiting up nonsense.

[Edited on February 7, 2018 at 12:36 PM. Reason : H]

2/7/2018 12:36:04 PM

im mostly asking questions to find out who you are.

i dont like the idea of the parade because i dont support the military but would love to hear how someone who supports the military is against the parade idea and how france got it wrong.

2/7/2018 5:01:07 PM

https://niskanencenter.org/blog/the-weight-of-the-words/

Good essay here on how subversive trump’s lies and crude comments are in terms of medium and long term damage.

2/7/2018 5:43:38 PM

I don’t know the history of Bastille Day tbh. But I have never been a blind milatary supporter. I’ve criticized W and W2 (as I’ve criticize Obama). I do respect many people who are selfless and put themselves in harms way but at a personal level and not a nationalistic way.

One of my biggest crtiticisms of HRC was her hawkish foreign policy but at the same time I knew how Trump was and would be worse.

2/7/2018 7:42:47 PM

Still amazed one of the literally worst people in the country is president.

2/10/2018 11:16:09 AM

Remember to tell your children that "lesser of two evils" mentality can only lead to this.

2/10/2018 2:07:52 PM

https://twitter.com/lauralitvan/status/963079578293096448

Besides the obvious moral depravity of this, is there anyone who thinks tax-cuts coupled with cutting legal immigration in half and increasing defense spending to welfare detriment is: 1) a winning political strategy; or 2) remotely economically feasible?

2/12/2018 11:21:28 AM

tax cuts that expire in 8 years and increase to higher than they were before

2/12/2018 11:22:39 AM

It’s a complete slap in the face to pretty much all of his non-wealthy constituency. And yet I guarantee the Democrats have no fucking clue how to get that message out.

2/12/2018 11:24:13 AM

The part you're forgetting is that his constituency believes in trickle down...

2/12/2018 11:30:54 AM

and that brown immigrants stole their jobs.

2/12/2018 12:52:48 PM

Quote :

""We state that from now on we refuse to cooperate in any form with the U.S. in its status of a mediator, as we stand against its actions," Abbas told Putin at the start of talks in Moscow. He said last week that he hoped Russia could assume a greater role in Israeli-Palestinian peace talks, saying the United States "can no longer play a leading role." "

https://www.haaretz.com/israel-news/trump-and-putin-discussed-israeli-palestinian-tensions-in-phone-call-1.5810763

Not really great for Americans that were 2nd fiddle to Russia as a world diplomatic leader.

2/12/2018 7:50:03 PM

Quote :

"tax cuts that expire in 8 years and increase to higher than they were before"

Wait, I thought the tax cuts were a bad thing. Now they are good? Let me know when the first Democrat proposes a bill to make the tax cuts permanent.

Quote :

"The part you're forgetting is that his constituency believes in trickle down."

Either you dont understand what trickle down means, or you are uneducated on whose taxes were cut.

There is sooo much to criticize with Trump. But tax cuts are probably not the place to start. Refocus.

[Edited on February 13, 2018 at 8:56 AM. Reason : 1]

2/13/2018 8:53:18 AM