Politics (formerly Election 2012)

I think burning billions of dollars woulda been more effective than this project.

In before we're told this project means more work for these contractors and thus the economy -- instead of you know, pumping those billions of dollars in other projects that actually work or bring down the deficit.

They should call the JSF the Joke Shit Fighter.

Here's the thing about the F-35. It is designed to primarily replace the F-16 for the US Air Force along with the F-15 Strike Eagle ( The Ground attack variant ), along with the F-18s of the Navy and Marine Corps.

Is it better then all those planes? Yes actually it is, but not by much and certainly NOT worth the mammoth price tag it has associated with it.

The major problem with the F-35 is the idiocy of the Air Force in thinking they can replace the A-10s with it and the F-35 is in no way fit to replace the A-10.

Io.Draco wrote:Here's the thing about the F-35. It is designed to primarily replace the F-16 for the US Air Force along with the F-15 Strike Eagle ( The Ground attack variant ), along with the F-18s of the Navy and Marine Corps.

Is it better then all those planes? Yes actually it is, but not by much and certainly NOT worth the mammoth price tag it has associated with it.

The major problem with the F-35 is the idiocy of the Air Force in thinking they can replace the A-10s with it and the F-35 is in no way fit to replace the A-10.

Sometimes I do wonder about that, I mean, they keep downgrading the requirements of the F35 is supposed to meet... kinda like the 2am hook-up at the time the bar closes.

If its in any way better than the F-teens its because of its supposed BVR superiority, and that's a big if as you're dependent on reliable identification capability.

Even downgraded it's still got better speed, range and maneuverability. Also that helmet is interesting.

BVR wise. I laugh at the imbeciles thinking that against a similarly armed foe, like say Russia or China or even India, that think BVR combat would actually work. ECM anyone?

http://www.turkishweekly.net/news/17798 ... ports.html

Considering that Sweden has one of the highest standards of living in the world, one of the happiest populations and that they are literally throwing money and services at them, these refugees can go back to Syria and DIAF. I'm thinking that they want to live in a big city and not have to assimilate into Swedish culture. I understand that Lutefisk isn't for everyone. You're refugees, just be glad that they aren't walling you off in a tent city in Lapland.

A comment I read on that article. Can't say I disagree with the sentiment. Would need commentary from our Nordic friends to see whether I am right or wrong.

It is currently a reaction from the "far right" (nordic standards). The general sentiment is to take care of refugees as best as possible, since they didn't choose to leave willingly (or rather, did so under duress).
There is a general public sentiment that of course, they have to earn their keep as far as they are able, but that they are a seperate class from immigrants who are expected to (more or less) integrate fully from day 1(exageration ofc) and have strict standards to live up to for social security.

That sort of comment here would be one to shake your head at and dismiss as selfish/entitled/complaining (entitled, as in "these refgugees are taking all the money that I SHOULD HAVE!!11!)

http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2015 ... -ban-them/

Fuck this guy

Klaudandus wrote:http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2015/01/uk-prime-minister-wants-backdoors-into-messaging-apps-or-hell-ban-them/

Fuck this guy

I understand where he's coming from... but it's that whole Security vs Freedom argument. One person (or even a small subsection) shouldn't be able to decide that for the majority. If you can get the population of your country on board... then by all means, go for it. I just find it to be an unlikely scenario outside of events like 9/11. Although, considering events like that have been going on quite a bit in the UK (in the past and maybe to a smaller scale, it's difficult to judge due to information bias in the US), I doubt it'd change too many minds.

I'm ok with him having a backdoor into my dirty IMs to a couple of girls if in return I can read his IMs about how he thinks the royalty sucks and how he hates the poor.

https://www.yahoo.com/tech/how-obamas-h ... 89274.html

So, sharing your netflix password could land you in prison for 10-20 years?

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/in- ... ttee-name/

They're not really trying to hide it anymore...

The political posts have started... this one just hit my wall through a family-friend... so much eye-rolling to be done... so little time.

Skye1013 wrote:The political posts have started... this one just hit my wall through a family-friend... so much eye-rolling to be done... so little time.

If that's the Rebublican rhetoric, they're going to lose the next election worse than they lost the last one. You have to be a special kind of stupid to buy that.

you'd think so, but the republican base actually believes that

I miss the politics discussion here =/

I'll give it a shot ; currently in general elections (voting on june 18th).
Started with "my side" being 2 percentage points behind in the polls when called, but looks to be getting to a 50/50 split currently (which due to some weird electoral math with 4 seats coming from 2 of our 'colonies' and usually splitting 3/1 to our side means that government won't change hands). Still 2 weeks to go ofc, so manyt things can change.

This is one of those discussions about how much welfare we are going to have, rather than big political differences.

Haven't actually been out and about hanging posters and such, been a bit active on social media though, but nowhere near what I actually wanted to be - just so darned tired currently (I could have liked waiting till after the summer with the election)

Soo
Current issues my party is campaigning on;
* Free psychological help for young people (age 25 and under is the current play)
* More adults for our kids (about 97% of danish kids aged 3 to 5 are in daycare) so there is 1 adult to 3 kids in daycare 0-3 and 1 per 6 in daycare 3-school age.
* Halving the requalifying period for unemployment benefits*1 (it was recently doubled from 6 months to 1 year, while the support period was halved from 4 to 2 years) - or more precisely finding a solution, 54,000 people have lost all income due to the changes over the last 2 years, on average 41 people per day lose ther income due to the changes.
* Our planet doesn't need more hot air - a headline that we want to look at green transition, more green employment / workplaces. Strengthening and keeping the leading position on environment and climate, getting rid of hormonal influencing chemicals in toys and cremes, and tightening our environmental regulations so we prevent the extraction of slate gas (?) - aka fracking.
* Respect isn't just for the young - many municipalities have reduced the service level for the elderly, and we are looking at a growing number of elderly, so we are suggesting a stop to cuts in the care of the elderly.



[1] Nota Bene, this is the volountary period that people working pay in to to be able to get something a bit more than basic unemployment support if they lose their jobs, it is about 30-50% more than the basic, and unlike the basic isn't dependant on whether you own a house/car or have a spouse able to support you, all of which may disqualify you from basic benefits.

http://www.nytimes.com/2015/06/04/us/la ... -news&_r=2

In Orlando, Disney executives said the reorganization resulting in the layoffs was meant to allow technology operations to focus on producing more innovations. They said that over all, the company had a net gain of 70 tech jobs.

The problem is that none of those are going to american citizens.

Dead country is dead. RIP.

Jabari wrote:Dead country is dead. RIP.

the south?

Klaudandus wrote:

Jabari wrote:Dead country is dead. RIP.

the south?

No, that nonsense is just a distraction.

so which country is dead?

Oh, this one, of course.

The US is built on the Rule of Law. Not "the rule of whatever the people who wrote the law may or may not have meant, regardless of what the law actually is".

It's also not built on judicial tyranny.

Jabari wrote:Oh, this one, of course.

The US is built on the Rule of Law. Not "the rule of whatever the people who wrote the law may or may not have meant, regardless of what the law actually is".

It's also not built on judicial tyranny.

Maybe in someone's fantasy world.

The US is built on the political influence of the very rich.

http://scholar.princeton.edu/sites/defa ... cs.doc.pdf

^^ I want to grab hold of "It's also not built on judicial tyranny."

The US is very much built on judicial "tyranny", most law is case law, and that is not just something that happened, it is by design, so a lot of law is left to the judiciary, and since there is no democratic control, at all, with the judiciary (a new appointnment/elected judge cannot simply repeal previous rulings), it is, more or less by definition, a tyranny.
That it isn't a complete tyranny (hence the quotationmarks in the first part of the last section) is illustrated by the elected caste being able to change laws and thus cange the basis for bench law going forward.

can we talk about gun control now? 1 college shooting last week, 2 shootings today...