• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Trump wants to cancel Air Force One order from Boeing

Lord of Planar said:
Not if you don't obsess over it, and roll with the punches, like those of us to the right have had to do these last 8 years.
Click to expand...

There's going to be a lot of punches on both sides of the aisle the next 4 years.

I am not a Trump cheerleader. The man has left a bad taste in my mouth. It wasn't until the last few weeks of his campaign that I felt I could vote for the man. He veered further right. His promise to appoint jurists in the mold of Scalia to the Supreme Court from a specific list that gave me a reason to vote for him and against Hillary. You see I know how the left operate. If they had full control of the court in their favor, this Republic would be lost for good. Their view that the Constitution is a living breathing document that can be made to mean anything they want on any given day, well that spells trouble. For what the left can not accomplish at the ballot box, they seek the courts by judge shopping to implement what they desire.

But there is already trouble ahead because it will take the Senate using the Nuclear option or Constitutional option if you will, to get these appointees confirmed. But that jackass McConnell is already signaling he does not want to use the Constitutional option. He today also stated he his not on board for tax cuts because of the debt. You know the damn debt isn't going to get paid down till McConnell stops helping to pass ridiculous spending and cut corporate taxes that will fuel the economy producing more jobs so more people pay more taxes.

Already we are seeing the left wanting to make Trumps win look illegitimate. You know Obama has politicized every damn department and agency in our government. And our intelligence agencies have not been spared. Look how the intelligence agencies avoided, stalled and down right AVOIDED and PROTECTED Clinton and Obama! Our intelligence agencies have been compromised.

Right now we keep hearing about Russia trying to interfere in our election process. If they have proof that it was Russians that were behind the WikiLeaks of the DNC and Podesta's emails, why didn't they produce it prior to the election? Why now? I just read the CIA and the FBI are not on the same page ready to claim it was Russia. I heard John Bolton say it could be a false flag. But man is the left ever already to run with it without forensic evidence. If there is forensic evidence, why isn't it being produced? Lots of allegations and no one has produced an ounce of evidence. Why?

But if it is true that Russia is involved or any other country, it needs to be followed through with consequences. For this violates our sovereignty and our Constitution.

So yeah, it is going to be a bumpy four years from the left and the right. Trump will face woes in the party he belongs because Republican establishment types like Mitch McConnell are not going to help him if it cramps their style. Constitutionalist Conservatives are not going to be any assistance to Trump on his trade ideas that sound like something Bernie Sanders would approve.

Right now I see Trump stopping the bleeding that Obama has created in his 8 years. I like some of the cabinet picks Trump has made. I think Sessions would be a fine Atty General. Pruitt is a great choice for the EPA. Pompeo is a fine pick for CIA and a couple of others like Kelly and Mad Dog Mattis. Af

In the meantime I am hoping for a Convention of States Article 5. After this election Republicans made greater gains in state and local offices. Now is the time to push for Article 5 because that is where restoring our Republic lies. It truly is our only hope.
 
Last edited:
PIPEWRENCH said:
AF1 is 2 planes not just 1. At least that is what I thought. AF1 is much more than a plane. It is the leader of this country's command center when traveling as well as his security. AF1 represents each and every one of us as our leader travels abroad. AF1 is a target and 1st place prize for every nut, terrorist, and disgruntled leader in the world. 4 billion is cheap if it keeps our leader safe and remains a symbol of our country's strength. The last thing we want to do is skimp on the counter measures that protect our leader and the plane allowing some scum bag the ability to shoot it down. No amount of money can repair the damage after the fact.
Click to expand...

What the hell are you talking about? If AF1 is shot down it isn't the end of the world. The presidents scattered bits wouldn't have had much time to cool before he or she was replaced. Not to mention the fact that there are 100 million or so replacements waiting in line after the VP. Personally the President should be going to ordinary airports and catching the plane like the rest of us. If he wants first class he can upgrade himself.
 
Lord of Planar said:
Those in the inner circle committees did.
So...
Are you claiming there was a conspiracy?
I hope you aren't a CT nut. What was your take on 911?
Click to expand...
on a quick side note, when you have nothing to say you spread out your sentences and pepper liberally with questions. anyhoo, let me type this slower for you. Congress did not have the same intel and Bush asked for authorization to “force saddam to negotiate”. he was lying. Congress did not know that Bush had a secret day 1 agenda to invade Iraq. No conspiracy, Bush lied because he had a secret day 1 agenda to invade Iraq.

Yes, I think it's kind of immature that you had to do that, but I get a good laugh of it. That's why I never complained to a moderator of it.
Yes, I know the suspicions, but it isn't proven. Besides, taking him out 20+ years later doesn't make that reason credible at all.
Is that the best you have?
Please... I'm on the floor laughing!
Click to expand...

LP, someday you’ll need to explain how putting your exact comments in my signature that perfectly show you will post anything that pops into your head is immature on my part. Knowing your integrity and the fact that it upset you, I’m quite sure you did complain to a moderator.

It seems to me he speaks his mind, straight up. No lies. Too bad Obama had to lie all the time.
Click to expand...

There’s that “confusion” thing again. some might say "dishonest deflection". You and yours believed non-stop ridiculous and vile lies about President Obama. You and yours obediently posted these lies. You set yourself apart by adding your own lies into the mix such as “and climbing” and “poor honest gaddafi was just misunderstood”. Now to repeat what you dishonestly deflected from, when we criticize trump, we wont have to lie. Your ODS even got to you to defend qaddafi. Its sad is you believe what you've posted about gaddafi. It's vile and disgusting if you don't.


Did president Obama put his feet in Libya when he shot off 112 cruse missiles on day one?
Don't you believe in innocent before proven guilty?
Suspicion by our CIA is not fact. Nobody ever proved Qaddafi had a part in that. Only suspicion.
If you believe Qaddafi ordered the bombing of the Pan Am flight, then you must also believe Saddam had nukes.
Click to expand...

more dishonest deflection. I asked you to "tell us about how the honorable qaddafi had the integrity to fight with his military or how he was innocent in the Pan Am bombing." You babbled about President Obama and cruise missiles.
 
Vern said:
on a quick side note, when you have nothing to say you spread out your sentences and pepper liberally with questions. anyhoo, let me type this slower for you. Congress did not have the same intel and Bush asked for authorization to “force saddam to negotiate”. he was lying. Congress did not know that Bush had a secret day 1 agenda to invade Iraq. No conspiracy, Bush lied because he had a secret day 1 agenda to invade Iraq.



LP, someday you’ll need to explain how putting your exact comments in my signature that perfectly show you will post anything that pops into your head is immature on my part. Knowing your integrity and the fact that it upset you, I’m quite sure you did complain to a moderator.



There’s that “confusion” thing again. some might say "dishonest deflection". You and yours believed non-stop ridiculous and vile lies about President Obama. You and yours obediently posted these lies. You set yourself apart by adding your own lies into the mix such as “and climbing” and “poor honest gaddafi was just misunderstood”. Now to repeat what you dishonestly deflected from, when we criticize trump, we wont have to lie. Your ODS even got to you to defend qaddafi. Its sad is you believe what you've posted about gaddafi. It's vile and disgusting if you don't.




more dishonest deflection. I asked you to "tell us about how the honorable qaddafi had the integrity to fight with his military or how he was innocent in the Pan Am bombing." You babbled about President Obama and cruise missiles.
Click to expand...

Hey, Vern, got to love it as the DOW approaches 20,000. How you coming on a big thank you thread to President Elect Hillary? it is going to be a great four years watching what she is going to do for our national security and economy. Wow!! Cannot wait to join that thread and support you in all your posts
 
Lord of Planar said:
I can understand cancelling the order.

A 747 costs a little over $350 million. Now for two of them to cost $4 billion and climbing...

That seems a bit excessive for the options package.
Click to expand...

And that says it all. This is not about say, expensive and esoteric options adding say, 50% or 175 million dollars to the base price. It is about the options increasing the cost by over 600%.
 
lurchadams said:
What questions did Trump ask in order to get an understanding of the price tag? What questions have you asked? Again, if Trump says it, you just blindly agree to it. You're a good soldier.
Click to expand...

At 2 billion and climbing per plane, both jets better be capable of interstellar travel. I suspect they are not. Therefore, the price alone is grounds to review the contract for either cost inflating by Boeing or for esoteric options that are not truly needed.
 
Cryptic said:
And that says it all. This is not about say, expensive and esoteric options adding say, 50% or 175 million dollars to the base price. It is about the options increasing the cost by over 600%.
Click to expand...
I can see communications, nuclear hardening, and defense systems costing more than the plane itself, but I cannot fathom it needing to be over $2 billion each.
 
Conservative said:
Implemented a stimulus program that took employment from 142 million to 139 million in two years. What do you think the loss of 3 million employed people did to govt. revenue?

What do you think the recycling of TARP did to the deficit using the money to take over GM/Chrysler and then selling the shares at a loss costing the taxpayers billions?

What do you think proposing a 4.3 trillion dollar budget does to the deficit and does it show that Obama truly cares about it?
Click to expand...

1) As I pointed out numerous times, virtually all economists said the stimulus worked (to re-invigorate the wretched economy left by Bush)

Congressional Budget Office defends stimulus - The Washington Post
Did the stimulus work? A review of the nine best studies on the subject - The Washington Post
Economists agree: Stimulus created nearly 3 million jobs - USATODAY.com
http://www.economy.com/mark-zandi/documents/end-of-great-recession.pdf
Economic Stimulus | IGM Forum
http://economics.mit.edu/files/7102
http://www.latimes.com/business/hiltzik/la-fi-mh-stimulus-worked-20140228-story.html
http://www.nytimes.com/2014/02/23/opinion/sunday/what-the-stimulus-accomplished.html?_r=0

So, do your thing...show how pathetically arrogant you can be and refute 60 of America's highly educated, esteemed economists with your ill-informed retort...

2) So, you have come up with $9B that was not repaid.... you are trying to account for $10T and you can only come up with $9B, pathetic again. Again, this particular expenditure turned out to be a wise use of funds...

https://www.washingtonpost.com/opin...a84725dbf9d_story.html?utm_term=.f1a0e0bc8bee

http://theweek.com/articles/454749/auto-bailout-officially-over-heres-what-america-lost-gained

3). most interesting. You post Obama's $4.3T budget as if it had some significance to the argument. Well, I guess it does, as you well presented Exhibit A to my assertion that people that think Obama ran up the debt have no clue how Washington or the budget process works.

Its Exhibit A as apparently you do not if you think, as you present, that the US budget is some type of zero-budget instrument and the President can propose something less, of significance, than the amount presented. 75% of the budget is entitlement spending, which the President has nothing do with.... the other 1/4 is 1/2 defense and 1/2 discretionary spending.... so, the President can recommend about $1T of spending.... But, as you have pointed many times, the budget is in the domain of Congress.... this one is on the legislative branch...... that said, the President has a role, so there must be a negotiation, so they have to come up with something all can live with. But, at the end of the day, its a congressional issue.

Try again as you failed miserably here: tell us specifically what Obama did to add to the debt..... please, account for the $10T (let me help you, it can not be done in a way that lays in on the feet of Obama).
 
upsideguy said:
1) As I pointed out numerous times, virtually all economists said the stimulus worked (to re-invigorate the wretched economy left by Bush)

Congressional Budget Office defends stimulus - The Washington Post
Did the stimulus work? A review of the nine best studies on the subject - The Washington Post
Economists agree: Stimulus created nearly 3 million jobs - USATODAY.com
http://www.economy.com/mark-zandi/documents/end-of-great-recession.pdf
Economic Stimulus | IGM Forum
http://economics.mit.edu/files/7102
http://www.latimes.com/business/hiltzik/la-fi-mh-stimulus-worked-20140228-story.html
http://www.nytimes.com/2014/02/23/opinion/sunday/what-the-stimulus-accomplished.html?_r=0

So, do your thing...show how pathetically arrogant you can be and refute 60 of America's highly educated, esteemed economists with your ill-informed retort...

2) So, you have come up with $9B that was not repaid.... you are trying to account for $10T and you can only come up with $9B, pathetic again. Again, this particular expenditure turned out to be a wise use of funds...

https://www.washingtonpost.com/opin...a84725dbf9d_story.html?utm_term=.f1a0e0bc8bee

http://theweek.com/articles/454749/auto-bailout-officially-over-heres-what-america-lost-gained

3). most interesting. You post Obama's $4.3T budget as if it had some significance to the argument. Well, I guess it does, as you well presented Exhibit A to my assertion that people that think Obama ran up the debt have no clue how Washington or the budget process works.

Its Exhibit A as apparently you do not if you think, as you present, that the US budget is some type of zero-budget instrument and the President can propose something less, of significance, than the amount presented. 75% of the budget is entitlement spending, which the President has nothing do with.... the other 1/4 is 1/2 defense and 1/2 discretionary spending.... so, the President can recommend about $1T of spending.... But, as you have pointed many times, the budget is in the domain of Congress.... this one is on the legislative branch...... that said, the President has a role, so there must be a negotiation, so they have to come up with something all can live with. But, at the end of the day, its a congressional issue.

Try again as you failed miserably here: tell us specifically what Obama did to add to the debt..... please, account for the $10T (let me help you, it can not be done in a way that lays in on the feet of Obama).
Click to expand...

All the posts you make are worthless, Obama lost the House in 2010, failed to regain it in 2012, lost the Congress in 2014, and the Democrats lost the WH in 2016. That says it all regardless of those so called OP ed pieces. The numbers just don't support those claims. Show me any verifiable site that captures saved jobs?
 
PirateMk1 said:
What the hell are you talking about? If AF1 is shot down it isn't the end of the world.
Click to expand...

Are you serious! Could you even comprehend the effects of ISIS or some Muslim extremist group shooting down AF1 killing the President. That would make the bombing of Pearl Harbor look like a minor event. That could easily start a war that escalates into a World War.

PirateMk1 said:
The presidents scattered bits wouldn't have had much time to cool before he or she was replaced. Not to mention the fact that there are 100 million or so replacements waiting in line after the VP.
Click to expand...

The Vice President would have 300 million Americans demanding retribution. Look at the mess 911 got us involved in and you are telling me the shooting down of AF1 would be no big deal. Time to wake up.

PirateMk1 said:
Personally the President should be going to ordinary airports and catching the plane like the rest of us. If he wants first class he can upgrade himself.
Click to expand...

The President should be flying in something as stealthy as the B1 with every counter measure known to man. The safety of the world is at risk. Americans react extremely aggressively when attacked. To say we overreact is and understatement. You don't know much about the American people especially the ones who voted for Trump if you think the shooting down of the president is no big deal. The number of people wanting to join our military and enact revenge by die hard Americans will outnumber the welfare and illegal aliens in this country easily. Even the Democrats voted for war after 911.
 
PIPEWRENCH said:
Are you serious! Could you even comprehend the effects of ISIS or some Muslim extremist group shooting down AF1 killing the President. That would make the bombing of Pearl Harbor look like a minor event. That could easily start a war that escalates into a World War.



The Vice President would have 300 million Americans demanding retribution. Look at the mess 911 got us involved in and you are telling me the shooting down of AF1 would be no big deal. Time to wake up.



The President should be flying in something as stealthy as the B1 with every counter measure known to man. The safety of the world is at risk. Americans react extremely aggressively when attacked. To say we overreact is and understatement. You don't know much about the American people especially the ones who voted for Trump if you think the shooting down of the president is no big deal. The number of people wanting to join our military and enact revenge by die hard Americans will outnumber the welfare and illegal aliens in this country easily. Even the Democrats voted for war after 911.
Click to expand...

The President of the United States of American is expendable personified.
 
vesper said:
You see I know how the left operate.
Click to expand...
Here we go


If they had full control of the court in their favor, this Republic would be lost for good.
Click to expand...
There are plenty of checks and balances, including on the SCOTUS. The Court has also been far, far more liberal in the past, and yet somehow the nation survived.


Their view that the Constitution is a living breathing document that can be made to mean anything they want on any given day, well that spells trouble.
Click to expand...
Everyone from every political persuasion does what they want, and tries to justify it by pointing to the Constitution. E.g. lots of social conservatives want to establish a state religion, despite a clear injunction against that in the First Amendment; Bush 43 violated the concept of due process on a fundamental level, including indefinitely (or permanently) detaining people without a trial and with the stroke of the President's pen.

Even Scalia basically tried to rewrite the entire 2nd Amendment, when he disregarded both its prefatory clause, and the history of gun regulation in the US. Conservatives didn't care, because they liked his invention of casting gun ownership as an individual right. (Ironically, in practical terms it has made little difference; the SCOTUS has repeatedly reaffirmed that municipalities and states can regulate gun sales, as long as they don't amount to a total ban on certain basic classes of firearms.)

Meanwhile, no one goes to such extremes as to suggest that "the 19th Amendment means women can't vote."


He today also stated he his not on board for tax cuts because of the debt. You know the damn debt isn't going to get paid down till McConnell stops helping to pass ridiculous spending and cut corporate taxes that will fuel the economy producing more jobs so more people pay more taxes.
Click to expand...
Back in the real world: McConnell is saying "if we cut taxes, then we have to cut spending to pay for it." That includes not wanting the government to spend massive sums on infrastructure. All he's doing is laying out a very standard Republican party line. He certainly hasn't helped anyone pass "ridiculous spending" bills.

FYI, cutting taxes will not, and never has, increased tax revenue. In some cases it can spark a small amount of growth, but that has never produced enough growth to offset the reduced revenue. That is a supply side fantasy.


Already we are seeing the left wanting to make Trumps win look illegitimate.
Click to expand...
Yes, and Republicans spent almost an entire decade trying to make Obama's administration illegitimate. They accused him of not being an American, of being a "secret Muslim," of being a socialist, the list goes on.

You get what you give.


And our intelligence agencies have not been spared. Look how the intelligence agencies avoided, stalled and down right AVOIDED and PROTECTED Clinton and Obama!
Click to expand...
:roll:

No, they didn't "avoid and protect" Democrats. In case you missed it, the CIA impeded the torture investigations; did not hold back anything in the Benghazi investigation; and has no reason to root for Clinton.

The reality is that the CIA and many other intelligence agencies are saying things that some people don't want to hear: Russia meddled in the Presidential election. Some Republicans are, thankfully, putting nation above party and saying this should be investigated, because they understand how serious a problem that is for our system of government.


Right now we keep hearing about Russia trying to interfere in our election process. If they have proof that it was Russians that were behind the WikiLeaks of the DNC and Podesta's emails, why didn't they produce it prior to the election? Why now?
Click to expand...
They were talking about it at least 5 months before the election.

June 17th article:
http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2016/07/27/us/politics/trail-of-dnc-emails-russia-hacking.html


I just read the CIA and the FBI are not on the same page ready to claim it was Russia.
Click to expand...
Wrong.

They both agree Russia is involved. The CIA is speculating on Russia's motives, and saying they deliberately wanted Trump in office. The FBI says it can't draw a conclusion on the Kremlin's motives.


I heard John Bolton say it could be a false flag.
Click to expand...
Bolton is out of his damned fool mind.


But man is the left ever already to run with it without forensic evidence. If there is forensic evidence, why isn't it being produced?
Click to expand...
Uh... there IS plenty of evidence of Russian involvement, from both US intelligence agencies and independent cybersecurity experts.

Some evidence is being held back, because intelligence agencies don't like to reveal their methods. In this case, given the severity of the issue, they're seriously considering making an exception to that rule.
 
PirateMk1 said:
The President of the United States of American is expendable personified.
Click to expand...
PIPEWRENCH is correct. If the President was killed in an attack on Air Force One, it would be chaos, and not just in the US.

We should not be cavalier about the safety of the POTUS.
 
Visbek said:
PIPEWRENCH is correct. If the President was killed in an attack on Air Force One, it would be chaos, and not just in the US.

We should not be cavalier about the safety of the POTUS.
Click to expand...

That is so overblown as to be incredibly stupid. How many presidents have been successfully assassinated. How many have had attempts that hospitalized them? What did the country do each time it occurred? Answer it went on just fine almost like nothing even happened and each time the presidents body wasn't even cold before he was replaced. Presidents are the human equivalent of interchangeable parts, and just as replaceable. Probably more so. Its why we have Vice Presidents. The only thing that occurs with a presidential assassination is minor policy change. You could kill a president a day and this country would go right on. The presidents themselves might be annoyed at being targeted but hey that's part of the job. I say yank AF1 and make every elected official ride coach and do the TSA grope if they want to fly. They can upgrade or fly their own plane on their own dime. Or they can hitch a ride with the military in a C130 or C5 going the way they are.
 
PirateMk1 said:
That is so overblown as to be incredibly stupid. How many presidents have been successfully assassinated.
Click to expand...
Seriously?

Lincoln
Garfield
McKinley
JFK

That's just in the US.


What did the country do each time it occurred? Answer it went on just fine almost like nothing even happened and each time the presidents body wasn't even cold before he was replaced.
Click to expand...
So what you're saying is, you're a sociopath. Got it.

Yes, Presidents get replaced as quickly as possible, for obvious reasons. But it's not painless or smooth or easy. There should be no question that political assassinations have historical consequences that we can only guess at.


You could kill a president a day and this country would go right on.
Click to expand...
Oh, really?

If ISIS assassinated Trump just once, there is no question the course of history would change. We would almost certainly send ground troops to Syria, and who knows what could result from that?

If Putin was murdered today, do you really think Russia would keep doing the exact same thing it's doing now?

Did nothing change in China after the death of Mao?

Was the civil rights movement completely unchanged by the death of Martin Luther King, Jr? Which interchangeable leader immediately replaced him, with no one batting an eyelash?

Cesar Chavez drove Venezuela straight into the ground, but got away with it because he was Chavez. Would the outcome be identical if he had been murdered in 2002, instead of died of natural causes in 2013? If his position is "interchangeable," then why are Venezuelans outraged at his successor, who is following the same policies as Chavez did?

I hate to break this to you, but anyone who has actually bothered to read history knows that outcomes are not always inevitable, and often rely heavily on the personality and choices of the people in power.
 
Visbek said:
Seriously?

Lincoln
Garfield
McKinley
JFK

That's just in the US.



So what you're saying is, you're a sociopath. Got it.

Yes, Presidents get replaced as quickly as possible, for obvious reasons. But it's not painless or smooth or easy. There should be no question that political assassinations have historical consequences that we can only guess at.



Oh, really?

If ISIS assassinated Trump just once, there is no question the course of history would change. We would almost certainly send ground troops to Syria, and who knows what could result from that?

If Putin was murdered today, do you really think Russia would keep doing the exact same thing it's doing now?

Did nothing change in China after the death of Mao?

Was the civil rights movement completely unchanged by the death of Martin Luther King, Jr? Which interchangeable leader immediately replaced him, with no one batting an eyelash?

Cesar Chavez drove Venezuela straight into the ground, but got away with it because he was Chavez. Would the outcome be identical if he had been murdered in 2002, instead of died of natural causes in 2013? If his position is "interchangeable," then why are Venezuelans outraged at his successor, who is following the same policies as Chavez did?

I hate to break this to you, but anyone who has actually bothered to read history knows that outcomes are not always inevitable, and often rely heavily on the personality and choices of the people in power.
Click to expand...

I don't give a rats ass about the person occupying the office whomever they be. They know what they are getting into, its part of the gig. They are expendable. I don't care about other countries, just this one and we don't need to be spending a fortune on an expendable asset. That's the reality of being president, the Presidency and the country go on without you. They are for all intents and purposes expendable. Would we like them to live out their elected terms? Of course. That said if they don't then the country moves on, in this country especially so. Does assassination change history maybe, maybe not. The point being, is the President is THE most replaceable part of the government elected structure. Anyone who meets the Constitution requirements can do it. Your Representative, and Senators, ect., actually, are MORE valuable than the President because they are a bit harder to replace. Much more limited pools of replacements for one. Killing a President while it might look good and all, is actually quite pointless in reality because it stirs up a bunch of trouble for no real gain. If your gona, whack a Federal official, a Supreme court judge would be somewhat more effective, even thats next to practically pointless. Pretty much everyone in the government is expendable to one degree or another because all are very much replaceable on very short notice.
 
PirateMk1 said:
....Pretty much everyone in the government is expendable to one degree or another because all are very much replaceable on very short notice.
Click to expand...
Going from bad to worse, I see.

The fact that the President is a potential target for assassination does not mean that no one should care about the safety of the President, or take no steps for his/her protection. That's absurd.

Another illustration: The fact that police officers knowingly put themselves at risk, and that individual officers are all trained to do the same job, does not mean we should do nothing to mitigate the risks they face. Nor does it mean that we should not care if a police officer is killed on the job by a suspect.

I've already given numerous examples of how leaders are NOT interchangeable or expendable. The death of a leader at a particular time in history can be very decisive.

In particular, if the POTUS and VP are killed at the same time, next in line is Speaker of the House. Since the Speaker is often from the opposing party, and their policies will be different, there is no question that would change the implementation of policies. Heck, even Paul Ryan would govern very differently than Trump or Pence.

It is an incredible mistake to suggest that the single most important elected official is "THE most replaceable" one, just because we've set up our government to fill that role quickly. The Senate can function fine with the loss of a single Senator; the House has another 537 representatives; the SCOTUS can, as we've seen, operate without an odd number of justices. We allow longer terms to replace these officials because they are less important.

And even these individuals are not faceless widgets. E.g. the death of Ted Kennedy obviously had an impact on the passage of the ACA and other legislation; had another Democratic Senator died or become incapacitated at that time, the policy impacts would have been significant. I doubt many people in the US consider the passage of the ACA a "minor policy issue."
 
PirateMk1 said:
I don't give a rats ass about the person occupying the office whomever they be. They know what they are getting into, its part of the gig. They are expendable. I don't care about other countries, just this one and we don't need to be spending a fortune on an expendable asset. That's the reality of being president, the Presidency and the country go on without you. They are for all intents and purposes expendable. Would we like them to live out their elected terms? Of course. That said if they don't then the country moves on, in this country especially so. Does assassination change history maybe, maybe not. The point being, is the President is THE most replaceable part of the government elected structure. Anyone who meets the Constitution requirements can do it. Your Representative, and Senators, ect., actually, are MORE valuable than the President because they are a bit harder to replace. Much more limited pools of replacements for one. Killing a President while it might look good and all, is actually quite pointless in reality because it stirs up a bunch of trouble for no real gain. If your gona, whack a Federal official, a Supreme court judge would be somewhat more effective, even thats next to practically pointless. Pretty much everyone in the government is expendable to one degree or another because all are very much replaceable on very short notice.
Click to expand...

There are numerous facts which argue against this viewpoint.

More attention is paid to the Presidential election than any other election. More attention is paid to the President than any other politician, hence the kinds of commentaries and debates in this forum. Something like a billion dollars is spent each year protecting the President and his or her family.

The symbolic importance of the President is huge, and is linked to the spirit of the whole nation. And the President can actually make a difference in shaping the future of the US and the rest of the world, as many influential people have done in world history.
 
Visbek said:
Going from bad to worse, I see.

The fact that the President is a potential target for assassination does not mean that no one should care about the safety of the President, or take no steps for his/her protection. That's absurd.

Another illustration: The fact that police officers knowingly put themselves at risk, and that individual officers are all trained to do the same job, does not mean we should do nothing to mitigate the risks they face. Nor does it mean that we should not care if a police officer is killed on the job by a suspect.

I've already given numerous examples of how leaders are NOT interchangeable or expendable. The death of a leader at a particular time in history can be very decisive.

In particular, if the POTUS and VP are killed at the same time, next in line is Speaker of the House. Since the Speaker is often from the opposing party, and their policies will be different, there is no question that would change the implementation of policies. Heck, even Paul Ryan would govern very differently than Trump or Pence.

It is an incredible mistake to suggest that the single most important elected official is "THE most replaceable" one, just because we've set up our government to fill that role quickly. The Senate can function fine with the loss of a single Senator; the House has another 537 representatives; the SCOTUS can, as we've seen, operate without an odd number of justices. We allow longer terms to replace these officials because they are less important.

And even these individuals are not faceless widgets. E.g. the death of Ted Kennedy obviously had an impact on the passage of the ACA and other legislation; had another Democratic Senator died or become incapacitated at that time, the policy impacts would have been significant. I doubt many people in the US consider the passage of the ACA a "minor policy issue."
Click to expand...

We are just going to have to disagree. If I was king for a day I would yank ALL of the free security for all the politicians. Make them have some skin in the game.
 
Lord of Planar said:
So why did your leaders in congress go with it rather than stop it from happening? They had the same intel the president received. They didn't get the daily personal CIA report, but they had it available.
Click to expand...

That is an excellent question. Most did some didn't, those that voted for the war did so because they didn't look like whimps. I agree it was a mistake.

Lord of Planar said:
If it was so bad, why did your side champion what we did in Libya.
Click to expand...

My "side"? I don't know. Just like "your side" wanted to unseat Saddam H. - same reason, I guess.

Lord of Planar said:
Things for you to consider since you brought it up, though it doesn't belong in this thread.
Click to expand...

Oh, well. Thanks, for responding, I guess.
 
Conservative said:
I really think President Elect Hillary knows what she is doing. Isn't it great having someone actually question the cost to the taxpayers?
Click to expand...

? I don't get the joke.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom