Trump asks Defense Department to establish "Space Force" as sixth main branch

 Pages PREV 1 2 3 4 5 NEXT
 

Pseudonym:
What will this new branch actually do?

Give Trump a legacy other than alienating all of our allies, starting numerous trade wars, and shitting on anyone not in the top .1% of wealth? Increase DoD spending due to the increased overhead costs? Show Trump continues to ignore advice that comes from the military about military affairs?

There are international treaties made to prevent militarization of space and the moon. If the US actually does this those treaties would be in jeapordy and other countries with space programs might feel pressed to militarize in space as well, most likely further contributing to the problem of satelite scrap orbiting earth. This kind of move seems like a bad idea because it's essentially putting mankind's ability to go to space at all in danger just to be able to wave a slightly bigger gun at everyone else. For all the talk of starships, one war involving satelites and we will be physically unable to even reach the moon again

CyanCat47:
For all the talk of starships, one war involving satelites and we will be physically unable to even reach the moon again

This is something that is very terrifying but is rarely thought about. It would really only take the breakup of a handful of larger satellites before reaching outer orbit becomes physically impossible without the invention of a working and practical particle shield for space vessels.

Agema:

When you wrote "insult", what you would be much more accurate to have written would be "excuse to provide one of the funniest clips from the world's funniest ever sitcoms purely for everyone's entertainment".

Vicar of Dibley was better.

Addendum_Forthcoming:

Vicar of Dibley was better [than Father Ted].

This is the second most ridiculous thing in this thread, and it's only second because this is a thread about space-weapons.

Silvanus:

This is the second most ridiculous thing in this thread, and it's only second because this is a thread about space-weapons.

Garbo. TVoD had far more relatable and charming main and recurring cast.

Worgen:
OH HOLY CRAP! I just realized what this means. Hes responsible for 2 thousand children being seperated from their parents and now hes making a space military? Hes going to turn them into space marines!

Which one of his children will become Horus?

Come on, if you're going to reference that, reference the less dumb version. He's clearly abducting children for the Spartan II program.

Souplex:

Worgen:
OH HOLY CRAP! I just realized what this means. Hes responsible for 2 thousand children being seperated from their parents and now hes making a space military? Hes going to turn them into space marines!

Which one of his children will become Horus?

Come on, if you're going to reference that, reference the less dumb version. He's clearly abducting children for the Spartan II program.

>less dumb
>haLUL

Worgen:
OH HOLY CRAP! I just realized what this means. Hes responsible for 2 thousand children being seperated from their parents and now hes making a space military? Hes going to turn them into space marines!

Which one of his children will become Horus?

The real question is, is Trump really Alpharius in disguise playing the long con?

Oh shit, I missed people talking at me. I wish I was still notified when someone quotes me :/

Thaluikhain:

crimson5pheonix:
Well it means the idea was floated (and shot down by the Emperor), it doesn't necessarily mean the technology existed. However, with a "fun" interpretation of what qualifies as a space marine, Honsou made female space marines in the warp :D

He called it the Daemonculaba.

A "fun" interpretation in that they weren't in any way Space Marines? Like, at all?

And, also, they were in the Eye of Terror, which is only partly in the warp.

Well they had all the space marine implants, though they lacked the training. Thus they were physically space marines. But they were used as glorified (un)birthing wombs to make space marines quick. Though they usually came out dead or disfigured and always came out without skin.

What I'm saying is, is that Honsou is a "fun" guy.

Silentpony:

crimson5pheonix:
SNIP

What's cool is in the newest Space Wolf novel a Fenrisian woman asks Arjac Rockfist why they only recruit women. He says basically its the way Space Marines work and its always been that way. And she responds that maybe its time for that to change, and Arjac thinks that with all the new tech Guilliman has brought with Primaris Marines, why couldn't they look into female Marines. He tells her 'Perhaps'

So GW is at least leaving the window slightly ajar for the potential of a whisper of a shadow of maybe floating the idea of Female Marines, probably space wolf only.

I wouldn't be against it.

Gethsemani:

Except old fluff (don't know about the newer versions) stating that women were not physically tough enough to survive the process of becoming a marine and something about Y chromosomes being necessary for the Gene Seed to take.

Sure, because when you're capable of editing a genome to create supersoldiers including (for instance) the primarchs themselves who can apparently live thousands of years as well, for some reason a woman with more bone and muscle mass is totally impossible.

I couldn't care less, but I would also bet serious money on your local 40k players throwing a proper temper tantrum should you enter a GW store with a female space marine chapter.

Sadly, quite likely.

Actually, even if not, I'd certainly like to see Space Marine chapters brought into store in pink with unicorns, rainbow and love heart symbols, etc. Just something really ostentatious to undercut the tedious adolescent 40k grimness. How about a Hello Kitty or Miffy chapter? Surely someone done this already.

CyanCat47:
There are international treaties made to prevent militarization of space and the moon.

As far as I can see, Trump views international treaties like he views his business contracts: to be reneged on or breached to screw the other guy as soon as possible.

Besides, that treaty was never going to survive the minute a country thought they could successfully get away with it, anyway.

crimson5pheonix:
Well they had all the space marine implants, though they lacked the training. Thus they were physically space marines.

Where does it say that, did they add that by retcon?

Also, why? Why give them the implants they aren't ever ever going to use, the black carapace is only needed to wear power armour, the Betcher's Gland to spit acid etc. Especially when you need the gene-seed to make your actual marines.

So the GOP is trying to gut food assistance, Medicare, and a whole host of social programs because we can't afford them, is trying to consolidate the Departments of Education and Labor, is trying to suppress a report that over a hundred military bases have potentially unsafe water, but we've somehow got money and need to set up a whole new branch of the military instead of just boosting NASA.

Okay, sure.

altnameJag:
So the GOP is trying to gut food assistance, Medicare, and a whole host of social programs because we can't afford them, is trying to consolidate the Departments of Education and Labor, is trying to suppress a report that over a hundred military bases have potentially unsafe water, but we've somehow got money and need to set up a whole new branch of the military instead of just boosting NASA.

Okay, sure.

Unwanted by the military DoD (non-service-member-health-related) spending and tax cuts for the rich are the foundations for a strong economy and successful society. An educated, healthy, and happy populace is socialism and dirty communism that has no place in our freedom-loving utopia.

Thaluikhain:

crimson5pheonix:
Well they had all the space marine implants, though they lacked the training. Thus they were physically space marines.

Where does it say that, did they add that by retcon?

Also, why? Why give them the implants they aren't ever ever going to use, the black carapace is only needed to wear power armour, the Betcher's Gland to spit acid etc. Especially when you need the gene-seed to make your actual marines.

The idea was that they put a normal teenager in one of these wombs and a full grown space marine would pop out with all the augments, the "mother's" augments passing to the "child". So the women had to have all the space marine implants.

And this wasn't a retcon, this was a story about Honsou.

crimson5pheonix:

Souplex:

Worgen:
OH HOLY CRAP! I just realized what this means. Hes responsible for 2 thousand children being seperated from their parents and now hes making a space military? Hes going to turn them into space marines!

Which one of his children will become Horus?

Come on, if you're going to reference that, reference the less dumb version. He's clearly abducting children for the Spartan II program.

>less dumb
>haLUL

Let's not pretend that 40K is anything but a dumpster fire of the dumbest sci-fantasy possible.
Also, the moment you use Chan-Greentext you lose all validity.

crimson5pheonix:
The idea was that they put a normal teenager in one of these wombs and a full grown space marine would pop out with all the augments, the "mother's" augments passing to the "child". So the women had to have all the space marine implants.

And this wasn't a retcon, this was a story about Honsou.

In Dead Sky, Black Sun:

By comparison (unless they've retconned it), Blood Angels aspirants are put into sarcophagi to be transformed into marines, and the implants go into them, not the sarcophagi. They go in radiation scarred wretches, and come out perfect. Or go mad because they wake up a few months before the machine lets them out.

Avnger:

Unwanted by the military DoD

A lot of things the military has forced on it are unwanted by the DoD. Letting women in was and to some degree still is one of the most obvious examples. There's also letting gays in (not because of opposition to being gay, but for security reasons since until it gained wider general acceptance in the late 00s it could be a source of blackmail by foreign entities, which is also why up here Pierre Elliot Trudeau not only banned gays from the military but made it criminal for them to join). There's also the opposition to trans people entering the military they had until Obama forced them to accept them. Then there's the fact that having a 6th branch means a 6th fiefdom competing for manpower and resources that means a 20% increase in the headache of those dealing with them.

Put simply, the DoD opposing change isn't new and has never been something that has slowed change down before.

tax cuts for the rich are the foundations for a strong economy and successful society

Well the US economy is certainly doing better now under Trump's policies then it was under Obama. There are a few places that are doing worst, but that's just the nature of a diversified economy, some will always be doing better or worst at times. I know if I had had the money I should have invested in the Dow before he took office given how that has gone up.

An educated, healthy, and happy populace is socialism and dirty communism that has no place in our freedom-loving utopia.

Where the myth that spending more on education and health care would lead to greater quality came from eludes me. America spends more per capita on education and health care then anyone, yet there's constant calls for more to be thrown at both despite the fact there is literally no argument for it. I honestly have to ask where all the money is going, because from what I've seen it looks like it goes into "administration", but that makes no sense as at best costs on that front should go up linearly instead of exponentially with size, yet for some reason it goes up exponentially when on would think it would, it anything, go down exponentially.

The only possibilities I see are that administration scales up so badly that the elimination of the Department of Education would be the best thing to happen to American education since it became mandatory (and also incidentally means the EU will never federate because such a large state would collapse under its own weight), or there's so much corruption in the public and private side of both education and health care that no reform of any type is going to solve it unless there's a mass purge of those working in both before hand.

Souplex:

crimson5pheonix:

Souplex:
Come on, if you're going to reference that, reference the less dumb version. He's clearly abducting children for the Spartan II program.

>less dumb
>haLUL

Let's not pretend that 40K is anything but a dumpster fire of the dumbest sci-fantasy possible.
Also, the moment you use Chan-Greentext you lose all validity.

40K is the funnest sci fi. Halo is boring.

Thaluikhain:

crimson5pheonix:
The idea was that they put a normal teenager in one of these wombs and a full grown space marine would pop out with all the augments, the "mother's" augments passing to the "child". So the women had to have all the space marine implants.

And this wasn't a retcon, this was a story about Honsou.

In Dead Sky, Black Sun:

By comparison (unless they've retconned it), Blood Angels aspirants are put into sarcophagi to be transformed into marines, and the implants go into them, not the sarcophagi. They go in radiation scarred wretches, and come out perfect. Or go mad because they wake up a few months before the machine lets them out.

Oh no, they put the geneseed in the mothers so it would pass to the child. I definitely remember this.

Addendum_Forthcoming:

Silvanus:

This is the second most ridiculous thing in this thread, and it's only second because this is a thread about space-weapons.

Garbo. TVoD had far more relatable and charming main and recurring cast.

You've sinned. Like loads. Father Ted is so much better that TVoD. (Growing up in a Catholic extended family and going to Catholic school may influence this.)

Zontar:
There are a few places that are doing worst, but that's just the nature of a diversified economy, some will always be doing better or worst at times

Well that does the regions doing badly a shitload of good, doesn't it?

Smithnikov:

Zontar:
There are a few places that are doing worst, but that's just the nature of a diversified economy, some will always be doing better or worst at times

Well that does the regions doing badly a shitload of good, doesn't it?

Of course it doesn't, my point was just that you can't be doing great in all sections of the economy at all times. It's why the general state of the entire economy tends to be what's used to determine if times are good for the country, which, in the case of Trump, it is compared to under Obama. One can argue until they're blue in the face as to if that's because Obama's first term had the great recession and it was only his second term that had a lacklustre economic policy in place, or if it was his entire presidency that was stagnant, but the fact remains that the economy is doing better now under Trump then it was under Obama.

Zontar:
Well the US economy is certainly doing better now under Trump's policies then it was under Obama. There are a few places that are doing worst, but that's just the nature of a diversified economy, some will always be doing better or worst at times. I know if I had had the money I should have invested in the Dow before he took office given how that has gone up.

The economy is still riding off of Obama's policies, Trump hasn't had any economic policy in place long enough for there to be any real noticeable effects to measure, and we can't yet actually say whether or not some of these changes in the economy are due to Trump's policies. We also haven't yet felt the effects of Trump's incoming tariffs - which, by the way, he's now threatening a flat 20% tariff on all vehicles imported from Europe in retaliation to the retaliatory tariffs from other nations. Don't fool yourself into believing that these tariffs will somehow help the US.

Zontar:

Smithnikov:

Zontar:
There are a few places that are doing worst, but that's just the nature of a diversified economy, some will always be doing better or worst at times

Well that does the regions doing badly a shitload of good, doesn't it?

Of course it doesn't, my point was just that you can't be doing great in all sections of the economy at all times. It's why the general state of the entire economy tends to be what's used to determine if times are good for the country, which, in the case of Trump, it is compared to under Obama. One can argue until they're blue in the face as to if that's because Obama's first term had the great recession and it was only his second term that had a lacklustre economic policy in place, or if it was his entire presidency that was stagnant, but the fact remains that the economy is doing better now under Trump then it was under Obama.

And the argument to that is whether or not Trump has actually done anything to effect the economy. Can you point to specific policies that have had concrete cause and effects? Not just "the stockmarket rose because of this mornings headlines" short term pulses, Actual, tangible effects. Afterall, it's only been a year. Do you really think any long changing policy effects have had time to trickle down and actually assert change?

undeadsuitor:

Zontar:

Smithnikov:

Well that does the regions doing badly a shitload of good, doesn't it?

Of course it doesn't, my point was just that you can't be doing great in all sections of the economy at all times. It's why the general state of the entire economy tends to be what's used to determine if times are good for the country, which, in the case of Trump, it is compared to under Obama. One can argue until they're blue in the face as to if that's because Obama's first term had the great recession and it was only his second term that had a lacklustre economic policy in place, or if it was his entire presidency that was stagnant, but the fact remains that the economy is doing better now under Trump then it was under Obama.

And the argument to that is whether or not Trump has actually done anything to effect the economy. Can you point to specific policies that have had concrete cause and effects? Not just "the stockmarket rose because of this mornings headlines" short term pulses, Actual, tangible effects. Afterall, it's only been a year. Do you really think any long changing policy effects have had time to trickle down and actually assert change?

We wont truly know Trump's effects on the economy until the next Democratic President gets blamed for it tanking due to Trump's shitting on the improving economy Obama left him that Trump ofcourse took full credit for.

Dr. Thrax:

The economy is still riding off of Obama's policies

How exactly is it that it took exactly until Obama was leaving office for his policies to start taking effect? That'd be like trying to pretend the economic growth under Eisenhower was because of Trumen, or Reagan because of Carter, both of which will get you laughed out of an economics course. I'm sorry but even if we do believe that Obama's policies where the most delayed once of any recession era leader to see effect, that in itself is a damning criticism since more conservative policies like the ones we passed up here had immediate effect and saw us get out of the aftermath so fast that if Obama had done it he'd have been ridding on its results by his reelection.

Even if we throw out what economists have to say about their field of expertise, it's still a damning flaw of Obama that it took so long for his policies to take effect when we have too many real world examples of others taking less time to see similar results.

undeadsuitor:

Can you point to specific policies that have had concrete cause and effects?

His tax plan (which is hilarious to watch how quiet the media is on now that people have seen it hasn't tanked the federal government as they predicted) saw large sums of money given to the middle and working class by employers in the form of bonus' as well as raises, which, when coupled with the savings those making less then 50 (or was it 80?) thousand per year saw most definitely saw increased domestic spending. Given how much of the US economy is domestic consumption, well there's a reason why 2018 is set to be a better year economically for the US then 2017 was.

Saelune:
We wont truly know Trump's effects on the economy until the next Democratic President gets blamed for it tanking due to Trump's shitting on the improving economy Obama left him that Trump ofcourse took full credit for.

Using that logic, doesn't that meant that Carter, the last Democrat president who wasn't a corporatist who cannot honestly be called left or right leaning due to their own corportaism, was a stunning failure given he got the economy that Nixon and Ford gave him, and tanked it so bad he killed the party for 12 years (and it would have been at least 16 had it not been for Russ splitting the vote in '92)?

Zontar:

How exactly is it that it took exactly until Obama was leaving office for his policies to start taking effect?

It didn't.

But you're talking about economics. The impact of economic policy is long-term, by which I mean more than a couple of years. That's how it works. Usually the impact of economic policy isn't even felt in a single company until the end of the following financial year, which could potentially be half of a President's tenure... and that's merely the effect of immediate policy on a single company, disregarding competitive, regulatory, or stimulus factors, which will take much longer to be borne out.

The public suffer from political short-term memory loss, and are liable to blame whatever government happens to be in power at the time for however the economy is doing, regardless of whether it's a result of the actions of their predecessor.

TL:DR; if you're going to laud/blame Trump for economic issues, you have to establish cause and effect with his policy. However the state of the economy is doing doesn't count. What has he done, specifically, and how did it cause the change? Yelling stuff on Twitter does not count.

Zontar:
How exactly is it that it took exactly until Obama was leaving office for his policies to start taking effect? That'd be like trying to pretend the economic growth under Eisenhower was because of Trumen, or Reagan because of Carter, both of which will get you laughed out of an economics course. I'm sorry but even if we do believe that Obama's policies where the most delayed once of any recession era leader to see effect, that in itself is a damning criticism since more conservative policies like the ones we passed up here had immediate effect and saw us get out of the aftermath so fast that if Obama had done it he'd have been ridding on its results by his reelection.

Even if we throw out what economists have to say about their field of expertise, it's still a damning flaw of Obama that it took so long for his policies to take effect when we have too many real world examples of others taking less time to see similar results.

Because that's how economic policy works, Zontar. You don't really see the impact certain policy has until a few years - if not more - after it's been implemented. There may be some immediate effects on a small scale, but there's always some immediate, small-scale effects when policy changes. The true metric is how it impacts the economy on a long-term, large-scale basis, and Trump has not been in office long enough and has had not policy set long enough for there to have been any long-term, large-scale results as a direct effect from him. This is how it's always been for a new president. They ride whatever waves their predecessor created for the first couple of years of their presidency and then their waves take over. For the moment we can only use economic analyst's expertise in judging how his policy will play out, we will only be able to truly look at the results of it and compare them until at least after his first term but likely longer than that.

crimson5pheonix:
The real question is, is Trump really Alpharius in disguise playing the long con?

Of course he isn't. I'm Alpharius.

Zontar:
How exactly is it that it took exactly until Obama was leaving office for his policies to start taking effect? That'd be like trying to pretend the economic growth under Eisenhower was because of Trumen, or Reagan because of Carter, both of which will get you laughed out of an economics course. I'm sorry but even if we do believe that Obama's policies where the most delayed once of any recession era leader to see effect, that in itself is a damning criticism since more conservative policies like the ones we passed up here had immediate effect and saw us get out of the aftermath so fast that if Obama had done it he'd have been ridding on its results by his reelection.

Even if we throw out what economists have to say about their field of expertise, it's still a damning flaw of Obama that it took so long for his policies to take effect when we have too many real world examples of others taking less time to see similar results.

The big secret of politicians and economics is this: the party in power has very little to do with the current strength of the economy.

In the US, the government official with the most influence over economic growth is the chairman of the Federal Reserve. The president does relatively little, except perhaps by nominating a chairman for the Federal Reserve. Tax cuts, tariffs, sanctions, financial regulations and subsidies all have impact on the economy, but they're not a predictable and reliable way of strengthening it. Tariffs, in particular, are very tricky to use, and tax cuts seem to be slightly less effective at predicting economic growth than flipping a coin.

Most importantly, though, is the fact that the effects of changes in economic policy take years to manifest themselves. (Something you learn very quickly in a first-year economics course, and which Fox News conveniently refuses to understand.) We won't be able to determine the effect of Trump's tax cut plan until well after he's likely left office. This has not stopped Trump from taking credit for the state of the economy, which he has been doing since about a week after he was elected and long before he could have had any conceivable impact on it.

The reality is that the difference between the Trump economy and the late Obama economy is largely a matter of PR; Trump told people the economy under Obama was in ruins, so they believed it was in ruins. He told them that it was booming under his administration, so they believed it was booming. The fact is that Obama inherited a giant recession, from which there was very little to go but up, and ever since then the US economy has just been steadily going up at roughly the same rate every year. Trump's biggest achievement so far has been not impacting that rate at all.

Zontar:
His tax plan (which is hilarious to watch how quiet the media is on now that people have seen it hasn't tanked the federal government as they predicted) saw large sums of money given to the middle and working class by employers in the form of bonus' as well as raises, which, when coupled with the savings those making less then 50 (or was it 80?) thousand per year saw most definitely saw increased domestic spending. Given how much of the US economy is domestic consumption, well there's a reason why 2018 is set to be a better year economically for the US then 2017 was.

Trump's tax cut is a heinous betrayal of his campaign promises and something that you, as a Trump supporter, should really be livid about. It devotes over 80% of its benefits to the 1% of income earners, it cuts Trump's personal taxes by hundreds of millions of dollars over the next ten years, and the tax credits it provides to the lower and middle class will expire in a few years leading to an overall tax increase for those demographics.

It's the exact opposite of what he promised, it's the opposite of what his voters wanted, and it's not even sensible economic policy, because huge tax cuts for rich people aren't a reliable way of strengthening the economy.

Zontar:

Dr. Thrax:

The economy is still riding off of Obama's policies

How exactly is it that it took exactly until Obama was leaving office for his policies to start taking effect? That'd be like trying to pretend the economic growth under Eisenhower was because of Trumen, or Reagan because of Carter, both of which will get you laughed out of an economics course. I'm sorry but even if we do believe that Obama's policies where the most delayed once of any recession era leader to see effect, that in itself is a damning criticism since more conservative policies like the ones we passed up here had immediate effect and saw us get out of the aftermath so fast that if Obama had done it he'd have been ridding on its results by his reelection.

Even if we throw out what economists have to say about their field of expertise, it's still a damning flaw of Obama that it took so long for his policies to take effect when we have too many real world examples of others taking less time to see similar results.

It didn't take "exactly until Obama was leaving office for his policies to start taking effect". If you actually examine real GDP growth in recent years, you'll notice that it was only was truly suffering in '08 (-0.3% economic growth) and '09 (-2.8% economic growth). Note that Obama took office in January of '09. Similarly, examining GDP in general reveals that current GDP is not significantly different than it has been for the last 8 years and in fact is actually lower than it was in 2015. Honestly, the claim doesn't even hold up in terms of quarterly growth. Borrowing from another post of mine:

Trump's platform is a lot of smoke and mirrors. Among other things, he wants people to believe that his predecessor was responsible for a terrible economy and he's responsible for some amazing recovery,. But aside from the fact that the recession was due to lending policies that had been percolating since Carter and the fact that a given president's impact on the economy is questionable at best, looking at the actual numbers makes it clear that his story of "returning from ruin" is not remotely true, nor is the growth we've seen his term exceptional. Thus far the best quarterly growth we've seen during this term is 3.2% in Q3 of 2017, which we also saw in Q1 of 2015 and very nearly the same in Q3 of 2013 (3.1% instead of 3.2%). It's not even a recent peak, with Q3 of 2014 having shown 5.2% growth.

On the whole, despite the narrative Trump was trying to push, he actually inherited a very strong economy. Over the course of Obama's terms, weekly earnings went up for all employees (4.1% after accounting inflation), the S&P 500 went up 166%, and unemployment was down to 4.8% (which Fox News and Trump tried to credit to Trump 100 days into his office, despite having enacted no policy that could have affected it, and the numbers actually hovering around that level since October 2016, and within 0.2 points of it since September 2015).

Zontar, I have to question whether or not you actually did any independent research on this subject. Because honestly, it doesn't feel like you're as familiar with the subject as you seem to believe you are.

Zontar:
snip

I think the problem here, Zontar, is that you start with the conclusion "Right wing good, left wing bad", and then just fabricate whatever facts are necessary to fit the conclusion you've already decided.

Zontar:

Saelune:
We wont truly know Trump's effects on the economy until the next Democratic President gets blamed for it tanking due to Trump's shitting on the improving economy Obama left him that Trump ofcourse took full credit for.

Using that logic, doesn't that meant that Carter, the last Democrat president who wasn't a corporatist who cannot honestly be called left or right leaning due to their own corportaism, was a stunning failure given he got the economy that Nixon and Ford gave him, and tanked it so bad he killed the party for 12 years (and it would have been at least 16 had it not been for Russ splitting the vote in '92)?

What gave you the idea I have any desire to defend Jimmy Carter?

Zontar:

Saelune:
We wont truly know Trump's effects on the economy until the next Democratic President gets blamed for it tanking due to Trump's shitting on the improving economy Obama left him that Trump ofcourse took full credit for.

Using that logic, doesn't that meant that Carter, the last Democrat president who wasn't a corporatist who cannot honestly be called left or right leaning due to their own corportaism, was a stunning failure given he got the economy that Nixon and Ford gave him, and tanked it so bad he killed the party for 12 years (and it would have been at least 16 had it not been for Russ splitting the vote in '92)?

There were two recessions under Ford and the first oil crisis caused by Nixon's involvement in the Yom Kippur war. If you are looking for a decade to praise republicans in comparison to the democrats, the 70s is the worst possible choice. The entire decade was marked by inflation and the decline of american manufacturing, and Nixon, Ford and Carter all failed to deal with it in a meaningful way. Both republican and democratic administrations caused oil crisies through bad foreign policy decisions, however a lot of it was also caused by factors that none of the three had much control over, such as the rise of japanese and german manufacturing which produced higher quality goods that became cheaper than american products in the US and abroad as a result of the american recessions. From a libertarian standpoint it's also rather absurd to compare Nixon favourably to Carter since Nixon introduced new regulations and continued Johnson-era programs while Carter tried to ease regulations hoping the free market could solve the crisis

Wasn't that the origin story of Men in Black?

 Pages PREV 1 2 3 4 5 NEXT

Reply to Thread

Log in or Register to Comment
Have an account? Login below:
With Facebook:Login With Facebook
or
Username:  
Password:  
  
Not registered? To sign up for an account with The Escapist:
Register With Facebook
Register With Facebook
or
Register for a free account here