Just to add to what CrescentMoonie said, there is also the philosophy that direct aid can actually hurt the poor. See: Milton Friedman, The Tragedy of American Compassion(Marvin Olasky), etc. The idea basically is that you damage the character, dignity, self-respect of the poor by giving them finances greater than or equal to what they could gain by working; they no longer would then have any impetus to do so. "Poor" is not viewed as the bottom rung on the ladder, but rather "Pauperism", a more permanent condition and state of dependency. To this mindset, direct relief programs and some charity groups would be considered to be doing more harm than good. The economic liberty argument is also related.

They have a point, but I think a central, societal authority is needed and government's really the only group that fits the bill. I do think it's imperative for it to be as unintrusive as possible though.

.02

Friedman believed in a negative income tax that was basically a universal basic income. He was in favor of cash payments to the poor.

I don't think it's a really sound approach if it essentially boils down to "eh, enough people will do the right thing." Because they won't. There are a lot of good people, but there are an awful lot of assholes and there always have been (see: Scrooge). Imagine if all the money the Kochs have put into PACs and media campaigns went instead to charity. But no, it's more important to use that as an investment to insure further oil profits.

Also, how is it that some of these organizations are incredibly rich? Mormon land/building holdings alone have been estimated at $35B in value (it's estimated the church makes $7B in tithes annually). The Catholic church does a lot of good, but isn't exactly poor either.

And what of the working poor?

Corporation: "Well, we could pay them more, but I think they'd rather have their dignity."

Thing is, when I say "controlling fertility," abortion is part of that, yes, but it's not the whole picture. There's sex ed - Texas stands out as a state that went to "abstinence-only" education and then saw the teen birthrate skyrocket. The overt decision to not educate young girls about birth control and contraceptives for fear of encouraging teen sex backfired, and has cost that state money.

When people flip out over Planned Parenthood because abortion, they forget or ignore that abortion is only one of the fertility control services they make available.

Now, that said, I wouldn't argue about them being wrong on postnatal compassion.

I've said before, here and elsewhere, that I am personally pro-life, but that I don't believe "pro-life" is a stance limited to the whether and why of abortion; right now, national policy all but ignores the rest of the equation and focuses on abortion as political red meat, and that's why, despite being pro-life, I don't support further restrictions on abortion.

We can disagree on what "safe, rare, and legal" ought to constitute, but I will say speaking for myself that until a politician is willing to wonk out over "what comes next" and lay out a logical plan for how the State plans to deal with the fertility ramifications of an abortion ban, politicians who try to make their bones as "pro-life" won't find a sympathetic ear from me. It's easy to talk the talk that gets you elected - it's another matter entirely to deal with the subject in a thoughtful and nuanced way and say "look, this is what I believe, but these are the consequences we need to grapple with if we want to do this," to make that case and sell it.

Yes, but not as high as what they would get by working. He said the maximum feasible rate was 50%(meaning, the government would make up only half the difference between your income and the zero-tax minimum). His reasoning was the same; ensuring there is still some incentive to work.

But you said this:


which is not at all what Friedman advocated.

I don't have a problem with trying to incentivize work, as that is generally better for society and the individual. But when you go down the road of direct payments are harmful, that reads more as social Darwinism than help.

I oon't equate giving to churches with giving to the poor. I grew up and spent a good portion of my adult life as a catholic though now I am atheist so I think I can have opinion on this. Many of those who give to churches do it as they believe it is paying there way into heaven. Also much of the money does not get out of the hands of the church and to the average joe. Lastly, those helped usually are those willing to sign up for that religions "team". Lastly, since religious groups aren't taxed or there donations money tracked by the IRS who knows anything.

Funny how you conveniently left this part out of your quote:

Just about anyone being taken seriously in any contemporary debate about aid to the poor includes an element of "incentive to work" in such a proposal. I'm sure there are far-left fringes to whom this doesn't apply, but anywhere near the political center that's universal. So, it's a bit of a canard to cite decades-old quotes from the right that are simply attacking unrestricted cash payments to low-end families.

There are quite a few true conservatives (then and now) who would, given the right context, say that broad-based cash transfers (like a negative income tax, or some variation on the universal basic income) is preferable to a multi-faceted welfare state for numerous reasons - economic efficiency and reduced market distortion usually topping the list.

I think it remains fairly polarizing politically when you are essentially asking the question "what does society owe a so-called able-bodied person who appears capable of working but doesn't really do so?" When that person has children, or medical problems, or something similar, that question gets even thornier.

I don't think every reasonable person necessarily comes down in the same place on that core question. Some of that variation is due to a different degree of respect for the power of incentive, but that isn't all of it.

Jeff Flake getting way out in front for the role of anti-Trump GOP candidate in 2020.

GOP senator: I wish Republicans had stood up to birtherism | TheHill

He just voted to confirm a Federal judge who was writing birthed stuff while on the bench. Flake is all talk.

Thanks for the correction. I did honestly miss that. I don't believe the survey is accurate but YMMV. In the end, I believe the world would be a better place with no organized religion but get some folks need that stuff to get thru the day.

I try to always take research over anecdote. My personal experience growing up is similar to yours, but I've also been exposed to organizations outside of what I grew up around that are actually doing what they claim. Several of them aren't as in your face as the ones that just want to separate you from your money so you have to either know people associated with them or seek them out yourself.

My personal experience is also that government intervention is mostly a useless money pit as well, but I know there are some programs that are well run and helpful. Figuring out how to discern the honest parts of each element that wants to help is the challenge.

Thanks for the further insight and anytime anyone whether associated with religion or not helps those less fortunate things are better for everyone.

I wonder when do those in the US stand up and admit that in the future more and more people will be unemployed, many countries around the globe are planning towards this with some Scandinavian countries giving a living wage to people and such ... yet in the US despite there being huge amounts of visible automation incoming (self driving cars, automation of retail shops etc.) peoples heads seem wholly stuck in the sand with the concept that people should 'have' to work in order to have any value at all ...

It will take people admitting that Capitalism was great for the industrial era, but much like Feudalism couldn't last when the world changed neither will Capitalism with the combination of automation and sharing economy that is coming. It's not going to be pretty for those who hold on to the parts of Adam Smith they like as if it's gospel.

I have a serious question and I'm not attacking anyone with it...

So with that out of the way, I keep seeing the following:
- We need guaranteed minimum income
- We don't spend enough on education
- We don't spend enough on health care
- We don't spend enough on mental health care
- We don't spend enough on infrastructure

And I'm sure there are others. So let's say we did "spend enough." What's our country look like at that point? What are tax rates? What employment rate are we looking at and are we comfortable with? What happens to people that bought a house under the assumption they made $X but now their taxes have increased a massive amount? Etc. I see a lot of "we should do a, b, and c" but not enough "but we will need to be aware of x, y, and z" and I don't think you can have a real conversation without acknowledging both parts.

So any ideas here?

New Chief of Staff Kelly Moves Quickly to Tame Trump's Tweets

Well, so much for that.

I think part of the equation is lowering our spending in the military to offset increases for infrastructure and stuff like that. We can cut military spending quite a bit. Do we really need to nearly triple the next highest spender? Couldn't we get by with merely doubling the next highest spender?

List of countries by military expenditures - Wikipedia

The simplified solution is that businesses pay taxes to cover the employees they are no longer paying, and that money is distributed. Obviously it's more detailed than that, but the loss/elimination of jobs isn't getting rid of the revenue being generated.

Pretty much met the over/under on this one. It continues to amaze me how he continues to attack veterans in congress (Though Blumenthal is hardly an exemplary model in this area) with his 5 deferments. And I know lot's of folks received deferments, they just don't shit on those that did serve like he does.

Agreed. How many F-35s do we need each year? They're just now under $100 million each to produce and that doesn't include upkeep over the life of one of them. Throw the cost per hour of flight on top of it and you're talking around $200 million per plane for the F-35A which is the cheapest model.

Here are the most recent expected purchase numbers for each variant of the F-35:


United States F-35 | F-35 Lightning II

Is there a legitimate need for 1763 F-35A fighters? Let's take that $200 million per plane over its lifetime and buy 200 fewer fighter jets. The current expectation for the F-35 program is that it will last through 2070. That's $40 billion to invest in 52+ years, around $770 million per year, into either infrastructure or universal income. If you cut the program down to 1500 F-35A you save $52.6 billion, putting you at about $1 billion per year.

There are a lot of easy cuts to make to our current level of military spending that would benefit everyone quickly.

Agree with you both on this. Military spending should be the first area that is looked at when it comes to addressing the deficiencies in areas such as healthcare/education and infrastructure. I also think you need to throw rescheduling/decriminalization of marijuana into the mix as a way the states could generate more tax revenue in these areas as well.

I work in the tech world and do see automation increasing which will definitely displace some workers. There are some that will never get a good job again and there are others that will adapt to whatever new job comes from automation. Automation frees us from doing the mundane to do other things.

I think what you are saying is the # of displaced, never to be employed again etc. will greatly exceed the # of new jobs that automation brings or frees "us" to build/invest in other areas that will create new jobs?

FWIW, I think the threat is not as much automation as it is from China (and possibly others) where we will lose our "lead" (e.g. innovation, desirability etc.).

Your point is taken but why not % of GDP as an indicator?

And it just should not be defense, it should be a holistic solution to SS, Medicare, Medicaid, taxes etc.

So not to attack, but this is another example of the "a, b, c" without the "x, y, z". What does it mean for us to reduce our military spending by 1/3, both in terms of geopolitical maneuvering as well as the jobs lost in the military industrial complex?

It's been said that businesses never pay taxes, as they just raise the price of goods to cover taxes. So unless we put price caps in place or nationalize all industries, how does this work?

I'm just trying to understand this all even though I don't believe it will or can ever happen barring some sort of revolution.

Just like the socialism so many seem to want.

Free sunshine AND rainbows for errybody, just like they have in all the other socialist paradise locales.

What's your answer to issues with the expected increase in automation and large scale reduction in available jobs that will be coming down the road? Asking honestly, not trying to bait out anything here. Is this just not on the radar, is there a plan to handle this, thoughts in general?

For someone who is always looking to the past, what does the future matter? ;)

Is the question what should we do?
Or what (do I believe) will most likely bedone?

Regardless, you did say "thoughts in general" so I'll offer those.

We already have a population that is surplus to needs, and under current conditions that seems likely to trend upward.

Among the steps that should be taken (not entirely in priority order): make the virtual elimination of illegal immigration AND of existing illegal immigrants an actual priority, immediate end of "anchor baby" look more closely at areas where legal immigration can be cut back, begin to de-incentivize adding to the problem by steadily reducing government payments/benefits based around a per-child notion, mandatory birth control for recipients of child-based government assistance (basically the Chinese had the right idea in terms of population intervention, just the wrong selection method).

Do I think any of those things are likely to happen? Nope, they make too much sense and as a society we seem to hate rational thought more than just about anything.

The much more likely approach is to continue down the same paths until we fully sink under our own weight.

FWIW, I don't really see a tie between illegal immigration and increased automation causing job loss.

I would encourage legal immigration for well educated foreigners, most of them coming thru our colleges/universities. We want the brain drain from other countries coming here.

The additional job loss is only a real problem if we have population surplus to needs however. Therefore, it's an element of the solution. Certainly not the entire solution, but a legitimate element.

That's why I say it's going to require society coming to grips with Capitalism no longer being an adequate system for the world we live in. It was perfect for the industrial age, but didn't exist before that. There will be a time when it's not fit for the world as it is. I wouldn't rule out some sort of cultural revolution being required to get us there.

So if not capitalism then its what?

Some system that redistributes and betters "equalizes" wealth so everyone can have a basic subsistence when there aren't enough jobs?

Maybe a money-less society like Star Trek

That's like asking the people who lived before the industrial era to come up with capitalism. The signs are obvious that there won't be enough paying work to sustain livable conditions for people in the very near future. The most prominent suggestion right now is a baseline universal income. That may or may not be the way forward. We need to try things and see what works best as the landscape continues to change. Smith's Wealth of Nations came a good 10-15 years into the industrial revolution.

What do you do with people who would work, and who are doing work of some sort, but can't get paid enough to survive because their work is being done by machines/AI? Should a pastor no longer be paid because his congregation, filled with people whose jobs disappeared despite their skill and willingness to work, can no longer support him? Should skilled tradesmen be left to rot because we've found a way to build a robot that can do their job more efficiently?

We can either come up with the sociopathic view that there are too many people and create ways to eradicate them or keep them from existing in the first place, or we can be decent human beings and look for a real solution.

A digital equivalent of a bartering system wouldn't be a bad thing to try. Even a hybrid that takes elements of capitalism forward while piecing the rest of it together could be a real possibility.

Our government can't even get it together on health care right now, imagine the hilarity as they try and implement something like this.

We encounter this now with outsourcing, NAFTA and manufacturing moving south/overseas, and increased competition from China et al. I think your main premise is automation will cause this? I think its innovation, progress, globalization etc. of which automation is one aspect.

The solution is education & re-training. Admittedly its not 100% and yes, some people get left behind and they will suffer.

Interesting you say manufacturing. While people point to manufacturing jobs moving, manufacturing output is actually close to historic peaks for US manufacturing output (it has almost matched the levels prior to the 2008 recession, which was higher than manufacturing output anytime prior in the US's history). And, of course, the US is the world's second largest manufacturer. Why? Automation.

Would be interested in reading that report if you can find it. Also, wonder if the basis is manufacturing per capita (or some way to normalize it from pre-90s).

Maybe the better wording is "some manufacturing" ... which then has been replaced by "other manufacturing" if our manufacturing output is still high.

Can find the reports sourced with FRED (and graphs!), which comes from US BEA, in the Wikipedia article on it:

Manufacturing in the United States - Wikipedia

And this article shows the manufacturing output from the 70s to 2015:

Think nothing is made in America? Output has doubled in three decades - MarketWatch

Found another report that breaks it down a little.

Think nothing is made in America? Output has doubled in three decades - MarketWatch


I think apparel and automotive have taken a hit. Petroleum is the heavy lifter.

Was it automation that cause apparel to go south/overseas? Or labor arbitrage?

Labor intensive industries have always moved to cheaper labor cost areas, first the US South from the Rust Belt (and few complained even though factories were closing all over the Midwest) and then to other countries. However, as automation gets cheaper and cheaper, it makes more sense to stay in capital intensive countries as areas with higher labor productivity tend to produce more efficiency and lower costs for those industries (ie, look at the auto industry - and how many new plants auto manufacturers are opening).

My point is automation isn't driving this per my statement below, its a bunch of other factors of which automation plays a part.

Labor intensive industries have already moved. Capital intensive industries are looking to save costs. How will they do that? Automation is a very probable way forward. It's merely another word for 'innovation', IMO.

Never heard that phrase. What does it mean? How is it quantified?

In all honesty is it like WAR? Average American needs X resources. Each American is +/- average. Those who are - and/or undocumented should.... so all deserving Americans can be + on the needs scale?

Here are some use cases.

Apparel industries did not move south/overseas because of automation. That industry was disrupted with labor arbitrage & globalization.

Computer programming did not move to India because of automation. It was because of labor arbitrage & internet connectivity.

Did automotive industry move overseas/decline because of automation in the 70's and 80's or was it because of overseas competition & globalization?

There are absolutely going to be some industries disrupted by automation and a bunch of people will lose their jobs and won't be able to adapt. My point is don't blame it all on automation as there are alot of other market forces in play.

We'll need something more competent than the special needs chimps in charge now, as well as a populace that doesn't race to opposite sides of the stupidity spectrum electing them, before any real progress is made.

How do you retrain for non-existent jobs? This isn't a case of jobs moving, like they've done now, it's a case of jobs ceasing to be.

Production Soared After This Factory Replaced 90% of Its Employees With Robots

The jobs that moved overseas are disappearing as well.

Automotive is actually one of the fastest growing segments.
Lots of people think of the decline and off shoring of the "big 3" but BMW, Mercedes, Volvo, Kia, Hyundai, Nissan and Toyota have all opened major manufacturing facilities in the US in the last ~ decade.

Yep, it's a case of globalizing by all of the major brands. Many of the German and Japanese companies are also opening manufacturing facilities in Mexico.

Manufacturing output in the US doubled since 1984. With far less manufacturing jobs in the US. How is this massively increased output possible? Automation.

Yeah, jobs left due to labor intensive industries leaving for cheaper areas, but when output goes up there is a reason. Automation will just continue to increase as these manufacturers tried to gain more advantage and as that continues, you need to figure out what to do with the folks who can't get work.

Oh, and for what it's worth, the automobile industry is highly automated. Those plants that are being built all over the South (Kia, Mercedes Benz, Hyundai, etc) have far less workers than the plants that closed in the 70s and 80s. That's an issue that you can't merely handwave by saying, there are other forces in play.

You train people for jobs where they are hiring.

I think the alternative you are proposing is to provide some sort of livable wage/condition etc. where they don't have to work if "automation" has eliminated the need for their current skills?

My take is, if their industry is totally disrupted, they have to adapt and do something else. I do believe in government support in this transition.

What jobs? Every projection suggests at least 25% of jobs going away for good. Some go over 50%. You can retrain for a while, but we're talking a couple of decades before there simply aren't very many jobs.

Sure if you go back in last decade. If you go back to the 70's, automotive has trend has been in a decline. See link below and use MAX for timeline.

https://tradingeconomics.com/united-...car-production

I would like to read these reports. Can you provide some links? Do these reports say that new jobs will not be created?

I don't disagree that some jobs are going away for good. I am saying that automation will free up resources/investments and other jobs will be created.

My comment was


In the 70's and 80's when the decline began, was it because of automation or because of competition? I do think both played a role but think back then it was likely competition from Honda & Nissan etc. and the poor US quality

https://qz.com/941163/pwc-study-auto...-uk-and-japan/

Yes, some new jobs will be created, but when have we ever seen up to 50% of the job market replaced completely in 10-20 years?

Thanks. I went into the PWC report.


What I got from it is ...

New jobs will be created but net impact of employment is unclear ... government intervention ... through policies like increased investment in vocational education and training etc.

To your point, it also says "universal basic income schemes may also be considered those these suffer from potential problems in terms of affordability and adverse effects on the incentives to work and generate wealth."

I was googling on articles similar. I saw alot of "opinions" which I eliminated, alot of tech oriented sites that stated but have to take those with a grain of salt ...

And I consider these questions about the decline of the auto industry in the 1970s to be absolutely irrelevant when considering questions of automation on jobs in the 20th Century. The only possible relevance it has is that the boom in auto industry in the US is being propelled by highly automated plants in contrast to the ones in the 1950s, 1960s, and 1970s.

TBH, I think this 'competition' thread is a complete strawman argument. It doesn't account for manufacturing output being up (decidedly so) while at the same time manufacturing jobs are way down (decidedly so). No one is making the argument that manufacturing jobs aren't way down and that outsourcing caused some of that. Why that is doesn't particularly matter except to explain why those jobs aren't coming back. The automation today is still occurring. Previous job losses due to competition isn't particularly relevant.

My participation in this topic was in response to CM below.

CM examples were not only manufacturing focused and therefore I did not singularly focus on it ... so I'm not focused on argument on "manufacturing output".

I understand you and I started discussing based on your manufacturing comment but my intent was never just to focus on manufacturing.

FWIW.

I do Politico, NYT, WaPo & BBC so I guess I'm covered. I also do alot of CNN and definitely see them lean left quite a bit since Trump's election. Have to do more PBS and NPR.

These are the most — and the least — trusted news sources in the U.S. - MarketWatch

If I didn't have to work to make a living (or look for work to work to make a living...), I would probably look to do something else that I found rewarding or otherwise might not do. Attempt to code a football or baseball game, for example. Or further dabble in graphic design. Or go back to school, maybe become a GP to help in under-served areas. Or run for office. Or teach, or volunteer somewhere. Or heck, even go around picking up littler. There are plenty of things to do to improve the overall that take up time and/or don't pay. Maybe if more people didn't have to worry about money they could do them.

(It's equally likely I would just sit on my ass playing video games or stalk my kids. But hey, you know.)

Or do both. While I'm working on my dissertation and looking for a full time university job, I'm taking that extra time to catch up on Netflix and movies, to learn basic website building, to get back into marathon shape, and to write a novel I've had in mind for a couple of years now. I'd be fine living in a world where robots pick up trash and build transportation while people are free to pursue their passions and create whatever it is they like.

Going out on a limb here: you don't have kids?

I have not yet begun to spawn, nor do I intend to.

So US intel reportedly believes that North Korea can now miniaturize a nuke to put on their ICBMs.

Trump has said that North Korea would be met with "fire and fury" if it threatens the United States.

North Korea said on Wednesday it is "carefully examining" a plan to strike the U.S. Pacific territory of Guam with missiles.

Trump's next move?




Oh what fun times we live in.

I think Trump is incredibly dangerous, but Kim is insane if he's really willing to annihilate his people over a first strike on Guam.

I pray for everybody on the Korean peninsula.

Its bad when you are trying to negotiate with a crazy leader.

Its worse when there's 2 of them.

I'm just glad that Trump and Kim are more bark than bite so far. Otherwise I would have absolutely no peace of mind right now.

That's kind of where I'm at too. I have to think that the rest of the world will weigh in on a bigger scale if these two decide they really want to play rocketball.

I think 1 crazy leader and 1 authoritarian regime... More posturing, NK won't trade their existence for a strike on Guam. They have to look strong in front of their own starving population, because that's the only thing that keeps an authoritarian government in power.

This is where a major point of comfort is "well, at least he doesn't care about being true to his word, so we're probably ok for now."

Wheeeeeeee.

I don't think authoritarian and crazy are mutually exclusive.

I think NK is used to US leaders who are all talk, kicking the can down the road. Trump may turn out to follow the same path but IMO he is much less likely to do so.

Tough to figure out what the US stance is. Secretary of State is telling North Korea that we are not their enemy. Trump's aide was just on TV saying North Korea is not a threat. Trump is threatening the country in terms a tiny third world despot would use.

So the administration is simultaneously offering a hand in diplomacy, ignoring them, and threatening them.

.@SebGorka on MSNBC: "There's no such thing as a lone wolf...that was a phrase invented by the last administration to make Americans stupid"

— David Wright (@DavidWright_CNN) August 8, 2017

Be prepared, there is a small chance that our horrendous leadership could unknowingly lead us into World War III.

— Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) August 31, 2013

Like I've been saying, there is a tweet for every scenario.

Ah, had to check the date on that one Mckerney-now I understand.

I think Gorka was saying something along the lines of, "Every Islamic terrorist attack is an Islamic terrorist attck," which doesn't sound very insightful, but is about the level of his PhD dissertation.

They aren't mutually exclusive. NK is a different type of crazy though, in a "drunk the kool-aid" kind of way. I think the leadership there (and Kim Jong Un is as likely a figurehead as not IMO) probably actually believe in their system of government. Trump is crazy in an impulsive/illogical/nonsensical fashion, which is probably more dangerous when you consider what he has control of.

Kicking the can down the road might be the best course of action unless you are willing to risk all-out war in the region. In the grand scheme of things, NK are not a serious threat and could be squashed easily if need be, but the risk outweighs the reward as far as I can see. Biting back just gives their government legitimacy.

I spend 15 minutes trying to word this the right way and you just went ahead and took the thoughts right out of my head.

I would like to understand your position better because I see them as a serious threat now.

They have nukes that can threaten our allies and us. Questionable if its to the point where its accurate enough but that day will come.

Can you provide some examples of when you think NK is a serious threat? or when the reward outweighs the risk?

Is it because you don't think they will ultimately use their nukes and therefore will never be a serious threat?

We called them part of the "Axis of Evil" in 2002-03 and proceeded to wipe one of those members into the dustbin of history. The fact that they raced to nukes by 2006 and ICBM's possibly by 2017 might be the sanest thing they've done in years. They talk shit to us because it makes them look good at home. Problem is we now have a shit crazy leader, which is why China is trying to dial them in.

The goal isn't to win, the goal is to avert a war. Kicking their asses at the cost of a few million lives is no victory worth having.

That's exactly why I don't consider them a threat right now. NK are not nearly as insane or delusional as the press makes them out to be, and it makes zero sense for them to wipe themselves off the map by playing the nuke-card.

I can easily see situations where that would change - particularly if the regime was about to be toppled - but that's not something that is likely to occur without outside intervention. And 'outside intervention' could very well end up being something as simple as an ever-escalating war of words with Trump full of wonderful Hiroshima-esque imagery putting internal pressure on the regime.

You know who else has nukes that can threaten the US and their allies? As a citizen of one of your allies, I'm a lot more concerned about Russia's nukes than I am about anything NK can fire - add India, Pakistan, hell, even Israel, to that list.

Given the distance of a Guam strike, shouldn't it be fairly defensive-able. Maybe I don't totally understand ICBMs but I doubt they have that many to launch.

My first order as President was to renovate and modernize our nuclear arsenal. It is now far stronger and more powerful than ever before....

— Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) August 9, 2017

He totally didn't do that, did he.

Are you thinking about something (e.g. THAAD) that can shoot down the ICBMs? Bits and pieces I've read says its not 100% (or even close).

Hard to believe, but...

"Actually, it was Obama who launched $1-trillion modernization of the nuclear arsenal. A 30-year program."

MSNBC commentator on why stock market has not moved much, paraphrased ...

"Wall St doesn't think anything will happen and if it does, it'll be so big that it doesn't matter anyway"

http://www.cnn.com/2017/08/09/politi...rea/index.html

Well if God says its okay...

'God has given Donald Trump authority to take out Kim Jong-un,' President's evangelical adviser says | The Independent

God is surprisingly down with political assassination.

He had His own kid assassinated. Dude is harsh.