segnosaur

First of all, keep in mind that the U.S. did put itself at a disadvantage during some of the conflicts by the various rules of engagement it was under. For example, I believe they were required to identify aircraft visually before shooting them down. Without that requirement, the use of long-range missiles would have been much more effective. Secondly, as another poster pointed out, technology does change. Missiles are more accurate today than they were in the past, and other avionics have also improved.

While that might be noble concept, I think our history in military conflicts and self defense should provide a few clear guidelines about what we will need from an aircraft. We know (based on the size of our territory) that we will need something with a long range. We also know that we routinely engage in missions with allied countries, so interoperability is important. The other issue is that if we attempt to define the mission and pick the right aircraft is that we may be hampering future governments. It may be preferable to buy a plane that exceeds what we expect from it, with the idea that we won't put future governments in the position of saying "We'd like to do mission X, but a purchase decision 2 decades ago means we can't participate". We should have enough information about what we need out of our planes now. So at the very least we should begin the competition process. Unmanned drones may be the "way of the future", and will gradually take on a larger and larger role. But the technology is not yet able to provide the required functionality to replace manned fighter jets, and probably won't be for at least a couple of decades. The biggest issue is probably situational awareness... fighter pilots can easily look around and see the entire sky and react instantly. Drones on the other hand don't have the ability to transmit enough data so that their pilots can see all around them, and delays in transmitting/receiving signals would put them at a disadvantage.

Why is it a necessity? The Canadian military has already stated that with the latest upgrades that the CF18 fleet would be operational for approximately a decade. Not that that's ideal, but we should be able to have enough time to run a proper competition before they need to be retired. However why not the Gripen E ? ... will carry more then enough smart bombs to perform precision ground operations Who decides how many smart bombs is "more than enough"? Sounds like a pretty vague claim. While the Gripen can carry a fairly wide range of weapons, it still can't carry the variety of weapons (as well as the total load) of either the F35 or the Super Hornet.

No, it isn't. Canada's CF18 fleet is based on the earlier F18 A/B designs. When the U.S. navy wanted a new plane, they almost started from the ground-up... While the planes have a similar shape, The F18E/F super hornet is substantially different than the previous F18A-D and CF18.... larger size, different engines, different avionics, etc.(The U.S. just used the designation 'F18' to get around rules regarding developing new planes.) So, our flight crews and pilots will be dealing with what is almost a completely new plane, which requires a significant learning process. All to purchase a plane that may be nearing the end of its production run.

Not exactly a comparable situation. When Australia bought the its latest F18 Super Horents, they were replacing F-111s, that were first delivered in 1973. The planes were old, and were (for the most part) worn out. Canada's fleet of CF18s first entered service in the early 1980s, almost a decade after Australia started flying its F-111s. And while the CF18 is getting old and does need replacement, the last set of upgrades should keep them useful for at least a few more years. Lets face it, this "Buy Super-Hornets as a temporary measure" is just the way for the Liberals to try to rig the system, since the F35 will be at a disadvantage in any competition because the Liberals can always ask "How compatible is your plane with our current fleet" (which gives the advantage to the super hornet).

Yes there is. (In fact I think Obama and Hillary actually voted for it at one point.) But the wall is expensive to build and maintain, harms wildlife, and is a hassle to many people who live on the border, who often have their lands seized or their property divided. Clinton was smart enough to see the mistake and not propose expanding on it. Trump and his supporters are not. They see the stupidity and want to double down, by making the same mistake only making it bigger, more expensive, more harmful to taxpayers, more harmful to wildlife. Trumps actual quotation: I will build a great wall – and nobody builds walls better than me, believe me. At other points he gave more details about what he wants the wall to be like. The point is, his statement was pretty clear that he was referring to an actual physical barrier, not some enhanced patrols or something similar. Now, if you think that his plan all along was to simply put more border security in place, then you have to admit his talk of a "wall" was a lie.

Nope, not at all. But, what you have to do is look at things in a rational way. First of all is that you have to consider costs, both in enforcing sovereignty (cost of building a wall/paying for law enforcement/lawyers/etc.), and in the economical side effects (e.g. removing all illegal immigrants might negatively impact certain business that rely on their cheap labor. Plus, from a government perspective, illegal immigrants often pay more into the government in various taxes than they get in services.) Secondly, you have to consider the end goal. End crime? The hysterics put forward by Trump, and echoed by bestsy (OMG! Rapists! widespread kidnapping) are certainly not supported by evidence. Protect American jobs? Stop terrorism? Then, you have to decide on a course of action, weighing the cost of each potential action against your stated goals. Building a wall will have horrendous costs (both in costing the taxpayers billions, in the environmental impact, and in requiring the government to steal other people's land) but will do almost nothing to protect people, nor to stop immigrants from "stealing our jobs". But the fact that one possible solution is idiotic doesn't mean that other solutions aren't possible. For example, more money spent investigating crime in immigrant areas, which would actually target those who commit crime. Or investigating companies who hire illegal aliens.

There is an episode of the series Pen & Teller: B.S. that dealt with illegal immigration. They hired 3 illegal immigrants to build a replica segment of the wall/fence, to the same specification as parts of the wall currently along the border. At the end of the day, after the wall segment had been completed, they gave them one last task: Get through the wall. 2 went over, one went under. None of them took more than 5 minutes. None needed any special equipment Yet this is the "barrier" that people like Betsy think are going to protect people from the "evil" mexicans. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Penn_%26_Teller:_Bullshit!_episodes#Season_5_.282007.29 (Not sure if that URL will be filtered out, because of a profanity in the name. If it is, my apologies.)

To me, some of the people protesting but didn't vote make no sense, especially if they knew what Trump was saying and how many protesting are not citizens but illegals? I agree that anyone who didn't vote is partially culpable for Trump's success, and anyone protesting after not voting deserves scorn. But a specific claim was made that there were news articles that talked about non-voters and illegal immigrants in the protests. I wanted to know where those news articles were.

Just out of curiosity, what news sources are you referring to? Is this another example of alt-right sources making stuff up for gullible people?

You keep saying that, but you are making a statement with absolutely no evidence at all. Once again: As I have already given evidence for: most illegal immigrants did not enter the U.S. across the U.S./Mexico border. Hard to "greatly reduce" illegal immigration rates if its not even addressing the main way they are getting into the country Is there something about that that seems too complex for you? Again, another baseless assertion. I have already given multiple ways that a wall or fence have negative impacts: seizing people's land, subdividing U.S. territory, harming wildlife. I've also given references to show this has actually happened. Never mind the cost of the wall (which various estimates put up as high as $25 billion, which works out to over $200 for every man, woman and child in the United States.) All to stop a group of people who are causing less violent crime in the United States than native born Americans. Are you ever going to address those issues? The people who have seen their land seized to build the existing fences? The horrible effect on the local wildlfe? You've totally ignored those points. All you have done is stuck your fingers in your ears and shouted "La la la I can't hear you!". Its sad. And pathetic. Is pathetisad a word? Its amazing how idiotic Trump supporters can be... they are worried about Hillary "taking their freedoms", yet they will vote for a man who wants to take hundreds of dollars of their tax money (per person) to build a wall that will require the government to steal thousands of acres of land from hard-working Americans. And we're supposed to believe Trump is in it for the "little guy".

Well, there are 2 problems here: 1) Trump himself decides on his cabinet, so that there's a good chance that he will appoint a bunch of incompetents and/or yes men who will echo whatever empty-headed idea he gets 2) Trump is prone to manipulation, which means that the U.S. may end up getting "ruled" by shadowy people that they didn't actually vote for. Problems: 1) Trump and the Republicans agree on many issues (e.g. restricting abortion, ending Obamacare, eliminating banking restrictions, cut taxes to the rich) 2) On many of the things they don't agree on, its possible that neither side feels strongly enough to actually do anything to stop the other. Trump may not go out on a limb if Congress tries to restrict gay rights, congress may not stand up to Trump if he tries to end NAFTA. Both Trump and the Republicans in the house are in the same boat... built their reputation largely on Obama and Hillary hate rather than facts and policies. Democrats don't have a majority in either house. Furthermore, between gerrymandering, and the fact that more Democratic seats are at risk at the next mid-term elections, its unlikely that they'll have much more power to oppose trump before the end of his term Well, considering the number of former Goldman Sachs executives he has working as advisors, I doubt he'll get into much of an argument with the bankers. I'm sure they're all looking forward to the next repeat of the 2008 meltdown, and Trump seems to be quite eager to help them along. Problem is, the military is supposed to be non-political. I'm sure Trump will try to do things which are illegal (which will be opposed), but its not like the generals can do that much arguing, and what they do will probably have to be behind closed doors. Why would Trump care what "American Allies" actually think? (He should.. he just probably isn't smart enough to.) Instead, he'll point to his bromance with Putin as an example of how great he is at foreign relations, ignoring the fact that he's pissed off his NATO and NAFTA partners.

No I don't. In fact that was the point I was making.... that the wall would be mostly ineffective in doing anything to stop illegal immigration, especially when compared to the costs. Not really sure what your point is here. I've been claiming the wall will be pretty much ineffective. Now it seems you're agreeing with me. So why are you suggesting its still a good thing? Trump's exact words: This election is our last chance to secure the border, stop illegal immigration, and reform our laws to make your life better. (from: http://www.cnn.com/2016/08/31/politics/donald-trump-immigration-speech/) Notice the use of the word "stop"? Trump didn't promise to slow down illegal immigration. He said he would stop it. Which, to a person familiar with the english language, would mean ended. Terminated. No more. So Trump certainly made a claim that illegal immigration would be stopped. Many of his supporters foolishly assumed he would do so. No, I don't think they would. I've already pointed out the various problems with the wall and the effect that it has on the people that live there... many people have their land seized, property gets subdivided, American territory gets left on the Mexican side of the fence. These are all negative effects. And, lets face it, its an eyesore. As for the "criminal element"... From: http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation/2015/07/16/voices-gomez-undocumented-immigrant-crime-san-francisco-shooting/30159479/ ... incarceration rates for males between 18 and 39, since most crimes are committed by males in that age range. Using data from the 2010 Census, the report found that 1.6% of foreign-born males are in jail, compared with 3.3% of the native-born population... studies conducted in recent decades. In each case, they found evidence to show that undocumented immigrants were less likely to commit violent crimes than their native-born neighbors. So those illegal immigrants crossing the border may actually be less of a threat to people living on the border than native born Americans. So why would people living on the border want to see their hard-earned tax dollars being spent in order to have the government grab their land and put up an ugly wall or fence that won't stop illegal immigrants, who for the most part are less of a threat to the people living there than people who were actually born in the U.S.? The fact that a majority of people believe a foolish thing doesn't necessarily mean that the thing they believe in is not foolish. Except its not a tsunami. In fact, illegal immigration is actually down over the past few years. Nor will the wall do anything to affect that flow, because as I pointed out, border crossings do not constitute a majority of illegal immigrants. My "blather" is based on actual facts, for which I have provided numerous references. You on the other hand have engaged in the empty, factless hysterics that seem to have fueled Trump's campaign. Nobody is suggesting the issue of illegal immigration should be ignored. But its a complex subject, with significant social and economic repercussions. The empty-headed mantra of "build a wall" illustrates emotion over reason, hysteria over facts.

That is one of those really bizarre arguments that is sometimes thrown about that makes absolutely no sense. So, the rich woman from (lets say) Texas, who just forgot her birth control can afford to fly to New York for a week, take in a broadway play when she's there, stay at Trump's hotel, and get an abortion while she's there. But the poor worker who makes a living flipping hamburgers for minimum wage who was the victim of sexual assault? So sorry... you're screwed. Have fun carrying an unwanted baby for 9 months. Its your fault for being poor in a backwards state. Its basically the antithesis of what you expect in a free society, where you want everyone to have similar rights regardless of wealth or position. This is not an issue like "What should the sales tax be", or "What should the state flower be?", something that makes sense as a state right; it involves control over your body, something that should be the same across the country.

Another thing that doesn't make any sense... he claims that gay marriage won't be change because "its decided", but he plans to get abortion overturned. Why is overturning one ruling possible, but the other is somehow carved in stone?

But, but... Clinton Foundation! Pay for Play! Goldman Sachs! Trump is squeaky clean I tell you! He's not beholden to anyone! (Did I miss any of the regular anti-Hillary rhetoric?)

It will be useless because 1) As I said, most illegal immigrants don't sneak across the US/Mexican border, and 2) The ones who do can easily get around a wall or fence. As for Austria building a fence... so what? They don't have it in place now. There are European countries that have built fences, but for the most part it just means refugees end up using smugglers, or going around the fences, or finding other ways though. From: http://www.reuters.com/article/us-europe-migrants-fences-insight-idUSKCN0X10U7 in the short term at least, they have not stopped people trying to come. Instead, they have diverted them, often to longer, more dangerous routes... As a solution, some migrants and refugees buy fake papers. Others stow away in vehicles. Or they turn to people-smugglers. So, what's your point? If you're suggesting the unfenced part will be walled, then the cost is increased. If you're suggesting the unfenced parts will be left with nothing, then you end up with a gap so that people can go around the barriers. From: http://www.nationalreview.com/article/424879/visa-overstays-todays-immigration-crisis-mark-krikorian 2012, when nearly 60 percent of new illegal immigrants are believed to have entered legally on some sort of visa (or visa-waiver status, if they’re from a developed country) and then just stayed on after their time expired. And of course there are also the people who have entered the U.S. on sham marriages, or illegally cross the border at crossings by hiding in cars (i.e. the type of things that a wall or fence won't stop.) By the way, I notice you ignored 2 issues that I raised earlier... 1) That any wall or fence will significantly harm wildlife in the area From: http://www.newsweek.com/2016/02/26/environmental-impact-us-mexico-border-wall-426310.html Species with small populations and specialized habitats have suffered the most from the disruption, says Jesse Lasky, an assistant professor of biology at Penn State. He co-authored a 2011 study reporting that the barrier reduced the range for some species by as much as 75 percent. Small range size is associated with a higher risk of extinction 2) That those that live near the border fence often end up with problems, such as having land expropriated to build the fence, or having their property divided. Given the fact that Trump and the republicans are supposed to be defending the little guy against big bad government, it seems ironic that Trump would want to use government to squash people's property rights. http://www.nydailynews.com/entertainment/tv/oliver-dumps-trump-wall-plans-week-tonight-article-1.2571670

I don't think it would "ruin america". It would be horribly unfair, an idiotic decision, and a bad idea. But, lets face it, its an issue that, biologically, wouldn't impact half the population. And lets face it, even when abortions are legal, most women don't get them. (Women, heck everyone should care, I'm just not convinced that they will, with enough vigor to change anything.) There may be wide scale protests, but those would eventually pass. And lets face it, Trump had no problem spouting off bigoted comments during the election (things that likewise would cause widespread problems), but it didn't stop him, even though those comments were harmful. I can't see him taking any more care when it comes to abortion.

I know he won't personally do it, but I'm willing to bet he won't appoint the people to get it done, either. What makes you think that will be the case? Trump said he'd do it during the election. Trump has said he'd do so after the election (so he's been consistent as of late). Many republican congress critters want Row v. Wade overturned. The republican party has a hardcore base of supporters who want it overturned. Unlike gay marriage (where at least trump supporters can point to conflicting statements he made on the issue so they can believe anything they want), his stance on abortion has been pretty black-and-white.

Isn't abortion a "done law" too? What makes that abortion rights any different than the right to get married if you're gay? Neither of them are "done laws", since there are always areas where there can be interference. For example, Texas passed a bunch of regulations affecting abortion clinics, with the end result of closing down a bunch of them. (Regulations included things like mandating the width of hallways, which isn't an issue in abortion clinics, only hospitals.) So, abortion wasn't "banned", the state just passed a bunch of laws making it really really hard for thousands of women to get them (unless they had the money to travel hundreds of miles to other cities, etc.) The supreme court eventually struck down the Texas law by a vote of 5-3. But, if Trump gets the ability to make just 2 supreme court nominations, the law would have been upheld by a vote of 5-4. http://www.cnn.com/2016/06/27/politics/supreme-court-abortion-texas/ The same sort of think may happen with gay rights... while the courts may not necessarily rule "homosexuality is illegal", what you will likely see are anti-gay laws passed in various jurisdictions (such as the North Carolina bathroom bill) that pick away at gay rights even if the laws don't go as far as rounding up gay people and firing them into the sun. Its one of the concepts that Trump supporters seem to not understand... you can have bigoted or problematic laws that are bad for people, bad for the country, even if they don't go as far as completely ban. Then again, there is also the possibility that the Supreme court can over-rule itself, as has happened in the past. In theory, a state could pass an anti-gay marriage bill that would have failed according to the previous decision, and a conservative-biased supreme court can overrule the previous ruling. http://money.howstuffworks.com/10-overturned-supreme-court-cases.htm

Trump himself wouldn't be overturning Roe vs. Wade.... instead, he'd be appointing supreme court justices, who might then overturn it (assuming Trump actually gets the opportunity to make more than 1 supreme court nomination, likely given the ages of those currently on the court.) He'd be at arms-length from the decision. Heck, he might not even be in office at the time it gets overturned (since the supreme court appointments last long past the end of the presidential term.)

I'm at work, so I can't watch the clip. But if its the one I'm thinking about, its when he was addressing the Republican national convention. There, his comment was that he would protect them from foreign harm. I suspect at least some of the cheering was not for gay people, but it was against the evil foreigners. (Make America great again, by making all the bigotry home-grown!) I'd also avoid reading too much into the audience reaction. Its a big political rally... Trump probably could have read from the phone book and gotten the same reaction. I suspect most of the people there are quite willing to think they're decent people and that they "love the gays", but won't have any moral problems if (for example) gay marriage gets overturned. And once again, we are not denying Trump made a pro-gay statement... we are questioning his position because he has made multiple anti-gay statements too, and we just don't trust him because of that conflict.

Trump's position. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7WMnoa8dLw8 First of all, why exactly are you assuming his position as given in the video is his actual true position? He's made many conflicting statements on the matter, so why are you trusting one of them as the guideline for what he'll follow over another? (And more importantly, he's made those conflicting statements within this election cycle... its not like some statement that was dug up from decades ago, where his opinion may have changed.) Secondly, how exactly does he plan to support the LGBT community? Remember, one of his claims is that he would appoint right-leaning judges in order to restrict abortion. While abortion and gay rights are separate issues, there is usually considerable overlap with their supporters (e.g. anti-abortionists are often anti-gay). In his rush to restrict abortion, he may end up with a side effect of negatively affecting gay rights at the supreme court level. In my opinion, a politician who has given so many contradictory statements should be viewed skeptically. Even if he claims now to support gay rights, the fact that he was willing to consider an anti-gay stance means he probably doesn't feel that strongly about it. (Add to that the fact that so much of his voter base was composed of right-wing religious nut jobs.) So should congress decide to pass some sort of "gay people are evil" bill, Trump probably doesn't have the moral fiber to oppose it.

Well, how about the fact that it would be a pretty much useless endeavor. Most illegal aliens did not get into the U.S. by sneaking across the border... most are in the country on expired Visas. And even if some crossed the border, neither a wall nor fence are likely to stop them. And even if a fence can be built faster/cheaper than a wall, its still going to cost millions/billions. And then there are all the other side effects: The harm to wildlife (both a fence and a wall would interfere with migration patterns of various species in the area. The annoyance to those who live in the area. (Since neither a fence nor a wall can go exactly along the border, some American land has to be used for it. The existing fences has caused problems for residents in the area, as they often have seen property divided by the existing fence. They have to sometimes go through border control just to get to other parts of of the U.S.) Both Obama and Clinton had supported the previous work to build the fence. Both seem to have realized it was a mistake. On the other hand, Trump is doubling down on the stupidity, taking what was a bad idea and expanding on it. Oh, and there's yet another reason... it was a broken election promise by Trump. Trump promised a wall. Not a fence. His supporters should be annoyed if they don't get their wall. But then most of them are too dumb to realize it. Only a complete and total idiot would think that Mexico would be paying for an American wall. Which explains why Trump supporters would think its a possibility.

But he did. He'll fire all the generals. And ask them to come up with a plan to defeat ISIS. But it doesn't matter because he's smarter than the generals. He's also suggested committing war crimes (killing the families of terrorists, even when they are not themselves engaged in terrorist activity) and using bullets dipped in pigs blood. Trump has suggested he might cancel the F35. https://www.airforcetimes.com/story/military/2015/10/29/trump-wants-fire-f-35/74800906/