(08-02-2020, 07:55 PM)mikesez Wrote:

(08-02-2020, 07:35 PM)homebiscuit Wrote: Wonderfully aspirational and I don't disagree with it. But the fact of the matter is getting other countries to pay their fair share is easier said than done. Trump is the first president that demands they do, but you say he doesn't, so there's that.

Trump literally believes that the other countries are going to transfer the money to us, or at least be forced to use it to buy american-made hardware.
That's not how alliances or mutual defense work.
Maybe you want it to work that way. Or maybe you are charitably ignoring this part of Trump's rhetoric. "It's just a joke!"
Regardless, why are we demanding that certain allies spend 2% of their GDP on defense and calling it their fair share?
If that's the fair share, why are we spending 3.4% of our GDP on defense? 
By our own formulation, we are drastically overspending in this area!
Yet Trump and other Republicans are actually calling for us to spend more! Romney wanted 4%. That's insane!

I don't know what to say, you're all over the place. The fact of the matter is the United States is the heart of democracy around the world. If we fail it stands little chance of resisting totalitarianism elsewhere. We have an incumbent obligation and expectation to promote and defend freedom around the world, and we do. By all means, other countries that benefit should be paying more and there is an increasing push for redress. It's also good to keep proportionality in mind. During the Cold War we were spending around 5-10% GDP for defense while the Soviets were spending around 45%. While it would be ideal to turn more swords into plowshares, the fact of the matter is that as long as there are countries who want to topple America (especially at the costs the Soviets were willing to spend in money and social impoverishment) we cannot let up.

---

(08-02-2020, 08:04 PM)Senor Fantastico Wrote:

(08-02-2020, 07:24 PM)homebiscuit Wrote: Don't hold your breath. You know how Washington works.

Speaking of holding one's breath, I'm watching a 60 Minutes segment that says the emerald triangle in California makes more money growing pot than grapes and almonds combined. I think it's time for you start Breaking Bad.

It's very very popular right now but it's like the wild wild west, nothing is regulated in any way. We came very close to doing a few hundred acres of hemp for CBD, but even that was a little unsure. For instance, the very first step in the process, buying plants, has no governing body able to oversee the quality of the plants or the genetics involved. Get one plant wrong and you're suddenly Federally illegal and cultivating the whole field under.

There are guys smarter and with loads more money than I going belly-up trying. Besides I'm still paying for my baby almonds 

Yeah, as the segment progressed it revealed the industry as overly bureaucratic and self defeating. At least in California. Californians looove their red tape. Not all of you, of course.

---