Politics All Things Trump

[Chomiq]

To view this content we will need your consent to set third party cookies.
For more detailed information, see our cookies page.

Accept third party cookies

 

[BeNder]

BBC is probably more "just the facts" than ABC.

 

[BeNder]

To view this content we will need your consent to set third party cookies.
For more detailed information, see our cookies page.

Accept third party cookies

 

[Chazman]

Thune can go eff himself.

 

[BeNder]

To view this content we will need your consent to set third party cookies.
For more detailed information, see our cookies page.

Accept third party cookies

 

[Chazman]

Yes, you need an ID to buy taxpayer subsidized food but no ID to vote.

 

[madmax17]

View attachment 572379

To view this content we will need your consent to set third party cookies.
For more detailed information, see our cookies page.

Accept third party cookies

And he sued Bbc

 

[Chazman]

And he sued Bbc

He sued ABC too and got $16 million to settle.

 

[Chomiq]

And he sued Bbc

Maybe he just likes the other BBC. The ones from hub.

 

[Chazman]

To view this content we will need your consent to set third party cookies.
For more detailed information, see our cookies page.

Accept third party cookies

This will be an interesting experiment for the people of NYC. Taxpayer subsidized grocery stores will undercut regular grocery stores, forcing them to go out of business and close. They may be gone forever. Then the "well run" communist stores will be the only game in town. We'll see how that works out.

 

[NebrHogger]

This will be an interesting experiment for the people of NYC. Taxpayer subsidized grocery stores will undercut regular grocery stores, forcing them to go out of business and close. They may be gone forever. Then the "well run" communist stores will be the only game in town. We'll see how that works out.

Hmmm... if regular gro stores start going under, how long before shoplifting gangs begin looting Mammy's stores on the theory he won't do much if anything?

 

[Chazman]

Hmmm... if regular gro stores start going under, how long before shoplifting gangs begin looting Mammy's stores on the theory he won't do much if anything?

Yup. What about the corrupt commies running them?

 

[Fluff]

This will be an interesting experiment for the people of NYC. Taxpayer subsidized grocery stores will undercut regular grocery stores, forcing them to go out of business and close. They may be gone forever. Then the "well run" communist stores will be the only game in town. We'll see how that works out.

It will be chaos.
Normal stores will start buying from the state shops, to resell.
Rich people will go to state shops, just to get the bag.
The state stores won’t run efficiently, even before the 30% lower prices are applied. Let’s say a normal store sells $1m per month, with a 5% profit. Your state stores are going to lose half a mil each, per month. 5 stores, is $30m a year.
The normal stores will either close, or only sell stuff not sold by the state stores, so choice and availability will go down.
The state stores will ration stock, so will look like Russian stores.

 

[HorniePonie]

I will just leave this here. Opinions on this masterpiece?

To view this content we will need your consent to set third party cookies.
For more detailed information, see our cookies page.

Accept third party cookies

 

[Chazman]

It will be chaos.
Normal stores will start buying from the state shops, to resell.
Rich people will go to state shops, just to get the bag.
The state stores won’t run efficiently, even before the 30% lower prices are applied. Let’s say a normal store sells $1m per month, with a 5% profit. Your state stores are going to lose half a mil each, per month. 5 stores, is $30m a year.
The normal stores will either close, or only sell stuff not sold by the state stores, so choice and availability will go down.
The state stores will ration stock, so will look like Russian stores.

It's going to be a complete and utter $hitshow.

 

[BeNder]

Dennis, there's some lovely filth down here!

 

[Fluff]

To view this content we will need your consent to set third party cookies.
For more detailed information, see our cookies page.

Accept third party cookies

 

[BeNder]

To view this content we will need your consent to set third party cookies.
For more detailed information, see our cookies page.

Accept third party cookies

You can build about ten Flight III Arleigh Burke-class destroyers for that.

Just design a larger Arleigh Burke-class (proven design) with more VL packages and keep the Mark 45 X2 bow.

You can't reload at sea (at least the VL). You want a boatload (pun intended) of missiles if you are up against a country like China. Blow your load and you have to retreat to the nearest friendly base that can reload your packages .

 

[Chazman]

You can build about ten Flight III Arleigh Burke-class destroyers for that.

Just design a larger Arleigh Burke-class (proven design) with more VL packages and keep the Mark 45 X2 bow.

You can't reload at sea (at least the VL). You want a boatload (pun intended) of missiles if you are up against a country like China. Blow your load and you have to retreat to the nearest friendly base that can reload your packages .

I'm not sure I believe that figure to be honest. The BBG is an interesting thought exercise though. The Burkes are completely maxed out. The next gen ship will need to be substantially larger and produce a lot more electrical power. At some level, the ships make some sense. But the quoted cost is not very sustainable. Personally, I think it will all lead to a 15-20,000 ton Burke replacement.

 

[BeNder]

Honestly, looking at where our Navy is heading, we need to stop chasing over-engineered pipe dreams and start focusing on sheer numbers and proven designs. The idea of building massive nuclear-powered cruisers or battleship-style ships is completely unrealistic. Nuclear power sounds great, but even a carrier relies entirely on its support fleet, and we’d never be able to build those huge hulls in any meaningful quantity anyway. Meanwhile, China is pumping out destroyers like clockwork. They might be less capable on paper than ours, but the can launch massive missile salvoes. In a regional fight, having enough hulls in the water to throw missiles matters more than having a handful of silver bullets. Our shipbuilding industry is already struggling, and recent experimental programs like the Zumwalts and those failed LCS frigates—getting retired after just a few years with cracking hulls—were a massive waste of time and money. We need to double down on what actually works and just keep cranking out Arleigh Burke Flight IIIs. Their gas turbines generate more than enough power and redundancy for modern systems, they have great deck guns and missile capacity, and since you can't reload VLS cells at sea, having more proven ships out there is the only way we stay ahead in the interim. I was thinking maby a stretched version with many more cells plus adding packages with drone swarm capabilities.

Nuke powered warship (expendable) is a waste of money imo. It's pretty worthless once it out of firesticks, can't really protect the long time on station carriers, with deck guns.

I doubt our shipbuilding capabilities at this time could make a battle cruiser.