Are people already regretting their choice?

[unapologetic]

The military has been at the forefront of medical research for as long as medical research has existed.

OK. So how is brain cancer relevant to the military?

 

[bilby]

The military has been at the forefront of medical research for as long as medical research has existed.

OK. So how is brain cancer relevant to the military?

I don't know. Perhaps some research is needed...

 

[bilby]

Seriously, though, the military has lots of experts in many and varied fields, who are kept on hand just in case they are needed.

While these experts are waiting just in case, they need to do something to stay sharp and maintain their skills; And if that training can be made to have other benefits for society, then that's a good thing - if only because it provides at least some return on the dollars spent to keep these folks around.

Helicopter pilots might assist in firefighting, search and rescue, or supply drops to natural disaster sites, for example; Or brain surgeons might do research into the abnormalities that lead astrocytes to become malignant tumors; Or engineers might build flood mitigation schemes.

All these things help to keep up a skillset that might be urgently needed for military purposes in the event of an attack on the US.

The simplistic idea that a military should never do anything other than kill enemy military personnel or destroy enemy military infrastructure, is absurd; and cutting any part of the DoD that is not solely engaged in that simplistic goal would rapidly lead to a far less powerful military, easily defeated by the next enemy to come down the road.

Hyper-specialisation isn't efficiency, it's fragility. And that applies across the entire field of human endeavour, but particularly in government, and even more particularly in the military.

 

[Spacetime Inhabitant]

Also military medical research is not just confined to diseases. It is important for militaries (and it flows on to civilian sector) to study injury treatments, anti-trauma methods, rehabilitative techniques, and so on.

 

[Swammerdami]

Hyper-specialisation isn't efficiency, it's fragility....

This is closely related to a complaint I frequently make about what I call "hyper-efficiency." I'll give just two examples:

* Hyper-efficiency in financial markets lead to big bets on derivatives and methods like HFT whose alleged social value is, at its best, to reduce buy-sell spreads by a penny or two. But at its worst this hyper-efficiency with its associated fragility led to the crises seen in 2008.

* Supporting the over-sized human population requires agriculture hyper-efficiencies (e.g. crop "optimization" and loss of diversity) counter to and more fragile than robust natural ecology. Our grandchildren who ask "What happened to all the birds, Daddy?" will be answered with "We needed to bring down the price of hamburgers by 3%."

Seriously, though, the military has lots of experts in many and varied fields, who are kept on hand just in case they are needed.

While these experts are waiting just in case, they need to do something to stay sharp and maintain their skills; And if that training can be made to have other benefits for society, then that's a good thing - if only because it provides at least some return on the dollars spent to keep these folks around.

Helicopter pilots might assist in firefighting, search and rescue, or supply drops to natural disaster sites, for example; Or brain surgeons might do research into the abnormalities that lead astrocytes to become malignant tumors; Or engineers might build flood mitigation schemes.

All these things help to keep up a skillset that might be urgently needed for military purposes in the event of an attack on the US.

The simplistic idea that a military should never do anything other than kill enemy military personnel or destroy enemy military infrastructure, is absurd; and cutting any part of the DoD that is not solely engaged in that simplistic goal would rapidly lead to a far less powerful military, easily defeated by the next enemy to come down the road.

Hyper-specialisation isn't efficiency, it's fragility. And that applies across the entire field of human endeavour, but particularly in government, and even more particularly in the military.

The traditional objection to bilby's argument is that military units need to maximize discipline and focus. But do the old ideas apply to the modern military, where soldiers are much more likely to be interacting with a computer than engaging in hand-to-hand combat?

 

[bilby]

Hyper-specialisation isn't efficiency, it's fragility....

This is closely related to a complaint I frequently make about what I call "hyper-efficiency." I'll give just two examples:

* Hyper-efficiency in financial markets lead to big bets on derivatives and methods like HFT whose alleged social value is, at its best, to reduce buy-sell spreads by a penny or two. But at its worst this hyper-efficiency with its associated fragility led to the crises seen in 2008.

* Supporting the over-sized human population requires agriculture hyper-efficiencies (e.g. crop "optimization" and loss of diversity) counter to and more fragile than robust natural ecology. Our grandchildren who ask "What happened to all the birds, Daddy?" will be answered with "We needed to bring down the price of hamburgers by 3%."

Seriously, though, the military has lots of experts in many and varied fields, who are kept on hand just in case they are needed.

While these experts are waiting just in case, they need to do something to stay sharp and maintain their skills; And if that training can be made to have other benefits for society, then that's a good thing - if only because it provides at least some return on the dollars spent to keep these folks around.

Helicopter pilots might assist in firefighting, search and rescue, or supply drops to natural disaster sites, for example; Or brain surgeons might do research into the abnormalities that lead astrocytes to become malignant tumors; Or engineers might build flood mitigation schemes.

All these things help to keep up a skillset that might be urgently needed for military purposes in the event of an attack on the US.

The simplistic idea that a military should never do anything other than kill enemy military personnel or destroy enemy military infrastructure, is absurd; and cutting any part of the DoD that is not solely engaged in that simplistic goal would rapidly lead to a far less powerful military, easily defeated by the next enemy to come down the road.

Hyper-specialisation isn't efficiency, it's fragility. And that applies across the entire field of human endeavour, but particularly in government, and even more particularly in the military.

The traditional objection to bilby's argument is that military units need to maximize discipline and focus. But do the old ideas apply to the modern military, where soldiers are much more likely to be interacting with a computer than engaging in hand-to-hand combat?

Even if they are not using computers (or mostly not using computers), such roles as disaster recovery use and train for skills needed in combat - including discipline and focus.

Digging civilians out of a building that was flattened by an earthquake isn't radically different from digging squad-mates out of a building that was flattened by enemy artillery fire.

Modern soldiers, at every level, need to be flexible, intelligent, and goal-driven, rather than pedantic and ignorant followers of orders. The difference in effectiveness between these two doctrines goes a long way to explaining why Ukraine is able to hold its own against the vastly numerically superior Russians.

 

[Swammerdami]

Returning to the topic denoted in Thread title, did @RVonse ever respond to my request (partly excerpted below)? If he did I missed it.

For most of us here, the sheer malice and stupidity of Trump's policies is on vivid display. We already knew Trump's nature and knew about Project 2025, but to watch them unfold in reality boggles the mind despite all warnings that this was coming.

Yet Trump's approval rating is still in the same 50% ballpark where it's always been. Much of that is due to sheer ignorance: Trump supporters are very poorly informed in general. Some think that "inflation" has something to do with balloons for children's parties and "Drill baby drill!" delights them just for the sexual innuendo.

Yet some Trumpists -- RVonse is our clearest example here -- think they are informed. If we can somehow induce even ONE confused Trumpist to acknowledge reality, we may have a model for preventing this rush to fascism.

RVonse? PLEASE try again. Seek out news stories from sites you usually avoid. If you think they're just filled with lies, discuss them here. Maybe they ARE lies and you convince some Infidels to join the Trump wagon.

The rest of you: If RVonse refuses to leave his tunnel, that will help us answer the question in Thread title: "Are people already regretting their choice?" No, they revel in Trump's idiocies and fascism. So what does this teach us about human cognition in the 21st century?

@RVonse -- Are you still playing along? We hope to play a lottery on an over-under of when you come to your senses. I think you really DO have a 100+ IQ and am betting on "before the end of 2026." But I'll lose my bet unless you start reading real news, and try sincerely to attain objectivity.

I hope you will click to alternet.org and glance at the headlines. Read 2 or 3 stories that seem like they might challenge your preconceptions. If you run into a paywall, tell me and I'll try to find an alternate link for you.

One of the headlines is "Army erases WWII vet Medgar Evers from Arlington National Cemetery website." That saddened me; I clicked; and copied an excerpt below. Is that the sort of thing you are proud of Trump for? Oddly Trump once called him “a great American hero." Does Trump's willingness to change this view demonstrate cognitive agility?

Some other headline's at today's Alternet:

• "'They put me into a freezer': Trump’s ex-lawyer describes '51 days of abuse and torture'"
• "The US is on its way to becoming 'a totally lawless state': anti-Trump Republican"
• "'Already happening': Outrage as seniors claim Trump is already 'stealing' benefits "
• "The end of capitalism – or the end of civilization? The choice could be that stark"
• "Republicans lay down the law: Call us racist and we’ll crush you like a bug."
• "Trump halted a clean-up that puts hundreds of thousands at risk for poisoning."
• "Trump’s trade war imperiling 'global economy' — and igniting fears of 'stagflation'."
• "'I will not be silenced': Congressman posts letter Trump DOJ sent him for criticizing Musk."
• "'Wreck' the economy: 'Shocking' consumer sentiment plummets as Trump's policies take hold."

This is only a small sample of the stories at the site. Surely you will be proud to click 2 or 3 and debunk them. Or show your objectivity if you can and read FOUR of the stories! There are other sites on the 'Net that offer real news instead of the fake news you ingest. Can you show some acumen? I'm rooting for you!!
...
Instead of complaining that you can only read fake news -- real news is too often pay-walled, read one of those stories.

 

[Swammerdami]

The sudden market downturn in response to Trump's tariffs will surely awaken some Trumpists. If you can tolerate Rachel Maddow, she presents the origin of Trump's tariffs beginning at the 6:35 mark in this video.

Trump's obsession with tariffs began when Jared Kushner, aware of his father-in-law's "thinking" and "knowing" that there was no risk of actually winning the 2016 election and putting stupid ideas into play, browsed through titles on Amazon, and found Death by China by Peter Navarro. The semi-literate Trump fell in love with the title, and adopted its pro-tariff stance The book cited the "work" of economist Ron Vara who turned out to be a totally fictional character invented by Death by China's author !!! "Ron Varo" is an anagram of "Navarro"!!

 

[TV and credit cards]

The military has been at the forefront of medical research for as long as medical research has existed.

OK. So how is brain cancer relevant to the military?

I don't know. Perhaps some research is needed...

I suppose we're a good source of folks willing to volunteer for various studies. I have no problem spitting in a tube and mailing it off.
Two I'm a part of if they haven't been shitcanned.

Prostate Cancer, Genetic Risk, and Equitable Screening Study (ProGRESS)

#pageTitle#

www.research.va.gov

Million Veteran Program (MVP)

Million Veteran Program (MVP)

www.research.va.gov

If they find anything, maybe they'll share it with y'all.

23+ years and the closest I got to combat was an angry volcano and extreme boredom in the Persian Gulf. I didn't think of myself as being employed. I thought of myself as being maintained.

 

[GenesisNemesis]

Does it worry anybody else that the DoD has a medical research program?

Not really. It would worry me if they didn't.

Historically, armies have always suffered massively from disease. Indeed, the first time in history in which a combatant army at war suffered fewer casualties from disease than they did from enemy action, was the Vietnam War in the 1960's and '70s.

Penicillin (and particularly the technique for its mass production) was a closely guarded military secret from shortly after its discovery in 1928, until the end of WWII. That's why Fleming, Florey and Chain weren't awarded their Nobel until 1945.

The military has been at the forefront of medical research for as long as medical research has existed.

It worries me more when people assume nefarious reasons for medical research. And when they just let fear guide their assumptions.

 

[southernhybrid]

Apparently not all are regretting their votes

 

[Elixir]

Indeed, the first time in history in which a combatant army at war suffered fewer casualties from disease than they did from enemy action, was the Vietnam War in the 1960's and '70s.

Which army? N Vietnamese? I'd expect them to be more resistant to local pathogens that the Americans...

 

[robnisch]

Gun makers and dealers do not do well in right wing admins. They love Liberal Dem admins. More fear, more gun sales.

 

[RVonse]

The sudden market downturn in response to Trump's tariffs will surely awaken some Trumpists. If you can tolerate Rachel Maddow, she presents the origin of Trump's tariffs beginning at the 6:35 mark in this video.

Trump's obsession with tariffs began when Jared Kushner, aware of his father-in-law's "thinking" and "knowing" that there was no risk of actually winning the 2016 election and putting stupid ideas into play, browsed through titles on Amazon, and found Death by China by Peter Navarro. The semi-literate Trump fell in love with the title, and adopted its pro-tariff stance The book cited the "work" of economist Ron Vara who turned out to be a totally fictional character invented by Death by China's author !!! "Ron Varo" is an anagram of "Navarro"!!

Trump's obsession with tariffs began far before that:

The sudden market downturn will be temporary and we do not even know at this point if the downturn is over yet. The stock market may fall even much further next week. And we certainly do not know when (or if) the market will return again.

But here is what we do know. We know that a fearless political leader has finally taken steps that should have been taken many decades ago. We do not know if his courage and bravery will prevail yet. But what we do know for sure is that what America had in place by our previous governing elite WASN'T working. That status quo "Democrat do nothing approach" was NOT an option, observing key performance indicators of our peer competitor China on track to surpass the US (if it has not already). Yes, MAGA supporters own 401k's just like everyone else but they are also the adults who are willing to take short term pain if it helps our country become strong and healthy again.

The stock market downturn hurts everyone....but it especially hurts the rich. The filthy rich are ones who own most of the US stock market BY FAR. Which of the 2 parties is supposed to be the party of rich? Well I guess from your aforementioned commenting, it must be Rachel Maddow and the Democrats since they appear most concerned about the stock market downturn. These filthy rich Democrats appear more concern about themselves and their stocks than the US middle class or their jobs or their manufacturing.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

OFFS!

 

[James Brown]

Why were the average prices of used cars falling until March 2025?

link



Was making used cars more expensive one of those things that political leaders should have done many decades ago?

 

[RVonse]

If RVonse refuses to leave his tunnel, that will help us answer the question in Thread title: "Are people already regretting their choice?" No, they revel in Trump's idiocies and fascism. So what does this teach us about human cognition in the 21st century?

I would be surprised if we will know even by the end of Trump's term whether his policy is working or not. Since the US is a rapidly declining empire there does not seem to be too much to lose though.

If GDP declines permanently and never recovers before 4 year end of Trump's term then most should be forced to say his administration did not work and the tariff idea was completely wrong. But even admitting that mistake does not make choosing Trump the worst option. Because at least Trump tried and failed versus doing nothing at all.

 

[unapologetic]

Well I guess from your aforementioned commenting, it must be Rachel Maddow and the Democrats since they appear most concerned about the stock market downturn. These filthy rich Democrats appear more concern about themselves and their stocks than the US middle class or their jobs or their manufacturing.

Wake up and smell the bullshit.

 

[Spacetime Inhabitant]

Except that the filibuster is actually to prevent legislation.

That is not a rule.

If RVonse refuses to leave his tunnel, that will help us answer the question in Thread title: "Are people already regretting their choice?" No, they revel in Trump's idiocies and fascism. So what does this teach us about human cognition in the 21st century?

I would be surprised if we will know even by the end of Trump's term whether his policy is working or not. Since the US is a rapidly declining empire there does not seem to be too much to lose though.

If GDP declines permanently and never recovers before 4 year end of Trump's term then most should be forced to say his administration did not work and the tariff idea was completely wrong. But even admitting that mistake does not make choosing Trump the worst option. Because at least Trump tried and failed versus doing nothing at all.

Under President Biden's presidency, and Democrat Congress, much important legislation was passed, plus other actions to help the normal American, so far from do nothing. Plus of course They tried to have legislation to deal with the border passed but Republicans under instruction from at the time citizen Trump blocked that.

Trump has done nothing to help normal Americans, but has done a lot to harm them - increased prices and inflation, the anti-efficient DOGE that acts illegally, and many other bad things such as the tariffs (a form of sales tax).

You admit that the US is rapidly declining and that is since January 2025 mainly, although of course some of it started two years before when Republicans got control of the House. It is already known that Trump has failed; anyone with any sense could predict what all his chaotic actions such as DOGE, tariffs, ignoring the Constitution, law and judges would result in.

 

[laughing dog]

The sudden market downturn in response to Trump's tariffs will surely awaken some Trumpists. If you can tolerate Rachel Maddow, she presents the origin of Trump's tariffs beginning at the 6:35 mark in this video.

Trump's obsession with tariffs began when Jared Kushner, aware of his father-in-law's "thinking" and "knowing" that there was no risk of actually winning the 2016 election and putting stupid ideas into play, browsed through titles on Amazon, and found Death by China by Peter Navarro. The semi-literate Trump fell in love with the title, and adopted its pro-tariff stance The book cited the "work" of economist Ron Vara who turned out to be a totally fictional character invented by Death by China's author !!! "Ron Varo" is an anagram of "Navarro"!!

Trump's obsession with tariffs began far before that:

The sudden market downturn will be temporary and we do not even know at this point if the downturn is over yet. The stock market may fall even much further next week. And we certainly do not know when (or if) the market will return again.

But here is what we do know. We know that a fearless political leader has finally taken steps that should have been taken many decades ago. We do not know if his courage and bravery will prevail yet. But what we do know for sure is that what America had in place by our previous governing elite WASN'T working. That status quo "Democrat do nothing approach" was NOT an option, observing key performance indicators of our peer competitor China on track to surpass the US (if it has not already). Yes, MAGA supporters own 401k's just like everyone else but they are also the adults who are willing to take short term pain if it helps our country become strong and healthy again.

The stock market downturn hurts everyone....but it especially hurts the rich. The filthy rich are ones who own most of the US stock market BY FAR. Which of the 2 parties is supposed to be the party of rich? Well I guess from your aforementioned commenting, it must be Rachel Maddow and the Democrats since they appear most concerned about the stock market downturn. These filthy rich Democrats appear more concern about themselves and their stocks than the US middle class or their jobs or their manufacturing.

You sound like a class warfare Marxist.

What happens if Trumponomics fails? Will that still justify all the avoidable illegal deportations and attendant anguish on innocent families, and the economic destruction?