The Republican Thread

[NorthSideSox72]

About 3,000 people including Secret Service agents, US government officials and journalists would accompany the President. Several officials from the White House and US security agencies are already here for the past one week with helicopters, a ship and high-end security instruments.

 

s*** adds up.

 

US President Barack Obama's trip to India next month is set to be the biggest ever by any US president in terms of the protocol and logistics.

 

Headlines Today accessed the details of elaborate arrangements that will be in place to guard Obama during his three-day trip beginning on November 6. He will be accompanied by US first lady Micehlle Obama and their daughters Malia and Sasha.

Earlier, Obama's daughters Sasha and Malia were not to be part of the trip. But sources revealed that Michelle's opinion prevailed and now the girls would accompany the first American couple to India.

 

The US president will make a historic trip to the Taj Mahal along with his family on November 7. His visit is historic in terms of logistics which is the largest ever for a visiting US president.

 

Elaborate security arrangements

 

The presidential entourage will have 40 aircraft, including the Air Force One that will ferry the president. There will be six armoured cars, including the Barack Mobile, a Cadillac.

 

The Cadillac limousine is equipped with a mini communication centre to enable Obama to be in touch with the White House, US vice president and the US strategic command. It also has the US nuke launch codes and the nuclear switch for the president. It can also withstand a chemical or germ warfare or even a bomb attack.

 

The secret service will set up two command posts in Delhi and Mumbai which will act as the communication nerve centres. These centres will keep an eye on each movement by the president with real time satellite monitoring.

 

Three Marine One choppers will be reassembled in India to ferry Obama and his family. These helicopters will also assist in evacuation in case of an emergency.

 

Moreover, 30 sniffer dogs will be put on service to boost the security arrangements during Obama's visit.

Wow, I will say that 3,000 people is about 10 times more than I thought it would be. That is definitely an enormous number. And its one that is much easier to substantiate - I could actually see how some people would be able to easily determine a round figure for the number of people.

 

Now, what is typical? Bush travelled to India, if I remember correctly. Did he take 200? 1,000? 2,000? I'd be very curious to see the difference, if its significant.

 

[NorthSideSox72]

Lets see, a pattern of overspending. I'd find that pretty damn relevant.

 

Evidence is out there. Does anyone have enough answers at this point, no, but I don't pretend to bury my hand in the sand and just throw stuff out and act as if nothing is there. At the very least hearing the White House plausibly deny it or state it is true and that it is consistent with historic travel costs at the very least.

 

Either way it begs the question why won't the administration address it and if it is true, how important is it to bring the president and his family, entourage, etc to India for 5 days and visit all these marvelous places.

Its very important IMO, but, I am now focused on the 3,000 people number. That might be easier to prove out, at least on scale. If that's true, then I have a hard time understanding how that many people are needed. Maybe someone can enlighten me on that. Could make the discussion a lot more interesting than the monetary number from a guy who couldn't possibly have a clue.

 

[StrangeSox]

Wow, I will say that 3,000 people is about 10 times more than I thought it would be. That is definitely an enormous number. And its one that is much easier to substantiate - I could actually see how some people would be able to easily determine a round figure for the number of people.

 

Now, what is typical? Bush travelled to India, if I remember correctly. Did he take 200? 1,000? 2,000? I'd be very curious to see the difference, if its significant.

 

Don't forget that they had to reassemble a few helicopters. Ship and maintain the limos and a couple doze other vehicles. Set up the security command centers, network, get equipment in place, etc. Who knows how many SS officers. Journalists are in there, but I'm not sure how that would apply to the $200M number.

[StrangeSox]

Lets see, a pattern of overspending. I'd find that pretty damn relevant.

 

It's circumstantial evidence at best.

 

Evidence is out there.

Provide it.

 

Either way it begs the question why won't the administration address it and if it is true, how important is it to bring the president and his family, entourage, etc to India for 5 days and visit all these marvelous places.

 

No, it doesn't raise that question. Assuming that the claim should be addressed is begging the question that it is worth addressing. The White House does not need to respond to every off-the-wall assertion thrown out, and accusations shouldn't be assumed true otherwise.

 

How much additional cost is his family, three people, going to bring? When you say his "entourage", who do you mean?

[Balta1701]

Wow, I will say that 3,000 people is about 10 times more than I thought it would be. That is definitely an enormous number. And its one that is much easier to substantiate - I could actually see how some people would be able to easily determine a round figure for the number of people.

 

Now, what is typical? Bush travelled to India, if I remember correctly. Did he take 200? 1,000? 2,000? I'd be very curious to see the difference, if its significant.

Here's a Guardian piece summarizing the amount of stuff Obama took with him while making his first visit to the UK. 200 security, 500-ish total.

[Balta1701]

How much additional cost is his family, three people, going to bring? When you say his "entourage", who do you mean?

Frankly, that's probably a whole additional plane full of security and equipment, since they won't be following the President around everywhere he goes.

[StrangeSox]

Frankly, that's probably a whole additional plane full of security and equipment, since they won't be following the President around everywhere he goes.

A valid point.

[Jenksismyhero]

I don't like the Democrats much.

 

I'm going to seriously post that as an example of how it works, and I predicted it. You're using poor reasoning to accept specious claims because you like the claims. You've already tried to shift the burden multiple times. This is how misleading, untruthful political rhetoric works, and it's a hallmark of conservative media.

 

Pretty much the microcosm of the liberal logic stream - (1) deem X an uncontrovertible fact, (2) insult any person that either doesn't believe in and/or simply questions X, (3) blame Bush, (4) comment on Rush/Fox News and the dumbing down of America, (5) make outlandish statement about conservative thought/agenda (5) forget what initial issue was, move on to opinion Y, (6) repeat.

 

 

 

[Soxbadger]

I dont know if its true or not, but we will assume arguendo that Obama is bringing 3,000 people.

 

Times have unfortunately changed, India is very close to an active war front. Obama traveling to India presents extremists in Afghanistan, Pakistan etc a very real opportunity to strike the President in their backyard. If Obama is going to travel to India, he is going to need more security detail because I really believe that the US just wont rely on the Indian security forces at all. Conversely in a country like England, France etc, the US will rely some what on the other countries security and therefore not have to bring as many people.

 

Why India?

 

The US needs a friendly India. India is a potential front line against terrorism and against China. The US sphere of influence in the Indian subcontinent and surrounding areas is imperative to the US stability today and in the future. India could become an invaluable ally in the very near future. The US must continue to foster the relationship and do everything to keep India as a Republic in that region.

 

Its hard to say are the costs worth it. To put it in a business context, many businesses send people to take out clients etc, and spend money in hope that it will build a better relationship and that money will come back to the business in the end. You are never sure if those expenditures are worth it, but they are calculated risks. India is the 2nd most populous country and we need their markets/support.

 

Hard to say what the right policy is, even if the number is $200bil.

[BigSqwert]

Pretty much the microcosm of the liberal logic stream - (1) deem X an uncontrovertible fact, (2) insult any person that either doesn't believe in and/or simply questions X, (3) blame Bush, (4) comment on Rush/Fox News and the dumbing down of America, (5) make outlandish statement about conservative thought/agenda (5) forget what initial issue was, move on to opinion Y, (6) repeat.

 

I have yet to see anyone prove the first thing in your list as an actual fact.

[NorthSideSox72]

Here's a Guardian piece summarizing the amount of stuff Obama took with him while making his first visit to the UK. 200 security, 500-ish total.

200-500 is more the scale I was assuming here.

 

So now the question shifts a bit... why do they need 10 times as many for India? This angle isn't Obama versus Bush, its UK vs India. Did Bush take a lot more people to India than he did other places too? I really don't know, and I am not sure why it would be that way.

 

[StrangeSox]

Pretty much the microcosm of the liberal logic stream - (1) deem X an uncontrovertible fact, (2) insult any person that either doesn't believe in and/or simply questions X, (3) blame Bush, (4) comment on Rush/Fox News and the dumbing down of America, (5) make outlandish statement about conservative thought/agenda (5) forget what initial issue was, move on to opinion Y, (6) repeat.

 

Sorry, basic logic, such as "assertions need support before being considered plausible or true" is incontrovertible fact. Go back and read some of Mike and Jason's posts where they pretty damn clearly try to shift the blame, and when it's pointed out, don't see anything wrong with that.

 

[Balta1701]

200-500 is more the scale I was assuming here.

 

So now the question shifts a bit... why do they need 10 times as many for India? This angle isn't Obama versus Bush, its UK vs India. Did Bush take a lot more people to India than he did other places too? I really don't know, and I am not sure why it would be that way.

It sure seems self-evident to me that you're going to need a much larger security contingent in Mumbai than in the UK.

[BigSqwert]

It sure seems self-evident to me that you're going to need a much larger security contingent in Mumbai than in the UK.

No way. A GOP President would likely take a Southwest Airline flight over there with one bodyguard.

[Soxbadger]

Well you cant even compare Bush v Obama because Obama is visiting after the Mumbai Terrorists attack where the Indian security forces showed they were extremely incapable of handling a situation of that nature.

 

The only relevant question here is, "What is India's value to the US". My opinion is > 200bil, price of doing business. Sure they could probably scale somethings back, but all govt could scale back some. With the President they usually take the better safe than sorry route, and I honestly agree with that policy. I wouldnt want them skimping on Bush's security just as I wouldnt want them doing it for Obama.

 

A President being assassinated in a foreign country would unacceptable.

Edited November 3, 2010 by Soxbadger

[Balta1701]

No way. A GOP President would likely take a Southwest Airline flight over there with one bodyguard.

Probably bring much more of your national security and economic staff with you as well, because all of them can find beneficial things to do while in India that they probably couldn't do if they just sat in the U.S. and used video phones.

[StrangeSox]

Sorry, basic logic, such as "assertions need support before being considered plausible or true" is incontrovertible fact. Go back and read some of Mike and Jason's posts where they pretty damn clearly try to shift the blame, and when it's pointed out, don't see anything wrong with that.

 

Here:

 

itt we witness how speculation passes into fact and dominates discussions of ultimately meaningless issues while important issues are ignored.

 

 

$200 million a day isn't "meaningless" That would fund my hometown school system for four years. Its that exact attitude that has put us $14 TRILLION in the hole.

 

Begging the question in the first sentence. That this trip really costs $200M is not in evidence, yet it's being taken for fact.

 

Think about it, people talk about how much of her personal fortune Meg Whitman pissed away during her campaign (between 160 and 170 million). And that is still less than going to India will cost in one day.

 

egging the question in the second sentence. That this trip really costs $200M is not in evidence, yet it's being taken for fact.

 

So is someone going to show any proof it isn't real, or is this one of those things where it just keeps getting repeated until everyone takes it as gospel?

 

Shifting the burden of proof, and then unironically trying to accuse others of doing it.

 

What unsubstantiated claim am I making? Why don't you please enlighten me. I didn't write the article stating the 200 million and I haven't seen you get off your ass and show me something to prove it wrong.

 

Shifting the burden of proof.

 

There is also nothing to prove that it isn't, except your speculation.

 

Shifting the burden of proof.

 

 

And then I explained why I think it is representative of how narratives spread from conservative media.

 

edit: Ultimately, the $200M figure may be accurate or at least somewhat accurate. But the arguments given above are still fallacious reasons for accepting it. You can get to the right answer through poor reasoning.

Edited November 3, 2010 by StrangeSox

[Jenksismyhero]

Here:

 

 

 

 

 

 

Begging the question in the first sentence. That this trip really costs $200M is not in evidence, yet it's being taken for fact.

 

 

 

egging the question in the second sentence. That this trip really costs $200M is not in evidence, yet it's being taken for fact.

 

 

 

Shifting the burden of proof, and then unironically trying to accuse others of doing it.

 

 

 

Shifting the burden of proof.

 

 

 

Shifting the burden of proof.

 

 

And then I explained why I think it is representative of how narratives spread from conservative media.

 

edit: Ultimately, the $200M figure may be accurate or at least somewhat accurate. But the arguments given above are still fallacious reasons for accepting it. You can get to the right answer through poor reasoning.

 

Well, ignoring the pissing match that ensued, the original comment was if the number is accurate, 200 million a day is a f***ton to spend on a foreign policy trip. I agree with this, despite the jackassedness of some people in their responses.

 

But frankly, i'd be pissed if it was half that. Sorry, whatever wealth India possesses for the future can wait. That money is much better spent elsewhere.

[Soxbadger]

Ha hilariously I misread and thought the extreme number was $200bil.

 

$200mil is probably high, but does it really matter if the number is $50mil, $100mil, $200mil or $250mil?

 

Its a drip in the trillion dollar bucket. $200,000,000/ $1,000,000,000,000 = .0002

 

Its the equivalent of spending an extra $2 on a $10,000 budget. (If I did my math right and im not a mathematician so I wouldnt be surprised if im wrong)

[Jenksismyhero]

Ha hilariously I misread and thought the extreme number was $200bil.

 

$200mil is probably high, but does it really matter if the number is $50mil, $100mil, $200mil or $250mil?

 

Its a drip in the trillion dollar bucket. $200,000,000/ $1,000,000,000,000 = .0002

 

Its the equivalent of spending an extra $2 on a $10,000 budget. (If I did my math right and im not a mathematician so I wouldnt be surprised if im wrong)

 

1 billion could go a longway in this country. That's closing the budget gap in a LOT of cities scrapping for every last dollar.

[bigruss]

Well, ignoring the pissing match that ensued, the original comment was if the number is accurate, 200 million a day is a f***ton to spend on a foreign policy trip. I agree with this, despite the jackassedness of some people in their responses.

 

But frankly, i'd be pissed if it was half that. Sorry, whatever wealth India possesses for the future can wait. That money is much better spent elsewhere.

What's worse? 200 million now, or 200 billion down the road because we didn't have this economic/political ally?

 

This shortsightedness has to stop, it's a big reason why were in the economic/political situation we are in now.

[StrangeSox]

What's worse? 200 million now, or 200 billion down the road because we didn't have this economic/political ally?

 

This shortsightedness has to stop, it's a big reason why were in the economic/political situation we are in now.

 

Yep. Not to mention national security concerns. Diplomacy isn't cheap, and to borrow an old adage, "you've gotta spend money to make money."

 

 

[Balta1701]

1 billion could go a longway in this country. That's closing the budget gap in a LOT of cities scrapping for every last dollar.

The concept of the Federal Government giving more aid to the states and local governments to help keep local governments from cutting jobs has proven to be incredibly controversial. It was one of the most useful parts of the stimulus package and it was one of the main things that the "Centrists" took chunks out of.

[BigSqwert]

1 billion could go a longway in this country. That's closing the budget gap in a LOT of cities scrapping for every last dollar.

So now the federal government is supposed to bailout local governments with handouts? That doesn't seem like something that would go over well on your side of the aisle.

[Jenksismyhero]

What's worse? 200 million now, or 200 billion down the road because we didn't have this economic/political ally?

 

This shortsightedness has to stop, it's a big reason why were in the economic/political situation we are in now.

 

Right, because this is our one and only shot to make an impression. And a 5 day trip in 2010 is going to make all the difference.

 

I love this attitude that the United States HAS to do x, y, and z or else the world will never talk to us again. When did that start?