Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/post-politics/wp/2016/06/24/in-scotland-trump-celebrates-brexit-vote/

Behold, the wisdom of Trump: "it's ok that the pound just crashed to historic lows, it means more business for my golf course". Truly this is a man that should be trusted in a position of power over the US economy and there is no doubt at all that he would ever put his own interests ahead of the good of the nation.

 ScootyPuffJunior wrote:

Asterios wrote:
if you are going to quote me then quote the whole thing I said

What I put in quotes is arguably better than what you wrote.

its not what I say, its what some say, even family Guy has done a stint on this whole thing too.

Holy gak... "It's not what I say, it's what some people say... even though I just said it."

It's like the classic "I'm just asking questions" defense.

Some people say that if we ignore trolls that feed of gak posting and derailing threads, then the OT would be better. Some people call that "disengagement" I think.

Asterios wrote:
what I want to believe I will believe

This is exactly the problem.

Asterios wrote:
can't win so you insult

How was what I said an insult?

congrats whatever you want to believe, you believe it, what I want to believe I will believe and neither the twain shall meet.

Right, I'll continue to believe that you've made several antisemitic remarks and you'll continue to dig yourself into a hole defending them (as if there is a defense that could be made).

 ScootyPuffJunior wrote:

Asterios wrote:
can't win so you insult

How was what I said an insult?

congrats whatever you want to believe, you believe it, what I want to believe I will believe and neither the twain shall meet.

Right, I'll continue to believe that you've made several antisemitic remarks and you'll continue to dig yourself into a hole defending them (as if there is a defense that could be made).

if it helps you sleep better at night, whatever.

Asterios wrote:
oh it is stereotyping, but answer me this, do you have a money man? if you do, who would he be? can you name any good money men that are not Jewish?

...

Not really helping that "I'm not racist" argument here...

I will always cherish the day that I got to witness the Asterexit.

 Peregrine wrote:

Asterios wrote:
oh it is stereotyping, but answer me this, do you have a money man? if you do, who would he be? can you name any good money men that are not Jewish?

...

Not really helping that "I'm not racist" argument here...

in other words you cannot answer the question, nuff said, i'm outta here. gonna take me a smoke break and ignore the Clinton worshippers.

Asterios wrote:
if it helps you sleep better at night, whatever.

Whatever indeed, mate.

Given your current trajectory, I'm sure you'll work yourself into an OT ban before long, so have fun with that.

Interesting analysis of a possible Texit:
https://www.texastribune.org/2016/06/24/can-texas-legally-secede-united-states/

TL;DR: While Brexit may have stirred the secessionist pot, a similar Texit would not be legal. Texas has a unique right among states to split itself into five states but not to secede from the United States of America.

So... Austin gotta be it's own state... eh?

 whembly wrote:
Interesting analysis of a possible Texit:
https://www.texastribune.org/2016/06/24/can-texas-legally-secede-united-states/

TL;DR: While Brexit may have stirred the secessionist pot, a similar Texit would not be legal. Texas has a unique right among states to split itself into five states but not to secede from the United States of America.

So... Austin gotta be it's own state... eh?

A 5 way split might result in 6 new Republican senators and 2 new Democrats.

 whembly wrote:
Interesting analysis of a possible Texit:
https://www.texastribune.org/2016/06/24/can-texas-legally-secede-united-states/

TL;DR: While Brexit may have stirred the secessionist pot, a similar Texit would not be legal. Texas has a unique right among states to split itself into five states but not to secede from the United States of America.

So... Austin gotta be it's own state... eh?

gonna take me a smoke break and ignore the Clinton worshippers.

Ah yes, the traditional inability to tell the difference, despite people explaining it over and over again, between "Clinton is the bestest evar" and "Clinton isn't great, but she's better than the alternative". I'll just note here that most of the people you're talking to are in the second group.

 d-usa wrote:
I will always cherish the day that I got to witness the Asterexit.

I hope it is like griblathar from way back in terms of quotability.

I can't believe people with other opinions disagree with me. /sarcasm


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 ScootyPuffJunior wrote:

 whembly wrote:
Interesting analysis of a possible Texit:
https://www.texastribune.org/2016/06/24/can-texas-legally-secede-united-states/

TL;DR: While Brexit may have stirred the secessionist pot, a similar Texit would not be legal. Texas has a unique right among states to split itself into five states but not to secede from the United States of America.

So... Austin gotta be it's own state... eh?

I am going to sub to that guy, sounds like he knows his stuff!
Hurray!

I do find it interesting that yet again it is the local minority saying it.

 ScootyPuffJunior wrote:

Asterios wrote:
if it helps you sleep better at night, whatever.

Whatever indeed, mate.

Given your current trajectory, I'm sure you'll work yourself into an OT ban before long, so have fun with that.

Thing is, I don't see that happening, short of a mods personal desire. He floats that line between dakka appropriate speech and non-appropriate speech exceedingly well.

I take any vocal Trump supporter with a huge grain of salt though. Trump is pretty much trolling the world right now, and its incredibly easy for his "supporters" to get a rise out of people almost anywhere.

Back on topic, please.

 Manchu wrote:
Back on topic, please.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/post-politics/wp/2016/06/24/in-scotland-trump-celebrates-brexit-vote/

Behold, the wisdom of Trump: "it's ok that the pound just crashed to historic lows, it means more business for my golf course". Truly this is a man that should be trusted in a position of power over the US economy and there is no doubt at all that he would ever put his own interests ahead of the good of the nation.

 Peregrine wrote:

 Manchu wrote:
Back on topic, please.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/post-politics/wp/2016/06/24/in-scotland-trump-celebrates-brexit-vote/

Behold, the wisdom of Drumpf: "it's ok that the pound just crashed to historic lows, it means more business for my golf course". Truly this is a man that should be trusted in a position of power over the US economy and there is no doubt at all that he would ever put his own interests ahead of the good of the nation.

How anyone takes him seriously is beyond me....

I mean somethings he says are really dumb but there has to be at least one shred of decency----

Anyway. Do we have other information apart from the Texas secession group forgetting it is illegal to leave the United States?

 whembly wrote:

Actually, I think it's the fact that the older voters *remembers* what UK was like pre-EU.

Whereas the younger generation has no frame of reference and thus don't want to rock the status quo.

We have recorded history to looks at, without the effect of rose-tinted glasses. The UK was not sunshine and roses before we joined the EEC. It was times of slow economic growth (for example France and Germany were growing at rates of up to double that of England in the 60s).

I'm surprised he didn't get mobbed for saying that in Scotland.

Asterios wrote:

 Peregrine wrote:

Asterios wrote:
oh it is stereotyping, but answer me this, do you have a money man? if you do, who would he be? can you name any good money men that are not Jewish?

...

Not really helping that "I'm not racist" argument here...

in other words you cannot answer the question, nuff said, i'm outta here. gonna take me a smoke break and ignore the Clinton worshippers.

Well, the best accounting firms in the UK are Deloitte and PwC. Neither of them were started by Jewish people, nor are they currently ran by Jewish people.

 Crazyterran wrote:
I'm surprised he didn't get mobbed for saying that in Scotland.

Check twitter...

Asterios wrote:

 Asherian Command wrote:

Can also watch the video about him saying that too. He is equally racist to Mexicans, Muslims, and basically anyone that isn't white and male.

The guy is well known to be racist and sexist. Can't really defend the guy at all.

didn't know Muslim was a race? or Mexican? and yet the Muslim Religion has people of all races in it, even white, and the Mexican culture, also has many people of other races including blond haired blue eyed white skinned Mexicans, so sounds like you are the racist here.

in other words learn what racism is. not what you think it is.

"Muslim" and "Mexican" are not racially neutral terms. It's true that anyone could become a Muslim or a Mexican citizen but nobody really thinks of a blue-eyed person when they use those terms.

Rosebuddy wrote:

Asterios wrote:

 Asherian Command wrote:

Can also watch the video about him saying that too. He is equally racist to Mexicans, Muslims, and basically anyone that isn't white and male.

The guy is well known to be racist and sexist. Can't really defend the guy at all.

didn't know Muslim was a race? or Mexican? and yet the Muslim Religion has people of all races in it, even white, and the Mexican culture, also has many people of other races including blond haired blue eyed white skinned Mexicans, so sounds like you are the racist here.

in other words learn what racism is. not what you think it is.

"Muslim" and "Mexican" are not racially neutral terms. It's true that anyone could become a Muslim or a Mexican citizen but nobody really thinks of a blue-eyed person when they use those terms.

That brings us into the territory of what people think is more important than facts.

That is often true in politics.

In fact it is the basis of Trump's campaign.

 Kilkrazy wrote:
That is often true in politics.

In fact it is the basis of Trump's campaign.

Relevant SMBC.

Ok, so what's happening in the little ol' USA . Over here in the UK, we've been busy with collapsing economies, political parties in meltdown, a Prime Minister forced to resign, the leader of the opposition has gone stir crazy, Scotland threatening to secede, anger on the streets, and our forge world models are leaving the nation at an alarming rate

You guys having a presidential campaign or something?

 Kilkrazy wrote:
That is often true in politics.

In fact it is the basis of Trump's campaign.

You'd think in a nation with the population we have, there could have been a far better selection of presidential candidates. It's like the line from Zoolander about feeling like I just took a bottle of crazy pills.

Relapse wrote:
You'd think in a nation with the population we have, there could have been a far better selection of presidential candidates. It's like the line from Zoolander about feeling like I just took a bottle of crazy pills.

We could. The problem is that the primary system, especially the republican primary system right now, strongly rewards the biggest raving lunatics instead of the sensible candidates. All those better candidates would never make it out of the primaries.

 Peregrine wrote:
We could. The problem is that the primary system, especially the republican primary system right now, strongly rewards the biggest raving lunatics instead of the sensible candidates. All those better candidates would never make it out of the primaries.

I don't think we should look too much at just this primary season, and certainly not too much at just the Republican primary. That thing was weird on so many levels. From the starting field of 17, to dismal performance of a number of establishment candidates, to the bizarre decision made by the collective field to avoid taking on Trump until it was too late (he was the poll leader and a very weak candidate, smashing him was a certain way to differentiate from the field but no-one tried it until late in the campaign).

For the most part, primary candidates are people who match ideology of the party, and are also pretty decent chances of winning the general. Because the party base wants someone who'll matches their own politics, but they also know you don't get anything done with an ideal candidate who gets thumped in November.

I mean, if you look back at the candidates, on the R side you've got Trump, Romney, McCain, Bush, on the D side you've got Clinton, Obama, Kerry, Gore. Obviously the R guys came from the right side of politics and the D guys came from the left side of politics, but in each case they're reasonably close to the centre of US politics, except for Trump. And even then he's an extra weird candidate because as well as being a terrible candidate he's also got very little in common with conventional Republican politics.

It could be a sign that conventional Republican politics aren't working anymore. It could be a sign that future primaries on both sides will be won by ludicrous idiots who game the primary system by saying crazy bs and filling up the 24 hour news cycle. Or possibly it could just be a crazy thing that happened one time, and everything will return to normal in the next presidential cycle.