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.

 feeder wrote:

 Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:


The modern GOP is none of that. A hollowed out shell that seeks power for its own sake. And for the record, the Democrats are just as bad and ideologically devoid.

Ah, the good ol' BOTH SIDES fallacy. Are you senile?

We haven't had American or British Conservatives since Thatcher and Reagan.

Those two were as 'conservative' as Trump is. "Business good, union bad, sell public assets for pennies on the dollar" and "slash taxes, balloon deficit, economy magic will fix the rest" Is that 'true' conservatism?

When Trump stops being useful to the GOP, they will drop him.

This is probably true.

The Democrats are a hollowed out shell as well. How else do you explain HRC? The traditional Democrat blue collar base is long gone.


There's one important stat that tells me everything I need to know about American politics: voter turnout has been in steady delcine for years.


80 million people didn't vote in 2016 for whatever reason. That's bad.

 whembly wrote:

 reds8n wrote:
with regards to the "arrested redhead "

she is in a fair few photos

see : https://twitter.com/shannonrwatts/status/1018989033534382086



"Trump getting asked a question by arrested Russian nationalist and @NRA lifetime member Maria Butina. She posed as a reporter at the July 2015 FreedomFest to ask then-candidate Trump if he would continue the U.S. policy of sanctions against Russia if elected."

. what are the odds eh ?

I also liked the ones where she is attending the 2017 National Prayer Breakfast.




..still recalling all the noise and bluster over things like Obams meeting/knowing Bill Ayers and similar I'm sure that we'll see a genuine and heartfelt surge of something or other as we now know that significant elements of the Rep. party were hanging around with actual foreign spies.

..any minute now..

...wait, are you seriously comparing Obama knowingly launched his political career in a known terrorist's living room, to a spy from Russia joining the NRA?

I mean, on the one hand, Obama *knew* who Bill Ayers is and what he did...

How would the NRA know this chick was a spy???

...hmmmmm


.. :

https://www.irs.gov/pub/irs-drop/rp-18-38.pdf

So on the exact day a Russian agent is charged with infiltrating the NRA, the Trump administration announces the NRA -- and similar groups too TBF -- can keep the identity of their donors totally secret, .

But -- obviously -- the NRA is in no way shape or form a way to channel money to the Republican party.

 whembly wrote:

No. I'm trying hard not to get snooker'ed in the daily hysteria that we've seen day-in/day-out by folks who simply can't believe how badly the democrats lost. I mean, JUST TODAY there were posts/tweets about the russian spy in the oval office!

...and you go to the federalist for unbiased, or factual reporting, when they're using buzzfeed as their source?

 Wolfblade wrote:

 whembly wrote:

No. I'm trying hard not to get snooker'ed in the daily hysteria that we've seen day-in/day-out by folks who simply can't believe how badly the democrats lost. I mean, JUST TODAY there were posts/tweets about the russian spy in the oval office!

...and you go to the federalist for unbiased, or factual reporting, when they're using buzzfeed as their source?

The federalist much like The hill is a joke of a new source

 Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:

The Democrats are a hollowed out shell as well. How else do you explain HRC? The traditional Democrat blue collar base is long gone.


There's one important stat that tells me everything I need to know about American politics: voter turnout has been in steady delcine for years.


80 million people didn't vote in 2016 for whatever reason. That's bad.

Because people work. Because people don't get offered time off to go and vote. Because people can't get to polling sites. Because early voting sites were shut down. Because transportation that normally existed for getting people to polling sites was nonexistent.

There's a ton of reasons why "people didn't vote in 2016". A big part of it is the constant fallacious garbage peddled by people like yourself that HRC somehow represents "a hollowed out shell" and the "both sides" fallacy that was at work. The idea that Sanders had the nomination "stolen" from him, the idea that Democrats were conspiring to put someone unfit into office, the idea that Clinton somehow couldn't represent "the will of the people". The idea that "no matter who you vote for, you lose" that got pushed by people like yourself.

If it's one that's become clear for me from this debacle its that we need voter ID laws now.

 Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:
There's one important stat that tells me everything I need to know about American politics: voter turnout has been in steady delcine for years.

 earlofburger wrote:
If it's one that's become clear for me from this debacle its that we need voter ID laws now.

Non sequitor.

 earlofburger wrote:
If it's one that's become clear for me from this debacle its that we need voter ID laws now.

Because we haven't disenfranchised enough voters?

Or is this taking the regime's "millions of illegal votes" line at face value?

 earlofburger wrote:
If it's one that's become clear for me from this debacle its that we need voter ID laws now.

That's sorta apropos of nothing. Can you elaborate?

 Kanluwen wrote:

 Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:

The Democrats are a hollowed out shell as well. How else do you explain HRC? The traditional Democrat blue collar base is long gone.


There's one important stat that tells me everything I need to know about American politics: voter turnout has been in steady delcine for years.


80 million people didn't vote in 2016 for whatever reason. That's bad.

Because people work. Because people don't get offered time off to go and vote. Because people can't get to polling sites. Because early voting sites were shut down. Because transportation that normally existed for getting people to polling sites was nonexistent.

There's a ton of reasons why "people didn't vote in 2016". A big part of it is the constant fallacious garbage peddled by people like yourself that HRC somehow represents "a hollowed out shell" and the "both sides" fallacy that was at work. The idea that Sanders had the nomination "stolen" from him, the idea that Democrats were conspiring to put someone unfit into office, the idea that Clinton somehow couldn't represent "the will of the people". The idea that "no matter who you vote for, you lose" that got pushed by people like yourself.

Trump and Clinton were awful candidates, representing nothing but stock markets and moneyed interests. You trying to convince me that Clinton is up there with FDR or LBJ when it comes to policy or blue collar support?

Never buying it in a million years.

Sanders had the nomination stolen by 9 million people voting for Clinton versus only 6 million for him.

Clinton only represented the will of the people by getting 3 million votes more than Trump.

To get back to the human centipede effect, Radio 4 had some American talk radio clips which were interesting, concerning Trumpist supporters reaction to the Helsinki talks.

Woman 1: I would like to thank the Russians for hacking the election because it kept Clinton out, and she is too full of herself.

Man 1: I don't believe the Russians hacked the election because if they did, why is Assange still in hiding?

Man 2: Why were people attacking the CIA in the early 2000s because of waterboarding and now they're saying nothing about the Muller investigation>

Man 3: What did people want Trump to say to Putin? Liberal morons.

A confused and illogical mess of thinking which essentially comes down to tribal loyalty.

 earlofburger wrote:
If it's one that's become clear for me from this debacle its that we need voter ID laws now.

To quote Jesse Ventura, there are more Americans being struck by lighting bolts than instances of voter fraud.

....and he's walking back his Russian statements:

AP Politics
✔
@AP_Politics
BREAKING: Trump says 'I accept' US intelligence agencies conclusions on Russian meddling.

1:31 PM - Jul 17, 2018
323
737 people are talking about this

Chad Pergram
✔
@ChadPergram
Trump: I have full faith and support for America’s intelligence agencies..I always have. Russia’s actions had no impact let me be clear. I accept our interest community conclusion that meddling took place..There was no collusion at all.

1:31 PM - Jul 17, 2018
106
67 people are talking about this

CBS News
✔
@CBSNews
NEW: President Trump says he has "full faith and support" for America's intelligence agencies amid mounting criticism for failing to condemn Russian election meddling https://cbsn.ws/2KZxUW5

1:38 PM - Jul 17, 2018

Yeah... someone's got to him.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:

 earlofburger wrote:
If it's one that's become clear for me from this debacle its that we need voter ID laws now.

To quote Jesse Ventura, there are more Americans being struck by lighting bolts than instances of voter fraud.

How else do you ensure that the elections isn't tampered with?

 Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:

 Kanluwen wrote:

 Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:

The Democrats are a hollowed out shell as well. How else do you explain HRC? The traditional Democrat blue collar base is long gone.


There's one important stat that tells me everything I need to know about American politics: voter turnout has been in steady delcine for years.


80 million people didn't vote in 2016 for whatever reason. That's bad.

Because people work. Because people don't get offered time off to go and vote. Because people can't get to polling sites. Because early voting sites were shut down. Because transportation that normally existed for getting people to polling sites was nonexistent.

There's a ton of reasons why "people didn't vote in 2016". A big part of it is the constant fallacious garbage peddled by people like yourself that HRC somehow represents "a hollowed out shell" and the "both sides" fallacy that was at work. The idea that Sanders had the nomination "stolen" from him, the idea that Democrats were conspiring to put someone unfit into office, the idea that Clinton somehow couldn't represent "the will of the people". The idea that "no matter who you vote for, you lose" that got pushed by people like yourself.

Trump and Clinton were awful candidates, representing nothing but stock markets and moneyed interests. You trying to convince me that Clinton is up there with FDR or LBJ when it comes to policy or blue collar support?

Never buying it in a million years.

"You will never convince me she is a paragon of truth and justice!"

Alright, well I am glad we agree. Nobody is saying she is. Shades of Gray, do you understand this concept?

 Ouze wrote:

 Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:
There's one important stat that tells me everything I need to know about American politics: voter turnout has been in steady delcine for years.

I was referring to state elections.

I joke of course. There's some interesting dips in that graph. But half the population not voting is obviously not a good thing.

Its worth noting most of the increase in that graph was due to laws regarding who exactly could vote, elimination of property as a requirement, women and minorities being allowed to vote, etc... You'd really want a graph showing Actual Voters as a % of Total Potential Voters(Not total US population, since the Population =/= the total number of eligible voters) who could legally vote if they chose.

I suspect such a graph would probably show a trend with a flat trend or a slight increase at most.

Fun fact: In some states prior to 1807 Women could vote if they met property requirements. 4 states also allowed non-whites to vote if they owned property.

We need to voter ID to ensure are polls are never hijacked by Russia ever again!


please don't attach non wargamng images to Dakka.
Reds8n

Or we could make sure we have competent people in place to stop Russian meddling. No need for voter id laws which would cause even more trouble.

 Dreadwinter wrote:

 Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:

 Kanluwen wrote:

 Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:

The Democrats are a hollowed out shell as well. How else do you explain HRC? The traditional Democrat blue collar base is long gone.


There's one important stat that tells me everything I need to know about American politics: voter turnout has been in steady delcine for years.


80 million people didn't vote in 2016 for whatever reason. That's bad.

Because people work. Because people don't get offered time off to go and vote. Because people can't get to polling sites. Because early voting sites were shut down. Because transportation that normally existed for getting people to polling sites was nonexistent.

There's a ton of reasons why "people didn't vote in 2016". A big part of it is the constant fallacious garbage peddled by people like yourself that HRC somehow represents "a hollowed out shell" and the "both sides" fallacy that was at work. The idea that Sanders had the nomination "stolen" from him, the idea that Democrats were conspiring to put someone unfit into office, the idea that Clinton somehow couldn't represent "the will of the people". The idea that "no matter who you vote for, you lose" that got pushed by people like yourself.

Trump and Clinton were awful candidates, representing nothing but stock markets and moneyed interests. You trying to convince me that Clinton is up there with FDR or LBJ when it comes to policy or blue collar support?

Never buying it in a million years.

"You will never convince me she is a paragon of truth and justice!"

Alright, well I am glad we agree. Nobody is saying she is. Shades of Gray, do you understand this concept?

Of course. Were I American, I would not have voted for Trump, nor Clinton, because I know from years of following Clinton that's she's in favour of more disastrous military adventures in the Middle East.

That's not good for America. Well, it's good for a small number of Americans who profit from war, but not good for the working class men and women who die in these wars.

I would have abstained in 2016.

 Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:
But half the population not voting is obviously not a good thing.

I agree completely, and we should be trying to expand that percentage, not flatten it out - but more people voting turns out to be bad for some people so must be stopped.

Yeah, Voter ID laws tend to disenfranchise people. Specifically, minorities, the poor, and the elderly.

 Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:
Of course. Were I American, I would not have voted for Trump, nor Clinton, because I know from years of following Clinton that's she's in favour of more disastrous military adventures in the Middle East.

That's not good for America. Well, it's good for a small number of Americans who profit from war, but not good for the working class men and women who die in these wars.

I would have abstained in 2016.

Yes, when faced with a choice of cyanide or brussel sprouts, I don't care which you bring me, I don't like either.

It's truly, truly amazing that 2 years in people are still making the "both sides are equally bad" arguments. I really don't know what to say.

 JNAProductions wrote:
Yeah, Voter ID laws tend to disenfranchise people. Specifically, minorities, the poor, and the elderly.

Care to elaborate on that?

 earlofburger wrote:
We need to voter ID to ensure are polls are never hijacked by Russia ever again!

Voter ID wouldn't have stopped the Russian meddling, since all they did was hack the DNC servers and buy some ads on social media. None of which involved actually tampering with ballots or false voters.

I agree ID should be required just on principle. Its needed for everything else we do, and to practice many other rights. If I have to produce ID and proof of residence to buy a firearm, or even more forms of ID just to get a job, it shouldn't be any burden to flash some form of ID to verify you are who you say you are when you vote. And yes, I think this should also be accompanied by a free State ID being available. Election day should also be extended up to a week so everybody has a chance to go and vote.

 earlofburger wrote:

 JNAProductions wrote:
Yeah, Voter ID laws tend to disenfranchise people. Specifically, minorities, the poor, and the elderly.

Care to elaborate on that?

Option 1: use google, search this forum, etc.

Option 2: prepare for 5 pages of arguments, resulting in accusations of racism, lots of strawmen, etc.

 Ouze wrote:

 Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:
Of course. Were I American, I would not have voted for Trump, nor Clinton, because I know from years of following Clinton that's she's in favour of more disastrous military adventures in the Middle East.

That's not good for America. Well, it's good for a small number of Americans who profit from war, but not good for the working class men and women who die in these wars.

I would have abstained in 2016.

Yes, when faced with a choice of cyanide or brussel sprouts, I don't care which you bring me, I don't like either.

It's truly, truly amazing that 2 years in people are still making the "both sides are equally bad" arguments. I really don't know what to say.

But they were equally bad, that's my honest opinion. To not vote is a legitimate and moral choice in any democracy. People fought hard for the right to vote. They didn't fight hard to force everybody to vote wether they wanted to or not.

So Clinton wouldn't have been stupid enough to say racist comments or act like an idiot. Fair enough. But she supported drone strikes on civilians, military intervention, and people should vote for that because she's not Trump?

Come on that's a strange logic.

 earlofburger wrote:

 JNAProductions wrote:
Yeah, Voter ID laws tend to disenfranchise people. Specifically, minorities, the poor, and the elderly.

Care to elaborate on that?

The elderly tend to not have as many IDs, or a different type of IDs than younger folk. They also might lack transportation, if they're too old to drive (which also includes a potential lack of a driver's license) which further inhibits their ability to get new ID.

The poor have similar issues-less related to age than not being able to afford cars or IDs.

Minorities, while falling into both the above camps sometimes, simply tend to live in areas given less care. No DMVs, no place to get a passport, etc. etc.

There's a lot of data and articles on this. Try googling "Voter ID Laws Disenfranchisement" and you'll find some.

In addition, when you say Voter ID Laws should be made, what kinds of IDs would you consider usable?

 JNAProductions wrote:
Yeah, Voter ID laws tend to disenfranchise people. Specifically, minorities, the poor, and the elderly.

Which is dumb, because you have to wonder why?

Do none of these people have jobs? Did they never get a drivers license?

The argument that its a disenfranchisement is a bad one. If this is the case, these individuals would be suffering far more in other areas than not being able to vote. You can't fill out an I-9 form without 2 forms of ID. And the I-9 form is required for anybody employed in the US.

 JNAProductions wrote:

 earlofburger wrote:

 JNAProductions wrote:
Yeah, Voter ID laws tend to disenfranchise people. Specifically, minorities, the poor, and the elderly.

Care to elaborate on that?

The elderly tend to not have as many IDs, or a different type of IDs than younger folk. They also might lack transportation, if they're too old to drive (which also includes a potential lack of a driver's license) which further inhibits their ability to get new ID.

The poor have similar issues-less related to age than not being able to afford cars or IDs.

Minorities, while falling into both the above camps sometimes, simply tend to live in areas given less care. No DMVs, no place to get a passport, etc. etc.

There's a lot of data and articles on this. Try googling "Voter ID Laws Disenfranchisement" and you'll find some.

In addition, when you say Voter ID Laws should be made, what kinds of IDs would you consider usable?

Yeah sorry, but those are all weak excuses, no matter how poor or old you may be you have 4 years in between each election to get the necessary documents. Also must minorities live in urban areas where there is no lack of public transportation or DMV's.