US Politics: 2017 Edition

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.

**Do_I_Not_Like_That**

sebster, for the record, I just want to clear up what I was wrong about.

I was under no illusions that other parts of Trump's 'vision' would be as useful as a bucket of horsegak

but I genuinely thought that if what he was saying about foreign policy was implemented, that would only benefit the USA.

For example, you don't have to like Russia, or be under any illusion of what Putin is, but a working relationship with Russia in the fight against ISIL, is a sensible move in my view.

Also, getting more NATO members to hit their 2% of GDP on defence target is one of the very few sensible things Trump has said.

Sadly, the way it's been handled has been farcical, and amateurish at best. Key allies like the UK and Germany have been embarrassed or needlessly antagonised.

So yeah, I was wrong on the Trump foreign policy.

**Hybrid Son Of Oxayotl**

whembly wrote:
A) Over 90% of Muslims are unaffected... ergo, not a muslim ban.

It's quite fascinating how apparently a ban on Iranians based on anti-Muslim bigotry is somehow more acceptable than a ban on Muslims. It's like discriminating based on ethnic grounds was somehow better than discriminating on religion. Despite the fact it's obviously even worse.

**r_squared**

sebster wrote:
Mr. Burning wrote:
Well there is this as well.

The USA is some kind of crime syndicate offering protection for cash.

Yeah, "they must pay what they owe". Is that loose wording or does Trump actually not understand how the most basic part of NATO works? Anyone else, including any other poster here on dakka, I'd give them the benefit of the doubt because it's just so simple, and the alternative that countries send the US monthly payments is just so silly. But with Trump maybe that is how he thinks it works...

That would rather explain his whole stance with Germany and the idea of America getting a raw deal and why he thinks huge military spending will be so straightforward, he thinks that Europe will pay for it. Maybe he seems to think that America has decades worth of 1% of German GDP coming to it.

I have no idea where he got that idea from, but maybe he'll revise his idea of NATO now that he knows. I doubt it, but you never know.

It just goes to show that the man is an idiot, as if that needed saying. It's just as well he was born fabulously wealthy, otherwise he'd probably be dead, or penniless by now.

**Frazzled**

Kilkrazy wrote:
Trump's a gakker if he thinks that excuse is going to wash. It's up there with the dog ate my homework.

I had a dog chew up my homework once.

Also our new dog ramp came in. Rusty (who its for) just looks at like its evil. Rodney however was running up and down it, as long as the treat supply was available. After, it was back to blanket time.

Automatically Appended Next Post:

Just Tony wrote:
Kilkrazy wrote:
The point is that Trump simply doesn't understand how politics, diplomacy and governance work.

Trump's background is based on using his silver spoon to serve up shonky business deals that he welches on when they go tits up, "reality" TV media flim-flam, the bullying and exploitation of people who don't have his wealth and power, and loudmouth populist punditry around fake facts.

These are not things that really work when trying to pilot the ship of state of a modern liberal democracy.

I only have two issues with your post. First, the US is a republic, not a democracy, though in spirit the function should roughly equal out. Second, I'm not entirely sure everybody living in this republic want it to be a liberal republic.

Given this thread is now wide open with posters insulting and attacking the US, I'd advise any not minded posters, not to argue on this thread. Clearly the Dakka Rule #1 is has been suspended, so arguing with them will only lead you to be attacked and insulted with what appears to be impunity.

or as the immortal bard once said, don't fee the troll.

**r_squared**

Frazzled wrote:
...Given this thread is now wide open with posters insulting and attacking the US, I'd advise any not minded posters, not to argue on this thread. Clearly the Dakka Rule #1 is has been suspended, so arguing with them will only lead you to be attacked and insulted with what appears to be impunity.

or as the immortal bard once said, don't fee the troll.

Not the US, Trump. Or is he covered by rule #1 now too?

**lonestarr777**

If rule #1 wasn't in effect Frazzled I assure you, you'd know it in a heartbeat.

As for attacking and insulting the good old US, yeah, we've earned it. Honestly anymore I don't have a drop of patriotism left. I'd rather France had never propped us up and the Brits had hanged the founding fathers for being the bunch of rich donkey-caves tricking a bunch of poor people they were, a fine tradition our polotics carry on today.

We insult our allies, we forget our history, our infastructure is collapsing, our medical system is racketeering and our school system is a joke but we stand ontop of the mountain and chant U.S.A. like these are things to be proud of.

feth this country, and yes, I'd leave if I wasn't working poor and I wasn't ashamed to be an American.

**Frazzled**

feth this country, and yes, I'd leave if I wasn't working poor and I wasn't ashamed to be an American.

As I said, the rules for Dakka moderation no longer seem to apply for this thread. Thank you for proving my point.

**r_squared**

Frazzled wrote:

feth this country, and yes, I'd leave if I wasn't working poor and I wasn't ashamed to be an American.

As I said, the rules for Dakka moderation no longer seem to apply for this thread. Thank you for proving my point.

What rule?

**Frazzled**

Seriously? Rule #1.

**Breotan**

Frazzled wrote:
Clearly the Dakka Rule #1 is has been suspended, so arguing with them will only lead you to be attacked and insulted with what appears to be impunity.

It's been like this for a while. I'm not sure if the mods just don't want to visit this thread or if they're using it as a burn pit to keep the dumpster fire from spreading to other threads in OT.

**skyth**

Being ashamed of your country in no way breaks rule #1...

**Easy E**

I heard a speech this weekend by Hubert H. Humpfrey from 1974. it was interesting as he was talking about the issues of the day, and they were pretty much the same things we talk about today. Poverty, struggling education system, a hash of foreign affairs, medical system collapse, wealth inequality, etc. etc. etc.

I think there is some latin phrase people use about things like that.....

**r_squared**

lonestarr777 wrote:
If rule #1 wasn't in effect Frazzled I assure you, you'd know it in a heartbeat.

As for attacking and insulting the good old US, yeah, we've earned it. Honestly anymore I don't have a drop of patriotism left. I'd rather France had never propped us up and the Brits had hanged the founding fathers for being the bunch of rich donkey-caves tricking a bunch of poor people they were, a fine tradition our polotics carry on today.

We insult our allies, we forget our history, our infastructure is collapsing, our medical system is racketeering and our school system is a joke but we stand ontop of the mountain and chant U.S.A. like these are things to be proud of.

feth this country, and yes, I'd leave if I wasn't working poor and I wasn't ashamed to be an American.

TBF, the US has a he'll of a lot going for it, and is still a leading nation in many areas, including democracy and personal freedoms. The unfortunate problem at the moment is that you've elected a President who is making some of us very uneasy, especially considering the considerable power and influence of the US.

He's a bully with people he dislikes, and sometimes with allies, and we're waiting to see if he's going to try those bully tactics on us. That is why he's getting a hard time.

Tbf your judicial system and political setup seems to be curbing the worst of his excess domestically at the moment, but will those systems apply when dealing with other nations?

Automatically Appended Next Post:

Frazzled wrote:
Seriously? Rule #1.

I'm not trying to be a dick, but which part of rule 1 are you talking about? Are we not allowed to call Donald Trump names?

Rule 1: Be Polite

This seems obvious, however many folks can sometimes forget that common courtesy goes a long way to lending respect to both you and your opinions. Just because you don't see the other users' faces doesn't mean they don't have feelings and won't be hurt by rude comments or offensive images. When you see something that you find silly, rude or insulting first assume that perhaps there is more to it than you initially thought. Look at it again, keeping in mind that tone and inflection is difficult to convey in a visual format. It may be that the person is attempting a joke or is exaggerating on purpose. It is best to politely request clarification before accusing someone being ignorant, a liar, or worse.

If after clarification you still disagree with the person then politely outline your points. Try to avoid name-calling or even implying insults wherever possible. These tactics generally only inflame a situation and lead to what are known as "Flame Wars." Whenever a flame war starts it usually ruins a perfectly good discussion. Others will lose interest in the thread and the site in general if this kind of interchange becomes a common occurrence.

Please remember that posting and reading online is a visual format and as such the spelling, grammar and look of your posts is the only way others understand what you are saying. Therefore, in order to be polite, all users are expected to make an effort to use proper spelling, grammar and punctuation and should refrain from using internet shorthand or other distracting methods of writing, such as writing a post completely bolded, with capital letters, in a strange color, etc.

It also should go without saying that swearing, profanity, sexual references, etc, are strictly forbidden, including all images that are posted on or uploaded to our site. Remember that we have users of all ages and that Dakka should be a welcoming place for everyone to enjoy.

I can't see anything that qualifies?

**Frazzled**

Breotan wrote:
Frazzled wrote:
Clearly the Dakka Rule #1 is has been suspended, so arguing with them will only lead you to be attacked and insulted with what appears to be impunity.

It's been like this for a while. I'm not sure if the mods just don't want to visit this thread or if they're using it as a burn pit to keep the dumpster fire from spreading to other threads in OT.

Probably B, which is just fine by me. People have to vent I guess. I mean I ended up burning 1500 rounds Saturday. But its prudent for the conservatives not to post anything thats not just a humorous anecdote because they will get gang tackled. Even worse they will end up defending the executive, still get gang tackled, but now just feel dirty inside.

**Co'tor Shas**

Frazzled wrote:
Seriously? Rule #1.

Rule 1 only applies to fellow posters Frazz.

**Frazzled**

skyth wrote:
Being ashamed of your country in no way breaks rule #1...

Insulting it is.

**Co'tor Shas**

BTW, anybody looking at the the intelligence committee thing? How's that going?

**Frazzled**

Co'tor Shas wrote:
Frazzled wrote:
Seriously? Rule #1.

Rule 1 only applies to fellow posters Frazz.

Insulting the nation of those posters however is a violation. I've been BAINED!* because of it.

*A temporary suspension as well as a small curse where you start annoying friends and family by constantly doing a bad imitation of Tom Hardy**

**They are advertising Dunkirk on the big screen now. Wowsa that looks good.

**djones520**

Frazzled wrote:
Co'tor Shas wrote:
Frazzled wrote:
Seriously? Rule #1.

Rule 1 only applies to fellow posters Frazz.

Insulting the nation of those posters however is a violation. I've been BAINED!* because of it.

*A temporary suspension as well as a small curse where you start annoying friends and family by constantly doing a bad imitation of Tom Hardy**

**They are advertising Dunkirk on the big screen now. Wowsa that looks good.

Yeah, I have been as well.

It's apparently ok to have non-American's in here constantly attacking our culture/government/etc. though.

**Frazzled**

djones520 wrote:
Frazzled wrote:
Co'tor Shas wrote:
Frazzled wrote:
Seriously? Rule #1.

Rule 1 only applies to fellow posters Frazz.

Insulting the nation of those posters however is a violation. I've been BAINED!* because of it.

*A temporary suspension as well as a small curse where you start annoying friends and family by constantly doing a bad imitation of Tom Hardy**

**They are advertising Dunkirk on the big screen now. Wowsa that looks good.

Yeah, I have been as well.

It's apparently ok to have non-American's in here constantly attacking our culture/government/etc. though.

Ahh Is it really BATTTMAN...woops there I go.

**Hybrid Son Of Oxayotl**

r_squared wrote:
Not the US, Trump. Or is he covered by rule #1 now too?

Theoretically, everyone is covered by rule #1, even Trump. In practice, not so much. Running for President is voluntarily opening yourself to be criticized, even quite harshly.

Frazzled wrote:
feth this country, and yes, I'd leave if I wasn't working poor and I wasn't ashamed to be an American.

As I said, the rules for Dakka moderation no longer seem to apply for this thread. Thank you for proving my point.

I find it a bit hilarious how thin-skinned Frazzled is to criticism of the US, all the while being incredibly scornful toward some foreign countries, and hiding behind the “It was a joke” defense. It never cease to amaze me.

**skyth**

djones520 wrote:
Frazzled wrote:
Co'tor Shas wrote:
Frazzled wrote:
Seriously? Rule #1.

Rule 1 only applies to fellow posters Frazz.

Insulting the nation of those posters however is a violation. I've been BAINED!* because of it.

*A temporary suspension as well as a small curse where you start annoying friends and family by constantly doing a bad imitation of Tom Hardy**

**They are advertising Dunkirk on the big screen now. Wowsa that looks good.

Yeah, I have been as well.

It's apparently ok to have non-American's in here constantly attacking our culture/government/etc. though.

When the 'attacks' are justified, that's not an issue. Also, not liking something and pointing out how it's foolish/hurts people is not an attack. Pointing out how things could be improved is not an attack. Pointing out that America isn't the best at something is not an attack.

**Hybrid Son Of Oxayotl**

djones520 wrote:
It's apparently ok to have non-American's in here constantly attacking our culture/government/etc. though.

I'm sure we should prevent non-American from posting here. After all, it's extremely unfair of them to attack the US while of course the US and its citizen ever attacked any other country!

**whembly**

Hybrid Son Of Oxayotl wrote:
whembly wrote:
A) Over 90% of Muslims are unaffected... ergo, not a muslim ban.

It's quite fascinating how apparently a ban on Iranians based on anti-Muslim bigotry is somehow more acceptable than a ban on Muslims. It's like discriminating based on ethnic grounds was somehow better than discriminating on religion. Despite the fact it's obviously even worse.

It's also interesting how much you 'champion' Iran and seemingly is unaware that Iran (and other muslim majority nations) bans Jews.

**Ouze**

I'm not sure how in any way pointing out that the US elected a fool with a marked disdain for truthfulness counts as a violation of rule 1.

I mean, I guess if I was on Team Red I'd be pretty embarrassed as well, so I might pull at any string that might offer even temporary reprieve from an honest accounting of how things lay, but insulting the honesty of the people you're trying to get relief from seems like a reach.

**A Town Called Malus**

whembly wrote:
Hybrid Son Of Oxayotl wrote:
whembly wrote:
A) Over 90% of Muslims are unaffected... ergo, not a muslim ban.

It's quite fascinating how apparently a ban on Iranians based on anti-Muslim bigotry is somehow more acceptable than a ban on Muslims. It's like discriminating based on ethnic grounds was somehow better than discriminating on religion. Despite the fact it's obviously even worse.

It's also interesting how much you 'champion' Iran and seemingly is unaware that Iran (and other muslim majority nations) bans Jews.

#Whataboutism

It's interesting that you regard calling out the ban of people going to the US from Iran as discriminatory, "championing" Iran.

Here's the thing, most of those people going to the US from Iran will not be supporting a jewish ban, else they wouldn't be going to the US which has a sizeable Jewish population.

**WrentheFaceless**

I think we established a while back that Rule # 1 only applies to posters engaged in conversation in this thread

We can talk gak about Donnie all we want or non human entities such as the US, but not each other.

This orange turd was elected, the US deserves all the flak its getting for the next 4 years

**skyth**

Plus, it's pointless to have a politics thread if you can't be a critic of the country...

**Ensis Ferrae**

sebster wrote:
Obama didn't address the crazies attacking him, in fact he stayed silent on crazy attacks like birtherism for years.

And when he did finally address it, he did it in perhaps one of the more humorous ways of doing so (Remember, he used a video clip from Lion King at the WH correspondents dinner one year).

Automatically Appended Next Post:

Hybrid Son Of Oxayotl wrote:
whembly wrote:
A) Over 90% of Muslims are unaffected... ergo, not a muslim ban.

It's quite fascinating how apparently a ban on Iranians based on anti-Muslim bigotry is somehow more acceptable than a ban on Muslims. It's like discriminating based on ethnic grounds was somehow better than discriminating on religion. Despite the fact it's obviously even worse.

Or how, because it's not a Muslim ban, Muhammed Ali Jr. suddenly gets stopped at an airport he claims to have flown to and from probably dozens of times.

**whembly**

A Town Called Malus wrote:
whembly wrote:
Hybrid Son Of Oxayotl wrote:
whembly wrote:
A) Over 90% of Muslims are unaffected... ergo, not a muslim ban.

It's quite fascinating how apparently a ban on Iranians based on anti-Muslim bigotry is somehow more acceptable than a ban on Muslims. It's like discriminating based on ethnic grounds was somehow better than discriminating on religion. Despite the fact it's obviously even worse.

It's also interesting how much you 'champion' Iran and seemingly is unaware that Iran (and other muslim majority nations) bans Jews.

#Whataboutism

It's interesting that you regard calling out the ban of people going to the US from Iran as discriminatory, "championing" Iran.

Here's the thing, most of those people going to the US from Iran will not be supporting a jewish ban, else they wouldn't be going to the US which has a sizeable Jewish population.

It's not whataboutism.

It's simply an acknowledgement that countries set their own rules for immigration.