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.
People have engaged with you, for years, in reasonable discourse.
You don't argue in good faith.
I can't wait for this clowncar pileup of an election to be over, one way or the other.
I'm voting D. Don't care at this point about Hilary's "scandals", not voting third party because while sure getting third parties on the ticket and treated as a realistic option would be great...this ain't the election to do so.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2016/10/24 18:53:41
d-usa wrote: The last payment only concerned a ruling for the payment and interest owed from the US not honoring the contract for an arms deal, but keeping the money that Iran paid us anyway.
Again... I thought all that was squared.
I would think something like that would be easy to research for a high-information voter, but maybe I was mistaken.
You are very skilled at making a mockery of Rule #1.
Again, a simple and quick search would make it obvious that the financial history and deals between the US and Iran include more than a single case that resulted from a single purchase gone wrong many years ago.
You say that you are a high-information voter, you always talk about how bad the deal was, now you say that one payment for one deal made you think "it was all squared away".
I'm not breaking Rule 1, I'm just pointing out that your own thoughts don't square.
For a chance to scalp whembly in case you do change his mind?
People have engaged with you, for years, in reasonable discourse.
Some reasonable and some not. You seem to think that one position is right and all others are wrong.
You don't argue in good faith.
That's your frustration talking. I sincerely try to argue in good faith.
I can't wait for this clowncar pileup of an election to be over, one way or the other.
Right there with you.
I'm voting D. Don't care at this point about Hilary's "scandals", not voting third party because while sure getting third parties on the ticket and treated as a realistic option would be great...this ain't the election to do so.
That's your prerogative. Do let me, or anyone else, prevent you from engaging the political process. You make up your own damn mind.
d-usa wrote: The last payment only concerned a ruling for the payment and interest owed from the US not honoring the contract for an arms deal, but keeping the money that Iran paid us anyway.
Again... I thought all that was squared.
I would think something like that would be easy to research for a high-information voter, but maybe I was mistaken.
You are very skilled at making a mockery of Rule #1.
Again, a simple and quick search would make it obvious that the financial history and deals between the US and Iran include more than a single case that resulted from a single purchase gone wrong many years ago.
You say that you are a high-information voter, you always talk about how bad the deal was, now you say that one payment for one deal made you think "it was all squared away".
I've made my point that I don't believe the US should be doing any of this, for any reason. We're not signatory to the International Court, and these *deals* are shady as feth.
I'm not breaking Rule 1, I'm just pointing out that your own thoughts don't square.
A mod has already stepped in, so I'm not going to drag this topic out.
This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2016/10/24 19:02:44
One point about Dems winning the senate but not getting the sixty votes needed to break a filibuster: just a guess here, but I'd bet they invoke the "nuclear option" and move to cloture whenever that happens pretty quickly. They wouldn't have much to lose and much to gain. The public won't really blame them in light of what the GOP has done for the last six years (and last year with the the SC nomination) and the Dems will be looking at a minority in the Senate again in two years again anyway, no matter how popular or unpopular Clinton turns out to be just because of how many Dem Senate seats will be up vs. GOP. Clinton will still be in office for two more years with a GOP Senate where nothing will get done, so they might as well do what they can when they can.
Now if we had a two party system where the two parties actually realized they are both playing on the same team (team America), this wouldn't be an issue, but that sadly isn't the case.
This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2016/10/24 19:53:17
I'm not a fan of the nuclear option for SCOTUS nominations. But I doubt there could be too much backlash with the general public if the Dems used it now, not after a year of "the public gets to pick the next judge by picking the next president" and "feth the people and their next president, we'll block the voice of the people anyway."
For a chance to scalp whembly in case you do change his mind?
People have engaged with you, for years, in reasonable discourse.
Some reasonable and some not. You seem to think that one position is right and all others are wrong.
You don't argue in good faith.
That's your frustration talking. I sincerely try to argue in good faith.
We have ample evidence that you will not change your mind. Some engagement hasn't been reasonable but even that which has only yielded the result of you doubling down on the same opinion even in light of overwhelming evidence against it. Its very hard to say you argue in good faith when you disregard any amount of evidence-based reasoning in favor of your Republican bias. This is what the past threads have shown us to be true, and you denying it is ironically the best proof we could ever have. For myself, I've given you the benefit of the doubt and its gotten nowhere. If you want me to engage you with reason then you have to show you'll do the same. In the meantime, keep helping the GOP dig their hole deeper and enjoy having to vote against a candidacy you had your own little part in creating.
This message was edited 6 times. Last update was at 2016/10/24 20:23:31
d-usa wrote: I'm not a fan of the nuclear option for SCOTUS nominations. But I doubt there could be too much backlash with the general public if the Dems used it now, not after a year of "the public gets to pick the next judge by picking the next president" and "feth the people and their next president, we'll block the voice of the people anyway."
Meh... it's a Senate rule that's been voted on by it's member.
It's not like it's codified into law. If the nuke option is invoked (simply majority), let it happen.
What it does do, is that it really neuters the minority's strength.
I'm not a huge fan of the nuclear option either, I would prefer we work out our differences and come to a compromise. Absent that happening, the nuclear option sort of looks like the only way things will get done.
Automatically Appended Next Post: Here in SD, very red country, I haven't seen any signs for national elections at all. Some, but not to the usual extent, local and state race signs.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2016/10/24 20:28:39
For a chance to scalp whembly in case you do change his mind?
People have engaged with you, for years, in reasonable discourse.
Some reasonable and some not. You seem to think that one position is right and all others are wrong.
You don't argue in good faith.
That's your frustration talking. I sincerely try to argue in good faith.
We have ample evidence that you will not change your mind.
God forbid that I don't participate in some echo chamber...
Some engagement hasn't been reasonable but even that which has only yielded the result of you doubling down on the same opinion even in light of overwhelming evidence against it.
It would help if you would provide some examples, because from where I stand, I'm secure in my opinion over:
Clinton Emailgate
Pay-for-Play Clinton Foundation
Democrats are just as bad as Republicans
Clinton is just as bad as Trump
Its very hard to say you argue in good faith when you disregard any amount of evidence-based reasoning in favor of your Republican bias.
Excuse me? I've provide pethora of arguments while backing up my claims. So, if you want to lash out at me that I'm being obstinate in my opinion, sure have at it. But you think I'm doing this in bad faith? Bro, if you're going to keep banging that drum, then let me defend myself after you provide some citations.
This is what the past threads have shown us to be true, and you denying it is ironically the best proof we could ever have. For myself, I've given you the benefit of the doubt and its gotten nowhere. If you want me to engage you with reason then you have to show you'll do the same. In the meantime, keep helping the GOP dig their hole deeper and enjoy having to vote against a candidacy you had your own little part in creating.
There's you bias creeping through underlined above.
But, hey... keep trying to hang that Trumpian Albatross around my neck... I'll be bob'n weaving outside of your reach.
I dont see how thats any worse than 50-60 year olds that are out of touch
That seems a tad presumptive in regards to the Court. If 9 old white guys can decide that a woman has a right to an abortion in 1976, then I think we can consider that the kinds of people who become court justices aren't as out of touch as me might think. If anything I've found a great many judges to be remarkably insightful about present circumstances for people who must have spent years of their lives huddled in dusty libraries pouring through verbois jargon filled legal texts twenty to thirty years ago.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2016/10/24 21:26:14
whembly wrote: But, hey... keep trying to hang that Trumpian Albatross around my neck... I'll be bob'n weaving outside of your reach.
I chuckled at this. You don't have to support Trump to have been part of the group who helped get him here. Accordingly, I'm not trying to hang an albatross but rather pointing out that it only took flight by jumping off your shoulders. Maybe this piece about assigning blame will say things better.
I dont see how thats any worse than 50-60 year olds that are out of touch
That seems a tad presumptive in regards to the Court. If 9 old white guys can decide that a woman has a right to an abortion in 1976, then I think we can consider that the kinds of people who become court justices aren't as out of touch as me might think. If anything I've found a great many judges to be remarkably insightful about present circumstances for people who must have spent years of their lives huddled in dusty libraries pouring through verbois jargon filled legal texts twenty to thirty years ago.
I don't think that's what he meant. I think Gordon was implying that Dems would use the opportunity to nominate (rather) young people to the SC, so that they could guarantee a certain number of liberal justices on the court for a very, very long time. After all, a thirty year old is a lot farther from retirement age than a fifty year old...
Emperor's Eagles (undergoing Chapter reorganization)
Caledonian 95th (undergoing regimental reorganization)
Thousands Sons (undergoing Warband re--- wait, are any of my 40K armies playable?)
I dont see how thats any worse than 50-60 year olds that are out of touch
That seems a tad presumptive in regards to the Court. If 9 old white guys can decide that a woman has a right to an abortion in 1976, then I think we can consider that the kinds of people who become court justices aren't as out of touch as me might think. If anything I've found a great many judges to be remarkably insightful about present circumstances for people who must have spent years of their lives huddled in dusty libraries pouring through verbois jargon filled legal texts twenty to thirty years ago.
Oh we're talking about the supreme court? I was talking about politicians in general
I dont see how thats any worse than 50-60 year olds that are out of touch
That seems a tad presumptive in regards to the Court. If 9 old white guys can decide that a woman has a right to an abortion in 1976, then I think we can consider that the kinds of people who become court justices aren't as out of touch as me might think. If anything I've found a great many judges to be remarkably insightful about present circumstances for people who must have spent years of their lives huddled in dusty libraries pouring through verbois jargon filled legal texts twenty to thirty years ago.
Sebster probably sends them daily email updates about the state of the US.
Co'tor Shas wrote: I still don't get describing Clinton as a "warhawk". Especially when compared to the Republican" glass 'em all" stratagy.
Liberal hawk would be the right descriptive. She definitely buys into the idea of using violence for democracy and free trade. As per her M.O. only stops supporting violence when it becomes politically expedient to do so. Clinton's policy for Syria is actually equally as "badong" as Trump's. So while it isn't as firey as your typical Republican candidate, in practice she isn't much better.
After witnessing how she was instrumental in turning Lybia into a warzone, I have no faith in the woman's Middle East policies.
Co'tor Shas wrote: I still don't get describing Clinton as a "warhawk". Especially when compared to the Republican" glass 'em all" stratagy.
Liberal hawk would be the right descriptive. She definitely buys into the idea of using violence for democracy and free trade. As per her M.O. only stops supporting violence when it becomes politically expedient to do so. Clinton's policy for Syria is actually equally as "badong" as Trump's. So while it isn't as firey as your typical Republican candidate, in practice she isn't much better.
After witnessing how she was instrumental in turning Lybia into a warzone, I have no faith in the woman's Middle East policies.
Yeah, cause Lybia wouldn't have gone through a civil war on its own? I thought the problem with Lybia was that Obama was leading from behind there? The idea being that we weren't taking a forceful enough position and letting the French fight our wars for us? Get your talking points straight from month to month.
This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2016/10/24 22:59:48
Co'tor Shas wrote: I still don't get describing Clinton as a "warhawk". Especially when compared to the Republican" glass 'em all" stratagy.
Liberal hawk would be the right descriptive. She definitely buys into the idea of using violence for democracy and free trade. As per her M.O. only stops supporting violence when it becomes politically expedient to do so. Clinton's policy for Syria is actually equally as "badong" as Trump's. So while it isn't as firey as your typical Republican candidate, in practice she isn't much better.
After witnessing how she was instrumental in turning Lybia into a warzone, I have no faith in the woman's Middle East policies.
Yes, it was Clinton's doing!!!! Go do some reading!
Co'tor Shas wrote: I still don't get describing Clinton as a "warhawk". Especially when compared to the Republican" glass 'em all" stratagy.
Liberal hawk would be the right descriptive. She definitely buys into the idea of using violence for democracy and free trade. As per her M.O. only stops supporting violence when it becomes politically expedient to do so. Clinton's policy for Syria is actually equally as "badong" as Trump's. So while it isn't as firey as your typical Republican candidate, in practice she isn't much better.
After witnessing how she was instrumental in turning Lybia into a warzone, I have no faith in the woman's Middle East policies.
Yes, it was Clinton's doing!!!! Go do some reading!
Co'tor Shas wrote: I still don't get describing Clinton as a "warhawk". Especially when compared to the Republican" glass 'em all" stratagy.
Liberal hawk would be the right descriptive. She definitely buys into the idea of using violence for democracy and free trade. As per her M.O. only stops supporting violence when it becomes politically expedient to do so. Clinton's policy for Syria is actually equally as "badong" as Trump's. So while it isn't as firey as your typical Republican candidate, in practice she isn't much better.
After witnessing how she was instrumental in turning Lybia into a warzone, I have no faith in the woman's Middle East policies.
Yes, it was Clinton's doing!!!! Go do some reading!
First, your second article literally links back to the first one, but form what I can gather, she sort of supported joining in with France and the UK. And I'm unsure how that makes it her fault.
It seems to be more the Europeans fault than anything else.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2016/10/25 02:05:31
Homosexuality is the #1 cause of gay marriage.
kronk wrote: Every pizza is a personal sized pizza if you try hard enough and believe in yourself.
sebster wrote: Yes, indeed. What a terrible piece of cultural imperialism it is for me to say that a country shouldn't murder its own citizens
BaronIveagh wrote: Basically they went from a carrot and stick to a smaller carrot and flanged mace.
This is me posting purely from memory and being to lazy to actually Google or read anything about this, but I thought that the whole Lybia thing basically was a NATO authorized intervention, with Europe taking the lead and the US providing some support.
Co'tor Shas wrote: I still don't get describing Clinton as a "warhawk". Especially when compared to the Republican" glass 'em all" stratagy.
Liberal hawk would be the right descriptive. She definitely buys into the idea of using violence for democracy and free trade. As per her M.O. only stops supporting violence when it becomes politically expedient to do so. Clinton's policy for Syria is actually equally as "badong" as Trump's. So while it isn't as firey as your typical Republican candidate, in practice she isn't much better.
After witnessing how she was instrumental in turning Lybia into a warzone, I have no faith in the woman's Middle East policies.
Yes, it was Clinton's doing!!!! Go do some reading!
The articles you show do nothing but armchair quarterback the aftermath of the NATO action in Libya. Your comments, to which I replied, incredulously stated that Clinton "...was instrumental in turning Lybia into a warzone."
First a little backdrop: Libya is a kleptocracy run by a terrorist sponsoring dictator, Gaddafi, who is known for his brutal repression of any internal dissention within the country and the use of violence against his own people. Unemployment is running in double digits and over a third of the country lives below the poverty line. Nice, stable backdrop there, right? Probably Clinton is behind it.
Now, let's take a look at the time line for some fact checking, shall we?
December 2010: Arab Spring breaks out right next door in Tunisia and quickly spreads across the Arab world, affecting 16 Arab countries that manifest the phenomenon in ways ranging from peaceful protests to Civil War. A major slogan of the demonstrators in the Arab world is Ash-sha`b yurid isqat an-nizam ("the people want to bring down the regime"). One of Clinton's speechwriters must have come up with that.
January 2011: Protests break out across Libya over issues ranging from housing to political corruption with calls from the Islamic hardliners for an overthrow of the government.
February 2011: Gaddafi tells the protesters, journalists and activists that they will be held responsible for any unrest. Later that month, protests in Benghazi erupted into violence as Gaddafi orders security forces to fire upon the protestors. This action acted as the spark which caused uprising across the country. Mercenaries and death squads are hired and funded by Gaddafi to hunt down activists and scourge the country of dissent. The International Federation for Human Rights concluded on 24 February that Gaddafi was implementing a scorched earth strategy and settling "old scores" as well against known opposition and journalists. Sounds like things are already getting pretty violent, like a "warzone" that not only targets the military, but outright seeks the death of civilians. Obviously, early signs of Clinton responsibility.
March 2011: NATO coalition forces, in response to UN 1973 passed by the Security Council without dissent, respond militarily to the Libyan conflict to suppress Gaddafi's prosecution of the war against civilians. The resolution formed the legal basis for military intervention in the Libyan Civil War, demanding "an immediate ceasefire" and authorizing the international community to establish a no-fly zone and to use all means necessary short of foreign occupation to protect civilians. 19 countries are actively involved in this action. The UN and those 19 countries are obviously just Clinton puppets and not at all concerned by the torrent of reports coming out of Libya that Gaddafi has begun a murdurous cleansing of any and all civilian, as well as military, opposition.
October: Gaddafi is killed by rebel forces. The National Transitional Council "declared the liberation of Libya" and the official end of the war on 23 October 2011.
Over the next few months, militia groups and tribes begin infighting as strife and disagreements over the power structure of a post Gaddafi Libya erupt. Yeah, Clinton advisors must have stirred up the kettle between those groups. It couldn't be the fact that you've got ancient tribal rivalries, Islamic extremists, factions sponsored by different foreign entities with their own agendas and just plain power politics causing this. No, it's Clinton.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2016/10/25 03:56:31
3000
4000 
Emperor's Eagles (undergoing Chapter reorganization)
Caledonian 95th (undergoing regimental reorganization)
Thousands Sons (undergoing Warband re--- wait, are any of my 40K armies playable?) 
