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.

Yeah, it's kind of hard to care about your aunt bumping into the mailbox with her care when your uncle is ramming dumpsters while carrying barrels of gasoline and shooting them with a flamethrower.

The fact that Trump probably couldn't do much worse if he were secretly an actor playing a buffoon caricature and yet still has roughly 40% of the electorate is disturbing.

If Trump wins in November, he is most certainly the President that America deserves for being horrible enough to elect him.

I'm glad I moved to Washington, only 3 hours from the Canadian border

 jmurph wrote:
Yeah, it's kind of hard to care about your aunt bumping into the mailbox with her care when your uncle is ramming dumpsters while carrying barrels of gasoline and shooting them with a flamethrower.

The fact that Trump probably couldn't do much worse if he were secretly an actor playing a buffoon caricature and yet still has roughly 40% of the electorate is disturbing.

Speaks to the power of US and THEM.

People are talking about the two-party system being broken, but Trump's numbers are a sign of its strength. Sure, Trump really speaks to a certain part of the party. But many of the rest of GOP voters are willing to look past the clown show -- and the politics that aren't terribly Republican (or anything else defineable) -- simply because he's US and not THEM.

Partisan politics are VERY alive and well.

 WrentheFaceless wrote:
If Trump wins in November, he is most certainly the President that America deserves for being horrible enough to elect him.

I'm glad I moved to Washington, only 3 hours from the Canadian border

I love it when people start talking this way. These empty threats are always so amusing.

 whembly wrote:

SOFA was meant to be renegotiated to provide a long-term presence with U.S. troops in a different role. That was always understood. So, by stating that it was Bush's SOFA, so it's ALL HIS FAULT... amounts to trying to fit a square peg into a round hole in the 'blame game'.

You're buying the line that the Iraqis wanted us out asap.... which is not accurate.

Despite Difficult Talks, U.S. and Iraq Had Expected Some American Troops to Stay.


What we Left Behind.


Leon Panetta: How the White House Misplayed Iraqi Troop Talks.

The Obama administration tried over the course of a year to sign a new SOFA.You keep erecting strawmen, like "IT WAS ALL BUSH'S FAULT". I didn't say that, no one said that into this thread. Bush signed the SOFA stipulating a 2011 pullout, but it was the very best he could get; and it was signed on the eve of the current one expiring which would have meant an immediate pullout, December 2008. I don't dispute that Bush hoped it would be renegotiated.
You want to assign blame? Blame Erik Prince, blame Frank Wuterich. They're the ones that poisoned the idea of US troop immunity.

From your own source:

American diplomats made one last effort to preserve their influence. In a meeting, Jeffrey asked Maliki to commit to several goals in his second term: granting amnesty to thousands of Sunnis who had been detained without charges; dismantling prisons where American officials believed that Iraqis were being tortured; and signing an agreement that would allow American troops to stay in the country. Later that year, the U.S. brokered a deal to bring Allawi and other members of his coalition into the government. In time, Maliki either ignored or jettisoned every promise. “He looked us straight in the eyes and lied,” the former diplomat told me.

The leaders of all the major Iraqi parties had privately told American commanders that they wanted several thousand military personnel to remain, to train Iraqi forces and to help track down insurgents. The commanders told me that Maliki, too, said that he wanted to keep troops in Iraq. But he argued that the long-standing agreement that gave American soldiers immunity from Iraqi courts was increasingly unpopular; parliament would forbid the troops to stay unless they were subject to local law.

So, exactly what I said. The Iraq's would never have signed another SOFA that granted US troops immunity Iraqi law, and the US would never sign off on a SOFA that subjected US troops to Iraqi law.

So, again, your base idea is not true, and yet I know perfectly well you're going to keep repeating it anyway so I'm not sure why I'm bothering.

...uh huh, from those sources I posted, Leon Panetta:

We had leverage. We could, for instance, have threatened to withdraw reconstruction aid to Iraq if al-Maliki would not support some sort of continued U.S. military presence.

Under Secretary of Defense Michèle Flournoy did her best to press that position, which reflected not just my views but also those of the military commanders in the region and the Joint Chiefs. But the President’s team at the White House pushed back, and the differences occasionally became heated. Flournoy argued our case, and those on our side viewed the White House as so eager to rid itself of Iraq that it was willing to withdraw rather than lock in arrangements that would preserve our influence and interests.

We debated with al-Maliki even as we debated among ourselves, with time running out. The clock wound down in December, and Deputy Secretary of Defense Ash Carter continued to argue our case, extending the deadline for the Iraqis to act, hoping that we might pull out a last-minute agreement and recognizing that once our forces left, it would be essentially impossible for them to turn around and return. To my frustration, the White House coordinated the negotiations but never really led them. Officials there seemed content to endorse an agreement if State and Defense could reach one, but without the President’s active advocacy, al-Maliki was allowed to slip away. The deal never materialized. To this day, I believe that a small U.S. troop presence in Iraq could have effectively advised the Iraqi military on how to deal with al-Qaeda’s resurgence and the sectarian violence that has engulfed the country.

Heh...Now I'm reading that the Trump campaign is claiming that Hillary will be shot if she wins...

 skyth wrote:
Heh...Now I'm reading that the Trump campaign is claiming that Hillary will be shot if she wins...

Source for that?

I'm posting from my phone so couldn't grab the link from my PC (Dakka is blocked at work)

 skyth wrote:
I'm posting from my phone so couldn't grab the link from my PC (Dakka is blocked at work)

I say that only as are we discussing a new thing or the Second Amendment thing he said...like yesterday you know a lifetime ago in Trump World.

I believe they were 'clarifying' his second amendment statement.

 djones520 wrote:

 WrentheFaceless wrote:
If Trump wins in November, he is most certainly the President that America deserves for being horrible enough to elect him.

I'm glad I moved to Washington, only 3 hours from the Canadian border

I love it when people start talking this way. These empty threats are always so amusing.

You'd think there would be a problem noticed with how often this claim is being brought up recently with presidential elections.

Though I'm glad you've decided my statement is empty for me, i appreciate words being put into my mouth

Is it too late to rope this guy in the General Election?
https://www.instagram.com/p/BGNebEsIhxb/

No shooting, but some interesting analysis on partisanship: http://fivethirtyeight.com/features/what-the-yankees-red-sox-rivalry-can-teach-us-about-political-polarization/

Interestingly, it seems to confirm my opinion that Americans largely see politics as a team sport. Which is terrible.

Also some Pew research on polarization: http://www.people-press.org/2014/06/12/political-polarization-in-the-american-public/

Some interesting takeaways:
-27% of Democrats and 36% of Republicans see the other party as a threat to America's well being

-50% of those who identify as consistently conservative say it is important to them to live in a place where most people share their political views, compare to 35% who id as consistently liberal and 22% who have mixed views.

-63% of those who identify as consistently conservative say most of my close friends share my political views compared to 49% of consistently liberal and 25% mixed

-Conservatives and liberals have very different views on community dispersion and proximity

-Republicans seemed to trend less conservative from '94 to '04, but spiked after 04. Keep in mind that '94 was something of a high point for conservatism, so after a brief period of leveling off (and matching broader national population trends), the Republicans switched gears and veered sharply rightward.

Digging a bit deeper, there were some disturbing response:
About a quarter (23%) of consistent conservatives, along with 19% of those who are mostly conservative, say they’d be unhappy with a family member’s marriage to someone of a different race. Most conservatives (77%) say it wouldn’t matter or they would be happy about this. By comparison, just 1% of consistent liberals and 4% of those who are mostly liberal say they would be unhappy if a relative marries someone of a different race. This seems to track pretty close to Trump's base.

Interestingly, all spectrums seem to oppose Social Security cuts.

 Peregrine wrote:

 whembly wrote:
Don't act like this is new... it's an age-old problem with the way these parties pass bills.

Except it is new. In the past both parties understood that the daily business of government has to get done, and it's possible to work with the other side on items of mutual interest. Normally this is how things work:

I want A and you don't, you want B and I don't. I agree to support B in exchange for your support on A, and we pass both bills.

I want A and you also want A. We pass A, and issue some press releases congratulating ourselves on our gracious act of bipartisanship for the good of the nation.

But it doesn't really work like that anymore. Now we have a party where petty obstructionism and artificial crises are the standard strategy and the formerly-routine business of governing the country is no longer allowed to happen. Instead we get:

I want A and you don't, you want B and I don't. No matter what I offer you in support of B (or anything else you want) you refuse to support A, simply because I want it and you refuse to let me get anything I want.

I want A and you also want A. You refuse to support A unless I also give you B, C and D (none of which have anything to do with A), not because you have anything against A, but simply because you see an opportunity to make more demands.

?

I general agree with your point. That being said I think I know how certain groups see things differently. It might be a case of: I want to make a joke at your expense, you want to hit me in the face as hard as you can with brass Knuckles. The other side simply sees something as so abhorrent (whether or not it's really that bad they believe it is) that no matter what you offer me I'm not allowing you to punch me.

I don't quite understand the analogy. Passing laws and budgets for the effective running of the government and nation of the USA is not about crude practical jokes.

Zika is already in Florida. As climate change warms the earth more, the range of the mosquitoes that carry the virus will increase northwards. It is a public health issue that ought not to be ignored or used as a political football.

If the Republican Party sees spending money to maintain public health as something so abhorrent they refuse to do it, then it's time for rational citizens to elect a solid Democrat government in all three branches and keep showing the GOP's nose into its messy piles of doo doo until the party bucks up its fething ideas, pulls its collective thumb out of its arse, and gets back to serious governance.

http://www.npr.org/2016/08/11/489576029/why-are-the-media-obsessed-with-trump-s-controversies-and-not-clinton-s

Because the Clinton controversies simply are not as controversial. Time and again certain members of this forum bring up various "Clinton controversies" and on investigation they are found to be lies, minor peccadilloes or at worst, mistakes that other politicians have made and not been seen as the Anti-Christ as a result.

The latest example being the Saudi Arabian donation to the Clinton Presidential Library fund. Lots of ex-presidents have been given money by the Saudis and other foreign nations. It is a perfectly standard practice.

Whereas Trump says something quite mad about every five minutes.

Climate change will not impact mosquitoes in Florida. There are already mosquitoes in all the Gulf States.

 Kilkrazy wrote:
I don't quite understand the analogy. Passing laws and budgets for the effective running of the government and nation of the USA is not about crude practical jokes.

Zika is already in Florida. As climate change warms the earth more, the range of the mosquitoes that carry the virus will increase northwards. It is a public health issue that ought not to be ignored or used as a political football.

If the Republican Party sees spending money to maintain public health as something so abhorrent they refuse to do it, then it's time for rational citizens to elect a solid Democrat government in all three branches and keep showing the GOP's nose into its messy piles of doo doo until the party bucks up its fething ideas, pulls its collective thumb out of its arse, and gets back to serious governance.

It's the Democrats who's filibustering the funding bill KK.

http://www.npr.org/2016/08/11/489576029/why-are-the-media-obsessed-with-trump-s-controversies-and-not-clinton-s

Because the Clinton controversies simply are not as controversial. Time and again certain members of this forum bring up various "Clinton controversies" and on investigation they are found to be lies, minor peccadilloes or at worst, mistakes that other politicians have made and not been seen as the Anti-Christ as a result.

The latest example being the Saudi Arabian donation to the Clinton Presidential Library fund. Lots of ex-presidents have been given money by the Saudis and other foreign nations. It is a perfectly standard practice.

Whereas Trump says something quite mad about every five minutes.

If the GOP nominated a 'not-Trump', her controversies would be a big fething deal. But, alas, Trumps her opponent... hence why I've stated that Clinton secured the White House when Trump was nominated.

As to the news... honestly, it's more like this:

 cuda1179 wrote:
I general agree with your point. That being said I think I know how certain groups see things differently. It might be a case of: I want to make a joke at your expense, you want to hit me in the face as hard as you can with brass Knuckles. The other side simply sees something as so abhorrent (whether or not it's really that bad they believe it is) that no matter what you offer me I'm not allowing you to punch me.

Yes, of course there's no obligation to make a deal for a particular policy if you absolutely do not want it. But that's not the case here, the republican party has moved from obstructing the worst things they disagree with to obstructing virtually everything just because the other side wants it. When everything is "the worst thing ever that needs to be stopped" then nothing is.

http://boingboing.net/2016/08/11/trump-is-an-object-lesson-in-t.html

Trump's algorithm is to say semi-random things until his crowd roars its approval, then he iteratively modifies those statements, seeking more and more approval, until he maxes out and tries a new tack.

This is one of the core strategies of machine-learning:...
...

It also betrays one of the core problems with machine learning: bias in the sample-set. The people that Trump relies upon to give him his success feedback are the people who show up for Trump rallies, who are the most extreme, least-representative group of potential Trump voters. The more Trump optimizes for this limited group, the more he de-optimizes for the rest of the world.

 Peregrine wrote:

 cuda1179 wrote:
I general agree with your point. That being said I think I know how certain groups see things differently. It might be a case of: I want to make a joke at your expense, you want to hit me in the face as hard as you can with brass Knuckles. The other side simply sees something as so abhorrent (whether or not it's really that bad they believe it is) that no matter what you offer me I'm not allowing you to punch me.

Yes, of course there's no obligation to make a deal for a particular policy if you absolutely do not want it. But that's not the case here, the republican party has moved from obstructing the worst things they disagree with to obstructing virtually everything just because the other side wants it. When everything is "the worst thing ever that needs to be stopped" then nothing is.

Interesting turn of phrase...

Democrats blocks a bill = Republican obstructionism.

 whembly wrote:
It's the Democrats who's filibustering the funding bill KK.

No, you don't get to keep lying like this. The democrats proposed (and will vote for) a funding bill. What they are opposing is the republican attempt to insert a bunch of their pet causes into the funding bill instead of doing their job and signing the "clean" bill.

As to the news... honestly, it's more like this:

No, that's not it at all. As people keep telling you the reason why Trump's awfulness gets more attention from the media is that he keeps doing really awful things. No matter how much you put "CLINTON LIES" in giant size text the simple truth is that her lies are on the same level as any other generic politician. IOW, they're not really all that interesting.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 whembly wrote:
Democrats blocks a bill = Republican obstructionism.

No, democrats propose a single-purpose bill that accomplishes the job and republicans refuse to support it unless they add in a bunch of their pet causes (even though they agree with the single purpose) = republican obstructionism. It's manufacturing yet another hostage crisis as an attempt to get what they want instead of doing their job.

 Peregrine wrote:

 whembly wrote:
It's the Democrats who's filibustering the funding bill KK.

No, you don't get to keep lying like this. The democrats proposed (and will vote for) a funding bill. What they are opposing is the republican attempt to insert a bunch of their pet causes into the funding bill instead of doing their job and signing the "clean" bill.

That's not lying.

The Bill in question was already written up and failed to secure the 60 vote threshold, due to Democrats filibuster.

As to the news... honestly, it's more like this:

No, that's not it at all. As people keep telling you the reason why Trump's awfulness gets more attention from the media is that he keeps doing really awful things. No matter how much you put "CLINTON LIES" in giant size text the simple truth is that her lies are on the same level as any other generic politician. IOW, they're not really all that interesting.

Sad state, that the next President is going to be so fething corrupt.

I am wondering more and more if it is too late to promote a third party Walken-Busey Ticket. If we are going to do crazy, we might as well make it the most entertaining thing ever. On second thought, this is a great idea because Walken and Busey are infinitely better and more qualified candidates than either Clinton or Trump. Not to mention more intelligent.

 Peregrine wrote:

Automatically Appended Next Post:

 whembly wrote:
Democrats blocks a bill = Republican obstructionism.

No, democrats propose a single-purpose bill that accomplishes the job and republicans refuse to support it unless they add in a bunch of their pet causes (even though they agree with the single purpose) = republican obstructionism. It's manufacturing yet another hostage crisis as an attempt to get what they want instead of doing their job.

... as much as you wish it were so, it doesn't work like that.

The Bill was ready for a vote with the needed funding.

The Planned Parenthood rider is too much for Democrats as it appears.

People just put the troll on ignore. Discussing with it is useless. It will just kerp on repeating the same disproven lies.

 skyth wrote:
People just put the troll on ignore. Discussing with it is useless. It will just kerp on repeating the same disproven lies.

What is the "lie".

It's on record that the Democrats filibustered this bill.

 whembly wrote:
The Bill in question was already written up and failed to secure the 60 vote threshold, due to Democrats filibuster.

No, the irrelevant bill full of republican pet causes was written up and failed to get the votes. If the republican party would like to support a bill that addresses funding for this specific disease problem without adding in anything else then the bill will be passed just fine.

Sad state, that the next President is going to be so fething corrupt.

As will the president in 2020, and 2024, and 2028, and 2032, and so on for the foreseeable future. Politicians are corrupt, don't act like this is something unique to Clinton and Trump.

 NorseSig wrote:
I am wondering more and more if it is too late to promote a third party Walken-Busey Ticket. If we are going to do crazy, we might as well make it the most entertaining thing ever. On second thought, this is a great idea because Walken and Busey are infinitely better and more qualified candidates than either Clinton or Trump. Not to mention more intelligent.

I don't know. I think Trump would just escalate against your new Cray Cray Party.

 Frazzled wrote:

 NorseSig wrote:
I am wondering more and more if it is too late to promote a third party Walken-Busey Ticket. If we are going to do crazy, we might as well make it the most entertaining thing ever. On second thought, this is a great idea because Walken and Busey are infinitely better and more qualified candidates than either Clinton or Trump. Not to mention more intelligent.

I don't know. I think Trump would just escalate against your new Cray Cray Party.

So what you're saying is, I should bring popcorn?