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.

More like "Bill Clinton fanned the flames of Trump's lust for power in order to make the GOP look ridiculous, and thereby increase the chances of his wife winning the White House."

They don't call him Slick Willy for nothing. If that indeed was his intent, then all I can say is, "Well done, sir."

It's just hard to imagine Trump being complicit in a conspiracy with the Clinton's, because of his massive ego, but I guess you never know...I am honestly still not sure whether Trump really wants to be President, or if this is just some big joke to him.

 Frazzled wrote:

 shasolenzabi wrote:
The Donald may bring a whole new meaning to "presidential debate"

I'd bet good money he's actually very calm and thoughtful in this, to make everyone else look kookey.

In other news, the FBI is now sniffing around about the security of those private routers of HRC's.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/fbi-looks-into-security-of-clintons-private-e-mail-setup/2015/08/04/2bdd85ec-3aae-11e5-8e98-115a3cf7d7ae_story.html

I plan on watching those debates, I will laugh my ass off if he does that to them!


Oh the tides are a turning for Clinton, and this opens things up as now Bernie is 30 to clintons' 32 ratings! Coming across as a fake in any shape or form is now hurtful to candidates in an America tired of the shucksters, and sheisters we call politicians

 whembly wrote:

gak... I really liked Audioslave... and they're HONEST to GOD commie-bastards.

As bad as Cake?? If you have an iron constitution, watch some "live" footage from their concerts... I'm fairly all over the place on the political map, with a bit of a pull to the left, but holy crap those dudes (well, really the lead singer) are way the heck out there.

Is anyone else seriously disappointed that Perry and Trump won't be on the same stage? These guys seem to have a genuine hatred for each other.

Heck, I remember Michael Stipe wasting my time spouting off about the evils of the Army and capitalism when what I paid for was musical entertainment. The show was a good show, but even the typical REM crowd types were like 'shut up and get on with it!' during his diatribe.

I learned a short while ago that it's best not to look up the lyrics of songs you like, nor to delve too much into the politics of celebrities you enjoy.

 jasper76 wrote:
Is anyone else seriously disappointed that Perry and Trump won't be on the same stage? These guys seem to have a genuine hatred for each other.

I would have liked to have seen that, yes. Who doesn't enjoy two clowns slapping each other when you go to the circus?

Ouze wrote:
I learned a short while ago that it's best not to look up the lyrics of songs you like, nor to delve too much into the politics of celebrities you enjoy.

Indeed, for a period of time, I neglected to "unfollow" Moby on facebook (I actually do like some of his music)... the dude honestly NEVER posts about music. Instead, he is a literal broken record on all things vegan.


At least when you follow Cannibal Corpse, or Exmortus or the like on things like FB, they actually post things related to their work

 CptJake wrote:
Heck, I remember Michael Stipe wasting my time spouting off about the evils of the Army and capitalism when what I paid for was musical entertainment. The show was a good show, but even the typical REM crowd types were like 'shut up and get on with it!' during his diatribe.

Dead Kennedys come to mind here. That dude was (is?) pinker than a flamingo in heat.

 jasper76 wrote:

 CptJake wrote:
Heck, I remember Michael Stipe wasting my time spouting off about the evils of the Army and capitalism when what I paid for was musical entertainment. The show was a good show, but even the typical REM crowd types were like 'shut up and get on with it!' during his diatribe.

Dead Kennedys come to mind here. That dude was (is?) pinker than a flamingo in heat.

Oh yeah, Biafra is even worse than la Rocha.

Keith Morris (black flag/circle jerks) is pretty hard core leftist too.

But I listen to them all.

 jasper76 wrote:

 whembly wrote:

Who do you think put the GOP back in charge in both the House and Senate? I think you're maybe conflating "conservative base" to the far "religious right".

I have no doubt that the GOP is still powerful in local elections....just nationally, they are not keeping up with dramatic demographic shifts. This is not news. If the GOP is content to remain a local power, that's a route that's available to them, but its becoming increasingly obvious that in order to really compete nationally, they will really have to moderate their platform.

In all fairness, they've made a good start by keepiong their mouths shut (for the most part) after gay marriage bans were rendered unconstitutional. All you gotta do is apply that silence to women's reproductive systems, and Voila! You're well on your way back to the path to national relevancy.

I actually read some commentary after the 2012 election, about why we elected a bunch of Republican governors at the same time we elected a Democratic President. The suggestion was that we like our local politicians conservative, as the local level is usually just about maintaining the status quo, keeping state services running, etc, which is all easily accomplished by your friendly neighborhood conservative. But the national level is often where real social changes are made (some states will always be ahead of the curve, but the rest usually have to be dragged kicking and screaming by the Fed into the modern day), and that's where the liberal Ds come in.

 jasper76 wrote:

I think the GOP field needs a dude, maybe a candidate who knows he won't win like Rand Paul, to level with the conservative base that they no longer have the demographic clout they used to, and they simply cannot win the White House on a platform that contains stances that are offensive to the majority of US voters. It might sound like I'm just bashing on the GOP, but I really do believe we need a "small government" platform in the mix, just for the love of all things reasonable, keep the small government stuff, and jettison the quixotic quest to ban abortion. I mean this whole Planned Parenthood thing...just when you might thing the GOP might be coming to its senses, boom! Surprise! We're still the same creepy old white-hairs who were trying to crawl in the sheets with you and your wife 4 years ago.

The problem with that is that "small government" is just a smoke and mirrors platform. For the Rs, it means cutting welfare/entitlements but increasing defense, for the Ds it means cutting defense but increasing welfare/entitlements. Ultimately, the government stays the same size, just the parts that one party didn't like shrunk while the parts they do like got bigger,

And, let's face it, sending some things back to the states just means we pay more state taxes (because, do you really think federal taxes will go down?).

We used to be the opposite here in Oklahoma. A very blue state, neighbors helping neighbors, a big state government. And going Red at the federal level to keep them in check.

 Ensis Ferrae wrote:

 whembly wrote:

gak... I really liked Audioslave... and they're HONEST to GOD commie-bastards.

As bad as Cake?? If you have an iron constitution, watch some "live" footage from their concerts... I'm fairly all over the place on the political map, with a bit of a pull to the left, but holy crap those dudes (well, really the lead singer) are way the heck out there.

Yup... Onstage, the Audioslave guys would say things like "we ought to be more like Cuba or Venezuala".

 Ensis Ferrae wrote:
Which I think will hurt them overall as people will think they are being wishy-washy, or flip-flopping on issues, etc. I really do think that Sanders will do quite well all the way through to the end of things, simply because he doesn't have to, and isn't going to "swing back" in any direction to try and bring in more votes.

Yeah, one of the big things in politics is to manage that swing back to the centre without looking wishy washy, or just looking like you're saying anything to get elected. Not many of them handle it well, probably the best in recent memory was GW Bush.

Makes me wonder. Was GW Bush's "Compassionate Conservatism" ethos entirely abandoned by the GOP? You never hear that phrase bandied about anymore except in reference to Bush.

Did the term become too closely associated with his Medicare expansion?

Ouze wrote:
GQ has an article about Trump that I found to be quite good, and your above point is referenced therein.

That was a great article, thanks for linking to that. And yeah, there's always an 'outsider' candidate, even though the merits of an outsider are dubious at best, and no-one on the national stage is ever really an outsider anyway.

Anyhow, I just thought I'd pick out some of the best bits in the article about the whole Trump thing;

"It’s still not clear whether he’s in on the joke—there’s always been a bit of mystery to how aware Donald Trump is that Donald Trump is full of gak."

"You can see why people think he’s more “honest” than one of the other randos in the GOP field—he’s gifted at not sounding like a politician even as he deploys standard tricks from the “I’m not a politician” handbook."

"the grim undercurrent of his rise is SHAME. After all, if you believe we must make America great again, then you must also believe that America, at the present moment, sucks. And pretty much everyone at the Trump picnic believed that America sucks."


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 whembly wrote:
Well... the Democrat did filibuster the defund PP bill... so, now the GOP can say that the Democrats are forcing all taxpayer to pay for fetal organ harvesting for profit.

And they'd be lying liars who lie to suckers who believe lies. To say it nicely. Seriously, there's been no Federal funding for the abortion services in PP for fething decades. Despite that basic fething reality, the lies continue.

The Federal funds for PP go to non-abortion services, like pre-natal check ups and other stuff that helps mothers deliver healthy babies. The bill put forward to defund PP would result in more babies dying.

But of course, the anti-abortion crowd in the US is a collection of liars, and so they don't actually care that babies might die.

 sebster wrote:

Automatically Appended Next Post:

 whembly wrote:
Well... the Democrat did filibuster the defund PP bill... so, now the GOP can say that the Democrats are forcing all taxpayer to pay for fetal organ harvesting for profit.

And they'd be lying liars who lie to suckers who believe lies. To say it nicely. Seriously, there's been no Federal funding for the abortion services in PP for fething decades. Despite that basic fething reality, the lies continue.

The Federal funds for PP go to non-abortion services, like pre-natal check ups and other stuff that helps mothers deliver healthy babies. The bill put forward to defund PP would result in more babies dying.

But of course, the anti-abortion crowd in the US is a collection of liars, and so they don't actually care that babies might die.

That's laughable sebster. You know exactly what I fething mean by what those $$$ are doing for PP and what I meant by that it's fungible.

That bill would redirected the non-abortion services to other community healthcare providers. No women services are being reduced at. all. by. that. bill.

Now with that out of the way.

The issue isn't about the funding... it's the fact that PP was caught on tape facilitating an organ harvest business for profit. Which is illegal.

1. Has it been proven beyond a reasonable doubt (you know, a basic tenet that helps form the foundation of our legal system) that it was "for profit"?
2. The other healthcare providers that would have received this funding, do they have the same national coverage/presence as PP?

 whembly wrote:
You're missing the point too... do you see them on the media "celebrated" for what they do? Compare and contrast that.

I think you're missing the point, in that there's a significant difference between Saddam's Iraq and an Iraq controlled by ISIS.

 Tannhauser42 wrote:
1. Has it been proven beyond a reasonable doubt (you know, a basic tenet that helps form the foundation of our legal system) that it was "for profit"?

You only need to watch the videos (5 in all so far) that shows them that an investigation is easily justified. Multiple states are conducting investigations as we speak.

2. The other healthcare providers that would have received this funding, do they have the same national coverage/presence as PP?

Absolutely. In fact, these providers are actually fighting for these fundings. But, since PP spends about 15 million per year in their lobbying efforts, it's easy for them to keep those federal/state fundings flowing.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 sebster wrote:

 whembly wrote:
You're missing the point too... do you see them on the media "celebrated" for what they do? Compare and contrast that.

I think you're missing the point, in that there's a significant difference between Saddam's Iraq and an Iraq controlled by ISIS.

Still missing the point.

That's not what I was saying. Re-read what I stated.

 jasper76 wrote:
Dead Kennedys come to mind here. That dude was (is?) pinker than a flamingo in heat.

To be fair, though, the Dead Kennedys were never just a music group, the politics was always tied up in what they do.

Planned Parenthood's response to the latest video:

"The footage released today doesn’t show Planned Parenthood staff engaged in any wrongdoing or agreeing to violate any legal or medical standards. Instead, the latest tape shows an extremely offensive intrusion and lack of respect for women, with footage of medical tissue in a lab, The latest tape has at least 20 substantial and unexplained edits. Previous tapes released by this extremist group were heavily edited in order to distort what the people on the tapes actually said. These videos are intended to shock and deceive the public."

Automatically Appended Next Post:

 sebster wrote:

 jasper76 wrote:
Dead Kennedys come to mind here. That dude was (is?) pinker than a flamingo in heat.

To be fair, though, the Dead Kennedys were never just a music group, the politics was always tied up in what they do.

I actually know more about Biafra through television appearances than about his band. I never got into punk music too much.

 jasper76 wrote:
Planned Parenthood's response to the latest video:

"The footage released today doesn’t show Planned Parenthood staff engaged in any wrongdoing or agreeing to violate any legal or medical standards. Instead, the latest tape shows an extremely offensive intrusion and lack of respect for women, with footage of medical tissue in a lab, The latest tape has at least 20 substantial and unexplained edits. Previous tapes released by this extremist group were heavily edited in order to distort what the people on the tapes actually said. These videos are intended to shock and deceive the public."

Extremists lying to push their agenda? Who woulda thought it.

 jasper76 wrote:
Planned Parenthood's response to the latest video:

"The footage released today doesn’t show Planned Parenthood staff engaged in any wrongdoing or agreeing to violate any legal or medical standards. Instead, the latest tape shows an extremely offensive intrusion and lack of respect for women, with footage of medical tissue in a lab, The latest tape has at least 20 substantial and unexplained edits. Previous tapes released by this extremist group were heavily edited in order to distort what the people on the tapes actually said. These videos are intended to shock and deceive the public."

Which they did release the full unedited the tapes, from start to finish.

That a damage control response if I ever seen one.

Curious, have you watched the full tapes.

Here's the thing, 'abortion' is such a politically toxic subject matter, we all lose our collective gak.

*shrugs*

Nothing ever changes...

Oh hell no, I didn't watch it. I have absolutely zero interest in viewing videos of dead fetuses. Never have, and never will. I've kept up with the story on the Washington Post, whose reporting both sides quite detailed enough for my taste.

 jasper76 wrote:
Oh hell no, I didn't watch it. I have absolutely zero interest in viewing videos of dead fetuses. Never have, and never will. I've kept up with the story on the Washington Post, whose reporting both sides quite detailed enough for my taste.

Yeah... I watched it... It's appalling.

Anyhoo...
http://nypost.com/2015/08/05/fbi-investigation-of-hillarys-emails-is-criminal-probe/

Yes, you read that right, the FBI investigation is calling it "a criminal probe".

Yeesh.

 jasper76 wrote:
Makes me wonder. Was GW Bush's "Compassionate Conservatism" ethos entirely abandoned by the GOP? You never hear that phrase bandied about anymore except in reference to Bush.

In the last couple of years of the Bush admin there was a lot of talk in the Republican party which basically amounted to asking ‘where did all of this go wrong?’ Incredibly the actual answer, ‘Iraq, you fething idiots’ was largely left off the table, and instead the party split in to two parts, those who thought the Bush admin was too right wing for middle America, and those who felt the party wasn’t right wing enough, and therefore not meaningfully different from the Democrats.

The ‘not right enough’ group won, mostly through structural advantages, but not significantly. Then in 2008 the Republicans got trounced, and this heightened the debate but didn’t end it. 2010 was the masterstroke, though, with the faux grassroots Tea Party decisively winning the case for ‘not right enough’. From there any moderate Republican was going to face a targeted attack, and many did. The excellent results in 2010 made it seem this strategy was a success not just within the party, but with the electorate as a whole.

But then after they failed to overcome Obama in a tanked economy, the question was asked again. But this time around there just weren’t that many moderate voices left to make the case for their side, so there was little chance of the Republicans moving back to the centre.

The narrowing of the base through moving further and further right will be terminal, but it’s a slow process, it’s likely Republicans will win more than few presidential elections, and have periods of congressional control before the issue is finally, clearly terminal for the party.

The issue, though, is that the longer they wait, the harder it will be to change course back to the centre.

 whembly wrote:
Still missing the point.

That's not what I was saying. Re-read what I stated.

No, you just have to put some of the dots together. You complained that there’s no media celebrating the people protesting war against ISIS, like there was celebrating the protest against war in Iraq.

But the basic reality is that the latter was much easier to celebrate, because it was a much more meaningful, sensible protest. And that’s a thing that can’t actually be debated. People might believe both wars were necessary, and people might believe neither war is merited, but everyone has to recognise that the war against Iraq was a much weaker case than the war against ISIS.

From there, it really shouldn’t be too hard to understand why one group of protestors is given more favourable coverage than another.

And even if you don’t accept that, then there’s just the basic issue of scale – Iraq was a much bigger operation than the war against ISIS. It’s like complaining that Vietnam war protests got more coverage than Panama war protestors, therefore that means something about political bias.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 jasper76 wrote:
I actually know more about Biafra through television appearances than about his band. I never got into punk music too much.

I was never really in to punk either. Some friends were so I got exposure through them, and from what I’ve heard I doubt there’s many people who’d buy in to the Dead Kennedy’s without buying in to the politics. The politics is pretty overt.

It does kind of lead to a question about exactly when you can and can’t leave a band’s politics at the door. Sometimes it’s fairly easy, and other times the politics is tied up in the band. On the one hand there’s acts like the REM where you could listen to a whole record without having any idea what Michael Stipe thinks about the world. But on the other end there’s acts like Billy Bragg – I doubt there’s anyone out there who thinks ‘gee I really like his simple, folksy guitar but I wish he’d stop singing about unionism all the time’.

In between there’s acts like Bruce Springsteen, his music isn’t purely political, but the stories he tells in his songs show his politics quite clearly. You can kind of ignore it (there was an interesting article posted on dakka, maybe way back in this thread, about Christie’s relationship with Springsteen’s music), but you can’t miss it.

 whembly wrote:

The issue isn't about the funding... it's the fact that PP was caught on tape facilitating an organ harvest business for profit. Which is illegal.

Only if doing so involves interstate commerce (at least so far as Federal law is concerned), the gotcha videos that cite 289g–2 (a) usually leave that bit out. Funny how that works.

 whembly wrote:

That bill would redirected the non-abortion services to other community healthcare providers. No women services are being reduced at. all. by. that. bill.

Well, aside from eliminating funding for an organization with a large, existential network of healthcare providers.

 whembly wrote:

Here's the thing, 'abortion' is such a politically toxic subject matter, we all lose our collective gak.

Actually, it tends to be US conservatives that lose their gak. For liberals its just a subset of the larger issue of women's rights.

 whembly wrote:

Yeah... I watched it... It's appalling.

I've watched all of them, they were all very "meh" to me. I can understand how the sight of aborted fetuses might be unsettling for some, but I really don't get how a medical professional describing medical procedures and specimens in a clinical manner can be considered appalling.

 whembly wrote:
You only need to watch the videos (5 in all so far) that shows them that an investigation is easily justified. Multiple states are conducting investigations as we speak.

Yeah, Indiana already wrapped theirs up. Guess what they found?

I can't help but feel like if they had found the opposite, you'd have posted it, with italics and yellow text.

 dogma wrote:

but I really don't get how a medical professional describing medical procedures and specimens in a clinical manner can be considered appalling.

Agreed. To me, it's kind of like that idiot marine who, in an interview around late 03 to 04 time frame was talking about the act of killing Iraqi combatants. All the "liberal media" were in a bit of a fit over that one, and it certainly set the "image" of a trained professional military back a tiny bit. But, at least in that case, the media outlets that released that interview, didn't need to rely on heavy editing to get the "shock" value out of it.

Ouze wrote:
Yeah, Indiana already wrapped theirs up. Guess what they found?

I can't help but feel like if they had found the opposite, you'd have posted it, with italics and yellow text.

Seems like the Indiana governor is a bit of a rookie when it comes to conservative outrage politics. He ordered an investigation to find out what was really happening. What a noob.