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.

 whembly wrote:

 jasper76 wrote:
Cory Booker would be a slam dunk. Listen to the guy speak, if you haven't already. He's made for this stuff. He's an "It" guy.

eh... he strikes me as a Democrat version of Chris Christie.

Whether that's a good thing or bad thing, I'll leave that up to you.

That strikes me as a strange comparison. They seem like polar opposites to me. Is it a Jersey thing

 jasper76 wrote:

 whembly wrote:

 jasper76 wrote:
Cory Booker would be a slam dunk. Listen to the guy speak, if you haven't already. He's made for this stuff. He's an "It" guy.

eh... he strikes me as a Democrat version of Chris Christie.

Whether that's a good thing or bad thing, I'll leave that up to you.

That strikes me as a strange comparison. They seem like polar opposites to me. Is it a Jersey thing

its a jersey thing you wouldn't undestand

 SickSix wrote:

jasper76 wrote:

Also, regarding the South China Sea, the US military is more than capable of conducting operations on multiple fronts.

Oh it most certainly is not. We will soon approach pre-WWII troop levels.

We (the US military) barely survived Iraq and Afghanistan. And we should have had a lot more troops in both places.

The US military barely survived Iraq and Afghanistan??? That would come as news to the US military, I'm sure they'd beg to differ. Also a WWII military and the modern US military is an apples and oranges comparison. Our modern military force would utterly crush our historical WWII military force.

For some reason, a democrat version of Chris Christie is scarier to me than a republican version.

Traditio wrote:
"progress for the progress gods"

This would be a great line for a parody series of US politics using 40k references.

If you are a moral relativist, a utilitarian or a moral subjectivist...

Depends on the kind of moral relativism we're talking about. Utilitarianism is okay, but too often I see it exaggerated into defending brain dead/cold blooded nonsense. I'm pretty sure moral subjectivist is just another way of saying moral relativist. Unless you mean Ethical Subjectivism, which is something completely different.

If you are so historically myopic that you can't see past the late 1800s...

I went to school in Pennsylvania. I wish I could escape the Civil War and the Gilded Age. I've read the Johnstown Flood twice, and I think I almost have the names of the victims of the Lattimer Massacre memorized. I have to take yet another class on the Civil War it in the fall. I am not excited.

Personally, I like the Crusades, Reconquista, a little Norman Sicilty. Bohemond I was like a real life Stannis Baratheon, except he didn't set people on fire... As far as I know. Actually I wouldn't be surprised to find out he did. That first round of Crusaders had a lot of daddy issues, but hey. They got farther than any of those other guys who tried. No idea how Richard the Lionheart ended up more famous. I think he was just riding Saladin's coattails.

If you are constantly blathering on about "science" and "evolution" in completely unrelated conversations...

You seem like you have some serious issues. Want to talk about it? I'm a great listener. If you see me laughing at your misplaced sense of victimization, don't worry. It's just because I find it hilarious.

If you are constantly spouting nonsense so ridiculous that practically nobody outside of your own circles can keep a straight face when you talk (and if neither can you, when nobody is looking)...

Eh. I only do that when someone is being a self righteous nozzle. They had it coming.

liberal.

Preach it brother!

 jasper76 wrote:

 SickSix wrote:

jasper76 wrote:

Also, regarding the South China Sea, the US military is more than capable of conducting operations on multiple fronts.

Oh it most certainly is not. We will soon approach pre-WWII troop levels.

We (the US military) barely survived Iraq and Afghanistan. And we should have had a lot more troops in both places.

The US military barely survived Iraq and Afghanistan??? That would come as news to the US military, I'm sure they'd beg to differ. Also a WWII military and the modern US military is an apples and oranges comparison. Our modern military force would utterly crush our historical WWII military force.

The US army could barely handle the number of troops required of it at on point. Soldiers were spending more time at war than they were at home for about a 5 year stretch. The National Guard had to transformed into a ready combat reserve, something it was never really supposed to be.

The toll on the people in the military has been great. The constant deployments mixed with the social engineering and political correctness crap being hammered into our military has done real damage.

You realize in the US Army there is 20 months worth of required administrative task/training required of each soldier each year? Where is the time for actual training?

You know, since this is a politics thread and all, I have a topic of political discussion, something that perplexes me:

Why is it that every time there is a school shooting, Obama gets on tv and whines and complains about guns...

...

...

But no matter how many people get murdered and raped by Muslims, he nonetheless sees no problem with letting in Muslim refugees?

See, if people were getting shot overseas and someone said: "Hey, we should import more guns," Obama would be all over that: "Hey, buddy, that's not a good idea. Don't you see all of them murders overseas and at home wherein guns were used?"

But he doesn't seem to notice the common denominator to the Cologne attacks, Brussels, Paris, etc.

#BuildThatWall
#RepelTheMuslimInvasion
#StopIslam

 whembly wrote:

 Tannhauser42 wrote:
Here's a thought, is there any particular reason why Bill couldn't be Hillary's VP? Or does the limit on presidential terms prevent it?

If you can't EVER be President (and Bill is now term-limited), you can't be VP.

Actually, Bill Clinton is in a constitutional grey area as far as being Vice President.

In the same vein, Ahunold Swartzie can't be VP as he isn't a natural born citizen.

Correct, even though it's a stupid rule.

 SickSix wrote:

 jasper76 wrote:

 SickSix wrote:

jasper76 wrote:

Also, regarding the South China Sea, the US military is more than capable of conducting operations on multiple fronts.

Oh it most certainly is not. We will soon approach pre-WWII troop levels.

We (the US military) barely survived Iraq and Afghanistan. And we should have had a lot more troops in both places.

The US military barely survived Iraq and Afghanistan??? That would come as news to the US military, I'm sure they'd beg to differ. Also a WWII military and the modern US military is an apples and oranges comparison. Our modern military force would utterly crush our historical WWII military force.

The US army could barely handle the number of troops required of it at on point. Soldiers were spending more time at war than they were at home for about a 5 year stretch. The National Guard had to transformed into a ready combat reserve, something it was never really supposed to be.

The toll on the people in the military has been great. The constant deployments mixed with the social engineering and political correctness crap being hammered into our military has done real damage.

You realize in the US Army there is 20 months worth of required administrative task/training required of each soldier each year? Where is the time for actual training?

Oh no! Soldiers, marines, and sailors had to do soldier, marine, and sailor stuff?


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Traditio wrote:

Why is it that every time there is a school shooting, Obama gets on tv and whines and complains about guns...

But no matter how many people get murdered and raped by Muslims, he nonetheless sees no problem with letting in Muslim refugees?

Ref. First question: Because Obama is a gun control advocate.

Ref. second question: Because Obama is an advocate for assisting refugees, and he does not believe that because some Muslims commit murder and rape, that this means that all Muslims commit murder and rape.

I read a pretty good recommendation the other day that Clinton could do worse than nominating Al Franken as VP. He would effectively neuter Trump's non sequitur attacks, and do so in a way that wouldn't come off as crass (like Rubio attempted to do for a short while). He could be a great attack dog and do so in a humorous way allowing Clinton to appear to stay above the fray. Plus a lot of the other names are senators whose position would be filled with GOP governors, which is not a good thing if you want the Senate to flip.

Time to put another troll on the ignore list I believe.

 skyth wrote:
Time to put another troll on the ignore list I believe.

Yeah, I did as well.

He's a rare bird around here and I don't think I've seen anyone else in a long time be so forthcoming with with their, um... Interesting views. Luckily, people like this tend not to stick around very long.

 Gordon Shumway wrote:
I read a pretty good recommendation the other day that Clinton could do worse than nominating Al Franken as VP. He would effectively neuter Trump's non sequitur attacks, and do so in a way that wouldn't come off as crass (like Rubio attempted to do for a short while). He could be a great attack dog and do so in a humorous way allowing Clinton to appear to stay above the fray. Plus a lot of the other names are senators whose position would be filled with GOP governors, which is not a good thing if you want the Senate to flip.

Al Franken...that video from SNL dancing around in his skivvies would be on a 24X7 loop on TV.

I think Clinton's best bet is for herself to play the attack dog, and get a VP running mate who is above the fray.

 jasper76 wrote:
Al Franken...that video from SNL dancing around in his skivvies would be on a 24X7 loop on TV.

I think Clinton's best bet is for herself to play the attack dog, and get a VP running mate who is above the fray.

Al Franken is also a second term senator from Minnesota that take his job pretty seriously (other than that time he was rolling his eyes and flapping his hands when Mitch McConnell was talking, which he apologized for).

jasper76 wrote:Ref. First question: Because Obama is a gun control advocate.

Yeah, that's basically it. Obama doesn't like guns, but he does like Muslims.

So to heck with consistency and logic.

Typical liberal.

Ref. second question: Because Obama is an advocate for assisting refugees, and he does not believe that because some Muslims commit murder and rape, that this means that all Muslims commit murder and rape.

I could say the same thing about guns.

I've heard the argument made by liberals that simply having more guns around leads to more gun violence. Why? Because even if x doesn't use his gun to kill y, someone else might steal x's gun in order to kill y. Not to mention accidental gun deaths and all of that good stuff.

Well, by the same argument, Muslims...

...

...

Again, are liberals just completely blind to the obvious trends in Europe?

I heard the other day that most of the terrorists in Brussels came from one little community with an inordinate concentration of Muslims.

Because that's what they're doing over there. They're invading, colonizing, forming their own little Muslim ghettos...

I say that by the same logic whereby Obama wants to control the guns, a forteriori, he should be forced to admit that we should just send all them Muslims right back to where they came from.

Traditio wrote:

I say that by the same logic whereby Obama wants to control the guns, a forteriori, he should be forced to admit that we should just send all them Muslims right back to where they came from.

We'll, good luck with that.

jasper76 wrote:We'll, good luck with that.

Voting for Trump would be a good first step, no?

You've got me all wrong. I do not believe that Obama or any President of the United States should be forced to say anything.

Regarding Trump, I perceive him as a huge threat to liberty, peace, and prosperity domestically, a gigantic threat to our allies and international stability, and indeed a threat to a human-habitable Earth because he advocates nuclear proliferation. I will most certainly be voting for his opponent in the general election.

If Trump lines up with your political priorities, by all means, give him your vote.

Traditio wrote:

jasper76 wrote:We'll, good luck with that.

Voting for Trump would be a good first step, no?

No, there's is pretty much no good journey I could envisage that starts with the first step of voting Trump.

Btw - your characterisation of Muslims living in Europe is nonsense - at least in the parts I see from living here.

richred_uk wrote:
No, there's is pretty much no good journey I could envisage that starts with the first step of voting Trump.

That's true, however, there is an epic poem that springs mind...

Traditio wrote:

Because that's what they're doing over there. They're invading, colonizing, forming their own little Muslim ghettos...

It couldn't be that they are attempting to flee really gakky situations in their home countries in order to survive in this large world we share.

*puts on tinfoil hat*

Nope, it's an invasion!

 jasper76 wrote:
You've got me all wrong. I do not believe that Obama or any President of the United States should be forced to say anything.

Oh, I understand.

No, I don't mean that Obama should actually be forced to do anything. All that I mean is this:

If you take the common liberal arguments and, probably, Obama's same rhetoric about gun control, and if you were consistently to apply the premises/principles that he uses for that, the rules of sound reasoning themselves would "force" him to admit, with respect to Muslims, in the words of Johnny Rebel:

"We ought to send 'em all back to Africa."

Regarding Trump, I perceive him as a huge threat to liberty, peace, and prosperity domestically, a gigantic threat to our allies and international stability, and indeed a threat to a human-habitable Earth because he advocates nuclear proliferation. I will most certainly be voting for his opponent in the general election.

Fair enough, but I'm talking solely about kicking out the Muslims.

Trump would be a good first step in getting rid of Muslims, no?

If Trump lines up with your political priorities, by all means, give him your vote.

To be honest, I'm split.

I'm with Trump on the Mexicans and the Muslims.
I'm with Sanders on climate change and economic policies.
And I don't really have a viable candidate when it comes to social issues like abortion and the homosexual agenda, my views being those of traditional Christendom.

Basically, I don't like Sanders completely because he's not enough a nationalist (and he's a social liberal).
And I don't like Trump because he's not enough of a "socialist."

 ScootyPuffJunior wrote:

 whembly wrote:

 Tannhauser42 wrote:
Here's a thought, is there any particular reason why Bill couldn't be Hillary's VP? Or does the limit on presidential terms prevent it?

If you can't EVER be President (and Bill is now term-limited), you can't be VP.

Actually, Bill Clinton is in a constitutional grey area as far as being Vice President.

Woah! I didn't know that!

Who wants to have a RAW vs Intent argument over this?

In the same vein, Ahunold Swartzie can't be VP as he isn't a natural born citizen.

Correct, even though it's a stupid rule.

I think what's more slowed is the whole "Natural Born Citizen" arguments...

@Tradition: I grew up in a diverse area that had many Muslim families, and I went to school from grade school through college and had many Muslim friends and acquaintances along the way. While I do feel we need to be careful about who we let into our country and perform proper vetting, I do not want any American Muslim's kicked out of our country, and I do not believe in a religious test to enter the country. Such a test would be ridiculous on its face because anyone can answer the question "Are you a Muslim?" with the word "No."

I also do not support the mass deportation of a legal immigrants (I assume that's what you mean by "Mexicans") that Trump is running on.

Double post - sorry

 jasper76 wrote:
I grew up in a diverse area that had many Muslim families, and I went to school from grade school through college and had many Muslim friends and acquaintances along the way. While I do feel we need to be careful about who we let into our country and perform proper vetting, I do not want any American Muslim's kicked out of our country, and I do not believe in a religious test to enter the country. Such a test would be ridiculous on its face because anyone can answer the question "Are you a Muslim?" with the word "No."

I fully understand that you feel this way. I'm simply asking that you humor me in terms of my "what if":

What if my goal were to kick out the Muslims.

Would voting for Trump facilitate this?

Not really. Trump advocates a religious test to enter the country, and advocates the mass deportation of millions of illegal immigrants. But he does not advocate the removal of US citizens who are Muslims, nor does any candidate from either of the major parties (or any candidate at all as far as I'm aware).

Traditio wrote:

 jasper76 wrote:
I grew up in a diverse area that had many Muslim families, and I went to school from grade school through college and had many Muslim friends and acquaintances along the way. While I do feel we need to be careful about who we let into our country and perform proper vetting, I do not want any American Muslim's kicked out of our country, and I do not believe in a religious test to enter the country. Such a test would be ridiculous on its face because anyone can answer the question "Are you a Muslim?" with the word "No."

I fully understand that you feel this way. I'm simply asking that you humor me in terms of my "what if":

What if my goal were to kick out the Muslims.

Would voting for Trump facilitate this?

No, because that's an unattainable goal.

 jasper76 wrote:
Not really. Trump advocates a religious test to enter the country, and advocates the mass deportation of millions of illegal immigrants. But he does not advocate the removal of US citizens who are Muslims, nor does any candidate from either of the major parties (or any candidate at all as far as I'm aware).

Well, we can't make America great again all at once, suppose. That does strike me as a pretty decent first step, though.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

feeder wrote:No, because that's an unattainable goal.

Unattainable in what sense? Politically? Physically? Logically?

Traditio wrote:

 jasper76 wrote:
Not really. Trump advocates a religious test to enter the country, and advocates the mass deportation of millions of illegal immigrants. But he does not advocate the removal of US citizens who are Muslims, nor does any candidate from either of the major parties (or any candidate at all as far as I'm aware).

Well, we can't make America great again all at once, suppose. That does strike me as a pretty decent first step, though.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

feeder wrote:No, because that's an unattainable goal.

Unattainable in what sense? Politically? Physically? Logically?

Besides it being un american? Sure I could think of lots of reasons