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.

 skyth wrote:
There's a difference between what just happened and what happened over 20 years ago.

Technically, the Juanita Broaddrick rape allegation is from 1978, when Bill Clinton was still Governor. So, clearly these allegations, which didn't sway the public from electing Bill Clinton President - twice - will be super effective when recycled against someone who isn't Bill Clinton, 38 years later.

All you can do is shrug, and laugh a sad little laugh. It's the political ammunition equivalent of pocket lint.

 whembly wrote:
Are you willing to do it for Trump too? His past is shady as feth as well...

I will definitely consider carefully any allegations of wrongdoing by Donald Trump's spouse that date back to the Carter administration. However, people seem to be (oddly enough) more concerned with the stuff he's saying and endorsing, right now.

Was she alive during the Carter administration?

 Ouze wrote:

 whembly wrote:
Are you willing to do it for Trump too? His past is shady as feth as well...

I will definitely consider carefully any allegations of wrongdoing by Donald Trump's spouse that date back to the Carter administration. However, people seem to be (oddly enough) more concerned with the stuff he's saying and endorsing, right now.

Okay... I will grant you that the current streams of vomit coming out of Trumps mouf does indeed warrants attention.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Gordon Shumway wrote:
Was she alive during the Carter administration?

Who's "she"?

 whembly wrote:

Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Gordon Shumway wrote:
Was she alive during the Carter administration?

Who's "she"?

Presumably, the current Mrs. Trump. 'Cause she's way, way younger than the blathering old buffoon. It's a zinger!

And my respect for Rick Perry just dropped a good bit. Not only has he announced his support for Trump, but he is even willing to be his running mate.

At least Paul Ryan still has a pair.

 Ouze wrote:

I will definitely consider carefully any allegations of wrongdoing by Donald Trump's spouse that date back to the Carter administration. However, people seem to be (oddly enough) more concerned with the stuff he's saying and endorsing, right now.

Ya know, I don't know why but this statement right here reminds me of probably the only "right thing" Trump has ever done/tried to do.... Remember back in the day there was that little professional sports league called the USFL??? Well, apparently the ginger monster wanted to completely swap seasons, and make the USFL a spring football season, thereby "eliminating" competition with the NFL, and would have given Americans football year round.

When I was younger, there was a skating rink that was the center of a small scandal - it was 2 years of repairs that somehow stretched out over 6, and the cost ballooned from 9 million to 13 million and counting - they were going to have to start over. Trump proposed to have it finished in 4 months for 2.5 million, and then he finished it a month early and under budget.

If I had a nickel for every time my grandmother went on about that rink and how Trump saved it, I am sure I could buy at least a burrito.

A skating rink is a lot like a country. Trump will finish the US on time and under budget!

Are there any good articles on why Cruz and Kasich dropped out at this point rather than taking it all the way to the convention? Indiana can't have been considered a lock for Cruz by any stretch. Did the party just decide it was heading for a trainwreck and pull the cord? I can mix some more metaphors in later.

 plastictrees wrote:
A skating rink is a lot like a country. Trump will finish the US on time and under budget!

Are there any good articles on why Cruz and Kasich dropped out at this point rather than taking it all the way to the convention? Indiana can't have been considered a lock for Cruz by any stretch. Did the party just decide it was heading for a trainwreck and pull the cord? I can mix some more metaphors in later.

Don't know about Cruz, but the story I heard about Kasich from a couple of places was that he was on the plane from Ohio to DC to speak to donors, looked at his staff, told them "you know....I don't think my heart is in this anymore", and turned the plane around.

 Ensis Ferrae wrote:
Ya know, I don't know why but this statement right here reminds me of probably the only "right thing" Trump has ever done/tried to do.... Remember back in the day there was that little professional sports league called the USFL??? Well, apparently the ginger monster wanted to completely swap seasons, and make the USFL a spring football season, thereby "eliminating" competition with the NFL, and would have given Americans football year round.

And according to a documentary on it after he joined and pushed for the move to compete with the NFL he quit after they moved it and then it failed. He takes no responsibility but the documentary was less convinced of this and showed evidence. It wasn't some unknown either it was an ESPN documentary.

 d-usa wrote:

 plastictrees wrote:
A skating rink is a lot like a country. Trump will finish the US on time and under budget!

Are there any good articles on why Cruz and Kasich dropped out at this point rather than taking it all the way to the convention? Indiana can't have been considered a lock for Cruz by any stretch. Did the party just decide it was heading for a trainwreck and pull the cord? I can mix some more metaphors in later.

Don't know about Cruz, but the story I heard about Kasich from a couple of places was that he was on the plane from Ohio to DC to speak to donors, looked at his staff, told them "you know....I don't think my heart is in this anymore", and turned the plane around.

That reminds me a lot of how I decided to quit training in hamster style.

 Ahtman wrote:

 Ensis Ferrae wrote:
Ya know, I don't know why but this statement right here reminds me of probably the only "right thing" Trump has ever done/tried to do.... Remember back in the day there was that little professional sports league called the USFL??? Well, apparently the ginger monster wanted to completely swap seasons, and make the USFL a spring football season, thereby "eliminating" competition with the NFL, and would have given Americans football year round.

And according to a documentary on it after he joined and pushed for the move to compete with the NFL he quit after they moved it and then it failed. He takes no responsibility but the documentary was less convinced of this and showed evidence. It wasn't some unknown either it was an ESPN documentary.

Lol, I've seen the same documentary... I think we all know that naturally, he'd never take any blame on himself so long as he has fingers and toes remaining to point at someone else

Oh... so Hillary Clinton and her aides are truly being investigate for criminal charges by the FBI.

First on CNN FBI interviews Clinton aides including Huma Abedin as part of email probe


The FBI Has Interviewed Hillary Clinton Aides Over Email Investigation: Sources

Not to be outdone... Trump is currently being sued in civil court for fraud:
Trump University controversy ... in 2 minutes

Jesus wept America...

The probe remains focused on the security of the server and the handling of classified information and hasn't expanded to other matters

Jail time for everyone, or not...

 Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:
For a minute there, Sebster, I thought you meant Vincent Price the actor!

Vincent Price? Where did I even get that from? I didn't know it was the name of an actor.

Anyhow... Vince Foster. The Clinton admin guy who killed himself.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Ensis Ferrae wrote:
While I don't disagree with you.... don't French workers go on strike like, every other week because the croissants aren't flaky enough, or if a Frenchman continues to NOT with the Tour de France?

Maybe, I don't know if that is true or a stereotype. You certainly raise a good point that we shouldn't ever just point to another country and say 'they are objectively good and what we should aspire to'. Countries are complex, systems always have good and bad bits, and while we should

So uh yeah, I'm not saying that people should emulate France, because just saying 'we should do what they're doing' is almost always too simplistic to be useful. But at the same time, it is funny that so many Republicans will bash Obama style policies as socialist, and reducing the incentive to work. But then you compare to a country with genuinely socialist policies, and the participation rate is so much higher.

 sebster wrote:

 Ensis Ferrae wrote:
While I don't disagree with you.... don't French workers go on strike like, every other week because the croissants aren't flaky enough, or if a Frenchman continues to NOT with the Tour de France?

Maybe, I don't know if that is true or a stereotype. You certainly raise a good point that we shouldn't ever just point to another country and say 'they are objectively good and what we should aspire to'. Countries are complex, systems always have good and bad bits, and while we should

So uh yeah, I'm not saying that people should emulate France, because just saying 'we should do what they're doing' is almost always too simplistic to be useful. But at the same time, it is funny that so many Republicans will bash Obama style policies as socialist, and reducing the incentive to work. But then you compare to a country with genuinely socialist policies, and the participation rate is so much higher.

Lol, I was being very tongue in cheek... I happen to agree with you. Though I lived in Germany, and was somewhat shielded from the "full reality" of living within the German system, I didn't dislike what I saw. As I continue through my education, the more I'm seeing the academic aspects of what Germany and other European countries do and I think, "we could and should do that, though we would probably tweak things a bit."

Rosebuddy wrote:
Automation isn't exactly the issue. Building machines so that people can make the same amount of stuff for less work is a great idea from a worker's perspective. The problem is that production is not done to fulfil need, production is done to create profit. Capital has been driving the development of automation because they want to make fewer people work longer hours to produce even more to be sold at a greater profit margin. If people did not need to work for a wage then automation would be one of our greatest allies.

Sort of. Swap out the word ‘need’ for ‘want’ and most of the real situation should fall in to place. It is not merely profit that drives greater and greater production, but basic human nature, both of workers and employers – we want more stuff. As automation has increased productivity, we haven’t worked less, we’ve produced and consumed more. Not just because employers want more profit, but because we want bigger houses and nicer cars.

But we’re now hitting ecological and technological limits to that process. While the oil glut from frakking has distracted people, the long term trend of increasing costs of remains true and unavoidable. And perhaps the bigger issue is technological – it used to be that workers displaced by technology could find work in new industries producing new products (in an indirect way), but the new industries we see today employee very few people. Whatsapp was bought for $22 billion, it employed a few hundred people. The new IT world will not replace workers lost to automation.

That’s how its going to be, and we haven’t even begun to recognise it as a problem, let alone start to really think about solutions that are politically viable.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Ouze wrote:
I'm not in any way saying it was appropriate to lie, it obviously isn't, but the right answer in retrospect would have been to tell them to get fethed, and that it's a private matter between him and Hillary.

I wonder if that was the turning point in the Republican party. The point at which they began their march to crazy town.

Because it’s interesting to read about the Starr investigation and how it evolved over time. It started with Whitewater, but as that came up with nothing it starting fishing around for anything else, with more resources poured in along each step. It morphed from being about the president’s prior financial arrangements (which would have been relevant if there was any illegal behaviour), and in to his sexual relations (which are utterly irrelevant). And the thing is I can actually sympathise with how that investigation turned. You take public money for a highly public investigation, you need to deliver something or you and everyone who backed you will absolutely hammered.

But the Republican leadership never stopped, never took stock of what was being delivered and said ‘no, this is not how you govern, false moralising about sex achieves nothing for no-one’. They took the political option, and put a president under oath to ask him about his sex life. It was absurd, and the Republican Leadership went along with it, because they hoped it was how they’d beat Clinton.

The Republican party wasn’t lost from that point, but it isn’t hard to see how each immoral decision made since then, from the swift boat lies, to birtherism, to the scare campaign over ACA, to Trump’s eventual nomination, it isn’t that hard to see all those things as links in a chain.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 whembly wrote:
♦ removing the “w” key from all the computer keyboards

All the rest is dickish nonsense, but that is hilarious.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 plastictrees wrote:
A skating rink is a lot like a country. Trump will finish the US on time and under budget!

Are there any good articles on why Cruz and Kasich dropped out at this point rather than taking it all the way to the convention? Indiana can't have been considered a lock for Cruz by any stretch. Did the party just decide it was heading for a trainwreck and pull the cord? I can mix some more metaphors in later.

Most early guesses said Indiana would go to Cruz - they were guesses rather than polls because polling the state before the NY primary was really spotty. When polls came in they broke heavily for Trump, but before that most thought Indiana would be a strongpoint in the Stop Trump campaign.

Once NY and the surrounding primaries broke for Trump as heavily as they did, and then Trump won in Indiana, there was no plausible way for Cruz to stop Trump getting to 1,237 votes and secure the nomination on the first round.

At that point Cruz probably saw it was better to drop out now and have another crack in 2020. His concession speach touched on Reagan a lot for a good reason (Reagan lost the primary in 1976, and then in 1980 returned to win the primary, the general, and the heart of every true American).

Once Cruz was out Kasich's chance went from theoretical to 'no'. His only play was to stop Trump reaching 1,237, and then hope despite meagre delegte count that the delegates would say no to Trump beccause they hate him, then not to Cruz because they hate him, and then Kasich would be the only guy left. With Cruz out there was no way he could stop Trump by himself, and so that was the end of that.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Ensis Ferrae wrote:
Lol, I was being very tongue in cheek... I happen to agree with you.

Sure, I just didn't want it to sound like I falling in to the trap of talking about socialist utopias elsewhere. I've had more than enough of 'in Scandanavia they do this and its awesome'.

Though I lived in Germany, and was somewhat shielded from the "full reality" of living within the German system, I didn't dislike what I saw. As I continue through my education, the more I'm seeing the academic aspects of what Germany and other European countries do and I think, "we could and should do that, though we would probably tweak things a bit."

Yeah, there's definitely a lot to be learned looking at how other countries operate, and especially from living in them. I guess it's just the difference between 'they do this awesome, we should copy it' and 'here's an idea that seems to be working in other countries, how do you think we could apply that idea to our system?'

And Germany is a good model for lots of things. Most countries are. Including the US. There's lots of things the US does really well that the rest of us have or should copy.

 whembly wrote:
So... did the Clintons gracefully leave the WhiteHouse after W won? You decide!
GAO on THE WHITE HOUSE Allegations of Damage During the 2001 Presidential Transition

I stopped reading at "Bob Barr".

 plastictrees wrote:
A skating rink is a lot like a country. Trump will finish the US .

*thin ice joke*

Edited becuase it was all BS that I was hoping to make sure was BS


Thanks for proving the BS I was seeingnaround was indeed.BS

*yawns* Bet someone could do the sane sort of list about Cruz or Trump...

Of course they could. Because it's fake.

http://www.snopes.com/politics/clintons/bodycount.asp

Does the Benghazi body count list have so little traction that we have to bring up her husbands body list?

In somewhat more realistic rumour mongering that should give Whembly a heart attack, Nikki Haley's name has surfaced as a possible running mate...for Clinton. It goes against prevailing wisdom (that she will try to shore up the Sanders crowd in this manner) but it does make a certain amount of sense. Haley aligns much more with Clinton's philosophy than the Sanders crowd, it could end up turning SC to Dems, it would put the independent crowd firmly in her corner and likely pull some GOP, and it would show a willingness to work with the opposite side (something she actually was complimented for during her time in the Senate).

Thanks for the info. I had a feeling it was smoke and mirrors but knew my dakka army could destroy the insanity!

 Gordon Shumway wrote:
In somewhat more realistic rumour mongering that should give Whembly a heart attack, Nikki Haley's name has surfaced as a possible running mate...for Clinton. It goes against prevailing wisdom (that she will try to shore up the Sanders crowd in this manner) but it does make a certain amount of sense. Haley aligns much more with Clinton's philosophy than the Sanders crowd, it could end up turning SC to Dems, it would put the independent crowd firmly in her corner and likely pull some GOP, and it would show a willingness to work with the opposite side (something she actually was complimented for during her time in the Senate).

Haley won't do that as it'll destroy her brand. I can see her taking on a Senate seat though...

I have a mindfeth for you:
Trump's new VP:


Hillary's new VP:


C'mon... these are the cadidates that we deserve!

I would say Haley is much more likely to accept a VP nom from Clinton than Romney (he doesn't seem like a second fiddle guy, like at all, but I could see him endorsing her just to stick it to Trump) or Sanders for Trump (talk about ruining a brand--the guy is all about sticking to his principles and sticking it to "the man". Is there any more perfect example of "the man" than big hands Trump?). I do think Haley could be persuaded. The goodwill she received from the African American community with her flag decision really seemed to affect her.

Clinton's smart likely choice would be Booker, Castro or Warren, though I don't think she likes/can trust Warren to toe the line. I still think Franken would be Clinton's perfect choice.

I can see Trump picking Rubio in the delusion that it might help with FL or "the Hispanics" and Rubio seems to have more ambition than logic, so he might take it.

I think Warren would likely think that she would actually have less power and influence on policy and legislation as VP than she currently has, much like Sanders. I wouldn't expect either to accept a VP offer.

Maybe Hilary could just pick Biden? There's no term limits for VPs, is there?

She should just pick her husband. We all know that would be the most gloriously amusing thing ever: and you can hardly deny that the guy has some helpful experience to offer!