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.
motyak wrote: The more you trot out the "they're just as bad as each other!!11!" malarkey, the more it seems like you support Trump. Sure, you can throw a hashtag out there every second or third post, but that doesn't really make anyone believe that you're not going to end up toeing the line like your regular "news" sources are going to tell you come October/November and vote for the party candidate. Lying to make them both seem as bad as each other really just seems like you're setting up for "well if they're both as bad as each other, I don't want to waste my vote on a Republican Libertarian candidate who won't get in, so I may as well vote for the one that isn't a "LIAR!!1! like Hillary".
That's why people keep saying you support/will support Trump.
Dude. Adolph Hitler himself could crawl his way out of hell with Stalin as his running mate and whembly would still try and paint them as nuetral-to-favorable compared to Hillary.
motyak wrote: The more you trot out the "they're just as bad as each other!!11!" malarkey, the more it seems like you support Trump. Sure, you can throw a hashtag out there every second or third post, but that doesn't really make anyone believe that you're not going to end up toeing the line like your regular "news" sources are going to tell you come October/November and vote for the party candidate. Lying to make them both seem as bad as each other really just seems like you're setting up for "well if they're both as bad as each other, I don't want to waste my vote on a Republican Libertarian candidate who won't get in, so I may as well vote for the one that isn't a "LIAR!!1! like Hillary".
That's why people keep saying you support/will support Trump.
Dude. Adolph Hitler himself could crawl his way out of hell with Stalin as his running mate and whembly would still try and paint them as nuetral-to-favorable compared to Hillary.
For once, acknowledge that Clinton is a caricature of all bad things politicians represents.
motyak wrote: The more you trot out the "they're just as bad as each other!!11!" malarkey, the more it seems like you support Trump. Sure, you can throw a hashtag out there every second or third post, but that doesn't really make anyone believe that you're not going to end up toeing the line like your regular "news" sources are going to tell you come October/November and vote for the party candidate. Lying to make them both seem as bad as each other really just seems like you're setting up for "well if they're both as bad as each other, I don't want to waste my vote on a Republican Libertarian candidate who won't get in, so I may as well vote for the one that isn't a "LIAR!!1! like Hillary".
That's why people keep saying you support/will support Trump.
Dude. Adolph Hitler himself could crawl his way out of hell with Stalin as his running mate and whembly would still try and paint them as nuetral-to-favorable compared to Hillary.
<BIG_PICTURE>
For once, acknowledge that Clinton is a caricature of all bad things politicians represents.
I hate to break it to you, but that isn't a strawman argument. A strawman is when I attribute an argument or line of reasoning to you, argue against that statement and the claim that I've pointed out a problem with your position because of what I argued against the falsely attributed statement. It would have to take the form:
"When Whembly said he was willing to accept anyone over here Hillary, because nobody in history could possibly be worse than her that means he's willing to accept HILTER of all people, HITLER! Can you take him seriously if he hasn't even considered history as close as world war 2?"
In this example I've fabricated a statement about you being willing accept anyone over her, as she is the worst in history. A claim you never made which I then use to to try and point out that your judgement can't be trusted because your limited understanding of history. That's a strawmam argument.
The quoted post is merely an assertion of my opinion of how you seem to process information on democratic candidates in general, and Hillary Clinton specifically. You can claim I'm wrong or that I'm ill informed, but it isn't a strawman.
This message was edited 4 times. Last update was at 2016/08/07 00:06:49
Kilkrazy wrote: I don't think he is an imbecile but Clinton is a lot cleverer and better informed, especially concerning politics and diplomacy.
So, to utilize my own logic fallacy, better to support a mob boss than a circus clown?
The mob boss, because he'll make you an offer you can't refuse. If anything, the difference between Clinton and Trump, is that we know what we're getting with Hillary. She's a career politician, knows how things work on the world stage, and the wheels of government will keep turning. With Trump, who the feth knows what will happen? Not even Trump knows himself.
"Through the darkness of future past, the magician longs to see.
One chants out between two worlds: Fire, walk with me." - Twin Peaks
"You listen to me. While I will admit to a certain cynicism, the fact is that I am a naysayer and hatchetman in the fight against violence. I pride myself in taking a punch and I'll gladly take another because I choose to live my life in the company of Gandhi and King. My concerns are global. I reject absolutely revenge, aggression, and retaliation. The foundation of such a method... is love. I love you Sheriff Truman." - Twin Peaks
Kilkrazy wrote: I don't think he is an imbecile but Clinton is a lot cleverer and better informed, especially concerning politics and diplomacy.
So, to utilize my own logic fallacy, better to support a mob boss than a circus clown?
The mob boss, because he'll make you an offer you can't refuse. If anything, the difference between Clinton and Trump, is that we know what we're getting with Hillary. She's a career politician, knows how things work on the world stage, and the wheels of government will keep turning. With Trump, who the feth knows what will happen? Not even Trump knows himself.
Hold my beer and watch this kind of things happening?
whembly wrote: You claim to know that I'd consider Stalin/Hitler neutral/more favorable compared to Clinton.
You did that to exaggerate my positions to make it easier to attack my positions.
All that while ignoring the documented lies that Clinton may have done.
Just say, "I don't mind that Clinton has lied... she's not as bad as Drumpf".
I haven't argued a single point so far in this thread. Look you want me to concede Hillary is a liar? I'll do that. I don't really care one way or another. You could literally find a tape of Hillary bragging about lying under oath and when she responds publicly have her go "Haha yeah, OK You got me" in public only to in the same breath go, "but now for my official stance: This is all totally fabricated and taken out of context" and I just would not give a single feth.
I just can't be asked to care about it. Donald Trump is so far off the deep end on so many important issues, that he's made the other candidate's honesty totally irrelevant. Even in the worst case scenario where everything she says is a lie, the truth she is concealing could be at the very worst Trump's positions.
So we have Donald Trump who is definitely 100% an avowed Trump. He's for racial immigration quotas, assassinations of innocent civilians, torture, just generally racist. On every issue there is to stand on, he stands on the opposite side from me.
There is no truth Hillary could be hiding behind the veil even half as vile as trump. Unless I suppose she literally was Hitler clawed up from the depths of hell wearing the skin of some poor women whose soul he consume on the way back up. It just doesn't matter how much she is lying or not because Donald Trump's proud, public positions are so damn toxic.
This message was edited 7 times. Last update was at 2016/08/07 00:31:50
Kilkrazy wrote: I don't think he is an imbecile but Clinton is a lot cleverer and better informed, especially concerning politics and diplomacy.
So, to utilize my own logic fallacy, better to support a mob boss than a circus clown?
The mob boss, because he'll make you an offer you can't refuse. If anything, the difference between Clinton and Trump, is that we know what we're getting with Hillary. She's a career politician, knows how things work on the world stage, and the wheels of government will keep turning. With Trump, who the feth knows what will happen? Not even Trump knows himself.
I won't lie... that's a decent point.
Automatically Appended Next Post: @Chongara; Fair enough dude.
Although, I snipped this because it's absolutely fething awesome:
motyak wrote: The more you trot out the "they're just as bad as each other!!11!" malarkey, the more it seems like you support Trump. Sure, you can throw a hashtag out there every second or third post, but that doesn't really make anyone believe that you're not going to end up toeing the line like your regular "news" sources are going to tell you come October/November and vote for the party candidate. Lying to make them both seem as bad as each other really just seems like you're setting up for "well if they're both as bad as each other, I don't want to waste my vote on a Republican Libertarian candidate who won't get in, so I may as well vote for the one that isn't a "LIAR!!1! like Hillary".
That's why people keep saying you support/will support Trump.
Dude. Adolph Hitler himself could crawl his way out of hell with Stalin as his running mate and whembly would still try and paint them as nuetral-to-favorable compared to Hillary.
Oddly enough my fb friends list is filled with those kind of people. I enjoy pointing out how he was sued for not renting to blacks, and when he'd go to his casino the bit bosses would have to move the blacks to a different area so trump wouldn't see them. They couldn't care less, he's not hillary, and since he's not hillary they'll defend those actions.
This really the election for the 3rd parties, Never side with a racist who has the full support of the klan, let's everyone vote for the 3rd parties and really shake things up.
and before the canada flag comes up, I'm still an american and could vote if I wanted, but I'm to busy making up my guest room for 1/2 my family depending on who wins
Well sure, if our system allowed for them. But until then, they are out of luck. OTOH, more interesting may mean a push for AV, so that's good.
Automatically Appended Next Post: Well sure, if our system allowed for them. But until then, they are out of luck. OTOH, more interest may mean a push for AV, so that's good.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2016/08/07 01:53:58
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.
There is no such thing as a hobby without politics. "Leave politics at the door" is itself a political statement, an endorsement of the status quo and an attempt to silence dissenting voices.
WASHINGTON — President Obama on Thursday flatly denied that a $400 million pallet of cash delivered to the Iranian government in January, on the same day that four American citizens who had been detained by Iran were released, was a ransom payment, calling the latest uproar over the landmark nuclear pact with Tehran “the manufacturing of outrage.”
Mr. Obama said the payment was part of a decades-old dispute with Iran that had been litigated before an international tribunal, adding that his administration publicly disclosed the agreement in January.
“We do not pay ransom for hostages,” Mr. Obama said during a news conference at the Pentagon. In a forceful rebuttal to accusations from critics who said that the payment could put more Americans in danger of being held, he called “the notion that we would start now, in this high profile way,” one that “defies logic.”
On Jan. 17, the United States and European nations lifted oil and financial sanctions on Iran and released roughly $100 billion of its assets as part of the terms of the nuclear accord reached between Iran and six world powers.
The deal, meant to rein in Tehran’s nuclear ambitions, had Iran shipping 98 percent of its fuel to Russia, dismantling more than 12,000 centrifuges so they could not enrich uranium, and pouring concrete into the core of a reactor designed to produce plutonium.
It was a day of high drama that played out across Europe, Iran, and the United States. Tehran and the United States swapped long-held prisoners; the Americans, including Jason Rezaian, a reporter from The Washington Post, were released by Iran hours before the nuclear accord was put in place. Seven Iranians, either convicted of or charged with breaking American embargoes, were released in the prisoner swap, and 14 others were removed from international wanted lists.
The Obama administration came under immediate criticism from Republican presidential candidates, including Donald J. Trump, who denounced the swap as a sign of weakness and objected to the release of the $100 billion in frozen Iranian assets.
This week The Wall Street Journal reported the $400 million cash payment, raising questions about why the payment coincided with the release of the Americans held by Iran.
“It’s been interesting to watch this story surface,” Mr. Obama said. “Some of you may recall, we announced these payments in January. Many months ago. It was no secret.”
Mr. Obama’s comments came after a meeting with his national security staff on the battle to counter the Islamic State in Iraq and Syria.
During the news conference he also called ridiculous any suggestion by Mr. Trump that the coming election would be rigged against him. While insisting that he has already spoken this week about his views on Mr. Trump, he nonetheless fielded a series of questions about the Republican nominee.
Asked whether Mr. Trump should receive classified briefings now, as is the norm for nominees of the two parties, Mr. Obama said that “they have been told these are classified briefings, and if they want to be president, they’ve got to start acting like presidents, and that means being able to receive these briefings and not spread them around.”
The president defended the continuing talks with Russia over military cooperation in Syria, saying that while he is cleareyed about how much to trust Moscow, the United States has to try to bring an end to the war there.
“I’m not confident that we can trust the Russians and Vladimir Putin,” Mr. Obama said. “You’ve got to go in there with some skepticism.”
But, he added that he wanted to look at all options for a way out of a morass that has bedeviled his presidency for more than five years. “I’m pretty confident that a good chunk of my gray hair comes from Syria,” he said.
When this broke, I honestly gave the Obama administration the benefit of the doubt... but, now?
Man... it's shady.
- the payment was sent in Euros and Swiss Francs...
- hostages were released on the same day of the payment...
- hostages reported that they were detained until another certain plane arrived, implying that this was the payment plane...
- DoJ strongly rejected this plan...
- Then, not even a day later, the Iranian Revolutionary Guard detained more Americans... o.O
...even then, and I didn't know this at the time, it appears laws may be broken, as you're not supposed to directly or indirectly, send money to Iran due to existing sanctions.
- The international sanctions were lifted on that day, hence the specific date.
- Due to old and remaining sanctions, the banking regulations are horrible and cash is the best option
- An International Court had ruled that this money is actually money that belongs to Iran and has to be returned to them
- Our laws make handlinf US currency with Iran illegal, requiring the foreign currency
The timing looks horrible, and it certainly was a deal to settle many different issues at the same time (nuclear, sanctions, hostages, old debts), but giving Iran their own money back hardly qualifies as paying a "ransom".
We did something similar in 1981 when the 52 hostages were freed, except that time it was $7.9 billion instead of $400 million.
We transferred the money to England, they transferred to Algeria, and then they transferred to Iran.
d-usa wrote: "When the Internet sends its people, they're not sending their best. They're not sending you. They're not sending you. They're sending posters that have lots of problems, and they're bringing those problems with us. They're bringing strawmen. They're bringing spam. They're trolls. And some, I assume, are good people."
Exactly. This is something we knew about for months now and there is really nothing new here, other than "now that we know what it looks like we decided that it looks bad". But even if it looks bad, it wasn't a ransom.
Ransom: you have something that belongs to us, here is money that belongs to us so that you can give the other thing back.
This deal: you have something of ours, we have something of yours, wanna trade?
Huge piles of foreign currency are the best way to give Iran back their own money because our treasury department and our banks still have their own restrictions.
whembly wrote: So... anyone see the story of that $400 million dollars sent to Iran, and the critics are claiming it's a ransom payment?
The single funniest part was Oliver North being on TV saying how much the current administration has done to help the Iranians.
If this was in "Veep" or "In the Thick of it" you'd laugh but think it wasn't realistic.
You used to be cool America.
The poor man really has a stake in the country. The rich man hasn't; he can go away to New Guinea in a yacht. The poor have sometimes objected to being governed badly; the rich have always objected to being governed at all
We love our superheroes because they refuse to give up on us. We can analyze them out of existence, kill them, ban them, mock them, and still they return, patiently reminding us of who we are and what we wish we could be.
"the play's the thing wherein I'll catch the conscience of the king,
motyak wrote: The more you trot out the "they're just as bad as each other!!11!" malarkey, the more it seems like you support Trump. Sure, you can throw a hashtag out there every second or third post, but that doesn't really make anyone believe that you're not going to end up toeing the line like your regular "news" sources are going to tell you come October/November and vote for the party candidate. Lying to make them both seem as bad as each other really just seems like you're setting up for "well if they're both as bad as each other, I don't want to waste my vote on a Republican Libertarian candidate who won't get in, so I may as well vote for the one that isn't a "LIAR!!1! like Hillary".
That's why people keep saying you support/will support Trump.
Dude. Adolph Hitler himself could crawl his way out of hell with Stalin as his running mate and whembly would still try and paint them as nuetral-to-favorable compared to Hillary.
The poor man really has a stake in the country. The rich man hasn't; he can go away to New Guinea in a yacht. The poor have sometimes objected to being governed badly; the rich have always objected to being governed at all
We love our superheroes because they refuse to give up on us. We can analyze them out of existence, kill them, ban them, mock them, and still they return, patiently reminding us of who we are and what we wish we could be.
"the play's the thing wherein I'll catch the conscience of the king,
whembly wrote: So... anyone see the story of that $400 million dollars sent to Iran, and the critics are claiming it's a ransom payment?
The single funniest part was Oliver North being on TV saying how much the current administration has done to help the Iranians.
If this was in "Veep" or "In the Thick of it" you'd laugh but think it wasn't realistic.
You used to be cool America.
We're still cool, but it seems that there's an awful lot of stupid running around making noise. Riding out the death throes of the old guard isn't going to be pretty.
Funding for embassy security has increased significantly since 2007:
“The Department of State’s base requests for security funding have increased by 38 percent since Fiscal Year (FY) 2007, and base budget appropriations have increased by 27 percent in the same time period”, said the bipartisan Senate Homeland Security Committee report on the Benghazi attack.
Neither the White House, The States Department, nor Democrats in Congress requested additional security funding:
The Report goes on: “However, there was no supplemental or OCO request made by the President for additional diplomatic security enhancements in FY 2010 or FY 2011,” the report pointedly noted. “Neither the Department of State nor Congress made a point of providing additional funds in a supplemental request for Libya, or more specifically, Benghazi.”
Hillary's Deputy Assistant Secretary of State Charlene Lamb,was asked by committee:
It has been suggested that budget cuts were responsible for a lack of security in Benghazi. And I’d like to ask Ms. Lamb, you made this decision personally. Was there any budget consideration and lack of budget which led you not to increase the number of people in the security force there?
Her answer?
No, sir.
Also, the States Department Regional Security Officer, Eric Nordstrom, was similarly questioned before Congress:
Mr. Nordstrom, you were on that panel. Do you remember what she [Lamb] said?
His answer?
Yes, she said that resources was not an issue. And I think I would also point to the ARB report, if I’m not mistaken, that they talked to our chief financial officer with D.S. [Diplomatic Security], who also said that resources were not an issue.
You're being gas-lighted by the Clinton spin here...
- They asked for a budget of $100
- They were given a budget of $60
- But last year they had a budget of $55, so they got more money.
- They didn't ask for the missing $40 a second time, so they were happy.
And this is how you spin "they didn't give us what we asked for" into "they got more than before, and they didn't ask for more".
Trying to spin Benghazi as one side's fault or the other is ridiculous partisanship and ignores the inherent dangers of embassies in regions with militant hostile populations. Embassies routinely have pretty pathetic security and will fall to an intense targeted strike. I's tragic, but it happens. Everyone of those dead should be honored for their work and sacrifice. Throwing the blood of dead patriots as political mud is shameful and is a typical of the reasons why many voters are so turned off by politics, and why so many moderate Republicans feel left by the party.
I would love an Eisenhoweresque candidate that advocates fiscal responsibility without advocating religious or national extremism or government shutdown. Ironically, Clinton is probably the closest of the two, and she even seems more hawkish than Ike! I can't imagine what Eisenhower would have made of Trump's Russian ties, statements on vets and their families, and just the overall hateful, negative, scared insanity that the Republicans seem to have embraced.
