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.
Iran didn't take hostages to get its money back. Iran took hostages as part of a larger "we don't like America" policy,
This is the part where ten dozen thermobaric bombs over Tehran would have been helpful, as a warning that some acts come with too high a price. Explode them about two thousand feet up, with leaflets to release our people in 24 hours or the next batch will be at ground level.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2016/08/19 20:54:54
-"Wait a minute.....who is that Frazz is talking to in the gallery? Hmmm something is going on here.....Oh.... it seems there is some dispute over video taping of some sort......Frazz is really upset now..........wait a minute......whats he go there.......is it? Can it be?....Frazz has just unleashed his hidden weiner dog from his mini bag, while quoting shakespeares "Let slip the dogs the war!!" GG
-"Don't mind Frazzled. He's just Dakka's crazy old dude locked in the attic. He's harmless. Mostly."
-TBone the Magnificent 1999-2014, Long Live the King!
If we only held onto it for another 30 years, then maybe the terrorism would have stopped.
I think not starting a fethton of wars in the ME would probably do more to stop terrorism and citizens dying than our precious Iran policies, and it would have been cheaper too.
Heck, the weapons and equipment we gave to various groups or left with Iraq probably cost more than the money we owed to Iran.
Yeah, their own money back after 3 decades with no interest.
You're not going to be able to make fetch happen with this one.
Right... so, lets fund some more terrorisms and getting our people killed.
That's the smart move here!
The trillions of dollars we've paid KSA for oil has done more to fund terrorism than this deal ever will. It's not a bad deal. We got our people back and that's good. It didn't cost us anything other than returning Irans own money, that's great. Yes, we have to be careful not to grant the ICC too much influence over us but it's better for us to adhere to verdicts like this one that don't hurt us because if we ignore it too much it undermines the ICC and that hurts us because there are times when the ICC can be very helpful to our interests.
Wisconsin Republican Clerk is claiming that early voting makes it too easy for certain people to vote...and the long lines at polling places is proof that access is easy.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2016/08/19 23:45:14
Wisconsin Republican Clerk is claiming that early voting makes it too easy for certain people to vote...and the long lines at polling places is proof that access is easy.
That may be the most transparent case of "this should be illegal because it makes it harder for my guy to win" since a certain state passed a certain voter ID law.
This is the part where ten dozen thermobaric bombs over Tehran would have been helpful, as a warning that some acts come with too high a price. Explode them about two thousand feet up, with leaflets to release our people in 24 hours or the next batch will be at ground level.
Even as a joke, it's not funny. But I guess some people would like to start World War 3 just for the pleasure of it.
Anyway, what are the actual plans for main candidates in US election? For Trump, as far as I read, it's "I will make great things to make America great again, just trust me!", but I have difficulties to see the actual means to do that. And I'm not surprised, actually.
Some talk about the other two, but it doesn't really look like they go into details as well. As for Clinton...I'm not so sure.
It's sad to see the debate isn't really going about things that really matter; the means and actual plan for the future of America. I don't even dare to talk about long term plans, it's more like a dream than anything else.
HRC is openly running on the "4 more years of the last 8 years platform." This is kind of already known, which is why it probably won't come up much. I suspect all debates will ultimately be about "what crazy thing will Trump say next" and "look at scandal X and see how bad Hillary is."
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2016/08/20 00:34:20
LordofHats wrote: HRC is openly running on the "4 more years of the last 8 years platform." This is kind of already known, which is why it probably won't come up much. I suspect all debates will ultimately be about "what crazy thing will Trump say next" and "look at scandal X and see how bad Hillary is."
Yes, and that's what I find the saddest in this campaign. Everything is about what Trump says. It's really a campaign about "vote for me so that the other guy/girl won't be in command". Not the first time I see it, sure, but I find it quite toxic for democracy. It feels like you don't "have a choice but voting againt the one you don't want to see in command" rather than truly voting for someone you think have the best plans for leading America while he/she is POTUS.
Partisanship was always there, but this year it's something else. It's definitely worse and nauseating - and some people seem to find it normal. I definitely don't think it should ever be, like at all. It's not even a show anymore.
Sarouan wrote: It's really a campaign about "vote for me so that the other guy/girl won't be in command".
This isn't really true, it's just that "vote for Clinton because Trump is awful" is better clickbait than "vote for Clinton because you support the mainstream democratic party platform". The goal of the media is to generate attention and advertising money, and reporting on boring "Clinton is a generally competent average politician who will probably be ok" doesn't get those things. It's much more interesting to report on the sheer unprecedented awfulness of Trump.
Also, one other thing to note is that the "vote for me because Trump" campaigning is largely directed at people who normally vote republican. Appealing to the party platform is doomed to failure, but if you can convince those voters that the republican candidate is unacceptable and the democrat is the least-terrible option even if you disagree with her on policy positions then you might be able to pull away some of those traditionally-republican votes. There are more constructive campaign messages for center and left-leaning voters, but those aren't interesting enough to get much attention.
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.
Also, one other thing to note is that the "vote for me because Trump" campaigning is largely directed at people who normally vote republican.
I think it's directed at people who nominally vote Democrat, but also really dislike Hillary Clinton: Blue Dogs, for lack of a better term. Anyone who nominally votes Republican isn't going to be swayed to Clinton's side, though constantly reminding them of who Trump is may keep them from casting a significant ballot; though Trump will likely do that on his own.
Americans for sale – $400B down $1.3T after delivery.
Now our adversaries knows the price.
You're distorting the figures upwards by an order of magnitude.
1.3 trillion USD is ~13% of US GDP, and Iran's reported GDP is around 370 billion USD. The US did not give Iran enough money to exceed its GDP, and did not promise 13% of its own.
This message was edited 3 times. Last update was at 2016/08/20 06:27:23
Life does not cease to be funny when people die any more than it ceases to be serious when people laugh.
I think this pretty well sums up why third-party candidates are not going to be included in the debates, and should not be taken seriously.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
dogma wrote: I think it's directed at people who nominally vote Democrat, but also really dislike Hillary Clinton: Blue Dogs, for lack of a better term. Anyone who nominally votes Republican isn't going to be swayed to Clinton's side, though constantly reminding them of who Trump is may keep them from casting a significant ballot; though Trump will likely do that on his own.
I suppose there's that too, but I think there actually is an unprecedented chance to get normally-republican voters to change their votes. It's not going to work on the right-wing faithful, but maybe it's the kind of thing that the more centrist republicans need to realize that their party has left them behind and it's better to vote for the party they don't quite agree with than the raving lunatic party. In a normal year this wouldn't work because, no matter how much you disagreed with them, you had to at least concede that the republican nominees were legitimate presidential candidates. But now, with Trump leading the descent into madness, it's a perfect opportunity for people to start asking themselves if they really agree with the republican party anymore or just continue to vote R out of habit.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2016/08/20 06:16:43
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.
John Moore / Getty Images
Trump’s Train Considers a Scary Thought: He Might Lose
And if he does, it will be all the media's fault.
BY JARED YATES SEXTON
August 19, 2016
Donald Trump’s rally in Charlotte, North Carolina, on Thursday night was not a usual Donald Trump rally. Something in the air was different—Trump’s words, for starters. He rarely strayed from the prepared remarks on his teleprompter, delivering a speech that stayed on topic and told a complete narrative, unlike most of his directionless rants. He even admitted he sometimes says “the wrong thing,” adding, “I have done that, and I regret it, particularly where it may have caused personal pain.” Perhaps the campaign’s new CEO, Breitbart chairman Stephen Bannon, was already making his influence felt.
But it wasn’t just Trump himself. The crowd had changed. They were as angry as always; they called Hillary Clinton a “bitch” and chanted “lock her up.” But their deepest rage was reserved for another nemesis: the media.
For as long as Trump has run for president, he has criticized the media’s handling of his candidacy. But his rhetoric toward the press has heightened since the Republican National Convention as story after story—about his insults of the Khans, the dysfunction of his campaign, and the murky Russian dealings of his chairman, Paul Manafort—has chiseled away at his aura of invincibility.
The consensus in the crowd Thursday was that this biased coverage was to blame for Trump’s sinking poll numbers. When I walked into the Charlotte Convention Center, the first pair of men I came across were leaning over the railing of the press pit and joking about how much fun it’d be to “beat the gak” out of a few reporters typing away on their laptops and smartphones at one of the media tables. Later, I heard several people say that certain reporters, including the entire lineup at CNN, should be jailed for their indiscretions—and that Trump would do exactly that once he was elected.
Or rather, if he were elected. While some were still optimistic about his chances, there was a fresh sense of doom in the crowd. In the year I’ve been covering Trump, I’ve only heard a few supporters openly express a possibility that their candidate could lose, but on Thursday night it sounded like many of them had come to the same sobering conclusion. And if Trump loses, guess whose fault it will be?
In the hours leading up to the rally, I heard clusters of men and women lamenting the sad state of the presidential race, most of them agreeing there was still time to right the ship while a few had already given up hope. But all of them agreed that the predicament had been the result of unfair press coverage.
“They don’t report the truth,” I heard a man in a “Trump Train” T-shirt tell his wife. “How do you compete with that?”
Supporters’ frustrations bled into the program’s main event when Trump took his tried-and-true critique of the Fourth Estate, his complaint no longer just a list of grievances. Now, he urged his followers to imagine a world with a “better” press:
The establishment media doesn’t cover what really matters in this country, or what’s really going on in people’s lives. They will take words of mine out of context and spend a week obsessing over every single syllable, and then pretend to discover some hidden meaning in what I said.
Just imagine for a second if the media spent this energy holding the politicians accountable who got innocent Americans like Kate Steinle killed – she was gunned down by an illegal immigrant who had been deported five times.
Just imagine if the media spent this much time investigating the poverty and joblessness in our inner cities.
Just think about how much different things would be if the media in this country sent their cameras to our border, or to our closing factories, or to our failing schools. Or if the media focused on what dark secrets must be hidden in the 33,000 emails Hillary Clinton deleted.
Instead, every story is told from the perspective of the insiders. It’s the narrative of the people who rigged the system, never the voice of the people it’s been rigged against.
So many people suffering in silence. No cameras, no coverage, no outrage from a media class that seems to get outraged over just about everything else.
The media had become Hillary Clinton’s running mate, another establishment gatekeeper who held a lion’s share of the blame for ruining the country.
The crowd took its cue.
A man turned from Trump’s speech and toward the press pit, mouthing the words “that’s you, that’s you.” Several men cased the perimeter of the pit, snapping photos of each of the journalists and taking clandestine notes before marching away.
After Trump said goodnight, supporters moved to the barricade and engaged with reporters. Some just stood there, glaring. In the crowd, the talk was how unfairly Trump had been treated. Somebody said the media was full of “perverts and retards,” while a man in a “Trump That Bitch” T-shirt said “all reporters need lobotomies.” His friend suggested that President Trump might sign an executive order to that effect, but Mr. “Trump That Bitch” couldn’t see that happening—a President Trump, that is. “You know there’s no way they’ll let him get in the White House,” he said.
On the sidewalk outside, the familiar vendors were selling their offensive merchandise. People drifted toward the street to hail cabs or tracked down their Ubers. Down a ways, in the shadow of the building, a pair of men were smoking cigarettes and shooting the bull. One wore a veteran’s hat, the other a “Make America Great Again” cap.
“It don’t look good,” the veteran said. “Biased media’s gonna steal this thing.”
“Yeah,” his buddy said. “Reckon one of these days we’ll have to take matters into our own hands.”
Bodes well.
Amazing how -- as ever -- it's everyone else#s fault and nothing to do with them.
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,
I think this pretty well sums up why third-party candidates are not going to be included in the debates, and should not be taken seriously.
I think the real shocker here is that Harambe fell in the polls
Kissing babies didn't work out too well for him.
Klawz-Ramming is a subset of citrus fruit?
Gwar- "And everyone wants a bigger Spleen!"
Mercurial wrote:
I admire your aplomb and instate you as Baron of the Seas and Lord Marshall of Privateers.
Orkeosaurus wrote:Star Trek also said we'd have X-Wings by now. We all see how that prediction turned out.
Orkeosaurus, on homophobia, the nature of homosexuality, and the greatness of George Takei.
English doesn't borrow from other languages. It follows them down dark alleyways and mugs them for loose grammar.
Peregrine wrote: ... it's a perfect opportunity for people to start asking themselves if they really agree with the republican party anymore or just continue to vote R out of habit.
Sure, but that doesn't necessarily translate into Democrat votes. Disillusionment usually leads to apathy, and apathetic people usually don't vote.
-Bunch of agreements that are vague and difficult-to-enforce promises from Iran... that was widely understood to, at best, delay the Iranian's desire for nuclear weapons.
Yeah, that is how nonproliferation works. If Iran wants nuclear weapons it will get them, by some means, because there is little the NATO countries can do about it.
The question you should be asking is "Why does Iran want nuclear weapons?"
This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2016/08/20 19:46:11
Life does not cease to be funny when people die any more than it ceases to be serious when people laugh.
Slogan: "I can do nothing as well as they can do nothing."
Spoiler:
"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
If you are anything like me, you don’t quite understand what to make of the Trump phenomenon. Sure Hillary is winning, but what is more interesting to me is that over a third of Americans still plan to vote for this guy. Why? I’m bored with demonizing Trump and Trump supporters. I want to understand the world they are seeing, because I don’t get it.
Prestor Jon wrote: You seem to have completely missed the point. If other nations or people are going to have a lower opinion of the US because we took Iran's money then it doesn't when or if we give the money back because the act that caused those nations/people to think less of us (taking Iran's money) already happened. It's not like giving the money back makes those nations/people change their minds and think we're awesome now. That makes trying to win their approval a poor reason to give the money back. Getting our people back is a good reason, being concerned that somebody somewhere might think we're gakholes if we don't give it back isn't.
Except of course situation changed...Reason money was taken in the first place isn't valid anymore.
This is the part where ten dozen thermobaric bombs over Tehran would have been helpful, as a warning that some acts come with too high a price. Explode them about two thousand feet up, with leaflets to release our people in 24 hours or the next batch will be at ground level.
Even as a joke, it's not funny. But I guess some people would like to start World War 3 just for the pleasure of it.
.
No joke meant. We stopped WWIII by threatening to instantly kill 30 mm Soviets and slowly kill 30mm more over the next month.
It is better to be feared than loved is a time honored tool of statecraft.;
-"Wait a minute.....who is that Frazz is talking to in the gallery? Hmmm something is going on here.....Oh.... it seems there is some dispute over video taping of some sort......Frazz is really upset now..........wait a minute......whats he go there.......is it? Can it be?....Frazz has just unleashed his hidden weiner dog from his mini bag, while quoting shakespeares "Let slip the dogs the war!!" GG
-"Don't mind Frazzled. He's just Dakka's crazy old dude locked in the attic. He's harmless. Mostly."
-TBone the Magnificent 1999-2014, Long Live the King!
If you are anything like me, you don’t quite understand what to make of the Trump phenomenon. Sure Hillary is winning, but what is more interesting to me is that over a third of Americans still plan to vote for this guy. Why? I’m bored with demonizing Trump and Trump supporters. I want to understand the world they are seeing, because I don’t get it.
Trump supporters are white men who are decently well off but are frightened that their elevated position in US society is threatened. This is actually true because white men could be better off because women and people of colour have been kept out of competing for jobs and because demographics are shifting to make white people merely the single largest group rather than an absolute majority.
Tedious pathologizing is a poor alternative to material analysis.
Gordon Shumway wrote: Well he's already got a stable of people. Hannity...and Hannity. ..how many hours can Hannity take up? Maryannlou will get one hour. Then what? The Dennis Rodman show? I would seriously pay to watch mr busey make waffles every morning.,He has so wanted to emulate Oprah for so long (even saying he wanted her as a running mate), I think he put his cart before his horse. And then realized he had no cart and no horse. But he still has Gary Busey. Gary Busey and waffles. Who wouldn't watch that? And he could change it up for the Canadians-put maple syrup on it. And the Catholics-unleavened bread and syrup. It will be great.
I'm hoping for some Joanie Loves Chachi marathons.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Prestor Jon wrote: While I wouldn't be surprised if Trump has plans for a new tv show it was also inevitable that he would get one given his ability to draw ratings. If Mike Huckabee, a poor man's Ted Cruz also ran has been can get a show on Fox then Trump can easily get one too.
Not a TV show, a TV channel. He doesn't want to be Huckabee, he wants to be Oprah.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Maddermax wrote: There are now reports that Manafort may have been involved in organising Anti-NATO protests in Ukraine, at which rocks were thrown at US marines. Between that and the undisclosed payments, he may be in a lot of hot water.
Donald really can pick 'em.
To be fair to Trump, Manafort wasn't Trump's pick out of the blue. Manafort has been a Republican campaign manager for a long time now. He has been in senior positions on on the presidential campaigns of Ford, Reagan, GHW Bush and Bob Dole.
And his appointment to the Trump campaign was pushed on Trump by the RNC, who were concerned about the amateur nature of the campaign under Lewandowski. The party wanted Trump to take on someone with national campaign experience. It just turns out that as well as having experience in US presidential elections, Manafort also had experience running campaigns for despots all around the world.
All of which was well known long before this blacklist of payments came out. The moeny was new information, but Manafort's work with Yanukovych, as well as his work with Ferdinand Marcos was public information.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Prestor Jon wrote: I think Clinton's lead in some of the state polls is more insurmountable than the national lead. Look at the 2012 electoral map and try to find states that Obama won, where Clinton isn't leading or isn't leading by a significant margin.
The current tipping point state is New Hampshire, and Clinton is up by about 7.5 points there. My point is that with more than two months to go 7 to 8 points is a very good lead, but it isn't a 'this race is over' lead.
Nor has it been treated as such by the media or the general population in the past. But because Trump is a deeply ridiculous candidate people assume he can't be president, so as soon as the numbers look bad they conclude that he can't be president. But the numbers through this campaign have been swingy, and so we must accept the probability that they may still continue to swing.
Trump is now a heavy underdog, but he is still in the race.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Prestor Jon wrote: You seem to have completely missed the point. If other nations or people are going to have a lower opinion of the US because we took Iran's money then it doesn't when or if we give the money back because the act that caused those nations/people to think less of us (taking Iran's money) already happened. It's not like giving the money back makes those nations/people change their minds and think we're awesome now. That makes trying to win their approval a poor reason to give the money back. Getting our people back is a good reason, being concerned that somebody somewhere might think we're gakholes if we don't give it back isn't.
It isn't about whether or not some people somewhere like you. It is about international law. Consider the next time some random country has a revolution, or elects a populist idiot, and they start nationalising a bunch of US owned assets. When they offer cents on the dollar for those investments, how is the US supposed to form an international response? Do you think the effort to get more countries to sign up to a US sanction plan will be helped when people point out that the US is still keeping Iranian money against the rulings of their own courts?
This message was edited 4 times. Last update was at 2016/08/22 01:57:15
“We may observe that the government in a civilized country is much more expensive than in a barbarous one; and when we say that one government is more expensive than another, it is the same as if we said that that one country is farther advanced in improvement than another. To say that the government is expensive and the people not oppressed is to say that the people are rich.”
Adam Smith, who must have been some kind of leftie or something.
There is an argument that Trump is no longer actually running, but drumming support to start a new "news" network to compete with Fox after the election. Breitbart can expand into live media. Hence the consultations with Roger Ailes etc. I find this argument has a disconcerting amount of merit.
-"Wait a minute.....who is that Frazz is talking to in the gallery? Hmmm something is going on here.....Oh.... it seems there is some dispute over video taping of some sort......Frazz is really upset now..........wait a minute......whats he go there.......is it? Can it be?....Frazz has just unleashed his hidden weiner dog from his mini bag, while quoting shakespeares "Let slip the dogs the war!!" GG
-"Don't mind Frazzled. He's just Dakka's crazy old dude locked in the attic. He's harmless. Mostly."
-TBone the Magnificent 1999-2014, Long Live the King!
This is the part where ten dozen thermobaric bombs over Tehran would have been helpful, as a warning that some acts come with too high a price. Explode them about two thousand feet up, with leaflets to release our people in 24 hours or the next batch will be at ground level.
Even as a joke, it's not funny. But I guess some people would like to start World War 3 just for the pleasure of it.
.
No joke meant. We stopped WWIII by threatening to instantly kill 30 mm Soviets and slowly kill 30mm more over the next month.
It is better to be feared than loved is a time honored tool of statecraft.;
WOW! The ignorance of that statement beggars belief! You're equating the just use of nuclear weapons ending a global World War that cost the lives of 50m people with the use of a horrific military means to sort out a diplomatic situation involving a handful of hostages? Which would have been against a powerful and very influential Muslim nation? Can you say "global jihad" and the end of any friendly ties to any Muslim country in the world? The end game being, what, bomb, invade and occupy the entire ME? I'm trying to be nice, but you can't be this naïve...nor can anyone else with any understanding of the dynamics over there possibly be this naïve.
~4100
~1660
The ignorance of that statement beggars belief! You're equating the just use of nuclear weapons ending a global World War that cost the lives of 50m people with the use of a horrific military means to sort out a diplomatic situation involving a handful of hostages? Which would have been against a powerful and very influential Muslim nation? Can you say "global jihad" and the end of any friendly ties to any Muslim country in the world? The end game being, what, bomb, invade and occupy the entire ME? I'm trying to be nice, but you can't be this naïve...nor can anyone else with any understanding of the dynamics over there possibly be this naïve.