US Politics

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**

Re-read Frazzle's point.

**BigWaaagh**

whembly wrote:
Re-read Frazzle's point.

The don't try to walk softly, just use big stick part? That "point"? Yeah, that's been such a winner for us in that part of the world so far...

**Frazzled**

BigWaaagh wrote:
Frazzled wrote:
Sarouan wrote:
Frazzled wrote:

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.

Showing strength is the only thing that works in the region since the dawn of time. Please show another strategy that has worked in the region. It worked for the Persians. It worked for Romans. It worked for the Mongols. it worked for the Ottomans.

Automatically Appended Next Post:

BigWaaagh wrote:
whembly wrote:
Re-read Frazzle's point.

The don't try to walk softly, just use big stick part? That "point"? Yeah, that's been such a winner for us in that part of the world so far...

No. Using a big stick means dropping them at ground level. This is threatening them with a big stick.

Like the revisionists say we should have threatened Japan instead of Hiroshima, and how we threatened Aidid by demonstrating C130gun runs in the desert outside Mogadishu to motivate him to release our pilot.

We've gone to war for less.

We should probably go back to discussing politics now.

**BigWaaagh**

Frazzled wrote:
BigWaaagh wrote:
Frazzled wrote:
Sarouan wrote:
Frazzled wrote:

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.

Showing strength is the only thing that works in the region since the dawn of time. Please show another strategy that has worked in the region. It worked for the Persians. It worked for Romans. It worked for the Mongols. it worked for the Ottomans.

Automatically Appended Next Post:

BigWaaagh wrote:
whembly wrote:
Re-read Frazzle's point.

The don't try to walk softly, just use big stick part? That "point"? Yeah, that's been such a winner for us in that part of the world so far...

No. Using a big stick means dropping them at ground level. This is threatening them with a big stick.

Like the revisionists say we should have threatened Japan instead of Hiroshima, and how we threatened Aidid by demonstrating C130gun runs in the desert outside Mogadishu to motivate him to release our pilot.

We've gone to war for less.

WE'RE TALKING ABOUT A BALANCED RESPONSE TO 4 HOSTAGES! One of which, was an admitted CIA spy. You're drawing parallels to the tactics of the invading armies of Persia, Rome, etc.? Really? Also, saying it's the only thing that's worked for millennia in an area of the world that's been fethed up for millenia is an argument that only blows back on you in a very big way.

"We've gone to war for less." Well, isn't that the intelligent yardstick for the use of lethal force.

**tneva82**

Frazzled wrote:
No. Using a big stick means dropping them at ground level. This is threatening them with a big stick.

There's serious problems in middle east in part BECAUSE USA has been trigger happy to drop bombs against whoever America didn't like...That has been working really well!

*looks at news.*

Yep. *Real* good.

**Vaktathi**

The idea that a show of force would have been better is flawed. Iran knows the US military's strength. They know they would lose a conventional conflict by default and be completely unable to defend themselves. It's not like there havent been reminders of US military capabilities on *both sides* of Iran's borders for over two decades now. If they weren't intimidated before, they wouldnt be intimidated now unless there was clear and unhesitating intent to pull that trigger for real and go whole hog in on that mess, which quite frankly does not exist, and for good reason.

**feeder**

Frazzled wrote:

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.;

Sort of, yes, but that threat was returned equally. It was mutually assured destruction that stopped WW3.

In any case, I think that annihilating Tehran (a war crime, btw) would ensure a dirty bomb or worse in New York or some similar US port city.

**Sarouan**

Trouble with people calling for war is that they usually never are the ones on first line. It's easy to say "just kill them all" when you actually never meant to go to war yourself.

Frazzled is no exception. He just says that because he knows he's safe in his desert. I find it sad a human says that seriously but well...it always begins like this.

**whembly**

O.o

How long have you been on this board?

Unless I missed something, Frazzled have been one of the more isolationist posters here...

**d-usa**

Once Frazzled starts going on any of his rants, it's best to just ignore him. If you call him out he will only turn it up to Trump level of over-the-top comments before deflecting in a flurry of "I'm old and I have a cranky dog and my daughter could beat me up" posts.

**Ustrello**

d-usa wrote:
Once Frazzled starts going on any of his rants, it's best to just ignore him. If you call him out he will only turn it up to Trump level of over-the-top comments before deflecting in a flurry of "I'm old and I have a cranky dog and my daughter could beat me up" posts.

Or threaten to kill someone and play it off as being sarcastic

**Rosebuddy**

feeder wrote:

In any case, I think that annihilating Tehran (a war crime, btw) would ensure a dirty bomb or worse in New York or some similar US port city.

Doesn't even have to be anything extravagant like that (I'm still not sure how practical a so-called "dirty bomb" even is), regular bombs going off in multiple places would be more than enough for the US to spiral into total panic. Bombs might actually be overcomplicating it, too, since guns are much easier to get hold of.

**Frazzled**

Sarouan wrote:
Trouble with people calling for war is that they usually never are the ones on first line. It's easy to say "just kill them all" when you actually never meant to go to war yourself.

Frazzled is no exception. He just says that because he knows he's safe in his desert. I find it sad a human says that seriously but well...it always begins like this.

You seem to have missed the part where I have been vehemently against US involvement in, well anything outside of the US.

(Except Waugh TBone of course).

Automatically Appended Next Post:

d-usa wrote:
Once Frazzled starts going on any of his rants, it's best to just ignore him. If you call him out he will only turn it up to Trump level of over-the-top comments before deflecting in a flurry of "I'm old and I have a cranky dog and my daughter could beat me up" posts.

Its like someone said something on the politics thread, I responded and they everyone went spinning into the abyss instead of talking about politics*

*I'm cranky and have an old dog and my daughter could beat you up.

Now can we return to politics? What did Trump said today?
http://money.cnn.com/2016/08/22/media/donald-trump-morning-joe-mika/index.html

Automatically Appended Next Post:

Ustrello wrote:
d-usa wrote:
Once Frazzled starts going on any of his rants, it's best to just ignore him. If you call him out he will only turn it up to Trump level of over-the-top comments before deflecting in a flurry of "I'm old and I have a cranky dog and my daughter could beat me up" posts.

Or threaten to kill someone and play it off as being sarcastic

As Trump would say, sarcasm, well a little.

Ah and for today's Trumpalert we bring you:

Donald Trump, presidential nominee, is taking a backseat to Donald Trump, media critic -- again.

On Monday morning he trained his Twitter fire at the MSNBC show "Morning Joe," formerly one of his favorite places to campaign.

Trump criticized "Joe" co-host Mika Brzezinski in highly personal terms, calling her "off the wall, a neurotic and not very bright mess!"

He also implied that Brzezinski and Joe Scarborough have been secretly dating. He called them "two clowns."

The comments about Brzezinski were reminiscent of Trump's highly personal attacks against Fox host Megyn Kelly.

The co-hosts were in the middle of a three-hour live broadcast at the time and had been highly critical of Trump earlier in the morning.

Scarborough responded during a commercial break, stating that "Clinton is targeting key swing states today while Trump starts his day obsessed with cable news hosts while channeling Gawker."

He ended the tweet with one of Trump's favorite put-downs: "SAD!"

@HillaryClinton is targeting key swing states today while Trump starts his day obsessed with cable news hosts while channeling Gawker. SAD!
— Joe Scarborough (@JoeNBC) August 22, 2016

Trump evidently did not like what he heard on "Morning Joe" Monday morning. He said he "tried watching" the talk show but it was "unwatchable."

(Then he called into a competing morning show, "Fox & Friends," one hour later.)

Trump has taken similar jabs at "Morning Joe" before. But his personal references to Brzezinski and Scarborough are new.

Trump isn't the first person to wonder aloud if the co-hosts are more than friends.

Both Scarborough and Brzezinski recently divorced, and Page Six of the New York Post wrote about "romance chatter" in June.

But coming from the Twitter account of the GOP nominee, the comment raised eyebrows right away.

The tweet implied some form of retribution, because he said "some day, when things calm down, I'll tell the real story" of Scarborough and Brzezinski.

A number of political reporters pointed out that Trump's attacks came one day after new campaign manager Kellyanne Conway said that Trump does not hurl "personal insults."

Trump used to have a cordial, even cozy relationship with "Morning Joe." He called into the show regularly during the GOP primary season. At one point he called Scarborough and Brzezinski "supporters." Radio host Hugh Hewitt floated the possibility of Scarborough serving as Trump's running mate.

The Scarborough-Trump relationship became a source of discomfort inside NBC, CNNMoney reported in mid-February.

But the relationship soon turned sour. At the end of February Scarborough deemed Trump's failure to immediately disavow the support of former Ku Klux Klan leader David Duke "disqualifying."

Scarborough and Brzezinski stepped up their scrutiny of Trump throughout the spring and summer. Earlier this month, Scarborough urged the GOP to dump the candidate.

Seemingly in response, Trump jabbed "Morning Joe," calling out its "low ratings," even though the show's ratings have been relatively strong this year.

Trump also said "I don't watch anymore."

But since he tuned in on Monday, Scarborough responded to him on Twitter this way: "Thanks for watching!!! Morning Joe is enjoying it's best ratings ever thanks to obsessed fans like you! GLAD!!!"

Even before Monday's back-and-forth started, Trump insulted one of the regular commentators on "Morning Joe," ad executive Donny Deutsch, in a tweet on Sunday night.

Trump wrote: "I heard that @Morning_Joe was very nice on Friday but that little Donny D, a big failure in TV (& someone I helped), was nasty. Irrelevant!"

Deutsch responded on Monday morning: "Tune in this November to a Special Election Edition of @BiggestLoserNBC starring Little Donny T." He hashtagged it "must see TV."

**whembly**

Donnie doing what Donnie does best.

Also HRC's right hand woman Abedin, went to to get favors for people who donated large sums of cashola to the Clinton Foundation.

Shocking... I know.

As Chief of Staff to Madame President Clinton... at the right price, Abedin will get you face-to-face access to the President of the US.

Good to be Queen.

Must be Colin Powell's fault.

**Ouze**

A politician making time for donors... political contributions buying access, with their chief of staff arranging the meetings?

Unprecedented.

**whembly**

Ouze wrote:
A politician making time for donors... political contributions buying access, with their chief of staff arranging the meetings?

Unprecedented.

Forcing Crown Prince Salman of Bahrain through the foundation in order to talk to Secretary Clinton is not shady...

No siree, nothing untoward about that!

This is a CHARITY FOUNDATION... not a place to accept POLITICAL CONTRIBUTIONS.

**d-usa**

whembly wrote:
Ouze wrote:
A politician making time for donors... political contributions buying access, with their chief of staff arranging the meetings?

Unprecedented.

Forcing Crown Prince Salman of Bahrain through the foundation in order to talk to Secretary Clinton is not shady...

No siree, nothing untoward about that!

This is a CHARITY FOUNDATION... not a place to accept POLITICAL CONTRIBUTIONS.

So just to clarify:

If I give a huge donation to a candidate directly, or their PAC, or another political organization, and get face time with the politician in return, then that's okay. But if I give a huge donation to a charity, and get face time with the politician in return, then that's shady.

So what's the problem, that somebody somewhere actually got some medicine or some clean water instead of some political insider getting to do another line of a hookers butt cheek with that money?

**Prestor Jon**

d-usa wrote:
whembly wrote:
Ouze wrote:
A politician making time for donors... political contributions buying access, with their chief of staff arranging the meetings?

Unprecedented.

Forcing Crown Prince Salman of Bahrain through the foundation in order to talk to Secretary Clinton is not shady...

No siree, nothing untoward about that!

This is a CHARITY FOUNDATION... not a place to accept POLITICAL CONTRIBUTIONS.

So just to clarify:

If I give a huge donation to a candidate directly, or their PAC, or another political organization, and get face time with the politician in return, then that's okay. But if I give a huge donation to a charity, and get face time with the politician in return, then that's shady.

So what's the problem, that somebody somewhere actually got some medicine or some clean water instead of some political insider getting to do another line of a hookers butt cheek with that money?

I think the problem is politicians using charities to sidestep campaign finance laws and let foreign govts pour millions of dollars into US elections. If Bahrain only cared about helping needy children they can do that without the Clinton foundation and if the donation didn't have anything to do with Hillary's campaign why did the crown prince need to meet with her?

**d-usa**

So we have evidence that the Clinton Foundation funneled money into financing elections?

Seems a lot of work for something that already has a ton of legitimate ways to hide the source of money for financing campaigns.

**whembly**

Not for campaign... influence access.

Brahain sends a truckload of $$$ to Clinton Foudation... then, volia! Brahain gets meeting with Secretary Clinton.

Do you not see the problem with this?

**A Town Called Malus**

So... charity gets money and the crown prince of Bahrain gets to see somebody who he would've been able to see anyway?

**feeder**

whembly wrote:
Not for campaign... influence access.

Brahain sends a truckload of $$$ to Clinton Foudation... then, volia! Brahain gets meeting with Secretary Clinton.

Do you not see the problem with this?

Considering this is SOP for all politics everywhere throughout human history.... no, not really.

**d-usa**

whembly wrote:
Not for campaign... influence access.

Brahain sends a truckload of $$$ to Clinton Foudation... then, volia! Brahain gets meeting with Secretary Clinton.

Do you not see the problem with this?

It was just claimed that it sidesteps campaign finance laws, so there should be evidence to back that claim.

If someone sends a truckload of $$$ to Clinton PAC and then gets a meeting, there wouldn't be a complaint?

**whembly**

A Town Called Malus wrote:
So... charity gets money and the crown prince of Bahrain gets to see somebody who he would've been able to see anyway?

No... his meeting was denied thru proper channels... he was "directed" to the Clinton Foundation, and then he got his meeting.

Automatically Appended Next Post:

d-usa wrote:
whembly wrote:
Not for campaign... influence access.

Brahain sends a truckload of $$$ to Clinton Foudation... then, volia! Brahain gets meeting with Secretary Clinton.

Do you not see the problem with this?

It was just claimed that it sidesteps campaign finance laws, so there should be evidence to back that claim.

Wasn't that Prestor? I'm just calling out blatant influence peddling...

If someone sends a truckload of $$$ to Clinton PAC and then gets a meeting, there wouldn't be a complaint?

If that "someone" a US citizen... not really. Sad to say...

**jmurph**

A presidential candidate meeting with a world leader is shocking. Especially since that leader gave money to a charity *with the same last name of said candidate*!

Probably need to check the emails.

**Prestor Jon**

d-usa wrote:
whembly wrote:
Not for campaign... influence access.

Brahain sends a truckload of $$$ to Clinton Foudation... then, volia! Brahain gets meeting with Secretary Clinton.

Do you not see the problem with this?

It was just claimed that it sidesteps campaign finance laws, so there should be evidence to back that claim.

If someone sends a truckload of $$$ to Clinton PAC and then gets a meeting, there wouldn't be a complaint?

It is illegal for foreign nationals to contribute to candidates' election campaigns.
http://www.fec.gov/ans/answers_general.shtml

If the crown prince of Bahrain gave money to the Clinton Foundation to buy an audience with Hillary Clinton, presidential candidate and front runner by a significant margin, that would be sidestepping the campaign finance laws that prohibit the crown prince from buying an audience with candidate Clinton by contributing to her PAC.

It is of course still legal for IS citizens and corporations to buy audiences with politicians be they candidates or incumbents as was ruled recently in McCutcheon vs FEC.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/McCutcheon_v._FEC

**Riquende**

whembly wrote:

No... his meeting was denied thru proper channels... he was "directed" to the Clinton Foundation, and then he got his meeting.

Is this what happened? I'll admit to only giving a cursory look at the first emails in the link posted earlier, but it seems:

Prince of Bahrain asks for HRC meeting through 'proper' channels

HRC doesn't commit to meeting at that time

Prince approaches senior person in the foundation (who he presumably knows as a donor), who approaches HRC aide

2 days later, aide reports that HRC has committed to the meeting after all, mentioning that they've replied through proper channels as well

So as far as I can see, there's no 'denied a meeting', there's no 'being directed' anywhere and there's no explicit 'cash for access to the president' etc. Just powerful people using influential contacts, much as has been done forever.

**Prestor Jon**

jmurph wrote:
A presidential candidate meeting with a world leader is shocking. Especially since that leader gave money to a charity *with the same last name of said candidate*!

Probably need to check the emails.

If candidate Clinton or her campaign believes it is in her best interest or the national interest for her to meet with the crown prince of Bahrain she is free to do so as often as she wants as much as she wants. It is still illegal for candidate Clinton and her campaign to take money from a foreign national. If Hillary wants the prince to contribute to charity without creating the appearance of a illegal quid pro quo then she could direct the prince to any of a number of wonderful charities or have any of the other important Clinton Foundation staff that aren't running for president meet with the prince. To have the foundation take the money and have Hillary take the meeting shows that either the campaign is tone deaf of the Clinton corruption narrative or they don't care about flaunting campaign finance laws via their charity. Political campaigns rely on perceptions and the perception in this instance is that a foreign monarchy can buy audiences with a US presidential candidate.

**d-usa**

Prestor Jon wrote:
d-usa wrote:
whembly wrote:
Not for campaign... influence access.

Brahain sends a truckload of $$$ to Clinton Foudation... then, volia! Brahain gets meeting with Secretary Clinton.

Do you not see the problem with this?

It was just claimed that it sidesteps campaign finance laws, so there should be evidence to back that claim.

If someone sends a truckload of $$$ to Clinton PAC and then gets a meeting, there wouldn't be a complaint?

It is illegal for foreign nationals to contribute to candidates' election campaigns.
http://www.fec.gov/ans/answers_general.shtml

If the crown prince of Bahrain gave money to the Clinton Foundation to buy an audience with Hillary Clinton, presidential candidate and front runner by a significant margin, that would be sidestepping the campaign finance laws that prohibit the crown prince from buying an audience with candidate Clinton by contributing to her PAC.

It is of course still legal for IS citizens and corporations to buy audiences with politicians be they candidates or incumbents as was ruled recently in McCutcheon vs FEC.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/McCutcheon_v._FEC

So is there any evidence that the Clinton Foundation used money to finance her campaign?

**Prestor Jon**

d-usa wrote:
Prestor Jon wrote:
d-usa wrote:
whembly wrote:
Not for campaign... influence access.

Brahain sends a truckload of $$$ to Clinton Foudation... then, volia! Brahain gets meeting with Secretary Clinton.

Do you not see the problem with this?

It was just claimed that it sidesteps campaign finance laws, so there should be evidence to back that claim.

If someone sends a truckload of $$$ to Clinton PAC and then gets a meeting, there wouldn't be a complaint?

It is illegal for foreign nationals to contribute to candidates' election campaigns.
http://www.fec.gov/ans/answers_general.shtml

If the crown prince of Bahrain gave money to the Clinton Foundation to buy an audience with Hillary Clinton, presidential candidate and front runner by a significant margin, that would be sidestepping the campaign finance laws that prohibit the crown prince from buying an audience with candidate Clinton by contributing to her PAC.

It is of course still legal for IS citizens and corporations to buy audiences with politicians be they candidates or incumbents as was ruled recently in McCutcheon vs FEC.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/McCutcheon_v._FEC

So is there any evidence that the Clinton Foundation used money to finance her campaign?

If Hillary didn't derive any benefit from the donation then why did she need to take the meeting with prince?