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.

 Frazzled wrote:

 feeder wrote:

tneva82 wrote:

 whembly wrote:
You might be on to something here... however, i think the opposite. I think it'll drive Trump to a more isolationist mindset.

Which is what ISIS wants. The more Trump aims to isolate USA from muslims the more mutual hatred it breeds which means more radicalization which means more terrorism attacks. So while Trump might think he's trying to get rid of the problem he would be just upping the antes.

The wave of terror attacks coming from the middle east is not some "they hate our freedom" nonsense. They are a direct result of our political machinations there.

yes the attacks in Belgium, Bangladesh, Austria, and Germany are all because of their insidious activities in the ME.

Well, different groups in different regions act for different reasons.

Do you really think planes hit New York because they were really mad about our babes in bikinis with beers culture?

 whembly wrote:

 A Town Called Malus wrote:

 jmurph wrote:
And I doubt Trump would hesitate to exploit such an opening.

Considering that Trump was willing to exploit the murder of a mother whilst she was walking with her baby, I don't think there is room for any doubt as to whether he would exploit a terrorist attack.

So... why is it wrong for Trump to do this, and yet, it's okay for Obama/Hillary to talk about gun-control after every shooting?

The fact is, just about every politician exploits *something* to further their cause.

....

Because they are different issues with different effects.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 whembly wrote:

 A Town Called Malus wrote:
...

But I guess you can't miss an opportunity to try to attack Clinton as she is just as bad, so I'm not sure what I expected.

We're talking about exploitation... right?

You are, but not the rest of us. We are talking about good governance.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 whembly wrote:

 feeder wrote:
Pushing for gun control following a spree shooting does not equal a smug "called it!" following a murder. Do you agree?

Disagree because the pro-gun control crowds are dripping in this smugness.

Pro-gun Control: See... we told you guys this will keep happening. Why won't you guys see reason!

You're being incredibly rude to people concerned about the massive toll of injury caused by the gun policy of the USA.
And you are dragging the thread off topic.

Man, gun control threatens to undermine just about every topic in the OT, doesn't it?

 Kilkrazy wrote:

 whembly wrote:

 A Town Called Malus wrote:

 jmurph wrote:
And I doubt Trump would hesitate to exploit such an opening.

Considering that Trump was willing to exploit the murder of a mother whilst she was walking with her baby, I don't think there is room for any doubt as to whether he would exploit a terrorist attack.

So... why is it wrong for Trump to do this, and yet, it's okay for Obama/Hillary to talk about gun-control after every shooting?

The fact is, just about every politician exploits *something* to further their cause.

....

Because they are different issues with different effects.

? That doesn't even make sense.

Trumps ridiculous "outreach to blacks" (if you can even call that) and his smug attempt to vindicate his previous arguments.

The Obama/Hillary example I posted earlier is the same fething thing... posted at the same damn time when the authorities were conducting the manhunt for the shooters.

It's the old axiom to never let a crisis go to waste.

Automatically Appended Next Post:

 whembly wrote:

 A Town Called Malus wrote:
...

But I guess you can't miss an opportunity to try to attack Clinton as she is just as bad, so I'm not sure what I expected.

We're talking about exploitation... right?

You are, but not the rest of us. We are talking about good governance.

No. The discussion on hand were exploitation of tragedies. That happens time after time... especially after a particularly heinous shooting.

Automatically Appended Next Post:

 whembly wrote:

 feeder wrote:
Pushing for gun control following a spree shooting does not equal a smug "called it!" following a murder. Do you agree?

Disagree because the pro-gun control crowds are dripping in this smugness.

Pro-gun Control: See... we told you guys this will keep happening. Why won't you guys see reason!

You're being incredibly rude to people concerned about the massive toll of injury caused by the gun policy of the USA.

Oh, c'mon kk... there's an obvious pattern of how this happens.

And no, I'm not directing this to anyone here in this thread.

And you are dragging the thread off topic.

Okay, I'll drop this train of thought.

Meh, this thread is funny anyway, derailed or not. I've gotten to to the point where this election cycle is nothing but quality entertainment. Donald Hairpiece or Killary, it doesn't really matter. It's all one big mess.


Me? I don't worry about it too much anymore. I'll have the popcorn and Pepsi stocked up, and I'll sit back and just watch the world burn.

 oldravenman3025 wrote:


Meh, this thread is funny anyway, derailed or not. I've gotten to to the point where this election cycle is nothing but quality entertainment. Donald Hairpiece or Killary, it doesn't really matter. It's all one big mess.


Me? I don't worry about it too much anymore. I'll have the popcorn and Pepsi stocked up, and I'll sit back and just watch the world burn.

I'm inclined to believe we've been at the "pure entertainment stage" for a while now. You have to have had your head buried in the sand for the last 30 years not to know what kind of a guy Trump is, and what kind of a gal Clinton is, and whether you'd vote for either for POTUS.

I really doubt the debates will have much impact at all beyond TV ratings and late night jokes. And I doubt there are many truly undecided voters at this point, no matter what people might tell pollsters.

 jasper76 wrote:

 oldravenman3025 wrote:


Meh, this thread is funny anyway, derailed or not. I've gotten to to the point where this election cycle is nothing but quality entertainment. Donald Hairpiece or Killary, it doesn't really matter. It's all one big mess.


Me? I don't worry about it too much anymore. I'll have the popcorn and Pepsi stocked up, and I'll sit back and just watch the world burn.

I'm inclined to believe we've been at the "pure entertainment stage" for a while now. You have to have had your head buried in the sand for the last 30 years not to know what kind of a guy Trump is, and what kind of a gal Clinton is, and whether you'd vote for either for POTUS.

I really doubt the debates will have much impact at all beyond TV ratings and late night jokes. And I doubt there are many truly undecided voters at this point, no matter what people might tell pollsters.

If the Libertarian ticket can get into the debates (there's been rumble about it), then we could see some shake up on things.

I'm all about Johnson making the debates. Might as well let Jill Stein in too to complete the Crazy Train. But I doubt either will happen. At one point it looked like Johnson might possibly meet the requirement but the support never materialized.

jasper76 wrote:

I'm inclined to believe we've been at the "pure entertainment stage" for a while now. You have to have had your head buried in the sand for the last 30 years not to know what kind of a guy Trump is, and what kind of a gal Clinton is, and whether you'd vote for either for POTUS.

I really doubt the debates will have much impact at all beyond TV ratings and late night jokes. And I doubt there are many truly undecided voters at this point, no matter what people might tell pollsters.

Exactamundo. The last time that elections were even close to this funny as during the Bush/Gore race, with the whole vote count hubbub. Or was it watching people foam at the mouth over Palin. I can't decide.

djones520 wrote:If the Libertarian ticket can get into the debates (there's been rumble about it), then we could see some shake up on things.

The Libertarians will never amount to anything more than a distraction until they get serious about building up a party. And you have to start on the local level and work your way up.

 jmurph wrote:
Man, gun control threatens to undermine just about every topic in the OT, doesn't it?

Well if you guys would just surrender and do as I say then everything would go more smoothly. Don't make me get out the goat sucker.

 djones520 wrote:

 jasper76 wrote:

 oldravenman3025 wrote:


Meh, this thread is funny anyway, derailed or not. I've gotten to to the point where this election cycle is nothing but quality entertainment. Donald Hairpiece or Killary, it doesn't really matter. It's all one big mess.


Me? I don't worry about it too much anymore. I'll have the popcorn and Pepsi stocked up, and I'll sit back and just watch the world burn.

I'm inclined to believe we've been at the "pure entertainment stage" for a while now. You have to have had your head buried in the sand for the last 30 years not to know what kind of a guy Trump is, and what kind of a gal Clinton is, and whether you'd vote for either for POTUS.

I really doubt the debates will have much impact at all beyond TV ratings and late night jokes. And I doubt there are many truly undecided voters at this point, no matter what people might tell pollsters.

If the Libertarian ticket can get into the debates (there's been rumble about it), then we could see some shake up on things.

It's a telling indication of how far mainstream politics has fallen when a cowboy myth mastubatory fantasy ideology like Libertarianism gains anything other than the radical fringe crowd.

Compared to the awesome wuss parties that make up Canada's you betcha. Jeez look who you just elected. What is he...twelve?

What evidence is that Libertarianism actually has gained any ground beyond the radical fringe?

By "evidence" I mean things like registered party members, income, and election results -- real world effects, in other words. How does the graph look for things like that, or is Libertarianism only an echo chamber effect of shock jock radio and modern social media?

 Kilkrazy wrote:
What evidence is that Libertarianism actually has gained any ground beyond the radical fringe?

http://www.nytimes.com/2016/08/04/upshot/can-gary-johnson-the-libertarian-nominee-swing-the-election.html?_r=0

He's gained significant ground as a 3rd party candidate. A lot of not-trump voters are looking at the Libertarians.

Johnson isn't a real trademarked Libertarian, to be fair. For example, he believes in licensures, traffic laws, national defense etc.

I've listened a bit to what he has to say and it's always the message "socially liberal, fiscally conservative".

Really, this basic approach is probably what most people in the US want...I just don't think that Gary Johnson or the Libertarian Party will be the vehicle to make it happen.

More likely post-Trump GOP will finally abandon the religious right, which doesn't seem to be a very powerful voting block anymore as Trump winning the Southern primaries suggested, and adopt the same basic "socially liberal, fiscally conservative" message that Johnson is currently pushing.

 Frazzled wrote:
Compared to the awesome wuss parties that make up Canada's you betcha. Jeez look who you just elected. What is he...twelve?

I assume you're talking about Mr. "It's The Current Year"?

If so, it's the WEED, MAAAAAAANN. I bet many voted for him on the basis of his campaign promises of legal reefer.

 jasper76 wrote:
Johnson isn't a real trademarked Libertarian, to be fair. For example, he believes in licensures, traffic laws, national defense etc.

I've listened a bit to what he has to say and it's always the message "socially liberal, fiscally conservative".

Really, this basic approach is probably what most people in the US want...I just don't think that Gary Johnson or the Libertarian Party will be the vehicle to make it happen.

More likely post-Trump GOP will finally abandon the religious right, which doesn't seem to be a very powerful voting block anymore as Trump winning the Southern primaries suggested, and adopt the same basic "socially liberal, fiscally conservative" message that Johnson is currently pushing.

Yeah, I honestly think most people in America want what the Libertarians are selling, they are either just ignorant of what they stand for, or are scared off by some of their more fringe beliefs.

 oldravenman3025 wrote:

 Frazzled wrote:
Compared to the awesome wuss parties that make up Canada's you betcha. Jeez look who you just elected. What is he...twelve?

I assume you're talking about Mr. "It's The Current Year"?

If so, it's the WEED, MAAAAAAANN. I bet many voted for him on the basis of his campaign promises of legal reefer.

That's not really a bad thing. If Canadians want legal pot, then they should have it....democracy and all that.

Anyways, I thought Canada legalized pot well before Trudeau was elected as Prime Minister???

 djones520 wrote:

 jasper76 wrote:
Johnson isn't a real trademarked Libertarian, to be fair. For example, he believes in licensures, traffic laws, national defense etc.

I've listened a bit to what he has to say and it's always the message "socially liberal, fiscally conservative".

Really, this basic approach is probably what most people in the US want...I just don't think that Gary Johnson or the Libertarian Party will be the vehicle to make it happen.

More likely post-Trump GOP will finally abandon the religious right, which doesn't seem to be a very powerful voting block anymore as Trump winning the Southern primaries suggested, and adopt the same basic "socially liberal, fiscally conservative" message that Johnson is currently pushing.

Yeah, I honestly think most people in America want what the Libertarians are selling, they are either just ignorant of what they stand for, or are scared off by some of their more fringe beliefs.

This. The Libertarians need to going mainstream... and that's going to take some serious cash infusion and bodies.

 djones520 wrote:

 jasper76 wrote:
Johnson isn't a real trademarked Libertarian, to be fair. For example, he believes in licensures, traffic laws, national defense etc.

I've listened a bit to what he has to say and it's always the message "socially liberal, fiscally conservative".

Really, this basic approach is probably what most people in the US want...I just don't think that Gary Johnson or the Libertarian Party will be the vehicle to make it happen.

More likely post-Trump GOP will finally abandon the religious right, which doesn't seem to be a very powerful voting block anymore as Trump winning the Southern primaries suggested, and adopt the same basic "socially liberal, fiscally conservative" message that Johnson is currently pushing.

Yeah, I honestly think most people in America want what the Libertarians are selling, they are either just ignorant of what they stand for, or are scared off by some of their more fringe beliefs.

If you ever have a chance , YouTube Samantha Bee and Libertarian Convention...what a gak show!

 Frazzled wrote:
Compared to the awesome wuss parties that make up Canada's you betcha. Jeez look who you just elected. What is he...twelve?

Frazz, just take a moment and look and listen to the last four or five Canadian PMs, then look/listen at the last four or five Texan governors. I would take a "you betcha", though I doubt you you would hear any of them saying it, to a "yee haw" any day of the week. Plus hockey is a better sport than football.

Trudeau might look twelve, but he can at least count that high.

Incidentally, apparently Donald Trump has landed in Mexico City to meet with President Nieto.

When the hell and why the hell did this happen?

 jasper76 wrote:

 oldravenman3025 wrote:

 Frazzled wrote:
Compared to the awesome wuss parties that make up Canada's you betcha. Jeez look who you just elected. What is he...twelve?

I assume you're talking about Mr. "It's The Current Year"?

If so, it's the WEED, MAAAAAAANN. I bet many voted for him on the basis of his campaign promises of legal reefer.

That's not really a bad thing. If Canadians want legal pot, then they should have it....democracy and all that.

Anyways, I thought Canada legalized pot well before Trudeau was elected as Prime Minister???

I believe it's legal for medicinal purposes. But, if I'm not mistaken, growers have to be licensed by Health Canada. And it's still illegal for recreational use under the CDSA

 Frazzled wrote:
Compared to the awesome wuss parties that make up Canada's you betcha. Jeez look who you just elected. What is he...twelve?

After 12 years of being led by the mass of snakes wearing a human skin that was Harper, we would have elected a baby squirrel if that was who had run opposed.

Besides, it sounds like you're just covering up the weird and confusing emotions he stirs up in your tummy and.... lower regions, with anger.

It's okay Frazz. Life is a long and winding road, and no one can know where you may end up.

 Gordon Shumway wrote:
Plus hockey is a better sport than football.

Them's thread-derailing words, pardner.

 Gordon Shumway wrote:

 Frazzled wrote:
Compared to the awesome wuss parties that make up Canada's you betcha. Jeez look who you just elected. What is he...twelve?

Frazz, just take a moment and look and listen to the last four or five Canadian PMs, then look/listen at the last four or five Texan governors. I would take a "you betcha", though I doubt you you would hear any of them saying it, to a "yee haw" any day of the week. Plus hockey is a better sport than football.

Trudeau might look twelve, but he can at least count that high.

Ghost Ann Richards would literally wipe the floor with the entire Trudeau family tree and laugh while she did it. Of course even Putin would have been scared of Ann Richards-now that was a true Texan.

Now SHE should have been the first female US President.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 feeder wrote:

 Frazzled wrote:
Compared to the awesome wuss parties that make up Canada's you betcha. Jeez look who you just elected. What is he...twelve?

After 12 years of being led by the mass of snakes wearing a human skin that was Harper, we would have elected a baby squirrel if that was who had run opposed.

I have a fat weiner dog who can help you with your snake problem. for a small fee. Two barrels of maple syrup and 1 long ton of bacon should do it.

 Gordon Shumway wrote:
Plus hockey is a better sport than football.

Fact.

 oldravenman3025 wrote:

 Frazzled wrote:
Compared to the awesome wuss parties that make up Canada's you betcha. Jeez look who you just elected. What is he...twelve?

I assume you're talking about Mr. "It's The Current Year"?

If so, it's the WEED, MAAAAAAANN. I bet many voted for him on the basis of his campaign promises of legal reefer.

Yes. Canada has a huge voting bloc of nervous potential pot heads.

 feeder wrote:
The wave of terror attacks coming from the middle east is not some "they hate our freedom" nonsense. They are a direct result of our political machinations there.

They're also the result of the fact that a lot of people in the middle east hate each other even when we aren't doing anything to start trouble. Remember how ISIS's greatest enemy and favorite target is "moderate" Muslims that don't submit to their version of Islam? Trump is great from their point of view. He may reduce US presence in the middle east* (a win if he does) but he's certainly going to keep up the rhetoric about "ban all the Muslims" and reinforce the idea that there is no middle ground and no room for compromise. Clinton, on the other hand, is all about making deals with "moderate" Muslims, or even extremist Muslims who align with US political goals. She's directly opposed to the ideology of ISIS and countering their message of "compromise can never happen so fight to the death".

*And he may just talk about it and do nothing. It's easy to yell about "put America first" when nothing is at stake, but how long will it be before Trump is making favorable oil deals for his friends and keeping the endless war going to make sure his stock in defense contractors goes up?

What, is Ann Richards some sort of Texas Margaret Thatcher for Texans or something? Maybe Minnie Pearl could have been her Secretary of State. She scared people because she was scary. So are zomibies. Doesn't mean they would be good heads of state. I think you are mixing up your Dallas reruns with reality.

She was also a liberal. Here's where you explain that a Texas liberal is different from an actual liberal.