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:

 A Town Called Malus wrote:
Well, Cuba didn't need to fund a massive military and hadn't been invading its neighbours.

You mean other than sending troops to Angola, Venezuela and a host of other countries...

Many of them were quite small cells, intended to operate without need of direct support from the Cuban government after they began combat operations. The Angolan and Ethiopian campaigns were sizeable, though.

Still nothing compared to Russia, however.

I'm not comparing Cuba to Russia. It did however punch above its weight in multiple engagements in the Cold War.

 djones520 wrote:
On the topic of Russian sanctions.

http://www.nato.int/docu/Review/2015/Russia/sanctions-after-crimea-have-they-worked/EN/index.htm

A bit more on sanctions in general and how they are most effective in modifying a country's behavior:

http://www.econlib.org/library/Enc/Sanctions.html

@Frazz: you really think it would be a better world if we didn't trade with China? Our costs are kept low and it incentivizes non military resolutions-something I would have thought you would have appreciated considering your whole live and let live approach to foreign policy.

 Frazzled wrote:

 A Town Called Malus wrote:
Well, Cuba didn't need to fund a massive military and hadn't been invading its neighbours.

You mean other than sending troops to Angola, Venezuela and a host of other countries...

The reason that people called for the lifting of sanctions in Cuba was because they went on for a long time and were completely ineffective at what they were trying to do. Add in that Russia has sanctions from more than just the USA and they are likely to be more effective than the US-only trade embargo was.

FOr the record I am down with removing the sanctions if for no other reason than we have trade with China (we shouldn't have trade with China).

I wouldn't say massive military...mostly just smallish forces sent out to foil illegal CIA activity wherever they got the chance.

As for Cheeyna.....

The US has been trying to trade with China since the Spanish-American War, I doubt we are going to stop* anytime soon.

*there was that brief period where policy makers left sanity on the roadside to the dismay of capitalists.

Trump has drawn within 2.5 points. Clinton now has no firewall of safe states, she would have to win every state she is currently leading to win the electoral college.

The line many people are using that Clinton has this in the bag is increasingly bs - Trump is a real chance of being your next president. This is a looming fething disaster people. Get honest with this situation, and do what is needed to put a competent person in the most important position in the world.

 reds8n wrote:
.. uh huh.

Wow. Even if it turns out to be true it is crappy, offensive journalism. I would have hoped the days of shaming people for spending some time to look after their mental health were behind us.

It did give me a thought, though. I mean, why go chasing a rumour that doesn't matter even if its true, when there is so much out there in Trump's own statements that make him such a terrible candidate. I think it might be because there is little kudos for a journalist in repeating something easily and openly put out in the public record - "Trump is an idiot incapable of running the country" is not a scoop.

So instead journalists focus on things they can uncover, even if there's little there of any meaning there. This would explain why some idiot has gone hunting for some mental health records of Trumps from 25 years, and it would explain why so many journalists have spent so much time trying to find something of meaning in Clinton's email and Foundation records.

They don't care about actual, meaningful information. They care about scoops.

 sebster wrote:

 reds8n wrote:
.. uh huh.

Wow. Even if it turns out to be true it is crappy, offensive journalism. I would have hoped the days of shaming people for spending some time to look after their mental health were behind us.

It did give me a thought, though. I mean, why go chasing a rumour that doesn't matter even if its true, when there is so much out there in Trump's own statements that make him such a terrible candidate. I think it might be because there is little kudos for a journalist in repeating something easily and openly put out in the public record - "Trump is an idiot incapable of running the country" is not a scoop.

So instead journalists focus on things they can uncover, even if there's little there of any meaning there. This would explain why some idiot has gone hunting for some mental health records of Trumps from 25 years, and it would explain why so many journalists have spent so much time trying to find something of meaning in Clinton's email and Foundation records.

They don't care about actual, meaningful information. They care about scoops.

Yup.

It's a "tit-a-tat" game now.

So, since HRC had a "medical scare"... lets drum up some medical history on Trump.

As if, there isn't other more damning gak that could sink their candidancy.

 whembly wrote:
Yup.

It's a "tit-a-tat" game now.

No, that isn't what I said. I didn't even slightly imply that this was orchestrated by one campaign or the other. In fact I believe the opposite - most of the journalists looking in to Clinton's faux scandals have been quite honest about how much of a disaster Trump would be. But they do the job of writing pretend exposes of Clinton because those stories look like scoops, and exciting new headlines are the name of the job, even if the actual story is both contrived and meaningless.

This is the problem - journalists looking for headlines, and not looking for meaningful information. It doesn't matter if it is tit-for-tat, the issue is news filled with absolute fething nonsense.

And Trump is riding that nonsense to the whitehouse.



And this should sum up everything...



Automatically Appended Next Post:

 whembly wrote:
Well... I don't buy that either.

Seriously, what has Clinton (or Obama for that matter) done to mitigate any Russian Realpolitik-ing? The sanctions sucks I'm sure, but I get the feeling it's more of a nuisance than a major adverse bugaboo.

No, it's a total economic disaster for Russia.


What that is showing is 0% growth in the Russian economy from 2008 until today. What limited growth there had been was killed by the last round of sanctions. The only thing keeping Russia afloat is oil exports, and that's a very fragile market.

The sanctions are rapidly killing the Russian economy.

The fact that he hasn't given a dime to his own foundation since 2008(?) simply amazes me.

Not only is he using the foundation to buy favors from politicians and personal gifts for himself and his family, he's doing it with other people's money.

How is the GOP supporting such a democrat?

 d-usa wrote:

How is the GOP supporting such a democrat?

Indeed!

Relapse wrote:
Cuba also had sanctions from more than just the USA.
Russians are damn tough people and know how to pull together in hard times, as history has proven time and again. The sanctions may sting, but all I think they will do in the end is piss Russians off against the west.

The Russian people are basically irrelevant, the ones who matter are the oligarchs. The sanctions cost the oligarchs billions in frozen funds and crippled business opportunities. Suffering sanctions like these give them a real penalty every time Russia goes on another breach of international law.

The clear and obvious effect is that the oligarchs will not support future breaches of international law by Putin.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 whembly wrote:
Real Clear Politics aggregate a bunch of polling outfits, and Clinton is still up by plenty.

By your own link Clinton is up by 2.3 points, having led by 6 point two weeks ago. That isn't plenty, that's a razor thin margin with all the momentum going with Trump.

This is fething serious, get honest with the situation and do what you can to make sure Trump does not make it in to the Whitehouse.

 sebster wrote:

Automatically Appended Next Post:

 whembly wrote:
Real Clear Politics aggregate a bunch of polling outfits, and Clinton is still up by plenty.

By your own link Clinton is up by 2.3 points, having led by 6 point two weeks ago. That isn't plenty, that's a razor thin margin with all the momentum going with Trump.

This is fething serious, get honest with the situation and do what you can to make sure Trump does not make it in to the Whitehouse.

I don't want either of them in the god damned Whitehouse.

We're 55 days away, without any of the debates factored in.

That's a LIFETIME.

Here's two main things why I don't think Trump is as close as these polls are showing.

1) Do you remember how close Romney was in 2012? Well, it wasn't even close simply because Obama was able to get key areas to over-perform.

2) In order to over-perform, GOTV is fething key. And Trump has no where NEAR the GOTV infrastructure that Clinton has...

 whembly wrote:
I don't want either of them in the god damned Whitehouse.

Well you're going to get one of them. Now be honest about this one simple reality;
Clinton will not be a national and international disaster, Trump will be a national and international disaster.

We're 55 days away, without any of the debates factored in.

That's a LIFETIME.

Having more time to change doesn't make the chance of Trump winning go away.

And remember that idiots have gotten away with 'winning' debates before, simply by exceeding expectations. Look at the list I posted above - Trump did everything short of calling the American people suckers... and it still wasn't a problem because we expect him to be a complete disaster. On the other hand Clinton is getting hammered over nothing as severe as anything Trump said.

There is every chance that something very similar will happen with the debates - Clinton will be hammered on appearance or manner, and Trump will be praised for telling less lies than people expected.

Here's two main things why I don't think Trump is as close as these polls are showing.

1) Do you remember how close Romney was in 2012? Well, it wasn't even close simply because Obama was able to get key areas to over-perform.

State polls this time show nothing of the same firewall. Go look at state by state on 538 - Clinton needs every single state she is currently leading in.

And remember that 2012 was an unsusually static election, Obama's lead varied little from start to finish, and even less in the swing states. But this campaign has shown massive swings in the fortunes of each candidate.

2) In order to over-perform, GOTV is fething key. And Trump has no where NEAR the GOTV infrastructure that Clinton has...

This campaign is a big test of the old school methods compared to the modern media and internet strategies. In a political science sense that's a fun experiment, but I'm not particularly keen to let the possibility of a Trump presidency ride on that experiment.

 whembly wrote:

I don't want either of them in the god damned Whitehouse.

Then think of it this way. If Trump wins, then his positions and policies (as few as they are) will likely become the new normal policies in the GOP. Is that what you want your party to become?

Would you rather Clinton in the White House, or the GOP to adopt Trump's methods and ideas as their foundation for the future?

 sebster wrote:

 whembly wrote:
I don't want either of them in the god damned Whitehouse.

Well you're going to get one of them. Now be honest about this one simple reality;
Clinton will not be a national and international disaster, Trump will be a national and international disaster.

I don't give a flying feth.

Clinton's Secretary of State foreign policy sucks ass. That's on record.

Trumps? I have no fething clue... because he hasn't telegraphed who'd be his SoS pick. But, I'm confident that pick would suck ass too.

We're 55 days away, without any of the debates factored in.

That's a LIFETIME.

Having more time to change doesn't make the chance of Trump winning go away.

Granted it appears he's doing "better" that's largely seems to better discipline (he's using teleprompter) and surprisingly reserved over things like Clinton's health scare.

But he's still losing the states he'd need to win.

There is one WTF state that he seems to be winning big... Iowa. O.o That one is strange...

And remember that idiots have gotten away with 'winning' debates before, simply by exceeding expectations. Look at the list I posted above - Trump did everything short of calling the American people suckers... and it still wasn't a problem because we expect him to be a complete disaster. On the other hand Clinton is getting hammered over nothing as severe as anything Trump said.

There is every chance that something very similar will happen with the debates - Clinton will be hammered on appearance or manner, and Trump will be praised for telling less lies than people expected.

Trump is doing well largely because of message discipline via the Teleprompter AND Clinton's 'basket of deplorables' messaging...

But, when he goes unscripted, like a debate w/o his teleprompter crutch or a candid interview- - verbal diarrhea spews out.

Here's two main things why I don't think Trump is as close as these polls are showing.

1) Do you remember how close Romney was in 2012? Well, it wasn't even close simply because Obama was able to get key areas to over-perform.

State polls this time show nothing of the same firewall. Go look at state by state on 538 - Clinton needs every single state she is currently leading in.

And remember that 2012 was an unsusually static election, Obama's lead varied little from start to finish, and even less in the swing states. But this campaign has shown massive swings in the fortunes of each candidate.

2) In order to over-perform, GOTV is fething key. And Trump has no where NEAR the GOTV infrastructure that Clinton has...

This campaign is a big test of the old school methods compared to the modern media and internet strategies. In a political science sense that's a fun experiment, but I'm not particularly keen to let the possibility of a Trump presidency ride on that experiment.

As Political Science junkie this election is something else...

Trump is treating this election as just another one of his Reality Show.

And Clinton could be in danger of Bucknering her chance.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 A Town Called Malus wrote:

 whembly wrote:

I don't want either of them in the god damned Whitehouse.

Then think of it this way. If Trump wins, then his positions and policies (as few as they are) will likely become the new normal policies in the GOP. Is that what you want your party to become?

Would you rather Clinton in the White House, or the GOP to adopt Trump's methods and ideas as their foundation for the future?

The President isn't King.

And no, his positions/policies won't get rubber stamped as he'll have to contend with both SCoTUS and Congress.

 whembly wrote:
Trump is doing well largely because of message discipline via the Teleprompter

Huh, I thought teleprompters were for simpletons who couldn't speak publicly. That seems to have changed recently.

 Ouze wrote:

 whembly wrote:
Trump is doing well largely because of message discipline via the Teleprompter

Huh, I thought teleprompters were for simpletons who couldn't speak publicly. That seems to have changed recently.

Is this a Dubya reference?

 whembly wrote:
Clinton's Secretary of State foreign policy sucks ass. That's on record.

Clinton's record as SoS wasn't great, that's true,

But Trump is the guy who's called for the illegal seizure of oil fields from other countries, called for soldiers to commit war crimes, and wants to undermine NATO.

I mean holy gak, any effort to pretend the latter is anything but a total fething disaster for the US and the rest of the world is delusional.

Granted it appears he's doing "better" that's largely seems to better discipline (he's using teleprompter) and surprisingly reserved over things like Clinton's health scare.

Yes... 'more reserved'. In his more reserved state he's still lied about opposing the Iraq war, publicly discussed his private intelligence briefings and claimed officials didn't like Obama, gave an interview to RT, lied about how many friends he lost in 9/11, attacked the Fed Reserve chair both flip flopping on earlier statements and showing gross ignorance of monetary policy, and made a racial attack against a sitting senator.

That week, which is Trump on his best behaviour, would sink any other candidate in US history. But it's Trump, everyone just expects him to be the worst possible candidate in the history of the country, and so a week like the above is a 'good week', relative to expectations.

But here's the thing - at some point people have to fething man up to reality, and stop just accepting Trump is the worst candidate in the history of the country, and actually do what it takes to stop him being president.

The President isn't King.

No, but political parties go where success is. If Trump's new model of racism and xenophobia shows the GOP a way to win elections, then that's exactly where the party will go.

Even a close loss might cause the GOP to move down the path of nativist bigotry. If you want your old GOP back, then you need to make sure that Trump's campaign fails as much as possible.

 whembly wrote:

 A Town Called Malus wrote:

 whembly wrote:

I don't want either of them in the god damned Whitehouse.

Then think of it this way. If Trump wins, then his positions and policies (as few as they are) will likely become the new normal policies in the GOP. Is that what you want your party to become?

Would you rather Clinton in the White House, or the GOP to adopt Trump's methods and ideas as their foundation for the future?

The President isn't King.

And no, his positions/policies won't get rubber stamped as he'll have to contend with both SCoTUS and Congress.

Then I guess it is a good thing I didn't say that they would get past the Supreme Court and Congress but rather that the GOP would adopt his methods as if he wins it would mean that they work. So all that open racism, bigotry, sexism and anti-intellectualism will become the new GOP playbook for running campaigns as it gets results.

EDIT: What Seb said

 whembly wrote:


Is this a Dubya reference?

In 2008 Obama was reading a speach off a teleprompter when the machine failed. He struggled for words for a 20 seconds or so. Republicans used this to claim that all he could do was read off teleprompters.

Now Trump is being lauded for actually sticking to the teleprompter.

I don't think Colin Powell likes the Clintons:



Automatically Appended Next Post:

 sebster wrote:

 whembly wrote:


Is this a Dubya reference?

In 2008 Obama was reading a speach off a teleprompter when the machine failed. He struggled for words for a 20 seconds or so. Republicans used this to claim that all he could do was read off teleprompters.

Now Trump is being lauded for actually sticking to the teleprompter.

Ah. I see.

Any politician would be different with or without the teleprompter.




Automatically Appended Next Post:

 A Town Called Malus wrote:

 whembly wrote:

 A Town Called Malus wrote:

 whembly wrote:

I don't want either of them in the god damned Whitehouse.

Then think of it this way. If Trump wins, then his positions and policies (as few as they are) will likely become the new normal policies in the GOP. Is that what you want your party to become?

Would you rather Clinton in the White House, or the GOP to adopt Trump's methods and ideas as their foundation for the future?

The President isn't King.

And no, his positions/policies won't get rubber stamped as he'll have to contend with both SCoTUS and Congress.

Then I guess it is a good thing I didn't say that they would get past the Supreme Court and Congress but rather that the GOP would adopt his methods as if he wins it would mean that they work. So all that open racism, bigotry, sexism and anti-intellectualism will become the new GOP playbook for running campaigns as it gets results.

EDIT: What Seb said

THen you don't realize how many established GOP'ers who won't play ball with Trump.

There's still bit of a "cold war" between Trump and Speaker Ryan.

 whembly wrote:


I don't think Colin Powell likes the Clintons:

Powell said Trump was "a national disgrace", "an international pariah", and a racist for supporting the birther movement.

And perhaps the best one... Powell said this; "Benghazi is a stupid witch hunt."

But you only posted his petty snark about Clinton.

THen you don't realize how many established GOP'ers who won't play ball with Trump.

Once again, this isn't about what parts of his racist, xenophobic, illegal and just plain fething bonkers agenda that Trump will actually manage to put in action. It is about the GOP, and what happens when the party is shown that running an overtly racist, bigoted, nationalist campaign can deliver you a presidential win.

If you think the GOP won't move their strategy towards that in future you're absolutely kidding yourself.

 sebster wrote:

 whembly wrote:
Clinton's Secretary of State foreign policy sucks ass. That's on record.

Clinton's record as SoS wasn't great, that's true,

But Trump is the guy who's called for the illegal seizure of oil fields from other countries, called for soldiers to commit war crimes, and wants to undermine NATO.

I mean holy gak, any effort to pretend the latter is anything but a total fething disaster for the US and the rest of the world is delusional.

And I firmly believe that the Clinton's monetized access to the States Department via their Foundation.

I refuse to play the less of evils in this election.

Granted it appears he's doing "better" that's largely seems to better discipline (he's using teleprompter) and surprisingly reserved over things like Clinton's health scare.

Yes... 'more reserved'. In his more reserved state he's still lied about opposing the Iraq war, publicly discussed his private intelligence briefings and claimed officials didn't like Obama, gave an interview to RT, lied about how many friends he lost in 9/11, attacked the Fed Reserve chair both flip flopping on earlier statements and showing gross ignorance of monetary policy, and made a racial attack against a sitting senator.

That week, which is Trump on his best behaviour, would sink any other candidate in US history. But it's Trump, everyone just expects him to be the worst possible candidate in the history of the country, and so a week like the above is a 'good week', relative to expectations.

But here's the thing - at some point people have to fething man up to reality, and stop just accepting Trump is the worst candidate in the history of the country, and actually do what it takes to stop him being president.

Frankly... I don't care anymore.

Clinton would be disasterous imo.

Trump would be a disasterous FethFace Von Clownstick President.

The US is boned... oh, so very boned.

The President isn't King.

No, but political parties go where success is. If Trump's new model of racism and xenophobia shows the GOP a way to win elections, then that's exactly where the party will go.

Even a close loss might cause the GOP to move down the path of nativist bigotry. If you want your old GOP back, then you need to make sure that Trump's campaign fails as much as possible.

If it were any other GOP candidate, you'd be right.

But, what's unprecedented here is that there are MANY #NeverTrumps in the GOP party. They simply won't "toe the line" simply because Trump wants it.

We'll see whether they stay that way if he wins. I personally doubt it.

 sebster wrote:

If you think the GOP won't move their strategy towards that in future you're absolutely kidding yourself.

I believe you're absolutely mistaken in this regard.

You seem to think that Trump supports is because of this massive "basket of deplorables" -- right?

You won't entertain the idea that much of Trump support could be simply the #NeverHillary crowd? Anecdotally, the folks I know who are voting for Trump are doing so to simply deny the WhiteHouse to Hillary.

Furthermore, don't get snooker'ed into the narratives that Trump had a GREAT DAY AT THE POLLS!:!:! Even with those factored in, Hillary still wins:


Tell me which of the blue states he's going to flip??? I don't see it...

 whembly wrote:
And I firmly believe that the Clinton's monetized access to the States Department via their Foundation.

Yes, I know that you believe that nonsense. Meanwhile, the AP story got retracted because it was bs, and every other report on this was 'scary headline... lots of weasel word bs like 'raises questions'... and then actual facts buried in the bottom third of the article that said there's been nothing wrong actually found.

So, the choice is between one candidate who's straight up bribed people to avoid investigations in to his criminally fraudulent university, and another candidate who has had lots of accusations made against her, and had thousands of emails uncovered and reviewed with nothing wrong actually revealed.

And people are pretending this is a tough choice.

Frankly... I don't care anymore.

It's your fething country, you have to care. Either Trump or Clinton will be your next president. You are welcome to dislike both of those people, but you are absolutely wrong to pretend they will be equally disastrous.

It is simply not up for debate that the guy making constant racial attacks, who's talking about committing war crimes, and who wants to undermine the US' primary military alliance represents an incredible disaster for the US, and the world at large.

This is just a fact. The question is what you do about it. And any answer that just tries to pretend that isn't the situation you're faced with is plainly not good enough.

If it were any other GOP candidate, you'd be right.

But, what's unprecedented here is that there are MANY #NeverTrumps in the GOP party. They simply won't "toe the line" simply because Trump wants it.

They won't toe the line, and they will likely play an okay role in blocking Trump's crazier bs. In the short term. But there will be more federal elections in 2 years, and then every 2 years after that. Once Trump has shown that outright bigotry is a winning strategy, how long do you think those holdouts will last? It's already a very tough job being a moderate in the GOP....


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 whembly wrote:
Tell me which of the blue states he's going to flip??? I don't see it...

Trump is leading in more of the recent NC polls that trailing. That's 15 EC votes,
Nevada is neck and neck. That's another 6 EC votes.

That gives Trump 21 EC over your model, so that's 266. That is four short of a winning total. Which means Clinton has to win every single state in which she is currently leading, as I said.

 sebster wrote:

 whembly wrote:


I don't think Colin Powell likes the Clintons:

Powell said Trump was "a national disgrace", "an international pariah", and a racist for supporting the birther movement.

And perhaps the best one... Powell said this; "Benghazi is a stupid witch hunt."

But you only posted his petty snark about Clinton.

Which is pretty much why this whole conversation is a huge, total waste of time. I mean, do you honestly believe he didn't get the teleprompter reference? He's used it previously.

 Ouze wrote:
Which is pretty much why this whole conversation is a huge, total waste of time. I mean, do you honestly believe he didn't get the teleprompter reference? He's used it previously.

I've spent my entire time on dakka tilting at windmills. This would be a strange time to stop.

If Trump wins i may have to get one of these

Relapse wrote:

 Kilkrazy wrote:

 whembly wrote:

 Ouze wrote:

 whembly wrote:
If it *is* the Russians doing this, I don't think it's simply they're wanting Trump (or generic Republicans) to win. They'd be doing this to erode voter's confidence in our election process.

...and that's a very, VERY bad thing imo.

I don't buy it. I mean, I'm sure it's Russia. The part I don't buy is that "they want to erode confidence in our elections" vs "they want Trump". They very obviously want Trump. He spends a ton of free time speaking highly of Putin and has said repeatedly he would consider lifting sanctions and consider recognize Crimea as a Russian territory. We don't really need any extra pieces to realize it was Professor Plum with the candlestick in the library, here.

Well... I don't buy that either.

Seriously, what has Clinton (or Obama for that matter) done to mitigate any Russian Realpolitik-ing? The sanctions sucks I'm sure, but I get the feeling it's more of a nuisance than a major adverse bugaboo.
... ...

That is because you have trusted your feelings instead of facts. The sanctions have arse fethed the Russian economy, as shown by the history of the Rouble exchange rate.

Why on Earth do you imagine Putin is supporting a pro-Putin candidate for President?

To turn this a bit, many here say the Cuban sanctions did nothing useful and what a wonderful thing it is to lift them.

The Cuban sanctions certainly failed in their objective of bringing down the Castro regime, however the South Africa sanctions did help achieve the end of Apardheid.