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.

**Frazzled**

whembly wrote:
skyth wrote:
Frazzled wrote:
skyth wrote:
Frazzled wrote:
skyth wrote:
So in other words, you keep on spreading the same load of bull that's been spread for the last 25 years without a shred of proof...Yeah.

What is this 25 years you are referring to?

The fact that the Republican party has been spewing made up stories about the Clintons for the last 25 years. Ever since Hillary tried to get involved with healthcare reform during Bill's presidency.

I see you're not disagreeing with what I actually wrote.
EDIT: I will agree in that some stories are farcical (Foster suicide being murder) some aren't (Whitewater docs just magically appearing on a table).
And of course the Devil in the Blue Dress...;-)

It's pointless to argue. You already hate Democrats anyways. It's just after 25 years of calling wolf against Clinton with nothing real to show about it...I don't believe anything that is said by Republicans about her.

I mean...Look, you even mention the 'Blue Dress'. That is the level of idiocy that we are talking about. Bill having an affair is ridiculous to even investigate and gloat about finding 'something' about...It says nothing about policy that will be implemented or laws that will be passed. That is what is really important. Not to mention the guy that was all about taking Bill down for having an affair (Gingrich) was having his own affair at the time and left his wife who was suffering from cancer for his mistress...Really, the faux and hypocritical 'outrage' over what the Clintons are accused of doing is beyond the pale.

The takeaway from that sordid ordeal was...

Don't commit perjury.

Indeed. Its rare to find a lawyer who has to give up their law license as part of a settlement with the government (Bill Clinton).

And no I don't hate the Democratic Party. You're projecting. I've voted for Democrats in the past and will do so in the future. I just don't vote for gak candidates.

**Co'tor Shas**

In another of the many insane things Trump says that get lost in the deluge of insane things he says.

http://time.com/4140050/donald-trump-muslims-japanese-internment/

**Frazzled**

Actually not reading the "insane" here. Thats a surprisingly nuanced answer exspecially given the history in WWI and WWII of internment camps for Japanese, Germans, and Austrians.

**jmurph**

Yeah, I think HRC has to really be sweating now. Her numbers are starting to shift in danger zones.
http://fivethirtyeight.com/features/election-update-democrats-should-panic-if-the-polls-still-look-like-this-in-a-week/

But what could she do better? This isn't a race where either candidate is a mystery.

In related news, Trump may swipe a Maine EV.
http://fivethirtyeight.com/features/trumps-appeal-to-rural-voters-may-win-him-an-electoral-vote-in-maine/

**Co'tor Shas**

Frazzled wrote:
Actually not reading the "insane" here. Thats a surprisingly nuanced answer exspecially given the history in WWI and WWII of internment camps for Japanese, Germans, and Austrians.

Suggesting that we round up and place in camps innocent civilians isn't insane?

**Spinner**

Frazzled wrote:
Actually not reading the "insane" here. Thats a surprisingly nuanced answer exspecially given the history in WWI and WWII of internment camps for Japanese, Germans, and Austrians.

Not saying 'hey, yeah, sticking our own citizens in camps because of their race was a screwed up thing to do' would be pretty insane for most candidates, but it's par for the course for this guy, I guess.

I think we all know where Mr. Ban the Muslims would have stood on that.

**djones520**

Co'tor Shas wrote:
Frazzled wrote:
Actually not reading the "insane" here. Thats a surprisingly nuanced answer exspecially given the history in WWI and WWII of internment camps for Japanese, Germans, and Austrians.

Suggesting that we round up and place in camps innocent civilians isn't insane?

Did he do that? All I read in that article is him saying he doesn't like the idea, but he won't make a judgement on it, because he wasn't there at the time facing what they did.

Now stop making me stand up for Trump, you're making me feel sick.

**Co'tor Shas**

djones520 wrote:
Co'tor Shas wrote:
Frazzled wrote:
Actually not reading the "insane" here. Thats a surprisingly nuanced answer exspecially given the history in WWI and WWII of internment camps for Japanese, Germans, and Austrians.

Suggesting that we round up and place in camps innocent civilians isn't insane?

Did he do that? All I read in that article is him saying he doesn't like the idea, but he won't make a judgement on it, because he wasn't there at the time facing what they did.

Now stop making me stand up for Trump, you're making me feel sick.

I think that fact that he's not denouncing rounding up innocent civilian and putting them in camps is enough. It's not something you have to be there to know it's wrong. It's like saying “I certainly hate the concept of slavery. But I would have had to be there at the time to give you a proper answer.”

I will admit that my wording was a tad hyperbolic though.

**whembly**

jmurph wrote:
Yeah, I think HRC has to really be sweating now. Her numbers are starting to shift in danger zones.
http://fivethirtyeight.com/features/election-update-democrats-should-panic-if-the-polls-still-look-like-this-in-a-week/

But what could she do better? This isn't a race where either candidate is a mystery.

In related news, Trump may swipe a Maine EV.
http://fivethirtyeight.com/features/trumps-appeal-to-rural-voters-may-win-him-an-electoral-vote-in-maine/

I still don't see a path to 270 EV for Trump.

I think Clinton is still really safe.

If the battleground state polls shows that Trump is up by 5%... then, yeah... she should be sweating.

**Spinner**

It's an easy thing to say 'yeah, I'd be against that' - of course if you go back in time and grow up in a different period and different circumstances and are exposed to different contemporary values as a result, you have no idea what you'd say. That goes without saying. The implication of the question is 'would you support it now, as you are, knowing what you know about that period and the challenges they faced'. Only he can't say of course he wouldn't, because then he'll get asked how that's different from banning or keeping a database on Muslims. And he can't say yes, because it's not 'in' to treat every Japanese-American like a potential threat. So he's stuck giving a placating non-answer that sounds like he's trying to be fair.

**djones520**

Co'tor Shas wrote:
djones520 wrote:
Co'tor Shas wrote:
Frazzled wrote:
Actually not reading the "insane" here. Thats a surprisingly nuanced answer exspecially given the history in WWI and WWII of internment camps for Japanese, Germans, and Austrians.

Suggesting that we round up and place in camps innocent civilians isn't insane?

Did he do that? All I read in that article is him saying he doesn't like the idea, but he won't make a judgement on it, because he wasn't there at the time facing what they did.

Now stop making me stand up for Trump, you're making me feel sick.

I think that fact that he's not denouncing rounding up innocent civilian and putting them in camps is enough. It's not something you have to be there to know it's wrong. It's like saying “I certainly hate the concept of slavery. But I would have had to be there at the time to give you a proper answer.”

I will admit that my wording was a tad hyperbolic though.

Here I go again...

I look at it from an intellectual honesty point of view. It's easy to take our 21st Century values, and look back to a different era, and wag our finger. I think the thing he is saying is that he doesn't like doing that, and I can kind of respect that.

He flat out says he doesn't like the idea. Maybe it would have been more "appeasing" to say it was wrong, get the soundbite in, but would it have been the right thing? Just depends on how you look at history I guess.

**Frazzled**

Co'tor Shas wrote:
Frazzled wrote:
Actually not reading the "insane" here. Thats a surprisingly nuanced answer exspecially given the history in WWI and WWII of internment camps for Japanese, Germans, and Austrians.

Suggesting that we round up and place in camps innocent civilians isn't insane?

He said looking at it at the time. Are you saying FDR was insane?

Automatically Appended Next Post:

djones520 wrote:
Co'tor Shas wrote:
Frazzled wrote:
Actually not reading the "insane" here. Thats a surprisingly nuanced answer exspecially given the history in WWI and WWII of internment camps for Japanese, Germans, and Austrians.

Suggesting that we round up and place in camps innocent civilians isn't insane?

Did he do that? All I read in that article is him saying he doesn't like the idea, but he won't make a judgement on it, because he wasn't there at the time facing what they did.

Now stop making me stand up for Trump, you're making me feel sick.

Exactly. There's more than enough statements by him that are crazy before inventing ones.

**Co'tor Shas**

Frazzled wrote:
Co'tor Shas wrote:
Frazzled wrote:
Actually not reading the "insane" here. Thats a surprisingly nuanced answer exspecially given the history in WWI and WWII of internment camps for Japanese, Germans, and Austrians.

Suggesting that we round up and place in camps innocent civilians isn't insane?

He said looking at it at the time. Are you saying FDR was insane?

I think the interment of Japanese-Americans was a horrible act, yes. I view it as a black stain on his presidency, and American history in general.

Do I think FDR was literally insane? No. And neither do I think that Trump is literally insane. I'm using the word "insane" as shorthand for my view on the statement.

**dogma**

whembly wrote:

Our next President is going to suck balls.

Dude, think before you write.

**djones520**

dogma wrote:
whembly wrote:

Our next President is going to suck balls.

Dude, think before you write.

In before I can't mock my next CinC, but he has been on the record for saying Clinton will win...

**Frazzled**

Co'tor Shas wrote:
Frazzled wrote:
Co'tor Shas wrote:
Frazzled wrote:
Actually not reading the "insane" here. Thats a surprisingly nuanced answer exspecially given the history in WWI and WWII of internment camps for Japanese, Germans, and Austrians.

Suggesting that we round up and place in camps innocent civilians isn't insane?

He said looking at it at the time. Are you saying FDR was insane?

I think the interment of Japanese-Americans was a horrible act, yes. I view it as a black stain on his presidency, and American history in general.

Do I think FDR was literally insane? No. And neither do I think that Trump is literally insane. I'm using the word "insane" as shorthand for my view on the statement.

As noted you weren't there. I can make the same argument about Obama and Hillary Clinton and same Sex marriage. You have to be insane to be against it. I guess they are insane.

**Co'tor Shas**

djones520 wrote:

Here I go again...

I look at it from an intellectual honesty point of view. It's easy to take our 21st Century values, and look back to a different era, and wag our finger. I think the thing he is saying is that he doesn't like doing that, and I can kind of respect that.

He flat out says he doesn't like the idea. Maybe it would have been more "appeasing" to say it was wrong, get the soundbite in, but would it have been the right thing? Just depends on how you look at history I guess.

It's not "21st Century values", it's "Do you think we should round up and detain civilians with no deviance?" We must reflect on out past actions and recognize when we have done the wrong thing. Again, it's the same as saying "I don't like the concept of slavery, but I wasn't there".

**djones520**

Co'tor Shas wrote:
djones520 wrote:

Here I go again...

I look at it from an intellectual honesty point of view. It's easy to take our 21st Century values, and look back to a different era, and wag our finger. I think the thing he is saying is that he doesn't like doing that, and I can kind of respect that.

He flat out says he doesn't like the idea. Maybe it would have been more "appeasing" to say it was wrong, get the soundbite in, but would it have been the right thing? Just depends on how you look at history I guess.

It's not "21st Century values", it's "Do you think we should round up and detain civilians with no deviance?" We must reflect on out past actions and recognize when we have done the wrong thing. Again, it's the same as saying "I don't like the concept of slavery, but I wasn't there".

It is 21st Century values. The values we have today, are not the same that they were 70 years ago. And 70 years before that, and so forth. We can't look at history through a clear class. It is always going to be tinted, because our thought practices are different, in many ways, from the time period we are looking at.

**Frazzled**

Co'tor Shas wrote:
djones520 wrote:

Here I go again...

I look at it from an intellectual honesty point of view. It's easy to take our 21st Century values, and look back to a different era, and wag our finger. I think the thing he is saying is that he doesn't like doing that, and I can kind of respect that.

He flat out says he doesn't like the idea. Maybe it would have been more "appeasing" to say it was wrong, get the soundbite in, but would it have been the right thing? Just depends on how you look at history I guess.

It's not "21st Century values", it's "Do you think we should round up and detain civilians with no deviance?" We must reflect on out past actions and recognize when we have done the wrong thing. Again, it's the same as saying "I don't like the concept of slavery, but I wasn't there".

You live in a country where people can be banned by the government for traveling based on mythical lists, and you're talking like you're superior. Ok, sure. Evidently you are not keen on the concept of nuance. Thats cool. Let the hate burn through you....YES soon you will be one with the DarkSEID.

**Mozzyfuzzy**

Frazzled wrote:
Co'tor Shas wrote:
djones520 wrote:

Here I go again...

I look at it from an intellectual honesty point of view. It's easy to take our 21st Century values, and look back to a different era, and wag our finger. I think the thing he is saying is that he doesn't like doing that, and I can kind of respect that.

He flat out says he doesn't like the idea. Maybe it would have been more "appeasing" to say it was wrong, get the soundbite in, but would it have been the right thing? Just depends on how you look at history I guess.

It's not "21st Century values", it's "Do you think we should round up and detain civilians with no deviance?" We must reflect on out past actions and recognize when we have done the wrong thing. Again, it's the same as saying "I don't like the concept of slavery, but I wasn't there".

You live in a country where people can be banned by the government for traveling based on mythical lists, and you're talking like you're superior. Ok, sure.

Have you asked if Shas is happy with those lists?

**A Town Called Malus**

djones520 wrote:
Co'tor Shas wrote:
djones520 wrote:

Here I go again...

I look at it from an intellectual honesty point of view. It's easy to take our 21st Century values, and look back to a different era, and wag our finger. I think the thing he is saying is that he doesn't like doing that, and I can kind of respect that.

He flat out says he doesn't like the idea. Maybe it would have been more "appeasing" to say it was wrong, get the soundbite in, but would it have been the right thing? Just depends on how you look at history I guess.

It's not "21st Century values", it's "Do you think we should round up and detain civilians with no deviance?" We must reflect on out past actions and recognize when we have done the wrong thing. Again, it's the same as saying "I don't like the concept of slavery, but I wasn't there".

It is 21st Century values. The values we have today, are not the same that they were 70 years ago. And 70 years before that, and so forth. We can't look at history through a clear class. It is always going to be tinted, because our thought practices are different, in many ways, from the time period we are looking at.

Except 70 years ago there were people who opposed the internment. Being against the forced detainment of innocent people is not a 21st century thing.

**Co'tor Shas**

djones520 wrote:
Co'tor Shas wrote:
djones520 wrote:

Here I go again...

I look at it from an intellectual honesty point of view. It's easy to take our 21st Century values, and look back to a different era, and wag our finger. I think the thing he is saying is that he doesn't like doing that, and I can kind of respect that.

He flat out says he doesn't like the idea. Maybe it would have been more "appeasing" to say it was wrong, get the soundbite in, but would it have been the right thing? Just depends on how you look at history I guess.

It's not "21st Century values", it's "Do you think we should round up and detain civilians with no deviance?" We must reflect on out past actions and recognize when we have done the wrong thing. Again, it's the same as saying "I don't like the concept of slavery, but I wasn't there".

It is 21st Century values. The values we have today, are not the same that they were 70 years ago. And 70 years before that, and so forth. We can't look at history through a clear class. It is always going to be tinted, because our thought practices are different, in many ways, from the time period we are looking at.

Well, yes, we can. Just because actions were acceptable at the time doesn't make them any less wrong. People used to be killed for practicing "witchcraft". Killing them was acceptable during the time, but that doesn't make it right. The question was not "if you were born an raised in that time period under those conditions, would you have supported Japanese internment?"

**Spinner**

djones520 wrote:
Co'tor Shas wrote:
djones520 wrote:

Here I go again...

I look at it from an intellectual honesty point of view. It's easy to take our 21st Century values, and look back to a different era, and wag our finger. I think the thing he is saying is that he doesn't like doing that, and I can kind of respect that.

He flat out says he doesn't like the idea. Maybe it would have been more "appeasing" to say it was wrong, get the soundbite in, but would it have been the right thing? Just depends on how you look at history I guess.

It's not "21st Century values", it's "Do you think we should round up and detain civilians with no deviance?" We must reflect on out past actions and recognize when we have done the wrong thing. Again, it's the same as saying "I don't like the concept of slavery, but I wasn't there".

It is 21st Century values. The values we have today, are not the same that they were 70 years ago. And 70 years before that, and so forth. We can't look at history through a clear class. It is always going to be tinted, because our thought practices are different, in many ways, from the time period we are looking at.

It's totally possible to look back on things that were done in the past and say 'this was a bad thing to do'. I'm going to take the controversial position that slavery was wrong. The Trail of Tears was wrong. Interning innocent US citizens based solely on their race was wrong.

**Frazzled**

A Town Called Malus wrote:
djones520 wrote:
Co'tor Shas wrote:
djones520 wrote:

Here I go again...

I look at it from an intellectual honesty point of view. It's easy to take our 21st Century values, and look back to a different era, and wag our finger. I think the thing he is saying is that he doesn't like doing that, and I can kind of respect that.

He flat out says he doesn't like the idea. Maybe it would have been more "appeasing" to say it was wrong, get the soundbite in, but would it have been the right thing? Just depends on how you look at history I guess.

It's not "21st Century values", it's "Do you think we should round up and detain civilians with no deviance?" We must reflect on out past actions and recognize when we have done the wrong thing. Again, it's the same as saying "I don't like the concept of slavery, but I wasn't there".

It is 21st Century values. The values we have today, are not the same that they were 70 years ago. And 70 years before that, and so forth. We can't look at history through a clear class. It is always going to be tinted, because our thought practices are different, in many ways, from the time period we are looking at.

Except 70 years ago there were people who opposed the internment. Being against the forced detainment of innocent people is not a 21st century thing.

This is true and they were right. That doesn't stop that its a valid point to say he's not going to second guess them because he wasn't there.
Now what's Hillary and Obama's excuse?

**dogma**

djones520 wrote:

In before I can't mock my next CinC, but he has been on the record for saying Clinton will win...

What sort of record?

**Frazzled**

Just because actions were acceptable at the time doesn't make them any less wrong. People used to be killed for practicing "witchcraft". Killing them was acceptable during the time, but that doesn't make it right.

What if they really were witches...

After all, we only knew about the vampire menace threatening the US in the 1850s when that documentary about Abraham Lincoln came out?

As another poster said, quit making me defend Trump.

**A Town Called Malus**

Except he wasn't asked to think as somebody from that era. He, Donald Trump in 2016, was asked whether it was wrong.

And the answer to that is 100% that it was. That there were apparent justifications for it at the time does not change the fact that it was the wrong thing to do. To Godwin this, there were many justifications for German people to vote for the Nazi party in the 1930s and for Hindenburg to hand over emergency powers to Hitler after the Reichstag fire but these actions were still very wrong.

Understanding the reasons for someone doing something in the past does not mean that we cannot judge that action with our greater knowledge now.

**Co'tor Shas**

Frazzled wrote:
Co'tor Shas wrote:
djones520 wrote:

Here I go again...

I look at it from an intellectual honesty point of view. It's easy to take our 21st Century values, and look back to a different era, and wag our finger. I think the thing he is saying is that he doesn't like doing that, and I can kind of respect that.

He flat out says he doesn't like the idea. Maybe it would have been more "appeasing" to say it was wrong, get the soundbite in, but would it have been the right thing? Just depends on how you look at history I guess.

It's not "21st Century values", it's "Do you think we should round up and detain civilians with no deviance?" We must reflect on out past actions and recognize when we have done the wrong thing. Again, it's the same as saying "I don't like the concept of slavery, but I wasn't there".

You live in a country where people can be banned by the government for traveling based on mythical lists, and you're talking like you're superior. Ok, sure.

Who said I support it? I'm against the infringement of any rights without evidence.

This isn't a thing about "Oh my values are superior." We must recognize our prior faults, to atone for them, and to make sure we don't repeat them. Our country isn't perfect, nowhere near. But I want to make it better. And that starts with recognizing what we have done wrong.

Automatically Appended Next Post:

Frazzled wrote:

Now what's Hillary and Obama's excuse?

(assuming you are still talking about gay marriage)

They don't have one. They were wrong. But they admired they were wrong and worked to change it. And that's what is important.

**whembly**

dogma wrote:
whembly wrote:

Our next President is going to suck balls.

Dude, think before you write.

Wait... you honestly think Trump has a chance?

o.O

**Frazzled**

A growing chance actually. Well to be more correct Hillary's chances are declining. He's not improving. Millennials and others are starting to hit the "not going to vote" or Stein/Johnson route.