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.

 gorgon wrote:

 AlmightyWalrus wrote:
Honestly, I think it's because you've been riding a high since WWII when most of the competition bombed itself to smithereens. That's passed, however. The US drank its own propaganda meant to counter the Soviet Union and decided that it was unique, as opposed to just one country among many (which most if not all countries are guilty of to certain extent). Trump, and his followers, are refusing to accept that much of the US prosperity over the last 70 years was dependent on external factors that no longer exist.

It's not stupidity (well, not exclusively at least) as much as it is denial. I'd argue that Europe, too, is suffering from a certain degree of post-colonial identity crisis, as we can't push off the externalities of our economies on others as blatantly as we could in the past. We still totally do it though.

Sorry, but I really don't think this has much of anything to do with what's going on in our election.

You don't think the economic decline of the US has much of anything to do with what's going on in your election?

Okay then.

 AlmightyWalrus wrote:

 gorgon wrote:

 AlmightyWalrus wrote:
Honestly, I think it's because you've been riding a high since WWII when most of the competition bombed itself to smithereens. That's passed, however. The US drank its own propaganda meant to counter the Soviet Union and decided that it was unique, as opposed to just one country among many (which most if not all countries are guilty of to certain extent). Trump, and his followers, are refusing to accept that much of the US prosperity over the last 70 years was dependent on external factors that no longer exist.

It's not stupidity (well, not exclusively at least) as much as it is denial. I'd argue that Europe, too, is suffering from a certain degree of post-colonial identity crisis, as we can't push off the externalities of our economies on others as blatantly as we could in the past. We still totally do it though.

Sorry, but I really don't think this has much of anything to do with what's going on in our election.

You don't think the economic decline of the US has much of anything to do with what's going on in your election?

Okay then.

The US economy has been one of the only ones growing and we are riding a high at the moment. But a return to normal will probably occur soon

 WrentheFaceless wrote:
I really dont understand what our country has turned in to with Trump being this popular, having an actual chance of obtaining the highest office in the land.

How can anything that comes out of his orange suckhole be taken seriously?

Has america become this stupid?

America, and every nation, is and always was that stupid. Fascism comes in many flavors. The problem is that thr Republicans courted people that bought into this sort of thing for electoral gain, and lost control. They have been hoist by their own petard and no longer have the means to regain control.

Looking at people in my life who actually support Trump, they are, without exception, without college degrees, many without even a HS diploma, chronically unemployed or under employed, have never made more than $15/hr in their lives (if that), have major issues with relationships (be they platonic or romantic), largely live in social echo chambers with lots of time on their hands, and generally boil political discusson down to internet memes.

Now, that may not be fair to paint all Trump supporters, and certainly supporters of other candidates can be wonky in their own ways, but the above is true of literally all the people I personally know who support Trump. This demographic is what the Republicans have allowed to hijack their party, and they're not a small group of people, they blame everything thats wrong on others (though they do have some legitimate grievances), and they're angry at the world. It wouldnt be the first time such groups have pressed what otherwise were unthinkable politics into the forefront.

 Vaktathi wrote:

 WrentheFaceless wrote:
I really dont understand what our country has turned in to with Trump being this popular, having an actual chance of obtaining the highest office in the land.

How can anything that comes out of his orange suckhole be taken seriously?

Has america become this stupid?

America, and every nation, is and always was that stupid. Fascism comes in many flavors. The problem is that thr Republicans courted people that bought into this sort of thing for electoral gain, and lost control. They have been hoist by their own petard and no longer have the means to regain control.

Looking at people in my life who actually support Trump, they are, without exception, without college degrees, many without even a HS diploma, chronically unemployed or under employed, have never made more than $15/hr in their lives (if that), have major issues with relationships (be they platonic or romantic), largely live in social echo chambers with lots of time on their hands, and generally boil political discusson down to internet memes.

Now, that may not be fair to paint all Trump supporters, and certainly supporters of other candidates can be wonky in their own ways, but the above is true of literally all the people I personally know who support Trump. This demographic is what the Republicans have allowed to hijack their party, and they're not a small group of people, they blame everything thats wrong on others (though they do have some legitimate grievances), and they're angry at the world. It wouldnt be the first time such groups have pressed what otherwise were unthinkable politics into the forefront.

My anecdotal evidence is the same.

 Ustrello wrote:

 AlmightyWalrus wrote:

 gorgon wrote:

 AlmightyWalrus wrote:
Honestly, I think it's because you've been riding a high since WWII when most of the competition bombed itself to smithereens. That's passed, however. The US drank its own propaganda meant to counter the Soviet Union and decided that it was unique, as opposed to just one country among many (which most if not all countries are guilty of to certain extent). Trump, and his followers, are refusing to accept that much of the US prosperity over the last 70 years was dependent on external factors that no longer exist.

It's not stupidity (well, not exclusively at least) as much as it is denial. I'd argue that Europe, too, is suffering from a certain degree of post-colonial identity crisis, as we can't push off the externalities of our economies on others as blatantly as we could in the past. We still totally do it though.

Sorry, but I really don't think this has much of anything to do with what's going on in our election.

You don't think the economic decline of the US has much of anything to do with what's going on in your election?

Okay then.

The US economy has been one of the only ones growing and we are riding a high at the moment. But a return to normal will probably occur soon

Sorry, "decline" might not have been the right word. "Shift" might've been better, as more and more unskilled manufacturing is outsourced.

Anyone else amused that the guy that is constantly stealing from people that do work from him wants to be the 'law and order' president?

 skyth wrote:
Anyone else amused that the guy that is constantly stealing from people that do work from him wants to be the 'law and order' president?

Mmhmm. His response to being confronted with the unpaid architect was so idiotic. If you don't think your architect has done a good job then you don't build the structure he designed, not build it then refuse to pay him

 skyth wrote:
Anyone else amused that the guy that is constantly stealing from people that do work from him wants to be the 'law and order' president?

Anyone amused about a woman, who has 5 staffers that the FBI gave Immunity from prosecution wanting to be the C-in-C?

Nice get-out-of-jail card there eh?

Some people dream big of being rich enough one day to stiff their own contractors.

 jasper76 wrote:
Some people dream big of being rich enough one day to stiff their own contractors.

Hey... he was only ensuring maximized profits for his company! /Cheeto Jesus Lover

 A Town Called Malus wrote:

 skyth wrote:
Anyone else amused that the guy that is constantly stealing from people that do work from him wants to be the 'law and order' president?

Mmhmm. His response to being confronted with the unpaid architect was so idiotic. If you don't think your architect has done a good job then you don't build the structure he designed, not build it then refuse to pay him

Its certainly unpleasant, but these things happen. Some designs and concepts look better on paper than in practice, and its not unheard of for the architect to go over budget.

An example of this would be the Farnsworth house, which was hated by its owner, and for a while there was a series of legal disputes between Mies Van der Rohe, the architect, and Mrs Farnsworth, who refused to pay the entirety of the fee. She didn't like the unconventional design of the house, how there was little privacy, and that it was $15, 000 over budget.
Mies won the lawsuit, though not without a hit to his reputation.

I believe there was a similar incident with Gaudi and the Casa Mila; client hated it, refused to pay.

The slogan the "customer is always right" comes to mind. Not that its always correct, mind you, but I can imagine the client would feel that way.

 CthuluIsSpy wrote:

 A Town Called Malus wrote:

 skyth wrote:
Anyone else amused that the guy that is constantly stealing from people that do work from him wants to be the 'law and order' president?

Mmhmm. His response to being confronted with the unpaid architect was so idiotic. If you don't think your architect has done a good job then you don't build the structure he designed, not build it then refuse to pay him

Its certainly unpleasant, but these things happen. Some designs and concepts look better on paper than in practice, and its not unheard of for the architect to go over budget.

An example of this would be the Farnsworth house, which was hated by its owner, and for a while there was a series of legal disputes between Mies Van der Rohe, the architect, and Mrs Farnsworth, who refused to pay the entirety of the fee. She didn't like the unconventional design of the house, how there was little privacy, and that it was $15, 000 over budget.
Mies won the lawsuit, though not without a hit to his reputation.

I believe there was a similar incident with Gaudi and the Casa Mila; client hated it, refused to pay.

If your architect who is designing an expensive building isn't supplying a model as well as paper plans then you need to hire a better architect.

I'd argue that a model also isn't perfect, as there may be changes in scale, materials are a factor, there is a matter of cost, etc.
To go back to my previous example, I do believe Mies van der Rohe did construct a model of his project before beginning construction.

But I digress, this is getting off topic.
On topic...has Trump built a model of the wall he wants to construct? The American public deserves to see his blueprints and a scale model of the project, as to be sure it is the wall they want.
Can one sue the president over a construction project?

 Vaktathi wrote:

 WrentheFaceless wrote:
I really dont understand what our country has turned in to with Trump being this popular, having an actual chance of obtaining the highest office in the land.

How can anything that comes out of his orange suckhole be taken seriously?

Has america become this stupid?

America, and every nation, is and always was that stupid. Fascism comes in many flavors. The problem is that thr Republicans courted people that bought into this sort of thing for electoral gain, and lost control. They have been hoist by their own petard and no longer have the means to regain control.

Looking at people in my life who actually support Trump, they are, without exception, without college degrees, many without even a HS diploma, chronically unemployed or under employed, have never made more than $15/hr in their lives (if that), have major issues with relationships (be they platonic or romantic), largely live in social echo chambers with lots of time on their hands, and generally boil political discusson down to internet memes.

Now, that may not be fair to paint all Trump supporters, and certainly supporters of other candidates can be wonky in their own ways, but the above is true of literally all the people I personally know who support Trump. This demographic is what the Republicans have allowed to hijack their party, and they're not a small group of people, they blame everything thats wrong on others (though they do have some legitimate grievances), and they're angry at the world. It wouldnt be the first time such groups have pressed what otherwise were unthinkable politics into the forefront.

Agreed. Trump reminds me of how Angle won the Republican nomination for the Nevada senate seat a few years back and whatshername "I am not a witch" won the senate primary in Delaware. The craziness has been building up for a while now.

Just curious about all you third party people....have you considered / are you aware of Evan McMullin's campaign?

He seems like a more "normal" conservative alternative to Trump than is Gary Johnson IMHO.

(I don't know mug of anything about him but he is running as the anti-Trump)

 jasper76 wrote:
Just curious about all you third party people....have you considered / are you aware of Evan McMullin's campaign?

He seems like a more "normal" conservative alternative to Trump than is Gary Johnson IMHO.

(I don't know mug of anything about him but he is running as the anti-Trump)

I luuuuuuuuuuuuurve McMullin. (as a conservative).

As a "protest vote" I'd be voting for him hard.

However, he's not going to get any measurable amount of votes that'll be worth a damned... plus, he isn't on all 50 states yet.

Me voting for Johnson hopefully raises the stature of a "3rd Party" is the best use for my vote.

 CthuluIsSpy wrote:

 A Town Called Malus wrote:

 skyth wrote:
Anyone else amused that the guy that is constantly stealing from people that do work from him wants to be the 'law and order' president?

Mmhmm. His response to being confronted with the unpaid architect was so idiotic. If you don't think your architect has done a good job then you don't build the structure he designed, not build it then refuse to pay him

Its certainly unpleasant, but these things happen. Some designs and concepts look better on paper than in practice, and its not unheard of for the architect to go over budget.

An example of this would be the Farnsworth house, which was hated by its owner, and for a while there was a series of legal disputes between Mies Van der Rohe, the architect, and Mrs Farnsworth, who refused to pay the entirety of the fee. She didn't like the unconventional design of the house, how there was little privacy, and that it was $15, 000 over budget.
Mies won the lawsuit, though not without a hit to his reputation.

I believe there was a similar incident with Gaudi and the Casa Mila; client hated it, refused to pay.

The slogan the "customer is always right" comes to mind. Not that its always correct, mind you, but I can imagine the client would feel that way.

The problem is that the architect was not an isolated incident. There have been numerous reports of him refusing to pay contractors because he knows it will be more expensive to sue him to get the money than it is worth.

 whembly wrote:

 jasper76 wrote:
Just curious about all you third party people....have you considered / are you aware of Evan McMullin's campaign?

He seems like a more "normal" conservative alternative to Trump than is Gary Johnson IMHO.

(I don't know mug of anything about him but he is running as the anti-Trump)

I luuuuuuuuuuuuurve McMullin. (as a conservative).

As a "protest vote" I'd be voting for him hard.

However, he's not going to get any measurable amount of votes that'll be worth a damned... plus, he isn't on all 50 states yet.

Me voting for Johnson hopefully raises the stature of a "3rd Party" is the best use for my vote.

The Libertarian Party is the only other party with a candidate on the ballot in all 50 states so they have the best shot of pulling in a double digit percentage of votes that will hopefully help them get a better candidate to run in 2020.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 skyth wrote:

 CthuluIsSpy wrote:

 A Town Called Malus wrote:

 skyth wrote:
Anyone else amused that the guy that is constantly stealing from people that do work from him wants to be the 'law and order' president?

Mmhmm. His response to being confronted with the unpaid architect was so idiotic. If you don't think your architect has done a good job then you don't build the structure he designed, not build it then refuse to pay him

Its certainly unpleasant, but these things happen. Some designs and concepts look better on paper than in practice, and its not unheard of for the architect to go over budget.

An example of this would be the Farnsworth house, which was hated by its owner, and for a while there was a series of legal disputes between Mies Van der Rohe, the architect, and Mrs Farnsworth, who refused to pay the entirety of the fee. She didn't like the unconventional design of the house, how there was little privacy, and that it was $15, 000 over budget.
Mies won the lawsuit, though not without a hit to his reputation.

I believe there was a similar incident with Gaudi and the Casa Mila; client hated it, refused to pay.

The slogan the "customer is always right" comes to mind. Not that its always correct, mind you, but I can imagine the client would feel that way.

The problem is that the architect was not an isolated incident. There have been numerous reports of him refusing to pay contractors because he knows it will be more expensive to sue him to get the money than it is worth.

Trump is a bad project manager. I'm pretty sure that his most successful building projects have been run by other people with Trump involved mostly with naming the building after himself and marketing it. I've yet to see any evidence that Trump is competent at anything beyond self promotion.

 A Town Called Malus wrote:

 skyth wrote:
Anyone else amused that the guy that is constantly stealing from people that do work from him wants to be the 'law and order' president?

Mmhmm. His response to being confronted with the unpaid architect was so idiotic. If you don't think your architect has done a good job then you don't build the structure he designed, not build it then refuse to pay him

That's far from being a one-off. Trump has a long, well established history of stiffing the little people who don't matter. You can google "Trump doesn't pay his bills" and find nearly infinite reporting on this.

Prestor Jon wrote:

The Libertarian Party is the only other party with a candidate on the ballot in all 50 states so they have the best shot of pulling in a double digit percentage of votes that will hopefully help them get a better candidate to run in 2020.

Do we really want to give Libertarian policy further legitimacy, though? It's cowboy myth masturbatory fantasy at best.

As we all know, America has existed for 250 years plus, and we often forget that in its past, America has had some bad Presidents, and Trump is nothing new in this regard. Trust in the strength of your institutions and democratic heritage to see off Clinton or Trump.

 Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:
As we all know, America has existed for 250 years plus, and we often forget that in its past, America has had some bad Presidents, and Trump is nothing new in this regard. Trust in the strength of your institutions and democratic heritage to see off Clinton or Trump.

Sounds to me like what the camel said before the last straw was placed on his back, to be honest. Just sayin.

 feeder wrote:

Prestor Jon wrote:

The Libertarian Party is the only other party with a candidate on the ballot in all 50 states so they have the best shot of pulling in a double digit percentage of votes that will hopefully help them get a better candidate to run in 2020.

Do we really want to give Libertarian policy further legitimacy, though? It's cowboy myth masturbatory fantasy at best.

Party platforms change all the time, the important thing is ballot access.

Prestor Jon wrote:

 feeder wrote:

Prestor Jon wrote:

The Libertarian Party is the only other party with a candidate on the ballot in all 50 states so they have the best shot of pulling in a double digit percentage of votes that will hopefully help them get a better candidate to run in 2020.

Do we really want to give Libertarian policy further legitimacy, though? It's cowboy myth masturbatory fantasy at best.

Party platforms change all the time, the important thing is ballot access.

Perhaps. All the Libertarians that I know IRL are walking arguments for why voting should be a privilege and not a right, though.

How long has Trump talked about "his movement" during this campaign? Last night was the first time I have heard him use that phrase, and it feels like just a way of trying to pick up Sanders voters.

 jasper76 wrote:

 Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:
As we all know, America has existed for 250 years plus, and we often forget that in its past, America has had some bad Presidents, and Trump is nothing new in this regard. Trust in the strength of your institutions and democratic heritage to see off Clinton or Trump.

Sounds to me like what the camel said before the last straw was placed on his back, to be honest. Just sayin.

If a nation can survive a civil war, it can survive anything.

 d-usa wrote:
How long has Trump talked about "his movement" during this campaign? Last night was the first time I have heard him use that phrase, and it feels like just a way of trying to pick up Sanders voters.

Since day one... really.

tneva82 wrote:

 Kilkrazy wrote:
The Japanese actually have fairly large and well equipped army, navy and air force, but they are not called by that name.

The constitution of Japan prevents its armed forces from being used for offensive operations. Prime Minister Abe has led a movement to amend the constitution to allow wider use of them.

Yes but the size is not nearly enough to defend Japan alone. And trying to change THAT is extremely unpopular. Changing that isn't going to happen quickly.

Japanese self-defence forces are roughly twice the size of the RN, RAF and British Army. The Japanese have no problem with the idea of defending themselves, they are against using their armed forces offensively.

Is this a record for shortest time between saying the thing and then lying about saying the thing?

Linkylink

 gorgon wrote:

 Maniac_nmt wrote:
So, we got two hours (more or less) of two narcissistic hacks who both looked unpresidential last night. Hillary was just as bad as Trump for smirking, chuckling, and similar. However, at least she could stay somewhat on topic and not side track herself constantly.

America, we were the clear looser last night. We have two essentially identical ego maniacs who are both fear and scare mongers (both say things to marginalize anyone who does not agree with them).

America, we will get EXACTLY what we deserve this election.

Seriously, it's thinking like this that puts us in this situation. These candidates are far from identical. These parties are far from identical.

Really? How so?

Both have routinely lied or misrepresented their achievements. I suppose at least Trump wasn't in collusion with the party brass to squelch his opponents, so there is that.

Clinton has lied about real estate deals in Arkansas, lied about her cover ups for her husband, shown she does not care about women's rights as a result, lied about her server, inflates all her accomplishments, also behaved liked a child on stage with her smirking/chuckling/snorting bits, and been highly devisive with her comments that insinuate that if you are not for her you are a racist/bigot/sexist/jerk. She is in it for Clinton and only for Clinton.

Trump has lied about his accomplishments, bullied his way in, been bankrupt, likely also doesn't believe half of what he says (I think a lot of his bluster is his negotiatining style, meant to pull the opposition farther his way. Make it so outlandish that the compromise seems normal), behaves like a child on stage. He is in it for Trump and only Trump.

Which one is repealing the Patriot Act? Which one is talking like they aren't the second coming? Both want to deny people their rights when the person has never been tried or convicted. I see two narcissists leading two parties more inerested in their own grip on power and demonizing different thought than acting as civil servants.

They are different on tax strategy in theory, but they peddle a lot of two sides of the same coin.