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.

Even though there's a more rational reason that has been explained ad naseum for why they are popping up now...

 The Airman wrote:

 kronk wrote:
Donald Trump feths 13 year olds (allegedly)

If this is true, then Trump should serve his sentence. Trump's a pretty nasty guy but I have serious doubts about this one. The timing couldn't be worse, however, and I agree with Trump's statements that these accusations popping up out of the woodwork are the result of a political motive.

In your own words "troll harder, friend."

 Vaktathi wrote:

 The Airman wrote:

 kronk wrote:
Donald Trump feths 13 year olds (allegedly)

If this is true, then Trump should serve his sentence. Trump's a pretty nasty guy but I have serious doubts about this one. The timing couldn't be worse, however, and I agree with Trump's statements that these accusations popping up out of the woodwork are the result of a political motive.

From a guy caught on tape in his own words talking about using sexual assault as a pickup line and being able to get away with it because he's famous, who has been through a grip of wives and even more mistresses, the idea that all these women are complete liars looking for attention is...hard to believe.

I mean, political motive surely is part of the reason, they're obviously not wanting to see him be president, but at the same time, given the above, its not like these things were unlikely to have happened either.

Then a happy medium would be to put Trump, Hillary and their revealed crimes on trial with special prosecutors to avoid bias, just as long as the evidence is there and they aren't just allegations because anyone can make allegations on either side. This way we avoid whataboutisms and get things solved. The Clintons and the support structure have gotten away with too much and a solution like this would make it fair for all sides. The only problem is Trump seems to be one of the few who might actually go after Clinton and her friends, as the establishment and elite are backing Clinton out of either fear or self defense.

This is a bit of a nasty situation we find ourselves in, eh?

 NinthMusketeer wrote:

 The Airman wrote:

 kronk wrote:
Donald Trump feths 13 year olds (allegedly)

If this is true, then Trump should serve his sentence. Trump's a pretty nasty guy but I have serious doubts about this one. The timing couldn't be worse, however, and I agree with Trump's statements that these accusations popping up out of the woodwork are the result of a political motive.

In your own words "troll harder, friend."

Of course they are politically motivated and carefully timed-else there would be no such thing as an October surprise. Both side tried it. The Democrats/NY Times, and the Trumpshirts/Russian KGB.

On the other hand, you can't have allegations from a dozen women if there are no allegations to be had, just like you can't have allegation of a public/private view if a person doesn't talk about it.


"hen a happy medium would be to put Trump, Hillary and their revealed crimes on trial with special prosecutors to avoid bias, just as long as the evidence is there and they aren't just allegations because anyone can make allegations on either side."
No the happy medium would be to have Biden and Kasich announce they are running, state their positions on the economy, domestic, blah blah blah, have a debate led by the Queen of England and enforced by the Queen's guard, and then an election is held the following week.

I have dreamed a dream...

 The Airman wrote:
The only problem is Trump seems to be one of the few who might actually go after Clinton and her friends, as the establishment and elite are backing Clinton out of either fear or self defense.

Then guess what: you don't prosecute Clinton (again). Why is it so important to take another shot at prosecuting her that you're willing to let Trump be president to do it? It's almost guaranteed that Trump is going to do more damage to the country than Clinton ever did, so this is the equivalent of shooting yourself in the head to scratch an itch. Yeah, you might accomplish your goal, but no reasonable person would think that the price is worth it.

special prosecutors to avoid bias

Actually our history with special prosecutors has revealed them to be incredibly biased Turns out that when you make someone's sole job the prosecution of one person, it ends up being a complete monkey trial (not of the Scopes variety ).

... whataboutisms... solution like this would make it fair for all sides

Yeah.

See it isn't about what's fair for "all sides." It's about what's evident. Despite gak towns of investigating over the course of decades, the only way to actually peg anything on the Clintons is to fall back on conspiracy theories which is usually a pretty sure sign that nothing is evident.

Trump has been put under hard public scrutiny for less than a year, and he's already facing down a half dozen different legal challenges to his person.

So yes. It is a nasty situation. I'm deeply saddened that politics have become so far gone that entire segments of the electorate chose to live in a work of fantasy for the convenience of a world view that is buckling.

 The Airman wrote:

 kronk wrote:
Donald Trump feths 13 year olds (allegedly)

If this is true, then Trump should serve his sentence. Trump's a pretty nasty guy but I have serious doubts about this one. The timing couldn't be worse, however, and I agree with Trump's statements that these accusations popping up out of the woodwork are the result of a political motive.

Or himself triggering them with his talk giving final push for the victims to come out. Not that unusual scenario.

No need for conspiracy theories. That nuthole is more than capable of digging his own grave.

 Peregrine wrote:

 The Airman wrote:
The only problem is Trump seems to be one of the few who might actually go after Clinton and her friends, as the establishment and elite are backing Clinton out of either fear or self defense.

Then guess what: you don't prosecute Clinton (again). Why is it so important to take another shot at prosecuting her that you're willing to let Trump be president to do it? It's almost guaranteed that Trump is going to do more damage to the country than Clinton ever did, so this is the equivalent of shooting yourself in the head to scratch an itch. Yeah, you might accomplish your goal, but no reasonable person would think that the price is worth it.

I remain unconvinced. At this point when the elite and the establishment are panicking because of a populist uprising, it's probably because said populist would disrupt the system they currently have in place. You're free to disagree, however, as you've done so readily numerous times. I just want to see HRC and her friends meet justice and it's sad that "Russian" hackers have to reveal our problems for us.

 The Airman wrote:


I remain unconvinced. At this point when the elite and the establishment are panicking because of a populist uprising,

What populist uprising? At best, Trump had 30% of the mainline GOP vote (and that's the hardcore who vote in primaries), when there were still a half dozen candidates on the field. Sanders came out with 39% in a two dog race (also the hardcore who vote in the primaries). Trumps national support meanwhile seems to be limited to those who voted for him in the primaries and those who hate Clinton so much they're willing to elect the reincarnation of Huey Long.

You might want to consider that this "uprising" you imagine is just that. Imagined. You seem to have gone through a lot of work to create this narrative of corrupt elites necessitating Trump, when there is no evidence for the corrupt elites so much as just unlikable elites and an actually corrupt Trump being an absolutely insane solution. Oh yes electing Trump would disrupt the system for sure, but I'm not sure how disrupting the system in the ways he seems to want to is an improvement.

 Peregrine wrote:

 The Airman wrote:
The only problem is Trump seems to be one of the few who might actually go after Clinton and her friends, as the establishment and elite are backing Clinton out of either fear or self defense.

Then guess what: you don't prosecute Clinton (again). Why is it so important to take another shot at prosecuting her that you're willing to let Trump be president to do it? It's almost guaranteed that Trump is going to do more damage to the country than Clinton ever did, so this is the equivalent of shooting yourself in the head to scratch an itch. Yeah, you might accomplish your goal, but no reasonable person would think that the price is worth it.

Well excluding the Second Amendment, a vote for Clinton is, ironically, a vote for the exact status quote. It may not get better, but its unlikely to get much worse. COnsidering the four candidates, that could be the best solution.

But she's anti Second Amendment so therefor she's worse than a cat lover as far as I am concerned.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 LordofHats wrote:

 The Airman wrote:


I remain unconvinced. At this point when the elite and the establishment are panicking because of a populist uprising,

What populist uprising? At best, Trump had 30% of the mainline GOP vote (and that's the hardcore who vote in primaries), when there were still a half dozen candidates on the field. Sanders came out with 39% in a two dog race (also the hardcore who vote in the primaries). Trumps national support meanwhile seems to be limited to those who voted for him in the primaries and those who hate Clinton so much they're willing to elect the reincarnation of Huey Long.

You might want to consider that this "uprising" you imagine is just that. Imagined. You seem to have gone through a lot of work to create this narrative of corrupt elites necessitating Trump, when there is no evidence for the corrupt elites so much as just unlikable elites and an actually corrupt Trump being an absolutely insane solution. Oh yes electing Trump would disrupt the system for sure, but I'm not sure how disrupting the system in the ways he seems to want to is an improvement.

I thin you're underestimating it. If you add this group, the Sanders group, BLM (look at their website agenda) etc-these are all defacto left outs, a nascent worker's party.

 The Airman wrote:

 Vaktathi wrote:

 The Airman wrote:

 kronk wrote:
Donald Trump feths 13 year olds (allegedly)

If this is true, then Trump should serve his sentence. Trump's a pretty nasty guy but I have serious doubts about this one. The timing couldn't be worse, however, and I agree with Trump's statements that these accusations popping up out of the woodwork are the result of a political motive.

From a guy caught on tape in his own words talking about using sexual assault as a pickup line and being able to get away with it because he's famous, who has been through a grip of wives and even more mistresses, the idea that all these women are complete liars looking for attention is...hard to believe.

I mean, political motive surely is part of the reason, they're obviously not wanting to see him be president, but at the same time, given the above, its not like these things were unlikely to have happened either.

Then a happy medium would be to put Trump, Hillary and their revealed crimes on trial with special prosecutors to avoid bias, just as long as the evidence is there and they aren't just allegations because anyone can make allegations on either side. This way we avoid whataboutisms and get things solved. The Clintons and the support structure have gotten away with too much and a solution like this would make it fair for all sides. The only problem is Trump seems to be one of the few who might actually go after Clinton and her friends, as the establishment and elite are backing Clinton out of either fear or self defense.

This is a bit of a nasty situation we find ourselves in, eh?

Both candidates are awful, but ultimately the US does not, and isnt going to, toss general election presidential candidates in jail, that leads to instability and havoc. Its unfair, but its reality.

That said, if you really think Trump is actually going after the Clintons (the same Clintons he invited to his latest wedding), while Hillary was a sitting Senator for his state no less, and that many of Trumps business and lobbying friends are not the same friends as Hillary's (election necessities and appearances notwithstanding), you may want to reexamine Trump's history.

 Frazzled wrote:

I thin you're underestimating it. If you add this group, the Sanders group, BLM (look at their website agenda) etc-these are all defacto left outs, a nascent worker's party.

From two vastly different sides, however. Trump's people say, "The elites haven't done enough to move us backwards, and we're tired of waiting" while Bernie's crowd and the reasonable elements of BLM say, "The elites haven't done enough to move us forward, and we're tired of waiting."

 Frazzled wrote:

 Peregrine wrote:

 The Airman wrote:
The only problem is Trump seems to be one of the few who might actually go after Clinton and her friends, as the establishment and elite are backing Clinton out of either fear or self defense.

Then guess what: you don't prosecute Clinton (again). Why is it so important to take another shot at prosecuting her that you're willing to let Trump be president to do it? It's almost guaranteed that Trump is going to do more damage to the country than Clinton ever did, so this is the equivalent of shooting yourself in the head to scratch an itch. Yeah, you might accomplish your goal, but no reasonable person would think that the price is worth it.

Well excluding the Second Amendment, a vote for Clinton is, ironically, a vote for the exact status quote. It may not get better, but its unlikely to get much worse. COnsidering the four candidates, that could be the best solution.

But she's anti Second Amendment so therefor she's worse than a cat lover as far as I am concerned.

I find it amusing that you, the loudest and longest supporter of Libertarianism on this board, hate cats with such passion.

Cats are what would happen if Libertarianism was given animal form.

 The Airman wrote:
I remain unconvinced. At this point when the elite and the establishment are panicking because of a populist uprising, it's probably because said populist would disrupt the system they currently have in place. You're free to disagree, however, as you've done so readily numerous times.

Well yes, of course Trump would be disruptive. Crashing the economy is disruption. Being out-played by Russia and having our foreign policy be "Russian puppet state" in all but name is disruption. Etc. Disruption is not necessarily a good thing.

I just want to see HRC and her friends meet justice and it's sad that "Russian" hackers have to reveal our problems for us.

Yes, I know you want to see them meet "justice". It's very clear that you're willing to pay any price to make your anti-Clinton crusade happen.

infinite_array wrote:

 Frazzled wrote:

I thin you're underestimating it. If you add this group, the Sanders group, BLM (look at their website agenda) etc-these are all defacto left outs, a nascent worker's party.

From two vastly different sides, however. Trump's people say, "The elites haven't done enough to move us backwards, and we're tired of waiting" while Bernie's crowd and the reasonable elements of BLM say, "The elites haven't done enough to move us forward, and we're tired of waiting."

And the Greens say, "We need to find the elites and put them against the wall."

I always liked the Greens.

 feeder wrote:

 Frazzled wrote:

 Peregrine wrote:

 The Airman wrote:
The only problem is Trump seems to be one of the few who might actually go after Clinton and her friends, as the establishment and elite are backing Clinton out of either fear or self defense.

Then guess what: you don't prosecute Clinton (again). Why is it so important to take another shot at prosecuting her that you're willing to let Trump be president to do it? It's almost guaranteed that Trump is going to do more damage to the country than Clinton ever did, so this is the equivalent of shooting yourself in the head to scratch an itch. Yeah, you might accomplish your goal, but no reasonable person would think that the price is worth it.

Well excluding the Second Amendment, a vote for Clinton is, ironically, a vote for the exact status quote. It may not get better, but its unlikely to get much worse. COnsidering the four candidates, that could be the best solution.

But she's anti Second Amendment so therefor she's worse than a cat lover as far as I am concerned.

I find it amusing that you, the loudest and longest supporter of Libertarianism on this board, hate cats with such passion.

Cats are what would happen if Libertarianism was given animal form.

I have cats and birds and I can say.. while cats are Libertarians given animal form...Parrots are even more so.

 feeder wrote:

 Frazzled wrote:

 Peregrine wrote:

 The Airman wrote:
The only problem is Trump seems to be one of the few who might actually go after Clinton and her friends, as the establishment and elite are backing Clinton out of either fear or self defense.

Then guess what: you don't prosecute Clinton (again). Why is it so important to take another shot at prosecuting her that you're willing to let Trump be president to do it? It's almost guaranteed that Trump is going to do more damage to the country than Clinton ever did, so this is the equivalent of shooting yourself in the head to scratch an itch. Yeah, you might accomplish your goal, but no reasonable person would think that the price is worth it.

Well excluding the Second Amendment, a vote for Clinton is, ironically, a vote for the exact status quote. It may not get better, but its unlikely to get much worse. COnsidering the four candidates, that could be the best solution.

But she's anti Second Amendment so therefor she's worse than a cat lover as far as I am concerned.

I find it amusing that you, the loudest and longest supporter of Libertarianism on this board, hate cats with such passion.

Cats are what would happen if Libertarianism was given animal form.

Cats are just nature's reminder of what an donkey-cave looks like without clothes on. Suffer not the cat to live

On the positive I found out, that if a coyote threatens a fat wiener dog, the fat wiener dog will go Full Badger Dog and flip out.
(this doesn't really impress the coyote, but the wiener's dog Mountain Dog Buddy sure will when he comes back to see why everyone's stopped. He's a complete fat wiener dog donkey-cave, but he's our fat wiener dog donkey-cave so don't even think about it).

 Frazzled wrote:
But she's anti Second Amendment so therefor she's worse than a cat lover as far as I am concerned.

In talk, at least, but what has she (or her party) actually done? You may notice that, for all their talk of "ban assault weapons!!!!!!!!!! FOR THE CHILDREN!!!!!!!!!" nobody has made any meaningful attempt to get a ban passed. One the latest tragedy leaves the front page and everyone's attention moves on all that talk of gun control is quietly dropped. That pretty strongly suggests that the democrats view gun control as necessary pandering to anti-gun voters, not a policy priority.

 Frazzled wrote:
I thin you're underestimating it. If you add this group, the Sanders group, BLM (look at their website agenda) etc-these are all defacto left outs, a nascent worker's party.

I won't be surprised if we see the emergence of a very left left as political viable in coming decades, but that's then not now, and certainly I find Bernie Sanders' vision of the world about as crazy as Trumps (Sanders just has a lot more self control than Trump, and anti-big money is a palatable public option while anti-inclusiveness is not). If anything, he's a wake up call that the American Left could potentially crack in the same way we've seen the right crack this election. The current Democratic Party gets a lot from how far right the right has gone. Should we see a political reorganization of conservative politics resulting in a return to center (which I think is probable should Trump lose after some time, or at least that's what I'd really like to see happen), then the Democratic Party might swing further left potentially absorbing some elements of the current right, because I'll be honest I think poor rural whites actually have a lot more to gain from voting for the American left than the American right. They don't for a number of sentimental reasons, but should a political realignment occur I could see them switch sides. Same with small business owners. There's potential in the left to turn the anti-corporate sentiment of the party into a movement to legislate protection for smaller business owners.

But none of that is related to Airman's claim. The potential for a more left workers party in the future is not evidence of a "populist uprising" now, and the potential for a more radical left isn't really a convincing reason to vote for the most radically right candidate we've seen run in decades.

The bigger issue will be Hillary's SCOTUS pick rather than anything she might do herself with respect to the 2A stuff.

As someone apparently in the top 3% of gun ownership, I'm hardly thrilled about the idea of a Clinton presidency on that point.

But its one issue among many.

More to the point, last time we had a Republican president, house, and senate, its not like they did anything for the 2A aside from just not going out of their way to renew the AWB. They certainly didn't do squat about executive order import bans of Bush I or Clinton, the NFA, 922r or absurd "sporting restriction" regulations, etc.

 Vaktathi wrote:
More to the point, last time we had a Republican president, house, and senate, its not like they did anything for the 2A aside from just not going out of their way to renew the AWB. They certainly didn't do squat about executive order import bans of Bush I or Clinton, the NFA, 922r or absurd "sporting restriction" regulations, etc.

And Bush even said he'd sign a new AWB if congress gave it to him.

 Peregrine wrote:

 Frazzled wrote:
But she's anti Second Amendment so therefor she's worse than a cat lover as far as I am concerned.

In talk, at least, but what has she (or her party) actually done? You may notice that, for all their talk of "ban assault weapons!!!!!!!!!! FOR THE CHILDREN!!!!!!!!!" nobody has made any meaningful attempt to get a ban passed. One the latest tragedy leaves the front page and everyone's attention moves on all that talk of gun control is quietly dropped. That pretty strongly suggests that the democrats view gun control as necessary pandering to anti-gun voters, not a policy priority.

Go peddle that bs somewhere else. They tried during the last administration. They effectively banned firearms in California. Nothing was done federally because the Republicans blocked it, not that they didn't try. She has already noted support to bring back the AWB, put weapons on the screamingly unconstitutional no-fly list, etc.

That's because the reality is people aren't against gun control because most people don't think private citizens should own their own fully loaded AC130 (though that would be totally bad ass XD*). They're against "gun control" (code for gun ban), despite there being no evidence that any potential for such "control" actually passing anytime soon.

*idea for a small business. Lord of Hats' AC130 Adventure! We rent out broken down cars and boats then take you up in an AC130 and let you blow the gak out of them

There is a Las Vegas range that specializes in full auto stuff so visitors can blast away. Proof of concept for you Lordie.

To be fair, Trump has backed the blatantly infringing no fly ban now as well. I think the only candidate that has not is Johnson.

Having come from CA, the gun laws suck, but guns in general arent banned, CA is still the largest gun market in the nation. NYC would be a better example. Trying to own a gun legally in NYC is nearly impossible.

The ever increasing amount of effort Trump supporters must go through to justify their choice is pretty funny. But if they want to stress themselves out that much it's their choice, I'm just glad I don't live in whatever country they are in because it certainly isn't here.

 Frazzled wrote:
There is a Las Vegas range that specializes in full auto stuff so visitors can blast away. Proof of concept for you Lordie.

Excellent. Now all we need is a large small business loan XD (and some land in the Nevada desert!)

Land is cheap there Lordy (cause its desert!), there's a business opportunity for you.

I am not permitted to discuss my thoughts on the candidates. But I had a Trump related nightmare last night.

Wikileaks had leaked a bunch of documents proving that US forces had captured OBL after 911 and he'd been let go for political reasons and Trump was trying to pin it on Hillery while Dwight Eisenhower rode around on a tiny elephant yelling "I told you this would happen!'

 BaronIveagh wrote:
Dwight Eisenhower rode around on a tiny elephant yelling "I told you this would happen!'

I'm gonna be honest.

This image alone inspires no small amount of laughter in me XD