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.

 NinthMusketeer wrote:

sirlynchmob wrote:
a firebombing you say, it wasn't a firebombing, it was a cook out, we all do them. and look at what the trump supporters were doing:

http://www.salon.com/2016/10/14/armed-donald-trump-supporters-caught-menacing-democratic-campaign-office/

A pro-Donald Trump protester has attracted attention for standing alone outside a Virginia Democratic campaign office with his gun.

On Thursday, Daniel Parks stood outside a Palmyra campaign office for congressional candidate Jane Dittmar. Witnesses described him as staring directly into the office all day and turning sideways to expose his gun he was legally carrying. He was eventually joined by another protester, who was also armed.

see trump is worse and the firebombers shouldn't be held accountable because of what the trump supporters did.

am I doing this right?

That's a surprisingly good analogy. What the Trumpeters did was certainly wrong but not enough to be criminal while what the firebomber did was not only the greater wrong but unquestionably criminal. So yes, you are doing it right.

Depending on the municipality, what the idiot with the gun was doing could also be illegal - the term is 'brandishment' - displaying a gun in a threatening manner.(Not necessarily drawing the gun - 'displaying' the gun.)

Plus, well, idiot with a gun.

That said - brandishment is a misdemeanor, if covered by local law at all. (But can lead to things like cops being suspended and private investigators losing their licenses.)

Terrorist arson? That 's a felony, and the idiot that thought that it was good idea needs to sepend some quality time in the county jail.

Both crimes, but not equal.

The Auld Grump


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Jehan-reznor wrote:

 BigWaaagh wrote:
Election time just took an even uglier turn.


http://www.msn.com/en-us/news/us/gop-headquarters-in-nc-town-is-firebombed/ar-AAj1Uyd?li=BBnb7Kz&ocid=ASUDHP

Does Hillary and Obama have an alibi or it is done by the Republicans themselves?

Jokes aside , i hope they get this loony

Only Imperial Stormtroopers could be this precise.

The Auld Grump

 TheAuldGrump wrote:

 NinthMusketeer wrote:

sirlynchmob wrote:
a firebombing you say, it wasn't a firebombing, it was a cook out, we all do them. and look at what the trump supporters were doing:

http://www.salon.com/2016/10/14/armed-donald-trump-supporters-caught-menacing-democratic-campaign-office/

A pro-Donald Trump protester has attracted attention for standing alone outside a Virginia Democratic campaign office with his gun.

On Thursday, Daniel Parks stood outside a Palmyra campaign office for congressional candidate Jane Dittmar. Witnesses described him as staring directly into the office all day and turning sideways to expose his gun he was legally carrying. He was eventually joined by another protester, who was also armed.

see trump is worse and the firebombers shouldn't be held accountable because of what the trump supporters did.

am I doing this right?

That's a surprisingly good analogy. What the Trumpeters did was certainly wrong but not enough to be criminal while what the firebomber did was not only the greater wrong but unquestionably criminal. So yes, you are doing it right.

Depending on the municipality, what the idiot with the gun was doing could also be illegal - the term is 'brandishment' - displaying a gun in a threatening manner.(Not necessarily drawing the gun - 'displaying' the gun.)

Plus, well, idiot with a gun.

That said - brandishment is a misdemeanor, if covered by local law at all. (But can lead to things like cops being suspended and private investigators losing their licenses.)

Terrorist arson? That 's a felony, and the idiot that thought that it was good idea needs to sepend some quality time in the county jail.

Both crimes, but not equal.

The Auld Grump

Which is utterly asinine.

That isn't "brandishment", it's intimidation pure and simple.

 TheAuldGrump wrote:

 Jehan-reznor wrote:

 BigWaaagh wrote:
Election time just took an even uglier turn.


http://www.msn.com/en-us/news/us/gop-headquarters-in-nc-town-is-firebombed/ar-AAj1Uyd?li=BBnb7Kz&ocid=ASUDHP

Does Hillary and Obama have an alibi or it is done by the Republicans themselves?

Jokes aside , i hope they get this loony

Only Imperial Stormtroopers could be this precise.

The Auld Grump

You mean it was the UN? ...goddammit, we didn't listen.

It will get worse before it gets better.

I find it interesting that Clinton is a criminal traitor because she got the list of points she had to discuss in a meeting emailed to her, and Trump isn't a criminal traitor despite his collusion with the Russian secret service to bias the US Presidential Election.

 Kilkrazy wrote:
I find it interesting that Clinton is a criminal traitor because she got the list of points she had to discuss in a meeting emailed to her, and Trump isn't a criminal traitor despite his collusion with the Russian secret service to bias the US Presidential Election.

Only evidence of one of those happening.

Well, I know there is tons of obvious links from Trump to Russia but actually the meeting headers was specifically raised in the Clinton email affair, so actually there is evidence of both.

https://youtu.be/5IuJGHuIkzY

This is probably worth a mention.

Can you give the links showing that Trump (or his campaign) are in collusion with the Russian secret service to bias the US Presidential Election?

Thanks

 Kanluwen wrote:

 TheAuldGrump wrote:

 NinthMusketeer wrote:

sirlynchmob wrote:
a firebombing you say, it wasn't a firebombing, it was a cook out, we all do them. and look at what the trump supporters were doing:

http://www.salon.com/2016/10/14/armed-donald-trump-supporters-caught-menacing-democratic-campaign-office/

A pro-Donald Trump protester has attracted attention for standing alone outside a Virginia Democratic campaign office with his gun.

On Thursday, Daniel Parks stood outside a Palmyra campaign office for congressional candidate Jane Dittmar. Witnesses described him as staring directly into the office all day and turning sideways to expose his gun he was legally carrying. He was eventually joined by another protester, who was also armed.

see trump is worse and the firebombers shouldn't be held accountable because of what the trump supporters did.

am I doing this right?

That's a surprisingly good analogy. What the Trumpeters did was certainly wrong but not enough to be criminal while what the firebomber did was not only the greater wrong but unquestionably criminal. So yes, you are doing it right.

Depending on the municipality, what the idiot with the gun was doing could also be illegal - the term is 'brandishment' - displaying a gun in a threatening manner.(Not necessarily drawing the gun - 'displaying' the gun.)

Plus, well, idiot with a gun.

That said - brandishment is a misdemeanor, if covered by local law at all. (But can lead to things like cops being suspended and private investigators losing their licenses.)

Terrorist arson? That 's a felony, and the idiot that thought that it was good idea needs to sepend some quality time in the county jail.

Both crimes, but not equal.

The Auld Grump

Which is utterly asinine.

That isn't "brandishment", it's intimidation pure and simple.

It is intimidation by displaying a deadly weapon. Yes, there is a major difference there.

So, do please look up the term. The full term is brandishment and/or improper display of a firearm - it is the legal term, and easy enough to look up - the precise rulings vary from state to state and sometimes from municipality to municipality.

I can intimidate you without displaying a deadly weapon. By displaying such a weapon I am increasing the apparent threat and possibly adding reckless behavior with a firearm.

Me, I think that guns should have at least the same level of training requirements as a car - show that you know what the heck you are doing with a gun before you have a license to use it outside of training.

The Auld Grump

 CptJake wrote:
Can you give the links showing that Trump (or his campaign) are in collusion with the Russian secret service to bias the US Presidential Election?

Thanks

Why don't you? You've got two working arms, right?

 CptJake wrote:
Can you give the links showing that Trump (or his campaign) are in collusion with the Russian secret service to bias the US Presidential Election?

Thanks

Can you give us evidence he isn't? Because the opinion on Clinton is guilty until proven innocent so that should be the standard for Trump too. Or you can disagree and in so doing admit that Clinton isn't guilty. But I would honestly prefer you invent some mental gymnastics to maintain that double standard since it would be more entertaining, not to mention additional evidence of Trump followers blind faith

 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.

Trump is going to do more damage than WW3 with Russia?

 ShieldBrother 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.

Trump is going to do more damage than WW3 with Russia?

Why do you assume that Trump will not cause WW3?

Why do we assume anyone will cause WW3? That's a hilariously silly notion.

*I* will cause WW3...

>_>
<_<

 NinthMusketeer wrote:
Why do we assume anyone will cause WW3? That's a hilariously silly notion.

What is "No Fly Zone in Syria" for 500


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 A Town Called Malus wrote:

 ShieldBrother 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.

Trump is going to do more damage than WW3 with Russia?

Why do you assume that Trump will not cause WW3?

Because he's not poking the Russian bear.

 CptJake wrote:
Can you give the links showing that Trump (or his campaign) are in collusion with the Russian secret service to bias the US Presidential Election?

Thanks

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/election-us-2016-36862749

https://ig.ft.com/sites/trumps-russian-connections/

https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2016/jul/30/donald-trump-paul-manafort-ukraine-russia-putin-ties

https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/inside-trumps-financial-ties-to-russia-and-his-unusual-flattery-of-vladimir-putin/2016/06/17/dbdcaac8-31a6-11e6-8ff7-7b6c1998b7a0_story.html

 Vaktathi wrote:
*I* will cause WW3...

>_>
<_<

I know that is supposed to be your shifty eyes, but I prefer to imagine you are a landing crew member on a foggy night, and all we can see is your hand beacons and your high-vis belt.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 The Airman wrote:


"What is a no fly zone for 500, Alex "

 ShieldBrother wrote:


What is "No Fly Zone in Syria" for 500

Which basically tinfoil-hatted blogger are you two both big fans of?

Alex jones is a favorite of mine

It should also be noted that if anyone goes to war, us, Russia, or Turkey or anyone else, they're probably dramatically more stupid than any of us give them credit for. Hillary's no fly zone is a theoretical proposal, nothing more, and hardly one that would guarantee WW3 even if implemented. Unproductive? Perhaps, but hardly an automatic WW3.

Russia also has problems of its own. Their economy is facing contraction and stagnation, their ability to project force is limited, and the majority of their equipment is outdated or falling apart. They have a limited number of advanced units they can support for a limited time if near their own bases, but arent in any shape to directly challenge the US military in open warfare, and Russia knows this. They maintain forces adequate for running roughshod over immediate neighbors who are incapable of meaningful resistance. They're not going to press something where their only viable escalation route is the nuclear option, which Syria is not worth. Russia has its own problems, and thats mostly why they're being more externally aggressive in the first place, but ultimately Russia too has its limits, limits it is already approaching.

 feeder wrote:

 Vaktathi wrote:
*I* will cause WW3...

>_>
<_<

I know that is supposed to be your shifty eyes, but I prefer to imagine you are a landing crew member on a foggy night, and all we can see is your hand beacons and your high-vis belt.

Haha

 ShieldBrother wrote:
https://youtu.be/5IuJGHuIkzY



This is probably worth a mention.

There's ugliness in political campaigns? NOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO!

Breaking news! This just in, the Sun is hot.

This is politics, boys and girls, it's not pretty and this election is just down right fugly. Get over it. Look at the candidates for what they bring to the table and their platforms for taking us forward. Political maneuvering and tactics aren't for everyone, but it comes with the territory, so please, once again, get over it.

 BigWaaagh wrote:

 ShieldBrother wrote:
https://youtu.be/5IuJGHuIkzY



This is probably worth a mention.

There's ugliness in political campaigns? NOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO!

Breaking news! This just in, the Sun is hot.

This is politics, boys and girls, it's not pretty and this election is just down right fugly. Get over it. Look at the candidates for what they bring to the table and their platforms for taking us forward. Political maneuvering and tactics aren't for everyone, but it comes with the territory, so please, once again, get over it.

It's okay to do bad stuff because other people do bad stuff: The Post

Don't know if the source is good (it was linked to me), but it looks like it mights have been some communists or anarchists that attacked the GOP NC headquarters, and the DEM NC headquarters as well.
http://www.rawstory.com/2016/10/nc-democratic-headquarters-attacked-on-same-night-nearby-gop-office-was-firebombed/

 CptJake wrote:
Can you give the links showing that Trump (or his campaign) are in collusion with the Russian secret service to bias the US Presidential Election?

Thanks

That's a tough one. While I have no opinion on Trump, he did call on Russia to hack his opponent. Which then happened. He's also been reading the Russian Times, apparently, since he repeated one of their... frankly questionable articles on the day of publication. One of Russia's more... colorful politicians did claim that America would vote Trump or face Nuclear war.

I'd say that it's not conclusive, but it looks a bit suspicious.

 CptJake wrote:
Can you give the links showing that Trump (or his campaign) are in collusion with the Russian secret service to bias the US Presidential Election?

Thanks

http://www.nytimes.com/2016/07/28/us/politics/donald-trump-russia-clinton-emails.html?_r=0

He's been calling for it for months. It was on national tv.

edit.
Whether Russia responded or not, I'd say asking a foreign government to help you attack a political rival is close enough to collusion or at least enough to say the candidate is in cahoots with them. Whether they end up hacking the election results or not, can you imagine the shroud over his presidency if he wins? Or if Russia decides to do it, or claim they did and blackmail him?

I don't know even know what our procedure is, beyond a recount, for an election that is hacked.

infinite_array wrote:
In other news, Republicans continue to be the Do Nothing party as McCain promises they will do everything they can to stop Clinton from nominating Supreme Court Justices if she wins.

Well, of course. There was never any legal or historical precedent to prevent Barack Obama from filling that spot. Since the GOP is already in uncharted waters, why stop there? Why not block appointees for 4 years? Why not 8?

 Ouze wrote:

infinite_array wrote:
In other news, Republicans continue to be the Do Nothing party as McCain promises they will do everything they can to stop Clinton from nominating Supreme Court Justices if she wins.

Well, of course. There was never any legal or historical precedent to prevent Barack Obama from filling that spot. Since the GOP is already in uncharted waters, why stop there? Why not block appointees for 4 years? Why not 8?

Maybe.... like the decisions of 1804, if they wait long enough, there will be precedent for not even having a SCOTUS?

I'm skeptical the GOP will carry through on that threat. They're already taking the bulk of the flak for congressional grid lock. Let them continue. Soon none of them will be in office, because the only thing voters hate more than shady politicians are politicians who sit in office doing nothing.

Hell, why stop there? Since the Senate seems insistent on not doing anything, let's get rid of that too.