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: Sidenote: The Berlin Wall and hell, the Great Wall of China didn't stop people why do we think the idea will work here?
Yeah china wall was good as long as mongols were relying on their sheeps and other cattle for food Once enemy was one that could cross it without cattle along china wall became inefficient in it's job. (funny that. Wall wasn't even built to stop HUMANS. It was built to keep the cattle of mongols. No cattle, no food, no long forays into inland)
Doubt mexican imigrants are in much need of bringing cattle of animals along them
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2016/10/20 07:08:46
Kilkrazy wrote: There are various clusters of political beliefs that are based on faith rather than facts. Some of these seem to have occupied the high ground in the GOP; the fiction of climate change, public lavatories as danger zone of sexual predation by LGBT people, tax cuts for the rich enriching the poor through trickle down, and so on.)
This has brought a fair amount of electoral success because these issues appeal to many people's prejudices. The problem is that reality is liable to reassert itself eventually.
Yeah, and it's worth pointing out that politics by faith over reality isn't purely a right wing thing. We can go an list pretty much the entire platform of Dr Stein to see a similar phenomenon on the left
The issue, really, is that a lot of these faith over facts arguments dominate the core policies of the Republican party, climate change and laffer curve/trickle down are probably the biggest ones, but there's plenty of others. As you say, the issue is that running on this kind of nonsense can work in the short term, but long term reality tends to win the day.
The other part of this is that on many issues no-one actually believes in this nonsense. Getting Mexico to pay for the wall is so stupid even among Trump's most enthusiastic supporters you won't find many who believe it would actually happen. Instead it works as a signifier - it shows voters that Trump is outspoken and extreme on immigration.
“We may observe that the government in a civilized country is much more expensive than in a barbarous one; and when we say that one government is more expensive than another, it is the same as if we said that that one country is farther advanced in improvement than another. To say that the government is expensive and the people not oppressed is to say that the people are rich.”
Adam Smith, who must have been some kind of leftie or something.
sebster wrote: Stupid Australian News Radio covering the stupid Australian parliament and not giving a live feed of the US presidential debate. Priorities?!
Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote: I've always been wary of making predictions, but as sure as Dakka follows Dakka, President Hilary Clinton will send the US Marines into some country, be it Syria, or some other part of the Middle East.
She has been itchng to intervene somewhere, anywhere, for years. Her track record on past conflicts is the evidence.
Expect the 'new' Cold War with Russia to hit freezing point on her watch.
If I'm wrong, and we're all still here in 4 years, and somebody remembers this post, I'll be the first to stick up my hand and say I was wrong.
But I get this dread feeling I'll be proven right on this and I don't want to be right on this, because it will mean that people will be getting killed.
You think there's any chance of Clinton or anyone else being elected to the US presidency somehow getting through their four years without some conflict somewhere in the world getting people killed? Because whether the US gets involved or not, I can guarantee you that some unlucky people born in the wrong place at the wrong time will get butchered.
Now, I'm not saying that the US or any other developed country should get involved in any and all fighting everywhere in the world. There are good reasons to stay out, each case needs to be judged on its merits and political practicalities. My point really is on your blindspot - deaths aren't only happening when uniformed soldiers from first world nations are involved.
There's a major difference to reacting to a conflict that somebody else started, and starting a conflict yourself.
HRC is clearly in the latter camp, and by that, I'm talking about interventions akin to Iraq, Afghanistan, and possibly Syria.
If the Syria conflcit is still ongoing in Spring 2017, I fully expect to see HRC crank up American involvement...
Automatically Appended Next Post:
djones520 wrote: Well, just filled out my ballot. Guess I'll mail it in tomorrow.
Will it get there though?
This election is rigged, and UN agents or the Taliban, or the North Koreans, will make sure your vote never sees the count
Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote: That may be, but history shows us that US backed groups have a habit of turning around and biting the US on the ass when they no longer need the US.
See Vietnam and Afghanistan for evidence of this...
Uh, the US backed Vietnamese faction lost. They didn't turn on the US, they stopped existing.
And there's also examples like Great Britain, Australia, Taiwan, South Korea...
I was referring to the Mujahadeen, and the Viet Minh after WW2, who were quite friendly with the OSS/CIA
Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote: That may be, but history shows us that US backed groups have a habit of turning around and biting the US on the ass when they no longer need the US.
Many of those groups are also the sort that find a new cause and new backers once the US no longer needs them. Whoever could have imagined that abandoning (stopping payments and support to) an armed group could make them decide to get their money and purpose doing something else? They might have started as anti-communist rebels, anti-jihadist militias or whatever but once they're left in withdrawal of sweet US dollars and arms they need to find a new fix even if that means perverting the cause they just fought for.
edit: yes, ofc other "big players" do it too.
Yeah, that happened a lot in Iraq and Afghanistan.
Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote: But I get this dread feeling I'll be proven right on this and I don't want to be right on this, because it will mean that people will be getting killed.
Problem being Trump is hardly safer option in that regard. Indeed he has potential for lot more people getting killed.
Risk getting some people killed or risk getting many times that many people getting killed? Either way people get killed.
Would be likely tough to have president who doesn't get somebody killed anyway though.
A 100 pages back, I actually wrote in defence in Trump's foreign policy, becuase there were aspects of it that were more logical and rational than Clinton's foreign policy.
Seems a lifetime ago...
Automatically Appended Next Post: And on a slighty OT note, we, the UK, might need some help from the US Navy...
Most of the Russian fleet is sailing past the UK on its way to Syria for the final assault on Aleppo, but sadly, the Royal Navy has been reduced to a sorry state.
We have more admirals than fighting ships, and we're struggling to cobble up a force to shadow them as they sail past...
Our new aircraft carrier is still being built, and our destroyers are getting a re-fit...
Admiral Nelson must be spinning in his grave...
America, we need the hand of liberty over here. Forget 1776 and bail us out...again!
This message was edited 5 times. Last update was at 2016/10/20 08:05:20
"Our crops will wither, our children will die piteous
deaths and the sun will be swept from the sky. But is it true?" - Tom Kirby, CEO, Games Workshop Ltd
... odd thing is that's actually more plausible than the current Republican effort.
The poor man really has a stake in the country. The rich man hasn't; he can go away to New Guinea in a yacht. The poor have sometimes objected to being governed badly; the rich have always objected to being governed at all
We love our superheroes because they refuse to give up on us. We can analyze them out of existence, kill them, ban them, mock them, and still they return, patiently reminding us of who we are and what we wish we could be.
"the play's the thing wherein I'll catch the conscience of the king,
Can we go back to the part about Europe struggling with I assume refugee's, from where I stand (soon to not be Europe) the only struggle we've been having is the struggle Europe has always had, which is getting a bunch of countries to agree to anything. (Now for the cheap shot at the US)
It's like getting the states to agree to anything, but if each state had their own language, culture, had been at war with each other at least onece and more than 300 years of history .
Between the various articles in The Onion and things like this I'm really gonna miss Biden
Did not know about the driving "ban".
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2016/10/20 09:00:21
The poor man really has a stake in the country. The rich man hasn't; he can go away to New Guinea in a yacht. The poor have sometimes objected to being governed badly; the rich have always objected to being governed at all
We love our superheroes because they refuse to give up on us. We can analyze them out of existence, kill them, ban them, mock them, and still they return, patiently reminding us of who we are and what we wish we could be.
"the play's the thing wherein I'll catch the conscience of the king,
Mozzyfuzzy wrote: It's like getting the states to agree to anything, but if each state had their own language, culture, had been at war with each other at least onece and more than 300 years of history .
Kind of like how 20% of Americans don't speak English at home and how cultures vary across the US and how the states were at war with each other 150 years ago?
Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote: There's a major difference to reacting to a conflict that somebody else started, and starting a conflict yourself.
HRC is clearly in the latter camp, and by that, I'm talking about interventions akin to Iraq, Afghanistan, and possibly Syria.
If the Syria conflcit is still ongoing in Spring 2017, I fully expect to see HRC crank up American involvement...
How does Syria count as a conflict that Clinton would be starting?
I was referring to the Mujahadeen, and the Viet Minh after WW2, who were quite friendly with the OSS/CIA
we all know how that turned out...
Not really. I mean it's a bit of a stretch to argue that support against the Japanese led to any change in the Viet Minh, when they also received support from China, and after the war continued to receive heavy support from Communist China. The fact that they became a hardline communist party should make it pretty clear they were primarily a product of the Chinese, not the Americans.
The Mujahadeen are another interesting case. The OBL link is often stated and is long disproven. This doesn't mean the mujaheddin were good guys of course, or dismiss the US involvement in supporting groups that became hardline warlords in Afghanistan. But like Vietnam above, you actually wonder if a better result might have come out of more engagement, rather than less. What if the US money that flowed in to Afghanistan to fund war against the Soviets was continued after the war, to suport reconstruction?
Anyhow, you're still ignoring the positive examples. Your country, my country, South Korea, Taiwan etc... It seems your argument is to demand that if anything goes wrong in US foreign policy, the conclusion is that no foreign policy should ever happen.
“We may observe that the government in a civilized country is much more expensive than in a barbarous one; and when we say that one government is more expensive than another, it is the same as if we said that that one country is farther advanced in improvement than another. To say that the government is expensive and the people not oppressed is to say that the people are rich.”
Adam Smith, who must have been some kind of leftie or something.
Mozzyfuzzy wrote: Can we go back to the part about Europe struggling with I assume refugee's, from where I stand (soon to not be Europe) the only struggle we've been having is the struggle Europe has always had, which is getting a bunch of countries to agree to anything. (Now for the cheap shot at the US)
It's like getting the states to agree to anything, but if each state had their own language, culture, had been at war with each other at least onece and more than 300 years of history .
This. I'd make a rant about how parts of Europe are doing everything they can to make sure they don't have to contribute, but the bottom line is that the "struggle" exists because we're creating it ourselves.
For thirteen years I had a dog with fur the darkest black. For thirteen years he was my friend, oh how I want him back.
Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote: There's a major difference to reacting to a conflict that somebody else started, and starting a conflict yourself.
HRC is clearly in the latter camp, and by that, I'm talking about interventions akin to Iraq, Afghanistan, and possibly Syria.
If the Syria conflcit is still ongoing in Spring 2017, I fully expect to see HRC crank up American involvement...
How does Syria count as a conflict that Clinton would be starting?
I was referring to the Mujahadeen, and the Viet Minh after WW2, who were quite friendly with the OSS/CIA
we all know how that turned out...
Not really. I mean it's a bit of a stretch to argue that support against the Japanese led to any change in the Viet Minh, when they also received support from China, and after the war continued to receive heavy support from Communist China. The fact that they became a hardline communist party should make it pretty clear they were primarily a product of the Chinese, not the Americans.
The Mujahadeen are another interesting case. The OBL link is often stated and is long disproven. This doesn't mean the mujaheddin were good guys of course, or dismiss the US involvement in supporting groups that became hardline warlords in Afghanistan. But like Vietnam above, you actually wonder if a better result might have come out of more engagement, rather than less. What if the US money that flowed in to Afghanistan to fund war against the Soviets was continued after the war, to suport reconstruction?
Anyhow, you're still ignoring the positive examples. Your country, my country, South Korea, Taiwan etc... It seems your argument is to demand that if anything goes wrong in US foreign policy, the conclusion is that no foreign policy should ever happen.
Hilary Clinton is not to blame for the Syria debacle, you'll get no argument there from me on that, but as far as I'm concerned, the USA has no business in Syria, but the temptation for Clinton to intervene, once she gets in office, will be too great IMO.
And your second point, what do you mean my country?
Hold on a minute here, we were doing fine in two world wars until those damn Yankees stuck their noses in!
On a serious note, yes, you can make the case for the USA saving the UK in WW2, but WW1? Not in my book.
By summer 1918, with the failed German offensive, the British blockade crippling Germany, and the superior strength and technology of the British and Commonwealth forces, meant that Britain was more than capable of defeating Germany.
The Amiens campaign, which saw a collapse of the German army, is the evidence of that. The Germans had no answer to Rawlinson's new tactics and mass British tanks being deployed, but that's for another thread....
"Our crops will wither, our children will die piteous
deaths and the sun will be swept from the sky. But is it true?" - Tom Kirby, CEO, Games Workshop Ltd
Here are some very interesting articles from The Economist over the past few days.
http://www.economist.com/node/21708690 From 15th Oct, a report on why younger evangelicals are deserting Trump. They see him as appealing to old white people who are not going to be the future of the evangelical movement, as well as him being morally questionable. Older evangelicals are sticking with Trump.
http://www.economist.com/blogs/democracyinamerica/2016/10/electoral-map-blues From 18th Oct.
This article says that Trump is now so unpopular that there is a danger of the Republicans losing Utah for the first time since 1964. With things as bad as this, there could be a serious down-ticket avalanche obliterating other GOP candidates. (Last night's debate probably will make things worse.)
There is a temptation to point at those kind of people and laugh at their stupidity and credulousness but that misses the important point that the national common weal is harmed by everyone not being able to take an effective part in the political decision making process.
The country needs to find a way of re-engaging with such people. The current anti-mainstream media bias they also show makes this look a very difficult task.
Voters across Ohio might be heartened to know that for all of Donald Trump’s anti-Muslim rhetoric, his campaign managed to find at least one man of the Muslim faith to advertise his support of the Republican nominee.
But Gurinder Singh Khalsa is not Muslim. He is not a Trump supporter. And he says he did not give the Trump campaign permission to use his image on a mailer.
"I am not Muslim and I am not supporting Trump," Singh Khalsa told WTHR in Central Indiana on Monday. "He is putting my picture, saying Muslims support him and I have nothing to do with it. I don't support Trump. Nobody even asked me to put that picture there. It was shocking, disturbing and this will create more confusion among people because they are sending it nationwide.”
Singh Khalsa runs “Sikhs PAC,” a political action committee dedicated to educating people that Sikhs aren’t Muslim, according to the report.
Sikhs are often confused as Muslim due to the Dastar, or turban, that many in the religion wear, which looks similar to some types of Muslim headwear.
WTHR reported that the Trump campaign told the station it regrets any confusion and is looking to rectify the problem.
There appears to be some confusion within the Trump campaign about the mailer, however. On Saturday, campaign spokeswoman Hope Hicks told the Huffington Post "our campaign does not recognize” the flyer, which the site reported read "Paid for by Donald Trump for President, Inc" at the bottom. On Tuesday, Hicks repeated to the site that the flier was “not official campaign collateral.”
The WikiLeaks release of Clinton campaign chair John Podesta’s emails has been easy fodder for Donald Trump and his supporters, pointing out the embarrassing political infighting, exposed election strategies, and Hillary Clinton’s once-secret Goldman Sachs speech transcripts.
But not for Marco Rubio.
“I will not discuss any issue that has become public solely on the basis of WikiLeaks,” Rubio said in a statement Wednesday. “As our intelligence agencies have said, these leaks are an effort by a foreign government to interfere with our electoral process, and I will not indulge it.”
Rubio went on to address his personal moratorium on WikiLeaks-related Clinton attacks at an event in Tampa, Florida, Politico reported:
“Just think about this: Do we really want to be a country where foreign leaders or foreign intelligence agencies can blackmail our elected officials and say to them that unless you do what we want you to do, we’re gonna release emails from your campaign manager, your wife, your daughter, your son, and we’re gonna embarrass you. So unless you wanna be embarrassed you better do what we want you to do. Is that what we want?” Rubio asked. “Because I’ll tell you that’s what Vladimir Putin does. [There’s] plenty of material in which to line up and take on Secretary Clinton. I think this one is an invitation to chaos and havoc in the future.”
But Rubio makes an important point — this could happen to anybody. This election cycle alone, we have seen leaked emails from the Democratic National Committee, former Secretary of State Colin Powell, and now Podesta.
And if the leak of Podesta’s campaign emails has taught us one thing, it’s that the release of private emails onto the internet can be very embarrassing — as expected when the internal frustrations, commentaries, and gripes of high-powered individuals become publicly accessible.
WikiLeaks’ Julian Assange has long expressed animus toward Clinton — but who’s to say a Republican won’t be the next target?
He's about right too, probably.
... But you cant help but wonder if -- and bear in mind people can of course act out of more than one motivation, indeed they can often intertwine helpfully -- if this is genuine, positioning for after the probable defeat....
.. or worry about what else might be about to unleashed.
The poor man really has a stake in the country. The rich man hasn't; he can go away to New Guinea in a yacht. The poor have sometimes objected to being governed badly; the rich have always objected to being governed at all
We love our superheroes because they refuse to give up on us. We can analyze them out of existence, kill them, ban them, mock them, and still they return, patiently reminding us of who we are and what we wish we could be.
"the play's the thing wherein I'll catch the conscience of the king,
Rainbow Dash wrote: Anyone dumb enough to put up a sign like that in this day and age would be ruined in a matter of days.
You have an extremely naive view of the world if you think this is the case. There are plenty of places where a "whites only" sign would be celebrated by the locals.
Not "whites only", but close enough. Good old Oklahoma here.
Spoiler:
I remember those dick heads. I question if there had ever been a Muslim in their store to begin with.
This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2016/10/20 12:20:49
Homosexuality is the #1 cause of gay marriage.
kronk wrote: Every pizza is a personal sized pizza if you try hard enough and believe in yourself.
sebster wrote: Yes, indeed. What a terrible piece of cultural imperialism it is for me to say that a country shouldn't murder its own citizens
BaronIveagh wrote: Basically they went from a carrot and stick to a smaller carrot and flanged mace.
Kilkrazy wrote: There is a temptation to point at those kind of people and laugh at their stupidity and credulousness but that misses the important point that the national common weal is harmed by everyone not being able to take an effective part in the political decision making process.
The country needs to find a way of re-engaging with such people. The current anti-mainstream media bias they also show makes this look a very difficult task.
Very good point, and of course, our nation has experience of this with BREXIT.
I don't blame people for being anti-mainstream media because the collusion between media and the government across the Western World, is almost incestuous and it's not healthy for the democratic process.
"Our crops will wither, our children will die piteous
deaths and the sun will be swept from the sky. But is it true?" - Tom Kirby, CEO, Games Workshop Ltd
According to something I heard on the BBC, if Trump refuses to acknowledge defeat in November, the constitution prevents Clinton from taking up office.
Is this really true? It sounds incredible. I thought the "graceful speech" accepting your opponent's victory and promising to work with them loyally as an American was essentially a polite formality.
Rainbow Dash wrote: Anyone dumb enough to put up a sign like that in this day and age would be ruined in a matter of days.
You have an extremely naive view of the world if you think this is the case. There are plenty of places where a "whites only" sign would be celebrated by the locals.
Not "whites only", but close enough. Good old Oklahoma here.
Spoiler:
I remember those dick heads. I question if there had ever been a Muslim in their store to begin with.
What kind of business is only open for an hour a day?
Kilkrazy wrote: There are various clusters of political beliefs that are based on faith rather than facts. Some of these seem to have occupied the high ground in the GOP; the fiction of climate change, public lavatories as danger zone of sexual predation by LGBT people, tax cuts for the rich enriching the poor through trickle down, and so on.)
This has brought a fair amount of electoral success because these issues appeal to many people's prejudices. The problem is that reality is liable to reassert itself eventually.
Yeah, and it's worth pointing out that politics by faith over reality isn't purely a right wing thing. We can go an list pretty much the entire platform of Dr Stein to see a similar phenomenon on the left
The issue, really, is that a lot of these faith over facts arguments dominate the core policies of the Republican party, climate change and laffer curve/trickle down are probably the biggest ones, but there's plenty of others. As you say, the issue is that running on this kind of nonsense can work in the short term, but long term reality tends to win the day.
The other part of this is that on many issues no-one actually believes in this nonsense. Getting Mexico to pay for the wall is so stupid even among Trump's most enthusiastic supporters you won't find many who believe it would actually happen. Instead it works as a signifier - it shows voters that Trump is outspoken and extreme on immigration.
Your actual inclusion of Dr. Stein in a "serious" political discussion is adorable. I think the Easter Bunny is a big politics by faith guy too, what with the whole Easter thing.
If you don't want to follow anti-discrimination laws then don't start a business. The government will not force you to make cakes, but if you're going to run a business selling cakes then you have to serve everyone. And, honestly? Not going to have any sympathy for the people being "demonized" by this. They're bigots and s, if their bigoted beliefs get national attention then perhaps they should try being better people.
The cake place in question isn't that far from me. The owners made *wayyyy* more money taking donations from fundamentalists and stoking the outrage machine than they were making from cakes.
That said, in theory I'm on the side of "their business, they can serve who they want", particularly as it'll tell me which places to avoid, but these people knew (or should have known) the law regarding operation of public businesses when they opened their doors.
If you don't want to follow anti-discrimination laws then don't start a business. The government will not force you to make cakes, but if you're going to run a business selling cakes then you have to serve everyone. And, honestly? Not going to have any sympathy for the people being "demonized" by this. They're bigots and s, if their bigoted beliefs get national attention then perhaps they should try being better people.
The cake place in question isn't that far from me. The owners made *wayyyy* more money taking donations from fundamentalists and stoking the outrage machine than they were making from cakes.
That said, in theory I'm on the side of "their business, they can serve who they want", particularly as it'll tell me which places to avoid, but these people knew (or should have known) the law regarding operation of public businesses when they opened their doors.
Kilkrazy wrote: There is a temptation to point at those kind of people and laugh at their stupidity and credulousness but that misses the important point that the national common weal is harmed by everyone not being able to take an effective part in the political decision making process.
I hear what you're saying, and I agree, but I'm not sure what you can do for adults of sound mind who seem to exclusively get their conspiracy-addled "news" from the right-wing derposphere. FFS, what can you say to someone who takes seriously the work of James O'Keefe given his flawless record of lies and untruths? These are not people that I see a way to reason with, because they enjoy the lies they hear enough to disregard their common sense.
This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2016/10/20 12:53:54
lord_blackfang wrote: Respect to the guy who subscribed just to post a massive ASCII dong in the chat and immediately get banned.
Flinty wrote: The benefit of slate is that its.actually a.rock with rock like properties. The downside is that it's a rock
Kilkrazy wrote: According to something I heard on the BBC, if Trump refuses to acknowledge defeat in November, the constitution prevents Clinton from taking up office.
Is this really true? It sounds incredible. I thought the "graceful speech" accepting your opponent's victory and promising to work with them loyally as an American was essentially a polite formality.
Well in 2000(IIRC) Gore didn't admit defeat right away until results were confirmed by supreme court(?). Final confirmation was postponed due to that.
Kilkrazy wrote: According to something I heard on the BBC, if Trump refuses to acknowledge defeat in November, the constitution prevents Clinton from taking up office.
Is this really true? It sounds incredible. I thought the "graceful speech" accepting your opponent's victory and promising to work with them loyally as an American was essentially a polite formality.
It's not... exactly true, exactly. There is no requirement to concede or mechanism preventing someone from assuming office until there is a concession.
However in recent years there have been some pretty close counts, and in some case, within the margin of automatic recounts. In those cases, one camp or the other can seek injunctions to force, or stop recounts, or whatever electoral aberrations that could keep a state from going one way or the other. Since you're electing electors, and not a candidate, and since the electors don't meet for a month after the election, it's not usually hard to find a sympathetic judge to throw out an injunction if there is some valid question.
lord_blackfang wrote: Respect to the guy who subscribed just to post a massive ASCII dong in the chat and immediately get banned.
Flinty wrote: The benefit of slate is that its.actually a.rock with rock like properties. The downside is that it's a rock
Kilkrazy wrote: According to something I heard on the BBC, if Trump refuses to acknowledge defeat in November, the constitution prevents Clinton from taking up office.
Is this really true? It sounds incredible. I thought the "graceful speech" accepting your opponent's victory and promising to work with them loyally as an American was essentially a polite formality.
Well in 2000(IIRC) Gore didn't admit defeat right away until results were confirmed by supreme court(?). Final confirmation was postponed due to that.
True, but that election had some pretty suspect ballot counting going on in Florida - overseas service ballots being accepted after the deadline, abnormally high ballot rejection rates of minorities, the Supreme Court stepping in to stop Florida's recount - that had the affect of giving a close race to Bush.
If this election plays out as some polls are showing, Clinton may win with 150+ electoral votes, which is a far cry from the 5 that Bush had over Gore in 2000. While Gore had a case that, in a specific state, in specific areas of that state, there were problems with ballot counting, Trump's basically arguing that any place where he doesn't win is rigged. And that's a claim that will be laughed out of any court in this nation (hopefully).
This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2016/10/20 13:08:37
Kilkrazy wrote: This article says that Trump is now so unpopular that there is a danger of the Republicans losing Utah for the first time since 1964. With things as bad as this, there could be a serious down-ticket avalanche obliterating other GOP candidates. (Last night's debate probably will make things worse.)
There was a funny article on 538 about how Evan McMullin has a path to the White House. He needs to win Utah (and he might), and as a result prevent either Trump or Clinton from getting 270. It then goes to the House, who votes and chooses McMullin (a scenario with many complexities to it).
Kilkrazy wrote: This article says that Trump is now so unpopular that there is a danger of the Republicans losing Utah for the first time since 1964. With things as bad as this, there could be a serious down-ticket avalanche obliterating other GOP candidates. (Last night's debate probably will make things worse.)
There was a funny article on 538 about how Evan McMullin has a path to the White House. He needs to win Utah (and he might), and as a result prevent either Trump or Clinton from getting 270. It then goes to the House, who votes and chooses McMullin (a scenario with many complexities to it).
Injecting divisive politics into your non-politically-related business seems like such an odd choice, regardless of whether or not it's racist. It seems like a guaranteed way to annoy at least 30% of your prospective customers.
lord_blackfang wrote: Respect to the guy who subscribed just to post a massive ASCII dong in the chat and immediately get banned.
Flinty wrote: The benefit of slate is that its.actually a.rock with rock like properties. The downside is that it's a rock
Once enemy was one that could cross it without cattle along china wall became inefficient in it's job. (funny that. Wall wasn't even built to stop HUMANS. It was built to keep the cattle of mongols. No cattle, no food, no long forays into inland)
.
s, if their bigoted beliefs get national attention then perhaps they should try being better people.
