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.
ulgurstasta wrote: But as someone living relatively close to Russia I dont want to see these powers escalate into a real conflict.
And there's no reason to believe that they will. In the Cold War we had much more serious conflicts and still managed to avoid having a shooting war. Sure, it sucked to be a country chosen to host a proxy war, but in the end everyone understood that MAD is a thing that neither side wants. And the thing about being the establishment is that you understand the rules of the game. You understand how to push and provoke and get your piece where you can without escalating to nuclear armageddon. So sure, implement a no-fly zone. Either the US will back down and be a bit embarrassed, or Russia will back down and be a bit embarrassed. And if someone screws up badly and a Russian (or US) plane gets shot down then both sides understand that, for all the big public show of outrage they're going to make, you make a quiet deal to resolve the incident because neither side wants to end civilization as we know it over Syria.
If you're worried about a real conflict with Russia then Trump is the one to worry about. Trump is a raving lunatic who seems to be proud of his ignorance about how the game is played. And that's the real threat, the clumsy amateur who doesn't know when they're crossing the line from saber-rattling to serious danger of starting a war until it's too late to stop the shooting.
There is no such thing as a hobby without politics. "Leave politics at the door" is itself a political statement, an endorsement of the status quo and an attempt to silence dissenting voices.
Whembly claims that Mitt Romney was right about the Russians being our primary enemy in 2012, whereas now it's a Clinton invention. I don't think it can be both.
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
SemperMortis wrote: Just as a friendly reminder though, this forum is very left leaning, these same people who are SURE Trump won't win are the same ones who were SURE Brexit wouldn't happen. Anyway, good luck to you all.
That argument doesn't work. For starters, it isn't the same people. The political polling experts in the US are not the political polling experts in the UK, this is because they are different countries who have their own experts.
On top of that, referendums such as Brexit are very rare, there is little historical precedent to rely on. The US has had quite a few presidential elections, and while this hardly produces certainty in the relationship between polling and election day results, it produces a lot more certainty than you will see in a one-off referendum.
And finally, Brexit polls showed close results. Across the whole they favoured a vote for remain, but not by much. In contrast, Clinton's lead is pretty big, on average its north of 6%.
Of course nothing is certain until election day happens. But the only way you can predict a Trump win is likely is to start believing that polls have no meaning at all, and that's basically the rejection of information simply because you don't like what it's telling you.
With all of that said, it's still not a good idea to say things like "It's pretty much over now." until the actual results are confirmed. Better to play safe and not say things that may cause people to stay at home instead of getting those votes in.
"The 75mm gun is firing. The 37mm gun is firing, but is traversed round the wrong way. The Browning is jammed. I am saying "Driver, advance." and the driver, who can't hear me, is reversing. And as I look over the top of the turret and see twelve enemy tanks fifty yards away, someone hands me a cheese sandwich."
ulgurstasta wrote: But as someone living relatively close to Russia I dont want to see these powers escalate into a real conflict.
And there's no reason to believe that they will. In the Cold War we had much more serious conflicts and still managed to avoid having a shooting war. Sure, it sucked to be a country chosen to host a proxy war, but in the end everyone understood that MAD is a thing that neither side wants. And the thing about being the establishment is that you understand the rules of the game. You understand how to push and provoke and get your piece where you can without escalating to nuclear armageddon. So sure, implement a no-fly zone. Either the US will back down and be a bit embarrassed, or Russia will back down and be a bit embarrassed. And if someone screws up badly and a Russian (or US) plane gets shot down then both sides understand that, for all the big public show of outrage they're going to make, you make a quiet deal to resolve the incident because neither side wants to end civilization as we know it over Syria.
If you're worried about a real conflict with Russia then Trump is the one to worry about. Trump is a raving lunatic who seems to be proud of his ignorance about how the game is played. And that's the real threat, the clumsy amateur who doesn't know when they're crossing the line from saber-rattling to serious danger of starting a war until it's too late to stop the shooting.
I would prefer it if we didn´t have to new cold war in the first place, as there where several times in the first cold war where we were a button press from nuclear war.
But yes, none of the two candidates are good in this matter, one is a warhawk and the other a clueless showman.
ulgurstasta wrote: But as someone living relatively close to Russia I dont want to see these powers escalate into a real conflict.
And there's no reason to believe that they will. In the Cold War we had much more serious conflicts and still managed to avoid having a shooting war. Sure, it sucked to be a country chosen to host a proxy war, but in the end everyone understood that MAD is a thing that neither side wants. And the thing about being the establishment is that you understand the rules of the game. You understand how to push and provoke and get your piece where you can without escalating to nuclear armageddon. So sure, implement a no-fly zone. Either the US will back down and be a bit embarrassed, or Russia will back down and be a bit embarrassed. And if someone screws up badly and a Russian (or US) plane gets shot down then both sides understand that, for all the big public show of outrage they're going to make, you make a quiet deal to resolve the incident because neither side wants to end civilization as we know it over Syria.
If you're worried about a real conflict with Russia then Trump is the one to worry about. Trump is a raving lunatic who seems to be proud of his ignorance about how the game is played. And that's the real threat, the clumsy amateur who doesn't know when they're crossing the line from saber-rattling to serious danger of starting a war until it's too late to stop the shooting.
I would prefer it if we didn´t have to new cold war in the first place, as there where several times in the first cold war where we were a button press from nuclear war.
But yes, none of the two candidates are good in this matter, one is a warhawk and the other a clueless showman.
sure, yet on the other hand, russia is also a willing participant of the cold war, they also have a button, and right now they're sending their only carrier and escorts to syria to set up a permanent base. They want to solidy assad and drive out the rebels before the new president can take office, so whoever wins really has no choice but to accept russias control over syria.
So the real question seems to be, does america roll over and let russia expand unchallenged (trumps plan)? or is a bit of saber rattling in order(clintons plan)?
Peregrine wrote: In the Cold War we had much more serious conflicts and still managed to avoid having a shooting war. Sure, it sucked to be a country chosen to host a proxy war, but in the end everyone understood that MAD is a thing that neither side wants. And the thing about being the establishment is that you understand the rules of the game. You understand how to push and provoke and get your piece where you can without escalating to nuclear armageddon. So sure, implement a no-fly zone. Either the US will back down and be a bit embarrassed, or Russia will back down and be a bit embarrassed. And if someone screws up badly and a Russian (or US) plane gets shot down then both sides understand that, for all the big public show of outrage they're going to make, you make a quiet deal to resolve the incident because neither side wants to end civilization as we know it over Syria.
Exactly so. Turkey showed some muscles earlier, shooting down a Russian Sukhoi that violated their airspace - there was a lot of hot air blown in both directions but in the end nothing worse happened (though it surely sucked to be the Russian pilot killed in the incident). Turkey wanted to mark territory (they support some Syrian groups Assad/Russia don't care too much about) and Russia responded with trade sanctions. Both warmed up to each other again when the Turks had a conveniently unsuccesful military coup as an excuse to get rid of anyone who doesn't support the clown on the top. Putin was the first to say that's OK, dissidents must be dealt with harshly.
Breaking my self imposed ban on political threads to bring perhaps the most epic political commercial this year. Its for a local guy. Its just awesome. A true antidote to the Presidential nonsense.
-"Wait a minute.....who is that Frazz is talking to in the gallery? Hmmm something is going on here.....Oh.... it seems there is some dispute over video taping of some sort......Frazz is really upset now..........wait a minute......whats he go there.......is it? Can it be?....Frazz has just unleashed his hidden weiner dog from his mini bag, while quoting shakespeares "Let slip the dogs the war!!" GG
-"Don't mind Frazzled. He's just Dakka's crazy old dude locked in the attic. He's harmless. Mostly."
-TBone the Magnificent 1999-2014, Long Live the King!
Frazzled wrote: Breaking my self imposed ban on political threads to bring perhaps the most epic political commercial this year. Its for a local guy. Its just awesome. A true antidote to the Presidential nonsense.
However I don't think the equivalent for the presidential candidates would work so well. Bill looking into the camera and asking voters to get Hillary out of the house would probably not lead to the same conclusions as that ad
The Laws of Thermodynamics:
1) You cannot win. 2) You cannot break even. 3) You cannot stop playing the game.
Colonel Flagg wrote:You think you're real smart. But you're not smart; you're dumb. Very dumb. But you've met your match in me.
Co'tor Shas wrote: I still don't get describing Clinton as a "warhawk". Especially when compared to the Republican" glass 'em all" stratagy.
Liberal hawk would be the right descriptive. She definitely buys into the idea of using violence for democracy and free trade. As per her M.O. only stops supporting violence when it becomes politically expedient to do so. Clinton's policy for Syria is actually equally as "badong" as Trump's. So while it isn't as firey as your typical Republican candidate, in practice she isn't much better.
Ouze wrote: Whembly claims that Mitt Romney was right about the Russians being our primary enemy in 2012, whereas now it's a Clinton invention. I don't think it can be both.
A Clinton invention... huh?
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Co'tor Shas wrote: I still don't get describing Clinton as a "warhawk". Especially when compared to the Republican" glass 'em all" stratagy.
Who was the last "warhawk"?
I think there's this belief that Clinton is prone to 'Military Adventurism™' like Dubya.
All you have to do, is look at the Libyan fiasco...
This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2016/10/24 16:07:50
whembly wrote: I think there's this belief that Clinton is prone to 'Military Adventurism™' like Dubya.
Back during President Clinton's administration, Bill Clinton was accused of a "Wag the Dog" scenario because the timing of Operation Desert Fox juxtaposed to the Monica Lewinsky scandal that was unfolding. There were numerous other operations such as our involvement in (then) Yugoslavia, Africa, and Iraq that the Clinton administration was involved in directly. Contrast this with the limited use of military (no boots on the ground) that the Obama administration practiced. This is where the warhawk label comes into play - contrasting Hillary to someone like Sanders.
TL;DR: A Clintonite and VA Gov. Terry McAuliffe gave close to $500K dollars through a Super PAC to a state political campaign of the wife of a high-level FBI official who had oversight of the investigation into HRC’s use of an unauthorized, non-secure, non-government email server while she was Sec of State.
Get ready ya'll... the Clinton Presidential tenure is going to be gansta.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2016/10/24 17:03:12
Will be about as fun as the 5+ benghazi hearings that came up with nothing
Though a question about that, since it seems like the Dems will also may take the Senate, and a longshot on the house. Can the Dems just go "Nuh uh" to the GOP for anything they want to try?
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2016/10/24 17:23:16
WrentheFaceless wrote: Will be about as fun as the 5+ benghazi hearings that came up with nothing
Though a question about that, since it seems like the Dems will also may take the Senate, and a longshot on the house. Can the Dems just go "Nuh uh" to the GOP for anything they want to try?
Yup... generally whomever holds the majority in the Senate controls the agenda.
However, there's nothing stopping the GOP majority house from having hearings either...
WrentheFaceless wrote: Will be about as fun as the 5+ benghazi hearings that came up with nothing
Though a question about that, since it seems like the Dems will also may take the Senate, and a longshot on the house. Can the Dems just go "Nuh uh" to the GOP for anything they want to try?
Yup... generally whomever holds the majority in the Senate controls the agenda.
However, there's nothing stopping the GOP majority house from having hearings either...
ya and what did those 9 hearings accomplish? absolutely nothing, just a huge waste of tax payers dollars. But apparently Clinton should go to prison for it. If 9 hearings can not reveal any actual crimes or malfeasance, than those GOP members who ran the hearings need to be voted out as well. They're just so incompetent that they couldn't find any evidence for someone who's so clearly guilty.
WrentheFaceless wrote: Will be about as fun as the 5+ benghazi hearings that came up with nothing
Though a question about that, since it seems like the Dems will also may take the Senate, and a longshot on the house. Can the Dems just go "Nuh uh" to the GOP for anything they want to try?
Yup... generally whomever holds the majority in the Senate controls the agenda.
However, there's nothing stopping the GOP majority house from having hearings either...
ya and what did those 9 hearings accomplish? absolutely nothing, just a huge waste of tax payers dollars. But apparently Clinton should go to prison for it. If 9 hearings can not reveal any actual crimes or malfeasance, than those GOP members who ran the hearings need to be voted out as well. They're just so incompetent that they couldn't find any evidence for someone who's so clearly guilty.
:rolls eye:
It was, in fact, the 'ghazi meeting that pointed out that Clinton had an unauthorized personal email server during her tenure as Secretary of State.
The goal of the committee isn't to "put folks in prison". The goal of these committees is to investigate. It's well within their oversight right to do so.
WrentheFaceless wrote: Will be about as fun as the 5+ benghazi hearings that came up with nothing
Though a question about that, since it seems like the Dems will also may take the Senate, and a longshot on the house. Can the Dems just go "Nuh uh" to the GOP for anything they want to try?
Yup... generally whomever holds the majority in the Senate controls the agenda.
However, there's nothing stopping the GOP majority house from having hearings either...
ya and what did those 9 hearings accomplish? absolutely nothing, just a huge waste of tax payers dollars. But apparently Clinton should go to prison for it. If 9 hearings can not reveal any actual crimes or malfeasance, than those GOP members who ran the hearings need to be voted out as well. They're just so incompetent that they couldn't find any evidence for someone who's so clearly guilty.
:rolls eye:
It was, in fact, the 'ghazi meeting that pointed out that Clinton had an unauthorized personal email server during her tenure as Secretary of State.
The goal of the committee isn't to "put folks in prison". The goal of these committees is to investigate. It's well within their oversight right to do so.
and they investigated so horribly, they had to have 8 more investigations because they're so incompetent. Why reward anyone of them with another term?
WrentheFaceless wrote: Will be about as fun as the 5+ benghazi hearings that came up with nothing
Though a question about that, since it seems like the Dems will also may take the Senate, and a longshot on the house. Can the Dems just go "Nuh uh" to the GOP for anything they want to try?
Yup... generally whomever holds the majority in the Senate controls the agenda.
However, there's nothing stopping the GOP majority house from having hearings either...
ya and what did those 9 hearings accomplish? absolutely nothing, just a huge waste of tax payers dollars. But apparently Clinton should go to prison for it. If 9 hearings can not reveal any actual crimes or malfeasance, than those GOP members who ran the hearings need to be voted out as well. They're just so incompetent that they couldn't find any evidence for someone who's so clearly guilty.
:rolls eye:
It was, in fact, the 'ghazi meeting that pointed out that Clinton had an unauthorized personal email server during her tenure as Secretary of State.
The goal of the committee isn't to "put folks in prison". The goal of these committees is to investigate. It's well within their oversight right to do so.
and they investigated so horribly, they had to have 8 more investigations because they're so incompetent. Why reward anyone of them with another term?
Oh... nevermind how much obstruction the Democrats and the Obama Administration threw at these committes eh?
Oh... I forgot. Some obstructionism is okay, but not others.
WrentheFaceless wrote: Will be about as fun as the 5+ benghazi hearings that came up with nothing
Though a question about that, since it seems like the Dems will also may take the Senate, and a longshot on the house. Can the Dems just go "Nuh uh" to the GOP for anything they want to try?
Yup... generally whomever holds the majority in the Senate controls the agenda.
However, there's nothing stopping the GOP majority house from having hearings either...
ya and what did those 9 hearings accomplish? absolutely nothing, just a huge waste of tax payers dollars. But apparently Clinton should go to prison for it. If 9 hearings can not reveal any actual crimes or malfeasance, than those GOP members who ran the hearings need to be voted out as well. They're just so incompetent that they couldn't find any evidence for someone who's so clearly guilty.
:rolls eye:
It was, in fact, the 'ghazi meeting that pointed out that Clinton had an unauthorized personal email server during her tenure as Secretary of State.
The goal of the committee isn't to "put folks in prison". The goal of these committees is to investigate. It's well within their oversight right to do so.
and they investigated so horribly, they had to have 8 more investigations because they're so incompetent. Why reward anyone of them with another term?
Oh... nevermind how much obstruction the Democrats and the Obama Administration threw at these committes eh?
Oh... I forgot. Some obstructionism is okay, but not others.
LOL obstructionism? really? there was nothing to obstruct, like I said, if you believe that's true, then you should make sure no one involved in those 9 hearings get your vote. How much could they have obstructed if they had 9 hearings? NINE HEARINGS.
yes after 9 hearings, the democrats were totally legit, kosher, and did absolutely nothing wrong in the way they handled bengahzi. so do you even know any of the republicans running those 9 hearings or participating in them? would you vote for them to remain in office after their dismal failure of running those investigations?
and yes, that's why you never negotiate with terrorists.
The last payment only concerned a ruling for the payment and interest owed from the US not honoring the contract for an arms deal, but keeping the money that Iran paid us anyway.
I would think something like that would be easy to research for a high-information voter, but maybe I was mistaken.
d-usa wrote: The last payment only concerned a ruling for the payment and interest owed from the US not honoring the contract for an arms deal, but keeping the money that Iran paid us anyway.
Again... I thought all that was squared.
I would think something like that would be easy to research for a high-information voter, but maybe I was mistaken.
You are very skilled at making a mockery of Rule #1.
Hey Whembly, Trump is calling. He wants to say thanks for supporting the childish antics of the GOP; he wouldn't be your candidate without it! Voting against him is all well and good but you wouldn't have to if he wasn't the Republican candidate in the first place. Oh well, easier to keep blaming [democrat currently subject to witch hunt]! I'm sure it will lead to the continued success and relevance of your party on the political stage.
NinthMusketeer wrote: Hey Whembly, Trump is calling. He wants to say thanks for supporting the childish antics of the GOP; he wouldn't be your candidate without it! Voting against him is all well and good but you wouldn't have to if he wasn't the Republican candidate in the first place. Oh well, easier to keep blaming [democrat currently subject to witch hunt]! I'm sure it will lead to the continued success and relevance of your party on the political stage.
3000
4000 
