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.
Where does this whole idea that there's going to be some imminent war started with Russia come from? Saber rattling is just par for the course between countries.
It's less imminent and more the obvious conclusion of the endless chain of escalation that the pro-stupid gak caucus is gleefully perpetuating.
Furthermore, over what, exactly, will we decide that "Yeah, let's end it all over _____!" Syria? Please. At the end of the day, on behalf of most Americans, we're sick and tired of the constant crap on perpetual loop in the Middle East. You want it Russia? Yours! Crimea? Nope. Want a port for your fleet? Go for it. We've got plenty.
It's going to be something silly that nobody thought anyone could seriously launch wars over. That's how ceaselessly growing tensions between great powers go. What 90% of US citizens want isn't going to matter because they have no influence and you don't need very many people to start launching missiles anyway.
No, it's not going to be "something silly". That comment just diminishes your argument.
And yes, I'm afraid, what the majority of Americans want will tend to dictate what we do. You've noticed the populist influence in this election cycle, yes?
Rosebuddy wrote: It's going to be something silly that nobody thought anyone could seriously launch wars over. That's how ceaselessly growing tensions between great powers go. What 90% of US citizens want isn't going to matter because they have no influence and you don't need very many people to start launching missiles anyway.
Rosebuddy wrote: It's going to be something silly that nobody thought anyone could seriously launch wars over. That's how ceaselessly growing tensions between great powers go. What 90% of US citizens want isn't going to matter because they have no influence and you don't need very many people to start launching missiles anyway.
While the 1% can easily avoid the realities of a conventional war, and actually grow richer off of it, they can't avoid the reality of a post nuclear exchange world.
Earlier I wrote:The worst we will see is another major proxy war like Vietnam. (Which again, is terrible for the people of Syria.)
We were once so close to heaven, St. Peter came out and gave us medals; declaring us "The nicest of the damned".
“Anti-intellectualism has been a constant thread winding its way through our political and cultural life, nurtured by the false notion that democracy means that 'my ignorance is just as good as your knowledge.'”
BigWaaagh wrote: No, it's not going to be "something silly". That comment just diminishes your argument.
It absolutely will be something silly, like having to prop up / topple some government because The Eternal Enemy tries to topple / prop up that government or parading jets about to make a brave point or bombing power plants or really any number of stupid things that were thought to be just totally normal.
Rosebuddy wrote: It's going to be something silly that nobody thought anyone could seriously launch wars over. That's how ceaselessly growing tensions between great powers go. What 90% of US citizens want isn't going to matter because they have no influence and you don't need very many people to start launching missiles anyway.
So why worry?
Because I'd rather not have WW3 leading into global nuclear devastation. If humanity has to end in fire I'd prefer a comet or a gamma wave or something rather than the dumbest people on the planet murdering everyone else.
While the 1% can easily avoid the realities of a conventional war, and actually grow richer off of it, they can't avoid the reality of a post nuclear exchange world.
They don't necessarily understand that. They think Russia is some inconsequential backwater they can bully, that they totally have a missile shield that will stop anything from hitting the US or that God himself is on their side and will guarantee victory for his chosen people. The ruling class is disconnected from everything else and can simply avoid anything that doesn't stroke their ideological boners.
AS I can keep saying, if the USA can survive Nixon, it can survive Trump.
...
Yes, well it would a metric feth ton easier to survive Trump by kicking him and the GOP very hard in the nuts for the next four years than by electing him and his party and hoping that a system of checks and balances will prevent them gaking all over everything.
I firmly believe that the MAD principle still means major powers are still confined to wars by proxy.
It would be really fething dumb to start a war with Russia but then it was really fething dumb for all the great powers to get into a land war in Europe, so...
Where does this whole idea that there's going to be some imminent war started with Russia come from? Saber rattling is just par for the course between countries. Particularly when it's two of the big kids on the block. Both nations understand the stakes and both nations understand there is no winner. Besides, war is bad for business.
Furthermore, over what, exactly, will we decide that "Yeah, let's end it all over _____!" Syria? Please. At the end of the day, on behalf of most Americans, we're sick and tired of the constant crap on perpetual loop in the Middle East. You want it Russia? Yours! Crimea? Nope. Want a port for your fleet? Go for it. We've got plenty.
I saw the real Cold War. Grew up having nuclear fallout drills at my school as a kid when it was a real threat. I look around and just don't see any similiarity with today. Sure, it's not the warm and fuzzy relationship we've seen since the wall came down, but that wasn't going to last and I don't think the tensions we see now will last either.
It comes from a small number of forum members who think correctly that Trump is much friendlier to the Russians than Clinton, and therefore are claiming that Clinton is going to start WW3 even though it is Trump who says there should be more nuclear weapons around the world and the USA should use them first, and he starts Twitter wars after midnight with anyone he dislikes if he has had a bad day.
Go figure, as the Americans would say.
There's the other point I was going to address with the whole apparently imminent WW3 thing. If you think Clinton is the driver for WW3, you're out of touch. Clinton would be a globally known quantity and she has a statesmanship resume that few can match. Trump, on the other hand, is a wild card and makes "enemies", as well as allies, nervous due to his repeated display of immature, mercurial outbursts over absolutely trivial matters. That is the kind of stuff that leads to nervousness and facilitates hostilities breaking out.
Rosebuddy wrote: Because I'd rather not have WW3 leading into global nuclear devastation. If humanity has to end in fire I'd prefer a comet or a gamma wave or something rather than the dumbest people on the planet murdering everyone else.
If it's both inevitable and outside your sphere of influence, what can you do?
I really envy people with so few immediate problems in their lives that they can afford to waste time on stuff like this.
BigWaaagh wrote: No, it's not going to be "something silly". That comment just diminishes your argument.
It absolutely will be something silly, like having to prop up / topple some government because The Eternal Enemy tries to topple / prop up that government or parading jets about to make a brave point or bombing power plants or really any number of stupid things that were thought to be just totally normal.
.
Turn the fear-meter down a little, will you. You really just need to read some history. There's a lack of perspective here that can only be explained by the lack of understanding that this kind of thing has been going on, well, forever, or in relation to this conversation, since the dawn of the Cold War and strangely enough, here we still are. Do you honestly, honestly now, believe that the world is going to get fried because of "...any number of stupid things that we thought to be just totally normal."? Some "stupid thing" is going to cause world powers to just decide, "Yeah, that's good enough for me. Let's end this." Come on!
I'll reiterate my previous statement. Your constant reference to "some stupid thing" or "some silly thing", is just lessening your attempt at an argument each time you post.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2016/10/27 19:55:27
Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote: I don't want to be too cynical about the USA, because in its early years, the sense of civic duty, Republican ideals, and democratic principal were genuine.
I still hold that the 1st amendment is some of the greatest lines ever put to paper by mankind: Congress SHALL make no law...
No ifs, buts or maybe's there...
Nobody would have the guts or the principals to write or make a law defending free speech along those lines in this day and age...
There would be conditions attached.
That being said, as an outsider, and neutral observer, I do think that money has corrupted US politics to an unhealthy degree.
I'm pretty cynical and would argue the US from the start never had any intentions of being an actual democracy. In the beginning it was penned by oligarchs for oligarchs, the Bill of Rights is just more or less by oligarchs for oligarchs too. Granted everybody recognizes the legality of it applying to all people in modern context now but I'm sure there was plenty of soft censorship then.
These days I would say its pretty damn accurate to say the US isn't a democracy but a republic and that used to be a pet peeve of mine also. However, it is accurate and I forced myself to admit it. The US is a choose your own adventure oligarchy at the best of times. Do I have a representative in government? No not really, the two parties do not represent me and they will block any attempt for a new party to do so. If I vote one party and another wins, can expect to be represented by the other guy? No, I can expect for the duration of the elected term, the other guy will not only not represent me but go out of their way to ensure that they do not.
It is pretty fair to say that the US is not and never has been very democratic. It is however a pretty solid republic.
I don't want to bring too much British politics into this thread, but the American situation is not that different to our own in many ways.
Our form of governance is different, but it may as well not be there. Our Prime Minister is unelected by the British people, instead chosen by her own party (as they have a majority) but even that was a farce, as the leadership race turned into a one horse race!
It had all the hall marks of a backroom deal as other candidates found bullgak reasons to drop out.
To cut a long story short, our respective nations are not that democratic.
Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote: In saying that, I wouldn't read to much into it. Political parties have collapsed before in the USA (Whigs and Federalists spring to mind) so perhaps the GOP's demise is a good thing?
When this election is said and done, the GOP will still have the House of Representatives, more than half the governorships, and countless local and state offices. I think they're still a viable party overall.
They're saying the Trump effect is in danger of dragging the whole party down with him. There's talk of Texas turning Democrat!
Sam Houston must be spinning in his grave!
EDIT. Get this dread feeling that Houston was a Democrat and I'm going to be red-faced!
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2016/10/27 19:55:59
"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
BigWaaagh wrote: If you think Clinton is the driver for WW3, you're out of touch. Clinton would be a globally known quantity and she has a statesmanship resume that few can match. Trump, on the other hand, is a wild card and makes "enemies", as well as allies, nervous due to his repeated display of immature, mercurial outbursts over absolutely trivial matters. That is the kind of stuff that leads to nervousness and facilitates hostilities breaking out.
Aye... I'd like to see what happens if Trump makes President and the Philippine President Duterte calls him a "son of a bitch" in Tagalog like he's done before.
The realist leaders of great powers don't go off the handle for something "small", for example an aircraft like that Russian Sukhoi alledgedly violating Turkish airspace getting shot down. If Putin was Trump-levels of crazy he'd have nuked Turkey for such an insult, but he's not so he just put in effect some trade sanctions and warmed up again when there was a conveniently failed military coup attempt in Turkey. There's several Cold War era examples of that - American or Soviet planes getting shot down by the other side without it leading to war.
Clinton might not be perfect but she does have some idea about what could be lost if she starts a war. Trump? He'd consider nukes just another tool in his negotiation arsenal and not be shy about threatening opponents with such. There's always the unspoken threat of nukes when nuclear-armed countries face off, but Trump would speak of it, dangle the launch codes in the face of the enemy ambassador and tell them to comply or else.
Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote: I don't want to bring too much British politics into this thread, but the American situation is not that different to our own in many ways.
Our form of governance is different, but it may as well not be there. Our Prime Minister is unelected by the British people, instead chosen by her own party (as they have a majority) but even that was a farce, as the leadership race turned into a one horse race!
It had all the hall marks of a backroom deal as other candidates found bullgak reasons to drop out.
To cut a long story short, our respective nations are not that democratic.
Now come on DINLT, you're far too well read to believe that bull crap. We have never elected the Prime Minister. We never will. The office is Prime Minister is a historical mistake. Our problem is that too many people think the PM is the equivalent of the US president. Arguing that May didn't get elected by the people is nonsense unless you also agree that Cameron didn't get elected by the people. May was selected by her party to lead them, just as Cameron was. May is only PM because she can command the confidence of parliament, just as Cameron and every PM before him did - that means having the support of a majority of MPs who are directly accountable to their constituents. This is representative democracy. I know you already know all this but I feel the need to lay it out.
All of this goes a long way to explaining why third parties are more successful in a parliamentary system and have very little chance of getting anywhere in a presidential system.
They're saying the Trump effect is in danger of dragging the whole party down with him. There's talk of Texas turning Democrat!
Sam Houston must be spinning in his grave!
EDIT. Get this dread feeling that Houston was a Democrat and I'm going to be red-faced!
After a quick read on wiki, that Mr Houston was an interesting fellow. He was a Democrat, he opposed succession and he strongly disagreed with Jackson's treatment of Native Americans.
Sounds like he'd fit right in with the modern day Democratic party.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2016/10/27 22:00:17
BigWaaagh wrote: If you think Clinton is the driver for WW3, you're out of touch. Clinton would be a globally known quantity and she has a statesmanship resume that few can match. Trump, on the other hand, is a wild card and makes "enemies", as well as allies, nervous due to his repeated display of immature, mercurial outbursts over absolutely trivial matters. That is the kind of stuff that leads to nervousness and facilitates hostilities breaking out.
Aye... I'd like to see what happens if Trump makes President and the Philippine President Duterte calls him a "son of a bitch" in Tagalog like he's done before.
The realist leaders of great powers don't go off the handle for something "small", for example an aircraft like that Russian Sukhoi alledgedly violating Turkish airspace getting shot down. If Putin was Trump-levels of crazy he'd have nuked Turkey for such an insult, but he's not so he just put in effect some trade sanctions and warmed up again when there was a conveniently failed military coup attempt in Turkey. There's several Cold War era examples of that - American or Soviet planes getting shot down by the other side without it leading to war.
Clinton might not be perfect but she does have some idea about what could be lost if she starts a war. Trump? He'd consider nukes just another tool in his negotiation arsenal and not be shy about threatening opponents with such. There's always the unspoken threat of nukes when nuclear-armed countries face off, but Trump would speak of it, dangle the launch codes in the face of the enemy ambassador and tell them to comply or else.
I am genuinely curious as to what actions in Trump's past lead you to believe he is so prone to violence and craziness. He has decades in the public eye, surely you'll be able to come up with some example where he has beaten or killed someone over an insult, or a similar series of actions to earn your opinion.
Every time a terrorist dies a Paratrooper gets his wings.
Well, Ted "jackass" Cruz is already supporting the idea of refusing to let Hillary nominate anyone for the SC. Because the SC is apparently working just fine as is.
"Through the darkness of future past, the magician longs to see.
One chants out between two worlds: Fire, walk with me." - Twin Peaks
"You listen to me. While I will admit to a certain cynicism, the fact is that I am a naysayer and hatchetman in the fight against violence. I pride myself in taking a punch and I'll gladly take another because I choose to live my life in the company of Gandhi and King. My concerns are global. I reject absolutely revenge, aggression, and retaliation. The foundation of such a method... is love. I love you Sheriff Truman." - Twin Peaks
Tannhauser42 wrote: Well, Ted "jackass" Cruz is already supporting the idea of refusing to let Hillary nominate anyone for the SC. Because the SC is apparently working just fine as is.
Well... to be fair Congress could reduce the # of justices...
But, then again, the Senate should just move forward and grant up or down votes.
Functionally the court only needs 1 justice, but there's a very good reason we go with a larger number rather than a smaller one; opinions. More justices = the opportunity for multiple opinions and ideas to be entered into the official record of Constitutional Law which helps keep the Constitution flexible and the knowledge base for the foundation of our jurisprudence and governance lively. Aside from an odd number preventing potentially disruptive ties in a system that really doesn't need them, having a non-prime has other advantages
We could do 3, or 5, but 9 allows a wide range of people to sit on the bench and contribute (also allows the court to continue to function for periods where certain political parties dedicate themselves to ego over governance).
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2016/10/27 23:50:02
LordofHats wrote: Functionally the court only needs 1 justice, but there's a very good reason we go with a larger number rather than a smaller one; opinions. More justices = the opportunity for multiple opinions and ideas to be entered into the official record of Constitutional Law which helps keep the Constitution flexible and the knowledge base for the foundation of our jurisprudence and governance lively. Aside from an odd number preventing potentially disruptive ties in a system that really doesn't need them, having a non-prime has other advantages
We could do 3, or 5, but 9 allows a wide range of people to sit on the bench and contribute (also allows the court to continue to function for periods where certain political parties dedicate themselves to ego over governance).
I thought the current statute required 5 for a quorum... but, my google-fu is failing me, so you may be right.
I'm okay with the current count and would rather NOT reduce the size of the court.
BigWaaagh wrote: If you think Clinton is the driver for WW3, you're out of touch. Clinton would be a globally known quantity and she has a statesmanship resume that few can match. Trump, on the other hand, is a wild card and makes "enemies", as well as allies, nervous due to his repeated display of immature, mercurial outbursts over absolutely trivial matters. That is the kind of stuff that leads to nervousness and facilitates hostilities breaking out.
Aye... I'd like to see what happens if Trump makes President and the Philippine President Duterte calls him a "son of a bitch" in Tagalog like he's done before.
The realist leaders of great powers don't go off the handle for something "small", for example an aircraft like that Russian Sukhoi alledgedly violating Turkish airspace getting shot down. If Putin was Trump-levels of crazy he'd have nuked Turkey for such an insult, but he's not so he just put in effect some trade sanctions and warmed up again when there was a conveniently failed military coup attempt in Turkey. There's several Cold War era examples of that - American or Soviet planes getting shot down by the other side without it leading to war.
Clinton might not be perfect but she does have some idea about what could be lost if she starts a war. Trump? He'd consider nukes just another tool in his negotiation arsenal and not be shy about threatening opponents with such. There's always the unspoken threat of nukes when nuclear-armed countries face off, but Trump would speak of it, dangle the launch codes in the face of the enemy ambassador and tell them to comply or else.
I am genuinely curious as to what actions in Trump's past lead you to believe he is so prone to violence and craziness. He has decades in the public eye, surely you'll be able to come up with some example where he has beaten or killed someone over an insult, or a similar series of actions to earn your opinion.
I think the comment goes more towards his well displayed mercurial and petty disposition than any specific instance of violence and what that infers with regards to his possible response to real threats that are of a significance level above that of a Venezuelan beauty pageant contestant. As far as having examples of that, well, I don't think there needs to be a half page of his recent history, does there? This lack of personal composure enhances belief that he would be more inclined to get us into a military altercation unnecessarily due exactly to his displayed lack of emotional maturity and obvious thin-skinnedness. I might also cite his slightly disturbing public comments about why we don't use nuclear weapons, that he would definitely use nukes against ISIS and how other countries should be given nukes, i.e. Saudi Arabia, Japan, South Korea.
This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2016/10/28 00:39:34
Toledo, Ohio (CNN)Donald Trump, trailing his opponent in key battleground states polls less than two weeks from Election Day, said Thursday he'd like to "cancel the election" and be declared the winner.
"Just thinking to myself right now, we should just cancel the election and just give it to Trump," the Republican presidential nominee said during a rally here on Thursday.
"Her policies are so bad. Boy, do we have a big difference," he added of his Democratic rival Hillary Clinton.
The apparently lighthearted comment falls against the backdrop of Trump's repeated and serious questioning of the legitimacy of the presidential election in recent weeks as he has tumbled in the polls.
Trump has called the election "rigged," argued that the media and establishment politicians are conspiring to sink his campaign and warned supporters that the presidency could be stolen from them due to voter fraud -- instances of which are extremely rare.
Trump is trailing Clinton in national tracking polls and in key battleground states, and its unclear how Trump can amass the Electoral College votes needed to win the presidency if polls hold where they are through Election Day.
Trump's comments about the election also came as he mocked Clinton as "low energy" for the second time in as many days, even polling the crowd to ask them if they think Clinton or his GOP primary foil Jeb Bush is more "low energy."
"Who is more low energy, Jeb Bush or Hillary Clinton?" Trump asked the crowd, re-upping a question he said Fox News host Bill O'Reilly asked him earlier in an interview airing Thursday evening.
"Hillary!" replied most of the crowd.
Trump had repeatedly mocked Bush, the very early favorite to win the GOP presidential nomination, as "low energy" during the primary contest and has repeatedly argued that Clinton does not have the "strength or stamina" to serve as president. On Thursday, he referred to her as "very low energy."
Well, my mail-in ballot arrived today. I was going to post a pic showing my handiwork but Snopes didn't give a definitive "it's okay" for Washington State. State law doesn't prohibit typing the ballot choices into a Quick Reply field, though. You guys already know who I'm voting for so I'm just posting this to show you the other acts in this three-ring circus of an election.
[ ] Hillary Clinton / Tim Kaine - Democratic Party
[ ] Donald J. Trump / Michael R. Pence - Republican Party
[ ] Alyson Kennedy / Osborne Hart - Socialist Workers Party
[ ] Gloria Estela La Riva / Eugene Puryear - Socialism & Libertarian Party
[ ] Jill Stein / Ajamu Baraka - Green Party
[ ] Darrel L. Castle / Scott N. Bradley - Constitution Party
[ ] Gary Johnson / Bill Weld - Libertarian Party
Socialist and Libertarian? How does that work? o.O
There was an article that talked about how Trump marketing himself went from being about the ultra rich and indulgence (gold on everything!) to mainly appealing to poor and middle class whites.
Amidst the mists and coldest frosts he thrusts his fists against the posts and still insists he sees the ghosts.
Breotan wrote: Well, my mail-in ballot arrived today. I was going to post a pic showing my handiwork but Snopes didn't give a definitive "it's okay" for Washington State. State law doesn't prohibit typing the ballot choices into a Quick Reply field, though. You guys already know who I'm voting for so I'm just posting this to show you the other acts in this three-ring circus of an election.
[ ] Hillary Clinton / Tim Kaine - Democratic Party
[ ] Donald J. Trump / Michael R. Pence - Republican Party
[ ] Alyson Kennedy / Osborne Hart - Socialist Workers Party
[ ] Gloria Estela La Riva / Eugene Puryear - Socialism & Libertarian Party
[ ] Jill Stein / Ajamu Baraka - Green Party
[ ] Darrel L. Castle / Scott N. Bradley - Constitution Party
[ ] Gary Johnson / Bill Weld - Libertarian Party
Socialist and Libertarian? How does that work? o.O
On Pierce county ballots (such as mine) it reads Socialism and Liberty Party, the only Libertarian is Johnson/Weld.... Either one could be a misprint because, honestly, at some point I just don't know any more
gorgon wrote: Then I guess you should grab your shovel and start digging a bunker.
I mean, I guess there's no alternative considering that any trivial thing could cause a thermonuclear holocaust. My god, trivial things happen every day! Lots of them!
No need to exagerate. But does mean one should be wary of voting megalomaniac unpredictable nuts with anger control issues into position where he can order nukes to be launched. Especially when said person has already asked why hasn't US used nukes already.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
feeder wrote: [We may be straying of course here, but that war escalated to such a huge scale because of outdated notions of "honour" and "duty". We have no such foolishness today. The US and Russia (or China) will no get into a real, face to face shooting match because the stakes (all life on earth) are so very high. Even during the Cold War, when mainstream rhetoric on both sides was "they want to kill us and our way of life", and there was many opportunities to "do it", the big red button was not pressed.
Yea right. Like humanity has really evolved in century. Sorry but evolution doesn't work that fast. Trump is good proof of that one.
Rosebuddy wrote: Because I'd rather not have WW3 leading into global nuclear devastation. If humanity has to end in fire I'd prefer a comet or a gamma wave or something rather than the dumbest people on the planet murdering everyone else.
If it's both inevitable and outside your sphere of influence, what can you do?
Who says he can't do anything? If voting was useless nobody would vote.
If every Clinton fan in Ohio, New York, Florida etc would decide "voting is useless, let's not do it" you think that wouldn't change things?
If one vote is meaningless then all votes are meaningless and therefore all Clinton fans don't need to bother to go to vote anywhere because voting is useless and Clinton is going to be president despite nobody voting her because voting is useless.
Somehow I doubt Clinton will get to be president with 0 votes. Ergo voting matters. Ergo there's something everybody who can vote can do. And it isn't even limited to just voting.
This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2016/10/28 06:29:54
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 wrote: I thought the current statute required 5 for a quorum... but, my google-fu is failing me, so you may be right.
The Judiciary Act of 1869 stipulates that there is to be the Chief Justice and eight associate justices, any six of whom would constitute a quorum.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2016/10/28 10:02:27
d-usa wrote: "When the Internet sends its people, they're not sending their best. They're not sending you. They're not sending you. They're sending posters that have lots of problems, and they're bringing those problems with us. They're bringing strawmen. They're bringing spam. They're trolls. And some, I assume, are good people."
As much as I like stories showing what an idiot Trump is, the article made it pretty clear that the conditions weren't all that good.
I'm also impressed by Clinton's civility. If the situation was reversed, I find it hard to imagine Trump reacting the same way. Instead we would likely hear gloating.
The TL/DR is that Hillary is flawed, but not so seriously as to have invited the level of distrust and revilement she does. The explanations include sexism and a long-term media bias against her in terms of reporting disproportionately critically on her career.
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,
skyth wrote: As much as I like stories showing what an idiot Trump is, the article made it pretty clear that the conditions weren't all that good.
Going by discussion elsewhere conditions were just fine. Not ideal, but well within what pilots in that job are expected to be able to handle. Unless some new information appears this was pilot error, and on the "you're never going to get a flying job again" level of seriousness.
“I was like we’re like halfway over the runway and we haven’t landed,” one passenger said.
Too high and/or fast, in wet conditions where they needed the full length of the runway to slow down. They should have aborted the landing as soon as they realized they were high and/or fast, which should have happened at least 500-1000' up. And at absolute minimum they should have done it the moment they floated past the intended touchdown point. Continuing on and attempting to salvage the landing under those conditions is a disaster waiting to happen, they're very lucky nobody was hurt.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2016/10/28 10:58:01
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.
