US Politics

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.

**Do_I_Not_Like_That**

In news that will surprise absolutely nobody, I've been reading that in the last 7 years, the Pentagon has wasted $56 billion on cancelled military projects!

We all know about the F-35, but a new Aircraft Carrier, USS Gerald Ford, is also 3 years behind schedule...

You guys named a fighting ship after Gerald Ford!

What's the plan there, bore the enemy to death with Ford speeches through the PA system?

I admire the patience of the American people to tolerate this waste on a grand scale. To think you went to war with Britain over a few pence of tax!

If you took that $56 billion and divided it among every American citizen and told them to spend it on anything: drugs, forge world, college, donuts, whatever,

It probably would have done more for the US economy...

Hell, burning that money probably would have done more as at least it would have heated a few homes...

**CptJake**

BigWaaagh wrote:
CptJake wrote:
Spetulhu wrote:
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.

And yet, we know Clinton has physically lashed out at her husband, yelled at and cussed at secret service folks and other staff and so on. Actual actions showing her inability to keep calm and being prone to violence at times.

Yet no one calls her out for it, but will call out Trump for a 'petty disposition'.

Okay.

**BigWaaagh**

Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:
In news that will surprise absolutely nobody, I've been reading that in the last 7 years, the Pentagon has wasted $56 billion on cancelled military projects!

We all know about the F-35, but a new Aircraft Carrier, USS Gerald Ford, is also 3 years behind schedule...

You guys named a fighting ship after Gerald Ford! What's the plan there, bore the enemy to death with Ford speeches through the PA system?

I admire the patience of the American people to tolerate this waste on a grand scale. To think you went to war with Britain over a few pence of tax!

If you took that $56 billion and divided it among every American citizen and told them to spend it on anything: drugs, forge world, college, donuts, whatever,

It probably would have done more for the US economy...

Hell, burning that money probably would have done more as at least it would have heated a few homes...

The black hole that is the military budget makes me just ill. We outspend the next, what, 8 countries COMBINED and yet politicians, to score points, prattle on about how we need to "shore up" our crumbling fighting forces. No disrespect to those who've served, thank you, but we've deified the armed forces to the point that even suggesting pulling in that gluttonous budget hog immediately draws scorn and cries of "Traitor" from almost every corner of society. So messed up.

Automatically Appended Next Post:

CptJake wrote:
BigWaaagh wrote:
CptJake wrote:
Spetulhu wrote:
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.

And yet, we know Clinton has physically lashed out at her husband, yelled at and cussed at secret service folks and other staff and so on. Actual actions showing her inability to keep calm and being prone to violence at times.

Yet no one calls her out for it, but will call out Trump for a 'petty disposition'.

Okay.

Not even a close facsimile of a comparison. Losing your temper, as every human does, is slightly different from being a petty, whiny, vindictive, thin-skinned b*tch. You're trying to connect and compare simple human behavior to a well displayed pattern of essentially child-like emotional immaturity. No, your dog don't hunt.

**Do_I_Not_Like_That**

The black hole that is the military budget makes me want to throw up. We outspend the next, what, 8 countries COMBINED and yet politicians, to score points, prattle on about how we need to "shore up" our crumbling fighting forces. No disrespect to those who've served, thank you, but we've deified the armed forces to the point that even suggesting pulling in that gluttonous budget hog immediately draws scorn and cries of "Traitor" from almost every corner of society. So messed up.

Too many lobbyists, too many vested interests, too many hands in the government pockets for there to be any meaningful change.

One of my favourite anecdotes from American history (which I've mentioned before) was a military comittee before Congress in 1912 or something.

The army wanted money for a 25,000 man army, but Congress refused to budge and said 20,000 men was enough!

In this day and age, I could not imagine a 20,000 man US army...

**whembly**

ScootyPuffJunior wrote:
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.

w00t! Thanks!

Keep the quorum, but pack that fether. Get some variety.

**sirlynchmob**

Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:
In news that will surprise absolutely nobody, I've been reading that in the last 7 years, the Pentagon has wasted $56 billion on cancelled military projects!

We all know about the F-35, but a new Aircraft Carrier, USS Gerald Ford, is also 3 years behind schedule...

You guys named a fighting ship after Gerald Ford! What's the plan there, bore the enemy to death with Ford speeches through the PA system?

I admire the patience of the American people to tolerate this waste on a grand scale. To think you went to war with Britain over a few pence of tax!

If you took that $56 billion and divided it among every American citizen and told them to spend it on anything: drugs, forge world, college, donuts, whatever,

It probably would have done more for the US economy...

Hell, burning that money probably would have done more as at least it would have heated a few homes...

it's worse than that, congress will order tanks that the army doesn't want nor need just to park them in nevada.

But if anyone dares suggest cutting the fat out of the industrial military complex it gets slammed in the news as "he wants to remove bullets from the soldiers guns" and "hes gutting our fighting forces"

Plus it's how they fund area 51

**WrentheFaceless**

CptJake wrote:

And yet, we know Clinton has physically lashed out at her husband, yelled at and cussed at secret service folks and other staff and so on. Actual actions showing her inability to keep calm and being prone to violence at times.

Yet no one calls her out for it, but will call out Trump for a 'petty disposition'.

Okay.

You got a citation for that claim?

This is the first i'm hearing about that

**CptJake**

WrentheFaceless wrote:
CptJake wrote:

And yet, we know Clinton has physically lashed out at her husband, yelled at and cussed at secret service folks and other staff and so on. Actual actions showing her inability to keep calm and being prone to violence at times.

Yet no one calls her out for it, but will call out Trump for a 'petty disposition'.

Okay.

You got a citation for that claim?

This is the first i'm hearing about that

Been reported several times, for example:
http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2015/apr/6/hillary-bill-clinton-fights-white-house-detailed-n/?page%3Dall

http://nypost.com/2015/10/04/hillary-has-long-history-of-beating-up-bill-behind-closed-doors-book/

**Do_I_Not_Like_That**

sirlynchmob wrote:
Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:
In news that will surprise absolutely nobody, I've been reading that in the last 7 years, the Pentagon has wasted $56 billion on cancelled military projects!

We all know about the F-35, but a new Aircraft Carrier, USS Gerald Ford, is also 3 years behind schedule...

You guys named a fighting ship after Gerald Ford! What's the plan there, bore the enemy to death with Ford speeches through the PA system?

I admire the patience of the American people to tolerate this waste on a grand scale. To think you went to war with Britain over a few pence of tax!

If you took that $56 billion and divided it among every American citizen and told them to spend it on anything: drugs, forge world, college, donuts, whatever,

It probably would have done more for the US economy...

Hell, burning that money probably would have done more as at least it would have heated a few homes...

it's worse than that, congress will order tanks that the army doesn't want nor need just to park them in nevada.

But if anyone dares suggest cutting the fat out of the industrial military complex it gets slammed in the news as "he wants to remove bullets from the soldiers guns" and "hes gutting our fighting forces"

Plus it's how they fund area 51

I thought the US military was researching laser guns? You don't need no bullets!

I take your point - there are too many people on the gravy train, but it can't last forever.

**ScootyPuffJunior**

Yeah, when I need reliable information about someone, Roger Stone is the first person I turn to.

**gorgon**

CptJake wrote:
WrentheFaceless wrote:
CptJake wrote:

And yet, we know Clinton has physically lashed out at her husband, yelled at and cussed at secret service folks and other staff and so on. Actual actions showing her inability to keep calm and being prone to violence at times.

Yet no one calls her out for it, but will call out Trump for a 'petty disposition'.

Okay.

You got a citation for that claim?

This is the first i'm hearing about that

Been reported several times, for example:
http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2015/apr/6/hillary-bill-clinton-fights-white-house-detailed-n/?page%3Dall

http://nypost.com/2015/10/04/hillary-has-long-history-of-beating-up-bill-behind-closed-doors-book/

Look man, I'm not even a Democrat, but do those honestly seem like confirmed incidents to you? It reads like National Inquirer material. Think maybe your political biases are coming into play here? We're talking about the NY Post and Washington Times.

**BobtheInquisitor**

It's kind of ridiculous to look at one on one personal dynamics to determine who is more hawkish. A gun is said to be easier to use because it gives the killer more distance from the act of killing than a knife would. Drones are even farther removed, and we see profligate usage of them even when restraint or other tools would be superior. Nuclear missiles are so abstract, so far removed from the act of bloodletting, that only a fully intellectual realization of what is at stake counters the temptation to flip the proverbial chess board. Trump has neither the patience, nor the capacity, to consider his actions before lashing out.

Besides, if we are really going tit for tat with the domestic abuse, Trump allegedly raped Ivanna as punishment for recommending a hair transplant surgeon.

**Maddermax**

CptJake wrote:
WrentheFaceless wrote:
CptJake wrote:

And yet, we know Clinton has physically lashed out at her husband, yelled at and cussed at secret service folks and other staff and so on. Actual actions showing her inability to keep calm and being prone to violence at times.

Yet no one calls her out for it, but will call out Trump for a 'petty disposition'.

Okay.

You got a citation for that claim?

This is the first i'm hearing about that

Been reported several times, for example:
http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2015/apr/6/hillary-bill-clinton-fights-white-house-detailed-n/?page%3Dall

http://nypost.com/2015/10/04/hillary-has-long-history-of-beating-up-bill-behind-closed-doors-book/

Urgh, the Moonie times and the NY post...

Let's see here.... Unverified rumour from a person spruking a book who supposedly heard it from a staffer who heard it from a maid. Christ, you can't get more honest than *that* now can you. What's interesting is how the story has changed over the years from breaking a lamp to throwing a lamp to braining bill with a lamp, and changed from 1993 to 1996, but I'm sure it's the last incarnation of the story that's most accurate, sure. http://www.snopes.com/politics/clintons/lamp.asp

And the other story is from known ratf**ker for Nixon, Roger Stone, who admits to lying and political trickery since the start of his career in CREEP. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roger_Stone - He was the 70s version of OKeef, with just as little credibility.

The right wing media machine is not a reliable source of information, remember to look beyond it to verify stories, or you risk losing all perspective of what's rumour and conspiracy theory, and what is verified and actually known.

**jasper76**

I voted early today. Glad to get it behind me, like a nice healthy vomit after too much to drink.

Anyway, I was in and out in 15 minutes. Last time around I voted on election day at my designated polling station, and iirc waited about 2 hours.

**WrentheFaceless**

jasper76 wrote:
I voted early today. Glad to get it behind me, like a nice healthy vomit after too much to drink.

Anyway, I was in and out in 15 minutes. Last time around I voted on election day at my designated polling station, and iirc waited about 2 hours.

No voting machines changing your votes? No hanging chads? No Trump supporters "watching' you vote?

**Tannhauser42**

Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:

In this day and age, I could not imagine a 20,000 man US army...

It takes less than 1000 space marines to conquer an entire planet, so we just really need to kick our super soldier program into high gear and we'll be fine.

Anyway, currently standing in line to vote. Curious to see the machines that all the hoopla is about here in Texas. Interesting that the only people out here campaigning are Dems. By the way, my voting place is one that made the news a while back: White Settlement Public Library that had the cat that was fired and then rehired.

**Do_I_Not_Like_That**

Tannhauser42 wrote:
Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:

In this day and age, I could not imagine a 20,000 man US army...

It takes less than 1000 space marines to conquer an entire planet, so we just really need to kick our super soldier program into high gear and we'll be fine.

Anyway, currently standing in line to vote. Curious to see the machines that all the hoopla is about here in Texas. Interesting that the only people out here campaigning are Dems. By the way, my voting place is one that made the news a while back: White Settlement Public Library that had the cat that was fired and then rehired.

How's the voting going?

Did you manage to fight off North Korean Agents, UN Agents, and anybody else that is brain washing you into voting for Clinton?

What about the pen or pencil to write in the X?

Is there a hidden, subliminal pro-Clinton message there?

If you answer NO to all these questions, you've been brainwashed and don't know it!

Automatically Appended Next Post:

WrentheFaceless wrote:
jasper76 wrote:
I voted early today. Glad to get it behind me, like a nice healthy vomit after too much to drink.

Anyway, I was in and out in 15 minutes. Last time around I voted on election day at my designated polling station, and iirc waited about 2 hours.

No voting machines changing your votes? No hanging chads? No Trump supporters "watching' you vote?

It's obvious that he's been brainwashed and is waiting for the signal from the Clinton radio transmitter to give the code word to return him to normal.

**Lord of Deeds**

I know this may not change many on this forum's opinion about Hillary vs. Trump, but curious to see if anyone thinks this has legs to influence the vote?

http://www.cnbc.com/2016/10/28/fbi-probing-new-clinton-emails.html

**infinite_array**

Tannhauser42 wrote:
Interesting that the only people out here campaigning are Dems.

Probably because the RNC/Trump campaign is broke, after Trump gave a formidable $33,000 in October (out of a promised $100,000,000).

Lord of Deeds wrote:
I know this may not change many on this forum's opinion about Hillary vs. Trump, but curious to see if anyone thinks this has legs to influence the vote?

http://www.cnbc.com/2016/10/28/fbi-probing-new-clinton-emails.html

Spoiler:

Maybe a chance to save face? And then say, "Yeah, we looked into this too and couldn't find anything worth really investigating/prosecuting over."

**jasper76**

WrentheFaceless wrote:
jasper76 wrote:
I voted early today. Glad to get it behind me, like a nice healthy vomit after too much to drink.

Anyway, I was in and out in 15 minutes. Last time around I voted on election day at my designated polling station, and iirc waited about 2 hours.

No voting machines changing your votes? No hanging chads? No Trump supporters "watching' you vote?

Hope not. Our ballots are sorta like scantrons (fill in bubbles). No errors were produced when they fed it into the machine.

Only things out of the ordinary was on my way out, where a man was handing out end times pamphlets, and a young man tried to sell me homemade cologne.

**whembly**

Lord of Deeds wrote:
I know this may not change many on this forum's opinion about Hillary vs. Trump, but curious to see if anyone thinks this has legs to influence the vote?

http://www.cnbc.com/2016/10/28/fbi-probing-new-clinton-emails.html

Just saw across twittah:

FBI Dir just informed me, "The FBI has learned of the existence of emails that appear to be pertinent to the investigation." Case reopened

— Jason Chaffetz (@jasoninthehouse) October 28, 2016

A little late fethers.... early voting has begin.

**Spinner**

How are things going on investigating Trump University/the quarter of a million dollars that went from his charity to paying off his failed lawsuits?

**Do_I_Not_Like_That**

Although the FBI cannot yet assess whether or not this material may be significant and I cannot predict how long it will take to complete this additional work,

Translation: it'll take weeks to sort, and by then Clinton will be President elect, nobody has the appetite for this, nobody will launch impeachment proceedings, everybody is seeing which way the wind blows, and the conclusion will be the same as last time, with a slap off the wrist for HRC and a promise of "lessons learned" and "I'll never do it again."

And we'll all live happily ever after. Meanwhile, life in the USA will continue as it normally does, with a slight increase in tinfoil hat sales and Trump ranting about it on his new TV show, and HRC will be sitting in the Oval Office signing off on more drone strikes...

**Lord of Deeds**

It seems Wall Street does not like the news about a re-opened FBI investigation with the implication that the news portends increased uncertainty about the election's outcome. Mind you this on a day where the 3rd qtr GDP growth was reported to be better than expected.

http://blogs.wsj.com/moneybeat/2016/10/28/markets-rattled-by-fresh-fbi-review-of-clinton-email/

**Sasori**

Lord of Deeds wrote:
I know this may not change many on this forum's opinion about Hillary vs. Trump, but curious to see if anyone thinks this has legs to influence the vote?

http://www.cnbc.com/2016/10/28/fbi-probing-new-clinton-emails.html

This is pretty serious, the FBI would not reopen this case at this point unless there is enough possible evidence to see indictment.

I think this may actually tilt the election to Trump.

**Breotan**

Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:
...nobody will launch impeachment proceedings...

She can't be impeached for this because she no longer holds office and any "crimes" discovered would have been committed prior to being elected President.

**Peregrine**

Sasori wrote:
This is pretty serious, the FBI would not reopen this case at this point unless there is enough possible evidence to see indictment.

I think this may actually tilt the election to Trump.

I seriously doubt it. The only people who care about the "scandal" are already voting for Trump (or throwing away their vote on third-party candidates), and there's been plenty of news about the new emails. And nothing is going to happen with this before election day, at which point it will be too late to matter.

**Riquende**

Truthiness in live, real time action. The case hasn't been reopened, but if enough GOP tweets/Trump statements say it has, well then I guess that's the narrative.

**WrentheFaceless**

Does seem like pretty odd timing

**LordofHats**

It sounds like the FBI found more emails without looking, and Comey is doing what he's done every step of the way; making sure no one can say the FBI didn't do its due diligence (not that his rather vigorous attempts to be rational about his job and this whole scenario has prevented people from making that exact claim).