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.
Frazzled wrote: . I consider wanting a sane/non-felon President first.
That's Clinton.
In technical terms you're...incorrect...but hey its your opinion so good for you. Dog save me from true believers of any party. Their corruption was known in the first administration in Arkansas, and it only got worse. Now there are emails from a Clinton handler about Bill getting millions from the foundation, because he arranged it. if she is elected this will be a wounded President from the start, to a level of the Teapot Dome Scandal.
Maybe I should agree, because now she's crippled and will pass nothing meaningful But this motivates her to try to be even more of a hawk internationally, and thats bad given her instincts (Lbya, Syria, forced no fly zone WHICH STARTS A WAR with Russia) have been so horribly bad.
I used to vote republican because they hadn't started a war since WWI. Now I'm stuck between a warmonger and a fool.
Time to back out of the politics thread again. Allright keep your hands up and no one make any sudden moves...
So you're going with the "declared" wars then? Shrub illegally invading Iraq and Afganistan wasn't warmongering or starting a war?
. Afghanistan-you seem to have forgotten the worst surprise attack in US history.
I'll repaste: "I used to vote republican because they hadn't started a war since WWI. Now I'm stuck between a warmonger and a fool. "
for clarity: that statement about republicans not starting wars hasn't applied since the Cold War ended. While Trump seems to state Iraq was a bad idea he seems to vacillate (I know shocker) and occasionally sounds like Dr. Strange.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Ouze wrote: Well, he said "used to". He might mean the period between WW1 and the first Gulf War.
Yes exactly. This does not include the banana wars and other Latin American shenanigans.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2016/10/31 14:20:50
-"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!
Breotan wrote: The question is, will any of this have an impact on the vote?
Probably not, because there's nothing new. The only people who would vote for Trump over this already decided to do it a long time ago, and the strongest reaction you'll get out of anyone else is "yep, she's definitely corrupt, but she's still better than Trump".
I'm afraid that I think it will have an impact on the vote. Contrary to what common sense would dictate at this point in the election, there's still enough undecided middle ground "I hate Trump/Never Hilary" voters are still the potential for swing. The election is thisclose in too many key states. Now, a lot of those voters will vote 3rd party out of principle, but the ones who see that action accurately as a wasted vote will make a choice settling on the "lesser of two evils". This announcement brings one of HRC's negatives back into front-and-center view when all we've seen the last couple weeks has been Trump sinking slowly under the weight of his own gak.
IMHO, the best thing HRC and her camp can do is get this addressed immediately, let it be shown for the non-event that it is, put it in the rear view mirror and put the pedal to the metal getting back to focusing on what a historical disaster Trump would be as POTUS. Leave Comey alone, for now. Going after him makes this look like an attempt at a cover-up and only gets the very vocal "government bad, errr" morons chirping non-stop.
I've been very vocal about my belief Trump still very much alive in this race contrary to the polls and otherwise pundit predictions. Crap like this happens in October and in this election, there's a lot of crap. I hate to say this again, but I think he's our next POTUS.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2016/10/31 14:26:17
No matter who's the POTUS, that person will be some compromised and damaged, that nothing "big" will ever get done. The scrutiny and hearings would be like nothing we've ever seen before.
So you're going with the "declared" wars then? Shrub illegally invading Iraq and Afganistan wasn't warmongering or starting a war?
. Afghanistan-you seem to have forgotten the worst surprise attack in US history.
Invading Iraq had nothing to do with 9/11. That was 100% Republicans starting a war.
Afghanistan did not attack us on 9/11. They just didn't give us Osama's head on a pike. We were within our rights to go in there when they wouldn't give him up for what he did, but we did start the invasion.
No, it isn't. It's gibberish that's produced by people not understanding what words mean.
Why isn't the President elected by popular vote rather than the college system?
Because the US has a federal system, where power is not granted to the electorate as a whole, but instead to individual states.
Why did the founders want to preserve the Senate from the "fury of democracy", thus resulting in no direct elections for the Senate until 1915 or something?
Again, because of the federal system.
No country on Earth is a 'pure' democracy, and the USA is no different from that, but I think it's a valid argument to say that the USA is a Republic with checks and balances on democracy.
Yes, it is fair to say that the US is republic with checks and balances on democracy. The point, though, is that sentence doesn't mean what you or many other people think it means. What you actually said was "the US is a nation without a king or any other hereditary head of state which has a democracy checked by a series of processes pretty much the same as every other functioning democracy".
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote: I know what you're saying, but even here, Britain is still technically a monarchy, despite the civil war and the glorious revolution settling the issue in favour of parliament, and our Queen's representative in Australia, the governor general, once gave the Australian government the boot, as he exercised the Queen's powers as head of state of Australia. This was back in the 1970s or something.
Our head of state is unelected. Our version of the senate is unelected. Our Prime Minster is unelected! We have a major constitutional crisis on our hands with BREXIT and with Scotland. Basically, states rights Vs. Federal Rights
But somehow we're still a democracy.
You've got all the pieces, but you're not quite putting them together. Britain (and also Australia) are democracies because we elect the parliament that runs the country, but we are not republics because the (nominal) head of state is a hereditary position. The US is also a democracy as it elects congress, and it also a republic because there's no hereditary head of state.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote: That being said, as an outsider, and neutral observer, I do think that money has corrupted US politics to an unhealthy degree.
There's a lot of corruption in US politics, that's true. There is also a very unhealthy politicization of government institutions compared to other developed countries. The fascinating thing, though, is that there's been corruption in US politics since say 1, and despite it all the US has been one of the strongest, most stable democracies in the world, and shown an incredible rate of economic growth over the long term.
Standard political theory will tell you that when big money gets that tied up in government, and when the line between political and institutional government gets muddied then democracy and the economy should suffer badly. The US hasn't just bucked that trend, it's created an alternate reality where that pattern no longer exists.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote: 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!
Houston was indeed a Democrat, at least for some if his life, he also belonged to a bunch of parties, but was never a Republican. But more than that, Texas was a Democratic state from the time it came in to US politics, for around a 100 years, up until the 1960s. If you raised zombie Houston tomorrow he'd probably be most surprised that the state had gone so strongly red for the last 50 odd years.
And on top of that... the talk about flipping Texas blue is just talk. Texas is still being held by Trump by about 7 points - that's more than Clinton is winning the election by. The idea that Clinton could gain another 7 odd points to claim Texas is real pie in the sky stuff, in this election. The real reason that lots of work has been done in Texas, in this campaign and for a long time now, is that Democrats are working on a long term plan to energise and engage the growing Latino population in the state, because if they can get enough of a result in that population to flip Texas, then the Republican path through the electoral college will start to look close to impossible.
Yeah, see, after being asked for evidence, what you offered up is the New York Post and the Washington Times. These are what are generally known as shithole rags. The NY Post is owned by Rupert Murdoch, and is known as a testing ground for the more ridiculous conservative stuff Murdoch wants to try and sell - put it in the NY Post and if it gets through we'll put it on FOX, if it gets blowback just let it go quiet because it's only the Post is the basic logic.
The Washington Times... is owned by the fething Moonies. Yes, those Moonies, the crazy ass cult from the 70s that is somehow still going. The paper they publish is famous for being deeply fething crazy.
So yeah, what you've posted are wild rumours from shithole newspapers. Probably want to walk back your claims, then.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Maddermax wrote: 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.
Stone has also been Trump's mentor since the 1980s.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
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.
We have no information of any kind, but that shouldn't stop anyone from speculating wildly.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
LordofHats wrote: 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).
The story here is that Comey fethed up a long time back and it's snowballed ever since. The actual screw up came when he originally decided to go public on the email thing way back in the early days. That wasn't a political choice, both sides of politics wanted more information out in the open - Republicans wanted it out there because they were sure Clinton was totally guilty, and Democrats wanted it out there because they were sure she wasn't. This ended up with Comey testifying before Congress about the decision to not prosecute and giving details of investigative material.
Once he'd been that public, then he'd already muddied the waters on what an attorney general should release to the public. Having been so public on the original investigation, Comey would have felt obligated to continue being so open with this re-opening. However, there is a decades long policy in the FBI that you shouldn't put anything in the public 60 days before an election, it produces a risk that accusations not yet established in a court of law, or even a full investigation, might switch an election before the accused has time to respond. Comey himself sent a memo out to the FBI reinforcing that 60 day limit earlier this year. But now he puts up a bit of speculation less than two weeks before a presidential election.
It turns out the processes in place, such as keeping such investigations private until concluded, they existed for good reason. Comey didn't understand those reasons, and oh man has he fethed up now.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
tneva82 wrote: Finnish news sitates ABC and Washington posts polls that have Clinton lead by mere 2% ATM. Before polls by same sites had 12% lead. Hopefully those 2 polls aren't that reliable.
No single poll is particularly reliable. The best polls have margins of error of several %.
What actually does work is polling aggregation, combining hundreds (or even thousands) of polls and averaging them out.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Ouze wrote: I don't know for sure I agree with the idea "the DOJ doesn't announce investigations into a presidential candidate within 60 days of an election" as a blanket rule. If a candidate is being investigated as an axe murderer, I'm not sure that's something they should sit on for 2 months or so.
Obviously it isn't great if an axe murderer is known to the FBI, but elected because they don't tell the public they're pretty sure there is an axe murderer running for office. But afterwards there's still plenty of ways to get the axe murderer out of office, impeachment etc... if the evidence stacks up.
The point is that it is very hard to assess what is and isn't something the public needs to know, and even harder to put the information out in the public with full context, with scope for the accused to give a decent response. That becomes almost impossible the closer you get to election day.
This feth up has shown why that 60 day window is so important.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
whembly wrote: It never was "closed officially"... only that Comey's July speech effectively made it politically closed.
Don't get me wrong, I'm tickled pink about this... but even I gotta admit... this is strange.
There's gotta be something really incriminating (that they read, but needed a warrant to be kosher post facto) and/or Comey was REALLY feeling the heat within the FBI.
If there was something incriminating we would have heard it. This is a result of Comey taking a string of baby steps towards totally fething up the FBI's expectations for impartiality.
"Having taken the extraordinary steps of briefing the public, testifying before Congress about a decision not to prosecute and sharing investigative material, Comey now finds himself wanting to update the public and Congress on each new development in the investigation, even before he and others have had a chance to assess its significance."
We're getting OT, here, Sebster, but this needs to be said: you can dress up the 1970s constitutional crisis all you want, but the bottom line is that Australian democracy was meddled with by an outside third party, in this case, the Governor General.
If it happened once, it could happen again. Unlikely, but never say never.
As for my other comments, it wouldn't even call the USA a republic these days. It's more like a plutocracy.
On November 8th, the American people will have to choose between corrupt establishment candidate X or corrupt establishment candidate Y.
Hopefully, the third party candidates will get a boost, or if we're really lucky people will see sense and not vote at all...
"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
So you're going with the "declared" wars then? Shrub illegally invading Iraq and Afganistan wasn't warmongering or starting a war?
. Afghanistan-you seem to have forgotten the worst surprise attack in US history.
Invading Iraq had nothing to do with 9/11. That was 100% Republicans starting a war.
Its like people stop reading as soon as they can find something to complain about. You didn't read past the first sentence.
Afghanistan did not attack us on 9/11.
They refused to stop Laden or let us get him. Turns out to have been a bad move on their part.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2016/10/31 15:46:10
-"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!
Is the idea that we started a war in Afghanistan really a controversial one? How odd. The Taliban didn't attack the US on 9/11, Al Qaeda did. I'm not saying it wasn't justified by their harboring the culprits, but it's a crazy fething stretch to claim that the US didn't start the war in Afghanistan.
But this is irrelevant, anyway. Frazzled already stated he meant "up until the Cold War" so this is a needless digression.
This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2016/10/31 16:21:59
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
Ouze wrote: Is the idea that we started a war in Afghanistan really a controversial one? How odd. The Taliban didn't attack the US on 9/11, Al Qaeda did. I'm not saying it wasn't justified by their harboring the culprits, but it's a crazy fething stretch to claim that the US didn't start the war in Afghanistan.
S'not controversial.
The question we should be asking, I think... is whether we were justified.
I think it's safe to say that we were...
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2016/10/31 16:22:12
They refused to stop Laden or let us get him. Turns out to have been a bad move on their part.
Didnt turn out to be all that great for us either. We've dumped the equivalent of nearly two years worth of Russias entire GDP (and a couple thousand US lives) into the Afghanistan conflict after adding it all up, the Taliban and Al Qaeda still exist and threaten the government we put in place, a government that cant find its ass with both hands and is massively corrupt, and fed right into Bin Laden's goals of sucking the US into endless middle east muck to drain wealth and energy.
IRON WITHIN, IRON WITHOUT.
New Heavy Gear Log! Also...Grey Knights! The correct pronunciation is Imperial Guard and Stormtroopers, "Astra Militarum" and "Tempestus Scions" are something you'll find at Hogwarts.
So you're going with the "declared" wars then? Shrub illegally invading Iraq and Afganistan wasn't warmongering or starting a war?
. Afghanistan-you seem to have forgotten the worst surprise attack in US history.
Invading Iraq had nothing to do with 9/11. That was 100% Republicans starting a war.
Its like people stop reading as soon as they can find something to complain about. You didn't read past the first sentence.
Afghanistan did not attack us on 9/11.
They refused to stop Laden or let us get him. Turns out to have been a bad move on their part.
the worst surprise attack in US history was pearl harbor, 9/11 is second, maybe even 3rd after little bighorn.
The US declared war against a country over one individual, when a simple extradition would have sufficed.
Who the feth is Joe Exotic?
"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
As for my other comments, it wouldn't even call the USA a republic these days. It's more like a plutocracy.
On November 8th, the American people will have to choose between corrupt establishment candidate X or corrupt establishment candidate Y.
Agree the USA is more like a plutocracy, but when has it not been? Or any other Western democracy? Where are the plebeians or proletariat?
In regards to the election being a choice being between corrupt establishment candidate X or corrupt establishment candidate Y, I think this is what partly explains the attraction to and the support for Trump. Aside from receiving the Republican party nomination, he does not appear to be your typical establishment candidate. He is openly loathed by the Republican leadership, does not hold to significant parts of the Republican plank, in addition to never having held public office. Compare this to Clinton who is the very embodiment of an establishment candidate.
Overall, this is the worst election cycle I have participated in since my first election cycle (Bush/Dukakis).
Remember that a vote for the lessor of two evils is still technically a vote for evil.
"Preach the gospel always, If necessary use words." ~ St. Francis of Assisi
As for my other comments, it wouldn't even call the USA a republic these days. It's more like a plutocracy.
On November 8th, the American people will have to choose between corrupt establishment candidate X or corrupt establishment candidate Y.
Agree the USA is more like a plutocracy, but when has it not been? Or any other Western democracy? Where are the plebeians or proletariat?
In regards to the election being a choice being between corrupt establishment candidate X or corrupt establishment candidate Y, I think this is what partly explains the attraction to and the support for Trump. Aside from receiving the Republican party nomination, he does not appear to be your typical establishment candidate. He is openly loathed by the Republican leadership, does not hold to significant parts of the Republican plank, in addition to never having held public office. Compare this to Clinton who is the very embodiment of an establishment candidate.
Overall, this is the worst election cycle I have participated in since my first election cycle (Bush/Dukakis).
Remember that a vote for the lessor of two evils is still technically a vote for evil.
As I said earlier, Trump is a textbook example of a third party candidate hijacking one of the main parties for their own ends.
When Trump talked at the Republican convention, it was like the guy was standing in enemy territory or something. It was very bizarre, and something I've never witnessed before...
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2016/10/31 16:37:53
"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
They refused to stop Laden or let us get him. Turns out to have been a bad move on their part.
Didnt turn out to be all that great for us either. We've dumped the equivalent of nearly two years worth of Russias entire GDP (and a couple thousand US lives) into the Afghanistan conflict after adding it all up, the Taliban and Al Qaeda still exist and threaten the government we put in place, a government that cant find its ass with both hands and is massively corrupt, and fed right into Bin Laden's goals of sucking the US into endless middle east muck to drain wealth and energy.
Agreed. Nuking the site from orbit would have been better, but thats frowned upon in polite circles.
-"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!
As for my other comments, it wouldn't even call the USA a republic these days. It's more like a plutocracy.
On November 8th, the American people will have to choose between corrupt establishment candidate X or corrupt establishment candidate Y.
Agree the USA is more like a plutocracy, but when has it not been? Or any other Western democracy? Where are the plebeians or proletariat?
In regards to the election being a choice being between corrupt establishment candidate X or corrupt establishment candidate Y, I think this is what partly explains the attraction to and the support for Trump. Aside from receiving the Republican party nomination, he does not appear to be your typical establishment candidate. He is openly loathed by the Republican leadership, does not hold to significant parts of the Republican plank, in addition to never having held public office. Compare this to Clinton who is the very embodiment of an establishment candidate.
Overall, this is the worst election cycle I have participated in since my first election cycle (Bush/Dukakis).
Remember that a vote for the lessor of two evils is still technically a vote for evil.
Trump is a plutocrat so him running for election in a plutocracy makes him just as Establishment as a career politician. Trump doesn't have any history in the Republican Party since he just joined a few years ago in the lead up to this election cycle and he clearly doesn't care to kowtow to traditional party platforms and party leaders but he's definitely one of the wealthy elite that gets to leverage his personal fortune into political influence for his own benefit. Trump isn't a career politician but he's not an outsider either.
Well, I think the US americans get cold feet. Time is running out. Trump is at the gates.
Next week, the Europeans and the rest of the world will get cold feet. Trump will be at the gates.
We have to reckon with the worst.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2016/10/31 19:02:57
Former moderator 40kOnline
Lanchester's square law - please obey in list building!
Illumini: "And thank you for not finishing your post with a "" I'm sorry, but after 7200 's that has to be the most annoying sign-off ever."
wuestenfux wrote: Well, I think the US americans get cold feet. Time is running out. Trump is at the gates.
Next week, the Europeans and the rest of the world will get cold feet. Trump will be at the gates.
We have to reckon with the worst.
Trump is not worthy of being referred to analogically to the greatness of Hannibal Barca.
At best, Trump is staring at the doggy door, barking at everyone and demanding it be opened for him with a full bowl of kibble waiting and a puffy doggy bed despite the fact he just dug up the yard and peed all over the flowers.
wuestenfux wrote: Well, I think the US americans get cold feet. Time is running out. Trump is at the gates.
Next week, the Europeans and the rest of the world will get cold feet. Trump will be at the gates.
We have to reckon with the worst.
Trump is not worthy of being referred to analogically to the greatness of Hannibal Barca.
At best, Trump is staring at the doggy door, barking at everyone and demanding it be opened for him with a full bowl of kibble waiting and a puffy doggy bed despite the fact he just dug up the yard and peed all over the flowers.
Have an exalt!
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2016/10/31 19:20:43
wuestenfux wrote: Well, I think the US americans get cold feet. Time is running out. Trump is at the gates.
Next week, the Europeans and the rest of the world will get cold feet. Trump will be at the gates.
We have to reckon with the worst.
Trump is not worthy of being referred to analogically to the greatness of Hannibal Barca.
At best, Trump is staring at the doggy door, barking at everyone and demanding it be opened for him with a full bowl of kibble waiting and a puffy doggy bed despite the fact he just dug up the yard and peed all over the flowers.
Have an exalt!
That little bit got me thinking that if we had our choice of historical figures to run for President, who would they be (excluding past US Presidents). Just think of the possibilities.....Napoleon vs Kublai Khan.......
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2016/10/31 20:56:46
"Preach the gospel always, If necessary use words." ~ St. Francis of Assisi
3000
4000 
Ultramarines, 3rd Co. and friends, 16k+ 
4k 
4k Points
Competition Index
We have a major constitutional crisis on our hands with BREXIT and with Scotland. Basically, states rights Vs. Federal Rights
guys like Swayze in prison.
