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.

 djones520 wrote:

 Peregrine wrote:

 sourclams wrote:
I would balance that against likelihood of more foreign wars under a Trump presidency at about a hundredth of what it would be under Hillary. Hillary is demonstrably hawkish.

How many times do I need to post this quote in this thread?

ISIS is making a tremendous amount of money because of the oil that they took away, they have some in Syria, they have some in Iraq, I would bomb the gak out of them.
I would just bomb those suckers, and that's right, I'd blow up the pipes, I'd blow up the refineries, I'd blow up ever single inch, there would be nothing left.
And you know what, you'll get Exxon to come in there, and in two months, you ever see these guys? How good they are, the great oil companies, they'll rebuild it brand new... And I'll take the oil.

But somehow it's Clinton that's the hawk, not the guy running on a platform of "bomb the out of them". Unbelievable.

Well, we do have an actual record of Clinton being involved in US military ventures. We just have Trump's huffed up words. I guess those have more weight though.

Plus, wasn't it HRC suggesting to enforce a no-fly zone in Syria? Russia may frown at that bigly yaknow?

 Peregrine wrote:

 whembly wrote:
Sounds like the 2008/2012 Presidential election.

I don't recall Obama winning the primaries on a platform of "I hate Muslims and Mexicans", and then nominating a "don't worry, we're not too busy hating them to also hate the LGBT people too" vice president.

No it was more of 'Let's hate straight white males, Christians and people that believe in the Constitution, and border integrity'.

 ZergSmasher wrote:

 SickSix wrote:

 Peregrine wrote:
Turns out that you don't need experience or credible policy positions to be president, you just need an angry mob of deplorables and a promise to hate all the right people.

Sounds like Obama's run in 2008.

This. So much this. After all, if you didn't vote for Obama, you must be a racist KKK-loving bastard.

Yes, because of course working as a senator doesn't at all count as experience.

 Peregrine wrote:

 sourclams wrote:
I would balance that against likelihood of more foreign wars under a Trump presidency at about a hundredth of what it would be under Hillary. Hillary is demonstrably hawkish.

How many times do I need to post this quote in this thread?

ISIS is making a tremendous amount of money because of the oil that they took away, they have some in Syria, they have some in Iraq, I would bomb the gak out of them.
I would just bomb those suckers, and that's right, I'd blow up the pipes, I'd blow up the refineries, I'd blow up ever single inch, there would be nothing left.
And you know what, you'll get Exxon to come in there, and in two months, you ever see these guys? How good they are, the great oil companies, they'll rebuild it brand new... And I'll take the oil.

But somehow it's Clinton that's the hawk, not the guy running on a platform of "bomb the out of them". Unbelievable.

Just like how Hillary Clinton is the dishonest one, or Hillary Clinton is the one with the shady charity, or Hillary Clinton is somehow the one who degrades women.

Trump gets a pass because he makes mean Tweets, I guess.

The BBC is reporting that Canada's immigration website has crashed.

Canada's economy is tied too much to the US. Australia is where we need to go.

 SickSix wrote:
No it was more of 'Let's hate straight white males, Christians and people that believe in the Constitution, and border integrity'.

I don't recall any hatred of white men, in fact I seem to recall a lot of white men voting for Obama. Nor do I buy the idea that a Christian running for president was running on a platform of "hate Christians".

 whembly wrote:

 djones520 wrote:

 Peregrine wrote:

 sourclams wrote:
I would balance that against likelihood of more foreign wars under a Trump presidency at about a hundredth of what it would be under Hillary. Hillary is demonstrably hawkish.

How many times do I need to post this quote in this thread?

ISIS is making a tremendous amount of money because of the oil that they took away, they have some in Syria, they have some in Iraq, I would bomb the gak out of them.
I would just bomb those suckers, and that's right, I'd blow up the pipes, I'd blow up the refineries, I'd blow up ever single inch, there would be nothing left.
And you know what, you'll get Exxon to come in there, and in two months, you ever see these guys? How good they are, the great oil companies, they'll rebuild it brand new... And I'll take the oil.

But somehow it's Clinton that's the hawk, not the guy running on a platform of "bomb the out of them". Unbelievable.

Well, we do have an actual record of Clinton being involved in US military ventures. We just have Trump's huffed up words. I guess those have more weight though.

Plus, wasn't it HRC suggesting to enforce a no-fly zone in Syria? Russia may frown at that bigly yaknow?

Yes, yes it was.

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2016/oct/25/hillary-clinton-syria-no-fly-zones-russia-us-war

 SickSix wrote:

 Peregrine wrote:

 whembly wrote:
Sounds like the 2008/2012 Presidential election.

I don't recall Obama winning the primaries on a platform of "I hate Muslims and Mexicans", and then nominating a "don't worry, we're not too busy hating them to also hate the LGBT people too" vice president.

No it was more of 'Let's hate straight white males, Christians and people that believe in the Constitution, and border integrity'.

Pahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahah.

Care to point out the speech where Obama called most Christians rapists and drug dealers?

 Peregrine wrote:

 sourclams wrote:
I would balance that against likelihood of more foreign wars under a Trump presidency at about a hundredth of what it would be under Hillary. Hillary is demonstrably hawkish.

How many times do I need to post this quote in this thread?

ISIS is making a tremendous amount of money because of the oil that they took away, they have some in Syria, they have some in Iraq, I would bomb the gak out of them.
I would just bomb those suckers, and that's right, I'd blow up the pipes, I'd blow up the refineries, I'd blow up ever single inch, there would be nothing left.
And you know what, you'll get Exxon to come in there, and in two months, you ever see these guys? How good they are, the great oil companies, they'll rebuild it brand new... And I'll take the oil.

But somehow it's Clinton that's the hawk, not the guy running on a platform of "bomb the out of them". Unbelievable.

Trump knows that you can't play pattycake with people like ISIS. He's willing to do whatever it takes to end a credible threat to US security. That's such a terrible thing. Now, of course Trump is Trump and just had to say it in a ridiculously bombastic fashion and make it sound like he wanted to turn the Middle East into glass. That's not what he actually intends to do of course; he just has this annoying habit of turning the crazy talk up to 11 when he's riled up. To me, that's his main flaw. People gotta learn not to take that gak seriously. Lots of people say dumb things when they're angry, after all.

WI goes to Trump.

WI is called for Cheeto Jesus!

HOLY feth!

 Monkey Tamer wrote:
If you want to believe a more moderate less scandal plauged candidate wouldn't have done better (for either side) go right on and believe that. It works both ways. A great politician brings people together, or at least makes them believe in coming together.

This means believing that the scandals impacted either party's base. There's little evidence for that. Trump had crappy numbers among his base, but they still said they were voting for him. Clinton was popular among the Democratic base (her unpopularity is because she is hated by Republicans).

What's ended up defining this race is Trump's appeal to voters who were previously unengaged or light Democrats.

 BobtheInquisitor wrote:
Canada's economy is tied too much to the US. Australia is where we need to go.

My brother in Germany just finished out his attic into a spare bedroom. I guess I can always move there .

 whembly wrote:

WI is called for Cheeto Jesus!

HOLY feth!

That's it. Trump has it.

 Peregrine wrote:

 SickSix wrote:
No it was more of 'Let's hate straight white males, Christians and people that believe in the Constitution, and border integrity'.

I don't recall any hatred of white men, in fact I seem to recall a lot of white men voting for Obama. Nor do I buy the idea that a Christian running for president was running on a platform of "hate Christians".

Shhh...you're interrupting their echo-chamber self-congratulatory circle-jerk

 Peregrine wrote:

 sourclams wrote:
I would balance that against likelihood of more foreign wars under a Trump presidency at about a hundredth of what it would be under Hillary. Hillary is demonstrably hawkish.

How many times do I need to post this quote in this thread?

ISIS is making a tremendous amount of money because of the oil that they took away, they have some in Syria, they have some in Iraq, I would bomb the gak out of them.
I would just bomb those suckers, and that's right, I'd blow up the pipes, I'd blow up the refineries, I'd blow up ever single inch, there would be nothing left.
And you know what, you'll get Exxon to come in there, and in two months, you ever see these guys? How good they are, the great oil companies, they'll rebuild it brand new... And I'll take the oil.

But somehow it's Clinton that's the hawk, not the guy running on a platform of "bomb the out of them". Unbelievable.

Well, on one hand we have the guy that's talking about bombing the gak out of terrorist organization, compared to the woman that spent years talking about Iraq's WMD's, voted for a war with Iraq, and arguably provided weapons for child soldiers in Africa.

The NY Times' meter just hit 95% for a Trump win.

Don't forget she was a prime supporter of our efforts in overthrowing Libya.

 BobtheInquisitor wrote:
Canada's economy is tied too much to the US. Australia is where we need to go.

Have you looked at our leaders? The last Australian election was almost hung, the one before that was hung and we've had 5 Prime ministers in the past 7 years, 3 of which were deposed as their party's leader while still serving rather than being defeated at an actual general election.

 ZergSmasher wrote:
Trump knows that you can't play pattycake with people like ISIS. He's willing to do whatever it takes to end a credible threat to US security. That's such a terrible thing.

You can call it a good idea, but you know what that is? A hawkish foreign policy. It's absolutely ing insane to criticize Clinton for being a hawk while simultaneously talking about the virtues of bombing whoever it takes to end a threat.

Now, of course Trump is Trump and just had to say it in a ridiculously bombastic fashion and make it sound like he wanted to turn the Middle East into glass. That's not what he actually intends to do of course; he just has this annoying habit of turning the crazy talk up to 11 when he's riled up. To me, that's his main flaw. People gotta learn not to take that gak seriously. Lots of people say dumb things when they're angry, after all.

And I'm reminded of the signature someone here has about how Trump supporters simultaneously argue "he's just exaggerating to make a show" and "he's an honest guy who always tells it like it is".

THree things comes to mind...

1) The Working Class Whites is the largest voting bloc in the US.

2) It appears Barack Obama was an electoral aberration.

3) Polling companies are going out of business (minus Nate Silver 538 as he was fething right all along).

What amuses me is arguing about "going to war with ISIS".

I don't know if anyone has been paying attention, but we've been doing that for a while. feth, I'm going to be there next year. I'll take some pictures for you if you don't believe it.

 whembly wrote:

 Ouze wrote:
By my rough math, as things lay now, I think Trump is going to win with 293 EV.

I did not see this coming.

You, me both.

Maybe people could just start fething listening to me? Remember 2012, when I said Obama was locked in because he was really safe in enough states to hit 270 EV? And this time around I said Trump was a real chance because he was close enough in enough states, that if he beats his polls by 2 points he can reach 270?

 d-usa wrote:

 BobtheInquisitor wrote:
Canada's economy is tied too much to the US. Australia is where we need to go.

My brother in Germany just finished out his attic into a spare bedroom. I guess I can always move there .

Way better than moving to Canada, that's for sure. (No offense Canadian Dakkaites)

 BobtheInquisitor wrote:
Canada's economy is tied too much to the US. Australia is where we need to go.

Might I recommend not coming by boat.

Also: what the flaming hell America.

 sebster wrote:

 whembly wrote:

 Ouze wrote:
By my rough math, as things lay now, I think Trump is going to win with 293 EV.

I did not see this coming.

You, me both.

Maybe people could just start fething listening to me? Remember 2012, when I said Obama was locked in because he was really safe in enough states to hit 270 EV? And this time around I said Trump was a real chance because he was close enough in enough states, that if he beats his polls by 2 points he can reach 270?

For me I guess it was an optimism bias.

 cuda1179 wrote:

 Peregrine wrote:

 sourclams wrote:
I would balance that against likelihood of more foreign wars under a Trump presidency at about a hundredth of what it would be under Hillary. Hillary is demonstrably hawkish.

How many times do I need to post this quote in this thread?

ISIS is making a tremendous amount of money because of the oil that they took away, they have some in Syria, they have some in Iraq, I would bomb the gak out of them.
I would just bomb those suckers, and that's right, I'd blow up the pipes, I'd blow up the refineries, I'd blow up ever single inch, there would be nothing left.
And you know what, you'll get Exxon to come in there, and in two months, you ever see these guys? How good they are, the great oil companies, they'll rebuild it brand new... And I'll take the oil.

But somehow it's Clinton that's the hawk, not the guy running on a platform of "bomb the out of them". Unbelievable.

Well, on one hand we have the guy that's talking about bombing the gak out of terrorist organization,

that arose from a failed interventionist Republican President's invasion.

compared to the woman that spent years talking about Iraq's WMD's,

on the assumption they'd be used by terrorist organizations on a theory pushed by a Republican administration

voted for a war with Iraq,

A war sought, pushed for, manufactured, and led by a Republican president.

and arguably provided weapons for child soldiers in Africa.

As has pretty much anyone in any of the roles she's held of late.

There's tons of stuff to bash Hillary on, but in every one of these examples she's hardly different in any of these positions than those who oppose her were at the time these decisions were made, and were acted on under the same "Terrorism" banner as actions against IS are.

FL to Trump.

How did the D fail to motivate their base to vote when the stakes were so high? They could lose control of all 3 branches of government! Unreal.

This is the one to watch.

http://www.nytimes.com/elections/results/pennsylvania?action=click&pgtype=Homepage&clickSource=story-heading&module=span-abc-region®ion=span-abc-region&WT.nav=span-abc-region