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.

Trump probably picked those people to distract from his massive conflicts of interest involving many foreign countries and possibly sovereign wealth funds.

Same idea with accusing Clinton of illegally fixing the election.

 Breotan wrote:
Interesting theory but, assuming everything is as he suggests, would it work? Would Trump and the Republicans be so tarnished the Democrats would recoup much of their losses in two years time? Or would the scheme backfire and the Democrats be tared and feathered and lose even more in '18?

That's quite an amazing piece there. It's almost as if some hack saw what Republican governor Pat McRory may have been doing in North Carolina, and decided to speculate wildly that Clinton was doing the same? Except applying it to Clinton makes zero sense, because if she was trying to drag this to the deadline, then it will only succeed in getting shot down by a Republican controlled house, whereas McRory would benefit from Republican NC house. And it makes even less sense because Clinton didn't start this, Stein did, all Clinton has done is say that if there's a recount they'll have people on the ground to monitor.

It just makes no fething sense on any level, and yet it got typed up, and you posted it here. How did that happen? Is it that some pundits are still in the habit of just writing any damn thing they can think of about Clinton? Is it just reflexive at this point to take something fethed up in the republican party, and accuse Clinton of it even when it makes no sense?

Dunno, but it's pretty amazing it is still happening.

I think Trump and the Republicans are going to make enough of a pig's ear of things in the next two years to give the Democrats a good chance as long as they can find some good candidates.

 Kilkrazy wrote:
Trump probably picked those people to distract from his massive conflicts of interest involving many foreign countries and possibly sovereign wealth funds.

I think he picked them because he has little clue for how government works and little respect for the people who do know. So instead he's just gone with some Republican apparatchiks plus, like, a guy he met while waiting to get his lunch yesterday.

Same idea with accusing Clinton of illegally fixing the election.

I think that's just Trump vanity shining through. It would kill him that he got less votes, so he chooses to believe it didn't happen, and so when rigging and recounts happen he just can't keep himself off twitter.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Kilkrazy wrote:
I think Trump and the Republicans are going to make enough of a pig's ear of things in the next two years to give the Democrats a good chance as long as they can find some good candidates.

Republicans have held their party together as a protest vote, and that's been enough to paper over the cracks in the party. Now they're government and they actually have to address whether they walk away from the commitments to the hard right and the donor class and try to pass stuff like school vouchers, dumping ACA, the big tax cut etc... or whether they put that stuff in and really screw over the white working class that gives them so many votes.

GW Bush managed to walk this tightrope, barely, for four years, and he mostly got there because of rally around the flag effect after 9/11 and Gulf War 2. It all turned to gak for him after 2004. And GW Bush understood the balancing act and surrounded himself with people who had decades of experience with that balancing act. Whereas Trump doesn't even seem to understand the issue, instead just wandering back and forth between doing whatever random gak just entered his mind, and offering up token efforts to his Republican allies.

So yeah, I suspect this time around it will fall down a hell of a lot faster than it took for GW Bush.

 sebster wrote:


The issue here is that the new management is an intelligent designer, a goldbug, an anti-tax crank, and a lobbyist/lawyer. He picked three straight up crazy people, and no-one with any economics experience for government. There is nothing normal about this.

Of course this is an issue. But, sebster, the trick is it's quite clear the Republicans' basing vote doesn't care at all about that. It's irrelevant to them. They were told for years by Republicans the government is either useless or conspiring against them. I think a lot of people in America take pride in being able to handle themselves on their own, and they intend to keep that way no matter what the "big heads" decide far, far away from their houses.

Having the Red Team in charge means the evil Blue Team is out, and that's all they care about. You can read that kind of stuff all the time on this topic.

The scary thing is we're choosing to live in those bubbles. Perhaps scarier still is that when people get presented with the reality outside their bubble, they rarely decide that living in a bubble that feeds them bs is a bad idea... instead they just decide to venture out in to reality a little less often.

No, they just decide to believe what they want to believe, and just ignore the other points of view. That's also a feature on this forum, with tools helping you ignoring users you don't want to read.

We indeed choose that for convenience...but also when you see there is no point talking to someone who just doesn't want to hear you.

I think that's just Trump vanity shining through. It would kill him that he got less votes, so he chooses to believe it didn't happen, and so when rigging and recounts happen he just can't keep himself off twitter.

Note that he attacked on this point when he saw the recounts were on the way. He didn't care about that when Clinton admitted defeat.

In other words; he's only trying to justify himself with whatever he can find when he's angry or annoyed.

You can expect he will be doing the same when the other countries won't do as he wants. More "funny" times coming in the future, I'm afraid.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Strangely enough, when the heat finally cools down, I also think there's a point for the democrats to just watch Trump and the "R" Team manage alone. It's working in their favour for the future, after all. See all these "scandals" coming even when the President-elect isn't at the office. Those are forewarnings for the years to come. And the cherry on top is that they're doing that themselves, all alone.

It certainly sucks for all the vulnerable people who will suffer meanwhile, but I guess Republicans would say something like "that's the price to pay", "it's their own fault to be like that" or "I don't care about them".

I think Clinton took a heavy hit with the election - and I mean in her morale. It's mostly her team who reacted so far.

Jill Stein raising funds is also a bit suspicious, I must say. Still, others are quite happy to use that to annoy Trump, it's obvious.

 Breotan wrote:
Interesting theory but, assuming everything is as he suggests, would it work? Would Trump and the Republicans be so tarnished the Democrats would recoup much of their losses in two years time? Or would the scheme backfire and the Democrats be tared and feathered and lose even more in '18?

Would it work? Possibly. But it's a pretty low-risk strategy with a third-party candidate being the public face of the recounts. But it's probably a redundant strategy unless you're playing the long game of eliminating the electoral college entirely, Trump is almost certainly going to fail badly enough that this technicality isn't going to make much of a difference.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 sebster wrote:
It's almost as if some hack saw what Republican governor Pat McRory may have been doing in North Carolina

Ugh, thanks for reminding me. McCrory getting thrown out has been the one bright spot of this election, and his absurd denial of the result is getting really frustrating.

 sebster wrote:

 Hordini wrote:
The United States doesn't have an official language, and it should stay that way. We're free to speak whatever language we please.

Obviously the US doesn't have an official language. When one poster is arguing for English to become, in some way or another, a national language, then it should be understood by everyone involved that there isn't currently an official language.

The second part of your argument, "it should stay that way", doesn't actually advance the conversation at all. cuda1179 said English should be made the official language, I asked why, and then you responded with 'no it shouldn't'. First of all, why respond to me with that comment and not cuda1179? And second up, why not let cuda1179 give an answer for what he thinks making english an official language will achieve?


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:
Credit where credit's due - it's a smart move by Trump...

Yes, it's fething genius to let aggressive, totalitarian states do as they please all around the globe, and let murderous feth wits like Assad remain in power. fething genius move, that.

By your logic, the USA should be invading China, and having round 2 against the North Koreans.

Truthfully, Sebster, I am disappointed, because 99% of the time, your comments, even when I disagree with them, are articulate, and well argued, this one is not...

There is one murderous regime on Earth, that treats its citizens like gak, and has an appaling human rights record.

And yet, it is a key ally of the USA...

Can anybody guess what is is?

. Scotland's a key ally of the USA ?





http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-34808047

Haggis could be back on the menu in the US by 2017, according to the Scottish government.
Rural Affairs Secretary Richard Lochhead has held meetings with the US Department of Agriculture in a bid to get a decades-old ban lifted.
Food products containing sheep lungs - a key ingredient in haggis - have been outlawed since 1971.
Mr Lochhead said he had a positive response, with new draft rules on imports set to be published next year.
Ahead of his trip to the US, the rural affairs secretary had suggested producers in Scotland were "up for tweaking the recipe" in order to get around the ban on imports.
But he vowed US customers would "still get as close as possible to the real thing".

Mr Lochhead had a series of meetings with Under Secretary Lisa Mensah and the US Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service.
He said: "I was pleased to hear from Under Secretary Mensah and the animal and plant health inspectorate service that they will publish the draft rules next year to pave the way for the return of Scotch lamb and haggis onto US plates.
"We know that around 10 million US citizens claim Scottish heritage so we have a ready-made market with them and with Scots at heart.
"Of course exports to the US will also be a real boost for producers and farmers and benefit our economy."
'Massive opportunity'
Rob Livesey, vice president of the National Farmers Union Scotland, travelled with Mr Lochhead to the US.
"The work done here in the past few days should speed the entry of Scottish beef and lamb onto the US market," he said.
"The opening of this market will be a real shot in the arm for our primary producers, who need every market opportunity available to give much-needed confidence to make positive breeding decisions now in anticipation of an upturn in demand for our top-quality product."
James Macsween, of leading Scottish butchers Macsween of Edinburgh, said: "We are very excited about the prospect of exporting haggis to the US within the next 24 months. It will be a massive opportunity for us and the industry."

I always found the ban on Haggis to be amusing, when you consider how much corn syrup the USA puts in its food, and that stuff is seriously bad for you.

I love haggis.

 Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:
I always found the ban on Haggis to be amusing, when you consider how much corn syrup the USA puts in its food, and that stuff is seriously bad for you.

You may not want to look into soft drinks.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Sarouan wrote:

 sebster wrote:


The issue here is that the new management is an intelligent designer, a goldbug, an anti-tax crank, and a lobbyist/lawyer. He picked three straight up crazy people, and no-one with any economics experience for government. There is nothing normal about this.

Of course this is an issue. But, sebster, the trick is it's quite clear the Republicans' basing vote doesn't care at all about that. It's irrelevant to them. They were told for years by Republicans the government is either useless or conspiring against them. I think a lot of people in America take pride in being able to handle themselves on their own, and they intend to keep that way no matter what the "big heads" decide far, far away from their houses.

Having the Red Team in charge means the evil Blue Team is out, and that's all they care about. You can read that kind of stuff all the time on this topic.

I've heard that the everyday life of Americans isn't affected as much by what the Federal Government does, but more by what their state and municipality do.

 Kilkrazy wrote:
I love haggis.

There's hope for you after all


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Pouncey wrote:

 Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:
I always found the ban on Haggis to be amusing, when you consider how much corn syrup the USA puts in its food, and that stuff is seriously bad for you.

You may not want to look into soft drinks.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Sarouan wrote:

 sebster wrote:


The issue here is that the new management is an intelligent designer, a goldbug, an anti-tax crank, and a lobbyist/lawyer. He picked three straight up crazy people, and no-one with any economics experience for government. There is nothing normal about this.

Of course this is an issue. But, sebster, the trick is it's quite clear the Republicans' basing vote doesn't care at all about that. It's irrelevant to them. They were told for years by Republicans the government is either useless or conspiring against them. I think a lot of people in America take pride in being able to handle themselves on their own, and they intend to keep that way no matter what the "big heads" decide far, far away from their houses.

Having the Red Team in charge means the evil Blue Team is out, and that's all they care about. You can read that kind of stuff all the time on this topic.

I've heard that the everyday life of Americans isn't affected as much by what the Federal Government does, but more by what their state and municipality do.

I gave up on soft drinks a few years back. Water, milk, and pure grain alcohol are the only things I drink these days

Keeping it OT, diabetes is a major problem in the Western world these days, and America in particular seems to be the worst.

Corn syrup is part of that problem IMO. Having eaten imported American candy which contained the stuff, I remember how much my teeth hurt afterwards

 Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:
I always found the ban on Haggis to be amusing, when you consider how much corn syrup the USA puts in its food, and that stuff is seriously bad for you.

There's a difference between "this is unhealthy if you eat too much of it" and "this could kill you if there's any slip in safety".

 Peregrine wrote:

 Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:
I always found the ban on Haggis to be amusing, when you consider how much corn syrup the USA puts in its food, and that stuff is seriously bad for you.

There's a difference between "this is unhealthy if you eat too much of it" and "this could kill you if there's any slip in safety".

Like pufferfish? That delicacy that could've killed Homer Simpson in an early episode of The Simpsons?

 Peregrine wrote:

 Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:
I always found the ban on Haggis to be amusing, when you consider how much corn syrup the USA puts in its food, and that stuff is seriously bad for you.

There's a difference between "this is unhealthy if you eat too much of it" and "this could kill you if there's any slip in safety".

Obviously, I may be biased, but haggis is produced under some of the strictest food safety standards in the world. The science says its safe, hence this latest report about its re-introduction to American markets.

If I were American, I'd be more worried about type 2 diabetes, dodgy car drivers, lightning bolts hitting you, and being shot by a dog, all of which is more likely to affect you than a rogue haggis.

 Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:
Obviously, I may be biased, but haggis is produced under some of the strictest food safety standards in the world. The science says its safe, hence this latest report about its re-introduction to American markets.

If I were American, I'd be more worried about type 2 diabetes, dodgy car drivers, lightning bolts hitting you, and being shot by a dog, all of which is more likely to affect you than a rogue haggis.

Sure, there seems to be a good argument that it's safe, and you're right that this is a reason to end the ban. But the issues behind the haggis ban and overuse of HFCS are completely different, you can't compare the two and reach any meaningful conclusion.

 Peregrine wrote:

 Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:
Obviously, I may be biased, but haggis is produced under some of the strictest food safety standards in the world. The science says its safe, hence this latest report about its re-introduction to American markets.

If I were American, I'd be more worried about type 2 diabetes, dodgy car drivers, lightning bolts hitting you, and being shot by a dog, all of which is more likely to affect you than a rogue haggis.

Sure, there seems to be a good argument that it's safe, and you're right that this is a reason to end the ban. But the issues behind the haggis ban and overuse of HFCS are completely different, you can't compare the two and reach any meaningful conclusion.

I have a better chance of being killed in a car accident than being killed by eating bad haggis.

I don't feel unsafe while driving.

If you're eating haggis you're doing it wrong. Haggis is to remain fully loaded in the haggis launchers, for use against King Edwards, or alternatively, the Nazis.

 Frazzled wrote:
If you're eating haggis you're doing it wrong. Haggis is to remain fully loaded in the haggis launchers, for use against King Edwards, or alternatively, the Nazis.

Early biological weaponry then?

Indeed. It was the threat of haggis bombing that kept the US from taking over Canada during the Great Queso/Maple Syrup crisis of 1957.

 Frazzled wrote:
Indeed. It was the threat of haggis bombing that kept the US from taking over Canada during the Great Queso/Maple Syrup crisis of 1957.

Also the threat of serving occupying forces in Quebec poutine for every meal.

No one messes with a country vicious enough to even think of issuing a threat like that.

 sebster wrote:

 Kilkrazy wrote:
Trump probably picked those people to distract from his massive conflicts of interest involving many foreign countries and possibly sovereign wealth funds.

I think he picked them because he has little clue for how government works and little respect for the people who do know. So instead he's just gone with some Republican apparatchiks plus, like, a guy he met while waiting to get his lunch yesterday.

Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Kilkrazy wrote:
I think Trump and the Republicans are going to make enough of a pig's ear of things in the next two years to give the Democrats a good chance as long as they can find some good candidates.

Republicans have held their party together as a protest vote, and that's been enough to paper over the cracks in the party. Now they're government and they actually have to address whether they walk away from the commitments to the hard right and the donor class and try to pass stuff like school vouchers, dumping ACA, the big tax cut etc... or whether they put that stuff in and really screw over the white working class that gives them so many votes.

GW Bush managed to walk this tightrope, barely, for four years, and he mostly got there because of rally around the flag effect after 9/11 and Gulf War 2. It all turned to gak for him after 2004. And GW Bush understood the balancing act and surrounded himself with people who had decades of experience with that balancing act. Whereas Trump doesn't even seem to understand the issue, instead just wandering back and forth between doing whatever random gak just entered his mind, and offering up token efforts to his Republican allies.

So yeah, I suspect this time around it will fall down a hell of a lot faster than it took for GW Bush.

The Gilded Age Presidents like Arthur and grant are pretty excited by this turn of events. They might move up the Presidential ranking ladder soon!

I have a feeling at the end of the next two years, the R's will still just blame the D's for everything and middle America will still vote for R's. I mean look at Kansas as the canary in the coal mine. This is what will happen in the greater US for the next election, and possible the next Presidential election as well.

 Easy E wrote:
The Gilded Age Presidents like Arthur and grant are pretty excited by this turn of events. They might move up the Presidential ranking ladder soon!

I have a feeling at the end of the next two years, the R's will still just blame the D's for everything and middle America will still vote for R's. I mean look at Kansas as the canary in the coal mine. This is what will happen in the greater US for the next election, and possible the next Presidential election as well.

You know what's been a weird trend in my lifetime?

Two-term Presidents and they alternate parties each time they get a new one.

Two terms of Clinton, a Democrat.
Two terms of Bush Jr., a Republican.
Two terms of Obama, a Democrat.
Now Trump, a Republican, is starting his first term despite being totally unqualified for the job.

If I were a conspiracy theorist, I might start to wonder if both parties were just alternating who's in control after having decided to split control of the country between them.

Like the kind of thing that might result in a two-party system.

 Pouncey wrote:

 Frazzled wrote:
Indeed. It was the threat of haggis bombing that kept the US from taking over Canada during the Great Queso/Maple Syrup crisis of 1957.

Also the threat of serving occupying forces in Quebec poutine for every meal.

No one messes with a country vicious enough to even think of issuing a threat like that.

That will do it.

 Frazzled wrote:
That will do it.

Indeed.

Canadians are polite, well-mannered, friendly, and don't like to fight.

When we need to fight though... It gets rough for our enemies.

 Pouncey wrote:

 Frazzled wrote:
That will do it.

Indeed.

Canadians are polite, well-mannered, friendly, and don't like to fight.

When we need to fight though... It gets rough for our enemies.

Yes I have Candaians in the office. Texans, well we're rude, ill mannered, friendly, and love to fight. Whene we need to fight, if you include our Tonkawa ancestors we eat our enemies.

 Frazzled wrote:
Yes I have Candaians in the office. Texans, well we're rude, ill mannered, friendly, and love to fight. Whene we need to fight, if you include our Tonkawa ancestors we eat our enemies.

Hehehe.

Well, obviously you left the ritualistic cannibalism in the past, but I get your meaning.

 Pouncey wrote:

 Frazzled wrote:
Yes I have Candaians in the office. Texans, well we're rude, ill mannered, friendly, and love to fight. Whene we need to fight, if you include our Tonkawa ancestors we eat our enemies.

Hehehe.

Well, obviously you left the ritualistic cannibalism in the past, but I get your meaning.

We did? er. yea we did! (runs over and closes the barbeque lid)

 Frazzled wrote:

 Pouncey wrote:

 Frazzled wrote:
Yes I have Candaians in the office. Texans, well we're rude, ill mannered, friendly, and love to fight. Whene we need to fight, if you include our Tonkawa ancestors we eat our enemies.

Hehehe.

Well, obviously you left the ritualistic cannibalism in the past, but I get your meaning.

We did? er. yea we did! (runs over and closes the barbeque lid)

No, no, those are cows. They're still your cousins, but they're far enough removed that you're not the same species, so it's fine.

 Peregrine wrote:

 sebster wrote:
It's almost as if some hack saw what Republican governor Pat McRory may have been doing in North Carolina

Ugh, thanks for reminding me. McCrory getting thrown out has been the one bright spot of this election, and his absurd denial of the result is getting really frustrating.

They are also apparently looking to pack their supreme court because a conservative justice was replaced by a liberal one.