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.

So, it seems Trump wanted to build a wall in Wales, too, though this wall was to protect his golf course from the environmental impact of global warming but ran into a snag due to some snails.

Yup, he's certainly the kind of guy who hires the best people and gets things done

 Peregrine wrote:

 djones520 wrote:
What about any of this tells you she would be a more peaceful president? What do we have about Trump? Just his words. We have him not supporting the Iraq invasion, that Clinton supported. We have his buffoonish comments about using nukes in a non-specific scenario. We have his words, that is all.

But what do we have to suggest that he'd be a peaceful president? Not even words. Once again we're back to this bizarre situation where we're supposed to ignore all the awful things Trump promises to do and assume he'll do the exact opposite, out of nothing more than wishful thinking that somehow Trump won't be all that bad.

Yet people are bending over so far backwards to discredit him, they're completely ignoring things about Clinton.

No, we're not ignoring anything about Clinton. Most people understand perfectly well that Clinton is in favor of using the military to solve problems. However, Clinton's pro-war positions are the same kind of pro-war positions that any US presidential candidate is expected to have. And compared to the pro-war positions (and actions!) of the Bush administration she's arguably on the peaceful end of the scale. Compared to Trump's gleeful celebration of the idea of war and willingness to even consider crossing the line with nuclear weapons she was a much less threatening option.

Also, can we stop saying Trump was originally against, or not supportive of, the war in Iraq? At best, he was wishy-washy on it.
http://www.factcheck.org/2016/02/donald-trump-and-the-iraq-war/
http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2016/feb/06/donald-trump/donald-trump-overstates-his-early-opposition-iraq-/

Nobody here is ignoring Clinton, but you know what? She no longer matters. Trump won, he's our next President, so we damn well better not be ignoring him.

This certainly seems like a interesting thread.

All the deplorables are in for some major disappointment when their outsider messiah turns out to be a slightly more gakky than average standard political goon.

The tone has been lowered for political discourse, maybe permanently.

 feeder wrote:
All the deplorables are in for some major disappointment when their outsider messiah turns out to be a slightly more gakky than average standard political goon.

The tone has been lowered for political discourse, maybe permanently.

I can't speak for Trump supporters, since im not one, but many Trump "supporters" I know aren't so much enamored with the man as they are in hatred of the other side of the aisle.

The left and the media has spent the majority of the last 4 years labeling anyone who doesn't agree with their social agenda as Homophobic, xenophobic, racist, fascist, etc etc. When average everyday Americans who are just trying to live their lives and provide for their families are screamed at, labeled, and dismissed because of their skin color or opinions...eventually they just give the perpetrators the finger and vote for the guy who that side hates, out of spite.

 Supertony51 wrote:

 feeder wrote:
All the deplorables are in for some major disappointment when their outsider messiah turns out to be a slightly more gakky than average standard political goon.

The tone has been lowered for political discourse, maybe permanently.

I can't speak for Trump supporters, since im not one, but many Trump "supporters" I know aren't so much enamored with the man as they are in hatred of the other side of the aisle.

Don't make the mistake that so many have made by confusing people who voted for Trump with people who supported Trump. Those are two very distinct groups.

 Supertony51 wrote:

 feeder wrote:
All the deplorables are in for some major disappointment when their outsider messiah turns out to be a slightly more gakky than average standard political goon.

The tone has been lowered for political discourse, maybe permanently.

I can't speak for Trump supporters, since im not one, but many Trump "supporters" I know aren't so much enamored with the man as they are in hatred of the other side of the aisle.

The left and the media has spent the majority of the last 4 years labeling anyone who doesn't agree with their social agenda as Homophobic, xenophobic, racist, fascist, etc etc. When average everyday Americans who are just trying to live their lives and provide for their families are screamed at, labeled, and dismissed because of their skin color or opinions...eventually they just give the perpetrators the finger and vote for the guy who that side hates, out of spite.

Feth my nose! That'll teach my face!

 Supertony51 wrote:

 feeder wrote:
All the deplorables are in for some major disappointment when their outsider messiah turns out to be a slightly more gakky than average standard political goon.

The tone has been lowered for political discourse, maybe permanently.

I can't speak for Trump supporters, since im not one, but many Trump "supporters" I know aren't so much enamored with the man as they are in hatred of the other side of the aisle.

The left and the media has spent the majority of the last 4 years labeling anyone who doesn't agree with their social agenda as Homophobic, xenophobic, racist, fascist, etc etc. When average everyday Americans who are just trying to live their lives and provide for their families are screamed at, labeled, and dismissed because of their skin color or opinions...eventually they just give the perpetrators the finger and vote for the guy who that side hates, out of spite.

Which is a bs justification. They voted for a guy who said homophobic, xenophobic, misogynistic and racist statements throughout his campaign. They need to own up to the fact that by voting for Trump they are embracing the very things the other side accused them of embodying because their choice for a president built his campaign around fear, hate and bald-faced lying.

If you tie your wagon to a piece of gak, you gotta be prepared to have some of the stink rub off on you.

 DarkTraveler777 wrote:

 Supertony51 wrote:

 feeder wrote:
All the deplorables are in for some major disappointment when their outsider messiah turns out to be a slightly more gakky than average standard political goon.

The tone has been lowered for political discourse, maybe permanently.

I can't speak for Trump supporters, since im not one, but many Trump "supporters" I know aren't so much enamored with the man as they are in hatred of the other side of the aisle.

The left and the media has spent the majority of the last 4 years labeling anyone who doesn't agree with their social agenda as Homophobic, xenophobic, racist, fascist, etc etc. When average everyday Americans who are just trying to live their lives and provide for their families are screamed at, labeled, and dismissed because of their skin color or opinions...eventually they just give the perpetrators the finger and vote for the guy who that side hates, out of spite.

Which is a bs justification. They voted for a guy who said homophobic, xenophobic, misogynistic and racist statements throughout his campaign. They need to own up to the fact that by voting for Trump they are embracing the very things the other side accused them of embodying because their choice for a president built his campaign around fear, hate and bald-faced lying.

If you tie your wagon to a piece of gak, you gotta be prepared to have some of the stink rub off on you.

I'm not necessarily disagreeing with you, im not a Trump supporter. I'm just pointing out that many people out there are so tired of being labeled stupid gak that they don't care anymore, and are more than happy to see many SJW's be pissed off.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Tannhauser42 wrote:

 Supertony51 wrote:

 feeder wrote:
All the deplorables are in for some major disappointment when their outsider messiah turns out to be a slightly more gakky than average standard political goon.

The tone has been lowered for political discourse, maybe permanently.

I can't speak for Trump supporters, since im not one, but many Trump "supporters" I know aren't so much enamored with the man as they are in hatred of the other side of the aisle.

Don't make the mistake that so many have made by confusing people who voted for Trump with people who supported Trump. Those are two very distinct groups.

No mistake made here at all.

I know plenty of people who didn't like Trump, but couldn't stomach seeing the epitome of political corruption, Hillary, take the top office.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 feeder wrote:

 Supertony51 wrote:

 feeder wrote:
All the deplorables are in for some major disappointment when their outsider messiah turns out to be a slightly more gakky than average standard political goon.

The tone has been lowered for political discourse, maybe permanently.

I can't speak for Trump supporters, since im not one, but many Trump "supporters" I know aren't so much enamored with the man as they are in hatred of the other side of the aisle.

The left and the media has spent the majority of the last 4 years labeling anyone who doesn't agree with their social agenda as Homophobic, xenophobic, racist, fascist, etc etc. When average everyday Americans who are just trying to live their lives and provide for their families are screamed at, labeled, and dismissed because of their skin color or opinions...eventually they just give the perpetrators the finger and vote for the guy who that side hates, out of spite.

Feth my nose! That'll teach my face!

That's taking it a bit far, but not to far off the mark.

Many couldn't stomach the political corruption that seems to ooze off Hillary like the flies off a Nurgling. Combine that with the desire to see SJW's cry....Boom we have Trump.

 feeder wrote:
All the deplorables are in for some major disappointment when their outsider messiah turns out to be a slightly more gakky than average standard political goon.

The tone has been lowered for political discourse, maybe permanently.

Reason 80 bajilion why Trump won...

EDIT: criticize the political figure... not the voters. No matter how much you believe that is true.

 whembly wrote:

 feeder wrote:
All the deplorables are in for some major disappointment when their outsider messiah turns out to be a slightly more gakky than average standard political goon.

The tone has been lowered for political discourse, maybe permanently.

Reason 80 bajilion why Trump won...

EDIT: criticize the political figure... not the voters. No matter how much you believe that is true.

No, criticising people for who they support is perfectly valid.

 A Town Called Malus wrote:

 whembly wrote:

 feeder wrote:
All the deplorables are in for some major disappointment when their outsider messiah turns out to be a slightly more gakky than average standard political goon.

The tone has been lowered for political discourse, maybe permanently.

Reason 80 bajilion why Trump won...

EDIT: criticize the political figure... not the voters. No matter how much you believe that is true.

No, criticising people for who they support is perfectly valid.

K... keep it up. Trump'll win in 2020... much to *my* dismay...

 WrentheFaceless wrote:
So, to an uninformed observer, how bad was the Taiwan call? How angry is it likely to make China?

If the call was made delierately, it would have been likely to cause China a great deal of anger, as it would involve the US walking away from the uneasy peace over Taiwanese sovereignty. I am nowhere near enough of an expert on US China relations to know if that move would be justified by Chinese behaviour in the South China Sea, or if it would even make any sense in that context. My instinct says it is a good move, but that analysis basically amounts to 'China is being dicks so feth 'em'.

But of course, that is assuming Trump made a deliberate act and he didn't. His office received a request for a call from the Taiwanese president's office, and they scheduled it to happen a couple of days later. In this time Trump refused any briefings from the State Dept, as he has since winning the election. Because Trump is an aggressively ignorant man.

If this was a deliberate act from Trump, we would have expected China to respond with considerable aggression. Instead China has responded with what can basically be summed up as 'measured annoyance'. This is because China knows the call was a feth up, and so they've responded by making their position on Taiwan clear, and just watching as Trump twists in the wind trying to back out of his feth up.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:
OK, OK, you were right this time.

I get carried away sometimes, especially when I'm reading another biography of Bismarck, see how easy he made it look, and wonder why politicians don't have his skill anymore.

Then you realize politicians of Bismarck's caliber come along once every two or three hundred years

Yeah, I think this is probably the first time anyone has made the mistake of thinking of Bismarck when talking about something Trump did

 whembly wrote:

 feeder wrote:
All the deplorables are in for some major disappointment when their outsider messiah turns out to be a slightly more gakky than average standard political goon.

The tone has been lowered for political discourse, maybe permanently.

Reason 80 bajilion why Trump won...

Exactly!!!

Reminds me of a conversation I had with a female Co-worker the other day.

Somehow we got into the conversation about "Rape culture" (she is VERY VERY left wing) and how awful it is. I told her that I've had the privilege to travel the world and lived in countries where there is a real rape culture. You know places where victims of rape are stoned to death or killed by their families for somehow violating family honor. I mentioned how, while not perfect, here in the U.S. Women have freedoms not even dreamed of by women in many parts of the world and that if militant feminists are so concerned about women's rights, why they aren't focusing their attentions to countries where the threat is real. Rape is not regarded positively in the West, rapists are considered scum and are often brutalized in prison.

She still went on about how bad women have it in the U.S. and that im not allowed to have an opinion because "you're a white male".

Of course I laughed and told her that people like herself are EXACTLY why Trump won.

 whembly wrote:

 A Town Called Malus wrote:

 whembly wrote:

 feeder wrote:
All the deplorables are in for some major disappointment when their outsider messiah turns out to be a slightly more gakky than average standard political goon.

The tone has been lowered for political discourse, maybe permanently.

Reason 80 bajilion why Trump won...

EDIT: criticize the political figure... not the voters. No matter how much you believe that is true.

No, criticising people for who they support is perfectly valid.

K... keep it up. Trump'll win in 2020... much to *my* dismay...

So if Zombie Hitler runs for president, we aren't allowed to call them nazis?

Edit: Also, weren't you the one going on about "leftists worshiping Castro" or some-such?



And he didn't win because racist got called racists. He won because of abysmally low voter turnout in the swing states. Clinton couldn't rile up the base, so they didn't come out to vote. He got less votes than Mcain, Romney, and HRC. The "Trump won because you called bigots out on their bigotry" is fething stupid right-wing BS. Are we supposed to just passively ignore racism, sexism, Islamophobia, ect? feth that.

 Supertony51 wrote:
Somehow we got into the conversation about "Rape culture" (she is VERY VERY left wing) and how awful it is. I told her that I've had the privilege to travel the world and lived in countries where there is a real rape culture.

The next time you order a drink and get the wrong one, I hope you are content with your server reminding you how lucky you are that you have anything at all to drink, when so many people in the world have limited access to clean water.

 Co'tor Shas wrote:

 whembly wrote:

 A Town Called Malus wrote:

 whembly wrote:

 feeder wrote:
All the deplorables are in for some major disappointment when their outsider messiah turns out to be a slightly more gakky than average standard political goon.

The tone has been lowered for political discourse, maybe permanently.

Reason 80 bajilion why Trump won...

EDIT: criticize the political figure... not the voters. No matter how much you believe that is true.

No, criticising people for who they support is perfectly valid.

K... keep it up. Trump'll win in 2020... much to *my* dismay...

So if Zombie Hitler runs for president, we aren't allowed to call them nazis?

Nazis are political party right? So of course you'd call 'em nazis.

Colloquially Cheeto Jesus voters are Republican voters.

 whembly wrote:
eh... the China issue.

Either Trump's is blindly reacting to everything he does, or he has some people around him helping him craft a strategy. How do you know which is which? To be a fly on their wall...

We have strong evidence it was a blunder. First up, if you want to shake up diplomatic relations you lead it, announce the phone call before hand. This call was not put in any press material, instead the call was only learned about when the Financial Times broke the story. Its a very strange claim that Trum decided to make a major shake up to diplomatic affairs, and then didn't tell anyone about it. In the wake of the mess, Trump didn't offer anything like the rationalisation the article you quote below gives, first he tried to minimise it by claiming that Tsai Ing-wen called him (feigning ignorance about how calls between heads of state are arranged), and then wondering allowed why it was okay for the US to sell weapons to Taiwan but not speak to the president, showing he had no idea that there was a strange but accepted balance in place.

Following this, a first draft at damage control was put in place, in which it was dismissed as just a congratulatory call with no meaning beyond that. It's only now, some days later that we start seeing a different damage control story come out, claiming that it was a deliberate move to show a more aggressive position against China.

This last effort is pretty well written, and shows in the Trump camp there are some people with skill in damage control (they'd have experience after working with Trump in that election campaign). But if their final story were true, it would have been their first story, and it would have been told before the call was made. Not days after, once a bunch of other stories had already been attempted.

 whembly wrote:

 feeder wrote:
All the deplorables are in for some major disappointment when their outsider messiah turns out to be a slightly more gakky than average standard political goon.

The tone has been lowered for political discourse, maybe permanently.

Reason 80 bajilion why Trump won...

EDIT: criticize the political figure... not the voters. No matter how much you believe that is true.

No, you very much do criticize the voters for what they choose to accept. When people believe lies, you call them out on it. When people spread misinformation, you call them out on it. When people say stupid things, you call them out on it. To do otherwise is to abdicate the responsibility of democracy.

On the wwhle "why Trump won." I don't see why the two camps / points of views are necessarily mutually exclusive...

 Stevefamine wrote:
What has Hillary been up to? Is she going to run the Clinton foundation full time now?

Dunno, there's no-one on Wall Street to give speeches to now that Trump has put them all in his cabinet.

 Tannhauser42 wrote:

 whembly wrote:

 feeder wrote:
All the deplorables are in for some major disappointment when their outsider messiah turns out to be a slightly more gakky than average standard political goon.

The tone has been lowered for political discourse, maybe permanently.

Reason 80 bajilion why Trump won...

EDIT: criticize the political figure... not the voters. No matter how much you believe that is true.

No, you very much do criticize the voters for what they choose to accept. When people believe lies, you call them out on it. When people spread misinformation, you call them out on it. When people say stupid things, you call them out on it. To do otherwise is to abdicate the responsibility of democracy.

So do it in a manner without labeling the groups as 'deplorables'.

Because if you don't, you'll never persuade them from voting for your preferred candidate.




Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Compel wrote:
On the wwhle "why Trump won." I don't see why the two camps / points of views are necessarily mutually exclusive...

That's true... it isn't one thing in a vacuum. It's complicated...

We'll be analyzing this for quite some time.

 whembly wrote:
Nazis are political party right? So of course you'd call 'em nazis.

Colloquially Cheeto Jesus voters are Republican voters.

Yeah, and they are the same Republican voters that have come out every year. In fact, he got less of them that normal. The only thing this election had proved it that the republican party's lock-step approach to party loyalty has meant their voters placing party loyalty over decency, logic, and facts. Although the endless cavalcade of conspiracy theories about HRC didn't help.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 whembly wrote:

So do it in a manner without labeling the groups as 'deplorables'.

Because if you don't, you'll never persuade them from voting for your preferred candidate.

Anybody voting for Donald "lock her up" Trump is not voting for HRC. Anybody who can willingly look past the lies, BS, lack of experience and knowledge, racism, sexism, Islamophobia, and complete lack of self control is not voting for HRC. Trump didn't win because he energized a new core of voters , Hillary lost because she failed to energize hers.

 Co'tor Shas wrote:

 whembly wrote:
Nazis are political party right? So of course you'd call 'em nazis.

Colloquially Cheeto Jesus voters are Republican voters.

Yeah, and they are the same Republican voters that have come out every year. In fact, he got less of them that normal.

Huh? He got more than Romney. o.O

The only thing this election had proved it that the republican party's lock-step approach to party loyalty has meant their voters placing party loyalty over decency, logic, and facts.

Or that Hillary was that *bad* of a candidate. I obviously subscribe to that idea... and Joe Biden should've ran.

Although the endless cavalcade of conspiracy theories about HRC didn't help.

Or maybe, the DNC voters shouldn't have nominated someone under active FBI investigations. (note the plural there)

 whembly wrote:

 Co'tor Shas wrote:

 whembly wrote:
Nazis are political party right? So of course you'd call 'em nazis.

Colloquially Cheeto Jesus voters are Republican voters.

Yeah, and they are the same Republican voters that have come out every year. In fact, he got less of them that normal.

Huh? He got more than Romney. o.O

The only thing this election had proved it that the republican party's lock-step approach to party loyalty has meant their voters placing party loyalty over decency, logic, and facts.

Or that Hillary was that *bad* of a candidate. I obviously subscribe to that idea... and Joe Biden should've ran.

Although the endless cavalcade of conspiracy theories about HRC didn't help.

Or maybe, the DNC voters shouldn't have nominated someone under active FBI investigations. (note the plural there)

And the republicans nominated someone who has scammed thousands of americans, defrauded thousands, has active sexual assault cases against him and possibly raped a child

 whembly wrote:
He's a walking contradiction for sure...

I think he's trying to be this 'free speech warrior', but really he's this 'free speech outrageous yahoo' weirdo.

But, I do enjoy when people claims he's a:
-homophobe: uh...dude... he's flaming gay
-racist: uh... dude... he talks about black schlongs all day long and is (or was) living with a black boyfriend
-misogynist : his rants against modern femanisms certainly supports that, and I haven't seen him refute it either

He's just over-the-top... he's a gay Howard Stern.

That last bit hit the nail on the head. He's just another Howard Stern, saying whatever it takes to get attention. There's no real political meaning behind anything Milo does, it is just attention whoring.

I guess the one real difference between Stern and Milo is that Stern at his base was always a likeable, positive kind of guy, even if he said stuff that was really bad, you knew that personally he was just harmless goofball. And of course there was no political agenda behind Stern, unless 'leave alone to stare at boobs' counts. Whereas Milo at his base is very political, and quite mean. Whether this is because Milo is actually a nasty turd, or because he just happens to have started his attention whoring business in the midst of a nasty, political age is a question I'll leave to scholars willing to keep reading his crap.

The foundation isn't going to get the same kind of scratch now, since she's out of the influence peddling business.

So, hypothetically, if the foundation was to continue to achieve the same kind of donations in the future that its gotten in the past, you would admit that it was never about influence peddling?

 Co'tor Shas wrote:

Automatically Appended Next Post:

 whembly wrote:

So do it in a manner without labeling the groups as 'deplorables'.

Because if you don't, you'll never persuade them from voting for your preferred candidate.

Anybody voting for Donald "lock her up" Trump is not voting for HRC. Anybody who can willingly look past the lies, BS, lack of experience and knowledge, racism, sexism, Islamophobia, and complete lack of self control is not voting for HRC. Trump didn't win because he energized a new core of voters , Hillary lost because she failed to energize hers.

I beg to differ. He actually flipped voters who voted for Obama twice. That's what's remarkable about this election.

Those voters pulled from Trump despite his bigly failings. Too much, that highlights how HRC was simply a horribad candidate.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Ustrello wrote:

 whembly wrote:

 Co'tor Shas wrote:

 whembly wrote:
Nazis are political party right? So of course you'd call 'em nazis.

Colloquially Cheeto Jesus voters are Republican voters.

Yeah, and they are the same Republican voters that have come out every year. In fact, he got less of them that normal.

Huh? He got more than Romney. o.O

The only thing this election had proved it that the republican party's lock-step approach to party loyalty has meant their voters placing party loyalty over decency, logic, and facts.

Or that Hillary was that *bad* of a candidate. I obviously subscribe to that idea... and Joe Biden should've ran.

Although the endless cavalcade of conspiracy theories about HRC didn't help.

Or maybe, the DNC voters shouldn't have nominated someone under active FBI investigations. (note the plural there)

And the republicans nominated someone who has scammed thousands of americans, defrauded thousands, has active sexual assault cases against him and possibly raped a child

..and now you know why I voted for the stoner.

 Co'tor Shas wrote:
The only thing this election had proved it that the republican party's lock-step approach to party loyalty has meant their voters placing party loyalty over decency, logic, and facts.

If the Republican party had any sort of "lock-step approach to party loyalty" then Trump would never have been the nominee.

 Ouze wrote:

 Supertony51 wrote:
Somehow we got into the conversation about "Rape culture" (she is VERY VERY left wing) and how awful it is. I told her that I've had the privilege to travel the world and lived in countries where there is a real rape culture.

The next time you order a drink and get the wrong one, I hope you are content with your server reminding you how lucky you are that you have anything at all to drink, when so many people in the world have limited access to clean water.

that Anology isn't even remotely related.

In the U.S. Rapists are vilified, persecuted, and are imprisoned for long periods of time. Rape isn't a accepted part of our culture

In the M.E. Rape is considered a blemish on the honor of the family and the victims are often murdered or disfigured. Rape maybe isn't advocated, but it certainly isn't shunned

Huge difference between that and some dirty water.

Rosebuddy wrote:
It seems to me that you are going out of your way to reject any notion of perspective. Perhaps Clinton is not a warhawk when compared to people who sing about bombing Iran (that it isn't definite says it all, really) but when one considers that she thinks that Obama, who has overseen massive drone bombing campaigns and general constant war in the Middle East, wasn't forceful enough it is entirely fair to say she wants war. Even more so considering she actively pushed for war in Libya and wants a no-fly zone in Syria.

All of which would mean it would make sense to say that she would likely be more aggressive in foreign operations than Obama. But trying to use 'warhawk' to mean that only shows you have little interest in what that term actually means.

If we aren't allowed to call her a warmonger because other people also want war and phrase it in more openly vicious rhetoric that tells me that US politics are deeply sick, not that Clinton is actually peace-loving and just. Tirelessly arguing for the death of meaning in the name of justifying atrocities is the most banal of evils.

It isn't that you aren't allowed to call her that. You are 'allowed' to call her Warhawkia McWarhawk, Queen of the Warhawks if you want. The point is that claiming it makes no sense and means nothing.

Because when you talk about US politics you do it within the context of US politicians. Anything else is gibberish.