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.
d-usa wrote: I remember when Hillary was accused of not realizing that Russia is our greatest geopolitical foe, and was a fool for trying to reset relations with Russia.
I remember when Romney was mocked for stated that Russia was the greatest geopolitical foe...
So what's your stance?
Because you are all over the place here.
Personally? I don't think Russia is "our friends" and Trump is a fool to play hookey with Putie-poo.
But, I'm pointing out the hypocrisy the left/libs/Democrats who criticised Romney and other GOP stance to be wary of Russia.
Who could forget Obama's high school burn:
The 1980s are now calling to ask for their foreign policy back because…the Cold War’s been over for 20 years.
d-usa wrote: I remember when Hillary was accused of not realizing that Russia is our greatest geopolitical foe, and was a fool for trying to reset relations with Russia.
I remember when Romney was mocked for stated that Russia was the greatest geopolitical foe...
So what's your stance?
Because you are all over the place here.
Whatever allows for him to be angry at demirates
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2016/12/31 00:03:27
I suppose one thing to say, Whembly is, I guess why some of the frustration is that ultimately, people more on the left really would like you to speak out more on the things on the right you're less happy with. Because, basically, when it comes to those on the centre-right or the right, on the forums at least, your word does carry more weight with them. And that's why people further left get really frustrated with you.
Ultimately, former presidential candidates are now irrelevant if they no longer hold office.
In 20 days time, the current administration is also going to become, effectively irrelevant.
Noone has actually really answered my questions a few days ago about how, in 20 days time, the Democratic party are going to be, effectively, irrelevant.
I'm oft reminded of the common argument made after incidents of, "why don't the X community leaders speak out against subfaction Y if they supposedly oppose it. Nah I think that X community leaders secretly approve of it." And that's because the words of community leaders X hold more weight towards the greater members of X. Ultimately, whether you wanted to be or not, (probably by the fact you post more often), you are one of the Republican community leaders on Dakka and I really would ask you to call out any BS you see from the Right, because to be honest, if it comes from anyone judged to be one iota left of even 'center right', it's just going to be ignored as... I think the phrase someone used a few days ago was "libetard ramblings." - Something like that anyway. Ultimately, I'm not asking you to, well, betray your political beliefs. I'm asking you to help protect them from being corrupted. Just 12 posts ago (a lot less if you discount mine and yours), we had someone that, in a not atypical post than one would see from some people on twitter who would identify themselves as Republican claim that it's not sexual assault unless you actively try to, I dunno, punch them in the face? This is really bad.
And this is me saying it, not only as an outsider and not an American but also as someone on the UK politics thread finds myself sitting on the right side of the fence on most of the discussions there.
This message was edited 3 times. Last update was at 2016/12/31 00:45:06
Compel wrote: I suppose one thing to say, Whembly is, I guess why some of the frustration is that ultimately, people more on the left really would like you to speak out more on the things on the right you're less happy with. Because, basically, when it comes to those on the centre-right or the right, on the forums at least, your word does carry more weight with them. And that's why people further left get really frustrated with you.
I'm a conservative. Polices and what our government does will dictate my reaction.
Cheeto Jesus hasn't done jack gak because HE'S NOT POTUS yet.
So, for all the cries of 'why aren't you bitching at Trump for the same thing that Clinton has done!!!!!!'...
It's a bit silly to harangue me over this...
Ultimately, former presidential candidates are now irrelevant if they no longer hold office.
Ultimately, yes that's true.
In 20 days time, the current administration is also going to become, effectively irrelevant.
I'll be one fething happy camper in that regard.
Noone has actually really answered my questions a few days ago about how, in 20 days time, the Democratic party are going to be, effectively, irrelevant.
Not really. US political critters do NOT vote like the way your UK Westminster system does.
It's not a given that the party votes in 'lock-step' with their colleagues.
In the Senate, most things will still need 60 votes to allow a bill to be vote for laws (with some few exceptions), so the Democrats still has some sway.
I'm oft reminded of the common argument made after incidents of, "why don't the X community leaders speak out against subfaction Y if they supposedly oppose it. Nah I think that X community leaders secretly approve of it." And that's because the words of community leaders X hold more weight towards the greater members of X. Ultimately, whether you wanted to be or not, (probably by the fact you post more often), you are one of the Republican community leaders on Dakka and I really would ask you to call out any BS you see from the Right, because to be honest, if it comes from anyone judged to be one iota left of even 'center right', it's just going to be ignored as... I think the phrase someone used a few days ago was "libetard ramblings." - Something like that anyway.
And this is me saying it, not only as an outsider and not an American but also as someone on the UK politics thread finds myself sitting on the right side of the fence on most of the discussions there.
If I see some shenanigans by the GOP party, I'll speak up.
Lord knows that they'll be ample opportunites to feth up.
whembly wrote: Cheeto Jesus hasn't done jack gak because HE'S NOT POTUS yet.
You know, it's possible to look at a person's record and predict their likely choices, even when they haven't been in the exact same situation in the past.
US political critters do NOT vote like the way your UK Westminster system does.
It's not a given that the party votes in 'lock-step' with their colleagues.
The experience of the past few years would argue pretty strongly against this idea. As would the republican party's collective decision to fall in line behind Trump as a candidate instead of rejecting him in favor of someone who isn't so obviously unqualified for the job.
If I see some shenanigans by the GOP party, I'll speak up.
The fact that you haven't spoken up yet, as "shenanigans" are actively occurring, is rather clear proof of the point here. You have your silly nicknames for Trump, but the reality sure seems to be that you're ok with what your team is doing and all the "Cheeto Jesus" comments are nothing more than a weak attempt to avoid criticism for your loyalty to the party.
There is no such thing as a hobby without politics. "Leave politics at the door" is itself a political statement, an endorsement of the status quo and an attempt to silence dissenting voices.
Compel wrote: I suppose one thing to say, Whembly is, I guess why some of the frustration is that ultimately, people more on the left really would like you to speak out more on the things on the right you're less happy with. Because, basically, when it comes to those on the centre-right or the right, on the forums at least, your word does carry more weight with them. And that's why people further left get really frustrated with you.
I'm a conservative. Polices and what our government does will dictate my reaction.
Cheeto Jesus hasn't done jack gak because HE'S NOT POTUS yet.
So, for all the cries of 'why aren't you bitching at Trump for the same thing that Clinton has done!!!!!!'...
It's a bit silly to harangue me over this...
Ultimately, former presidential candidates are now irrelevant if they no longer hold office.
Ultimately, yes that's true.
In 20 days time, the current administration is also going to become, effectively irrelevant.
I'll be one fething happy camper in that regard.
Noone has actually really answered my questions a few days ago about how, in 20 days time, the Democratic party are going to be, effectively, irrelevant.
Not really. US political critters do NOT vote like the way your UK Westminster system does.
It's not a given that the party votes in 'lock-step' with their colleagues.
In the Senate, most things will still need 60 votes to allow a bill to be vote for laws (with some few exceptions), so the Democrats still has some sway.
I'm oft reminded of the common argument made after incidents of, "why don't the X community leaders speak out against subfaction Y if they supposedly oppose it. Nah I think that X community leaders secretly approve of it." And that's because the words of community leaders X hold more weight towards the greater members of X. Ultimately, whether you wanted to be or not, (probably by the fact you post more often), you are one of the Republican community leaders on Dakka and I really would ask you to call out any BS you see from the Right, because to be honest, if it comes from anyone judged to be one iota left of even 'center right', it's just going to be ignored as... I think the phrase someone used a few days ago was "libetard ramblings." - Something like that anyway.
And this is me saying it, not only as an outsider and not an American but also as someone on the UK politics thread finds myself sitting on the right side of the fence on most of the discussions there.
If I see some shenanigans by the GOP party, I'll speak up.
Lord knows that they'll be ample opportunites to feth up.
I would say their views on global warming but we know your views on killing the planet
d-usa wrote: I remember when Hillary was accused of not realizing that Russia is our greatest geopolitical foe, and was a fool for trying to reset relations with Russia.
You can call him Cheeto Jesus all you want, but you have not spend an ounce of effort even pretending to be outraged over him doing everything that made you spam this thread when Clinton did it.
But "go team" I guess.
Jesus... Hillary Clinton was Obama's fething Secretary of State.
Has any Trump family members Ior himself) held any government positions?
Come back to me when Trumpendo sets up an equivalent homebrew email server at Trump Plaza specifically to circumvent federal records act.
Come back to me when some foreigner lavish mega bucks to Trumps family member, and voila mere months later a favorable ruling is handed down that benefited the donor.
Trump is a scumbag.
Instead of raising the fething hysteria NOW when Trump isn't even PRESIDENT... maybe you should hold off criticisms till something, ya know... actually happens.
All this teeth-gnashing over Trump right now will only DILUTE any valid criticisms in the future.
d-usa wrote: While it's clear that whembly is a main offender, I have tried not to single out posters in particular. But t is a general trend, both on this thread as well as in general politics and social media.
then don't post or read the thread.
-"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!
d-usa wrote: While it's clear that whembly is a main offender, I have tried not to single out posters in particular. But t is a general trend, both on this thread as well as in general politics and social media.
then don't post or read the thread.
Isn't there a Cali kid you should be chasing off a lawn somewhere? That would be more productive than complaining about people complaining. Especially coming from Mr. I'm Old And I Hate Everything.
You can call him Cheeto Jesus all you want, but you have not spend an ounce of effort even pretending to be outraged over him doing everything that made you spam this thread when Clinton did it.
But "go team" I guess.
Jesus... Hillary Clinton was Obama's fething Secretary of State.
Has any Trump family members Ior himself) held any government positions?
Come back to me when Trumpendo sets up an equivalent homebrew email server at Trump Plaza specifically to circumvent federal records act.
Come back to me when some foreigner lavish mega bucks to Trumps family member, and voila mere months later a favorable ruling is handed down that benefited the donor.
Trump is a scumbag.
Instead of raising the fething hysteria NOW when Trump isn't even PRESIDENT... maybe you should hold off criticisms till something, ya know... actually happens.
All this teeth-gnashing over Trump right now will only DILUTE any valid criticisms in the future.
And McMahon being appointed head of the SBA after being one of the main funding sources of the Trump Foundation is fine and totally not pay-to-play foundation business.
You can call him Cheeto Jesus all you want, but you have not spend an ounce of effort even pretending to be outraged over him doing everything that made you spam this thread when Clinton did it.
But "go team" I guess.
Jesus... Hillary Clinton was Obama's fething Secretary of State.
Has any Trump family members Ior himself) held any government positions?
Come back to me when Trumpendo sets up an equivalent homebrew email server at Trump Plaza specifically to circumvent federal records act.
Come back to me when some foreigner lavish mega bucks to Trumps family member, and voila mere months later a favorable ruling is handed down that benefited the donor.
Trump is a scumbag.
Instead of raising the fething hysteria NOW when Trump isn't even PRESIDENT... maybe you should hold off criticisms till something, ya know... actually happens.
All this teeth-gnashing over Trump right now will only DILUTE any valid criticisms in the future.
Which is surprising since you complained about pay to play for months with HRC, and yet when trump picks his SoS who has multi billion dollar deals with russia you are okay with it
whembly wrote: Cheeto Jesus hasn't done jack gak because HE'S NOT POTUS yet.
You know, it's possible to look at a person's record and predict their likely choices, even when they haven't been in the exact same situation in the past.
Well... I'll give you that. It still can be a crapshoot... 'cuz, you'd have to admit his actions so far has been surprising.
At least he isn't looking at his guest list from his prior cocktail parties and randomly giving positions to people.
US political critters do NOT vote like the way your UK Westminster system does.
It's not a given that the party votes in 'lock-step' with their colleagues.
The experience of the past few years would argue pretty strongly against this idea.
Look at it from Compel's viewpoint... in a westminster system, do go against your party is big news. Unlike here, US congressional critters aren't as beholden to their party.
As would the republican party's collective decision to fall in line behind Trump as a candidate instead of rejecting him in favor of someone who isn't so obviously unqualified for the job.
...eh, whatever. A lot of things had to happen in order for Trump to survive. You can sure as gak know that the establishment GOP didn't want him in the early primary.
If I see some shenanigans by the GOP party, I'll speak up.
The fact that you haven't spoken up yet, as "shenanigans" are actively occurring, is rather clear proof of the point here. You have your silly nicknames for Trump, but the reality sure seems to be that you're ok with what your team is doing and all the "Cheeto Jesus" comments are nothing more than a weak attempt to avoid criticism for your loyalty to the party.
Read to the words that I type here...
I'm in Calvin Ball mode here... I really couldn't give a gak what Trump does. (on Earth-2 a Hillary Clinton admin would be 'as bad' in a different way. Nothing you can say would convince me otherwise).
My apparent loyalty towards the rest of the GOP is really more of a reflection of my abject opposition to most things modern Democrats had done/advocated for...
Keep in mind. Conservatives <> GOP... there are plenty of things that drives me nuts.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Ustrello wrote: Which is surprising since you complained about pay to play for months with HRC, and yet when trump picks his SoS who has multi billion dollar deals with russia you are okay with it
What's SoS getting out of it?
He's making a feth-ton of money as CEO *now*... so, he's taking a serious paycut.
Are you implying that he paid Trump for the SoS pick? If so, I'd be interesting in some investigation on that.
This message was edited 3 times. Last update was at 2016/12/31 06:08:03
Seems like the Rolling Stone is throwing cold water on the whole DNC hacked by Russians story. They're even making comparisons to the Bush WMD bad intel stuff.
The problem with this story is that, like the Iraq-WMD mess, it takes place in the middle of a highly politicized environment during which the motives of all the relevant actors are suspect. Nothing quite adds up.
If the American security agencies had smoking-gun evidence that the Russians had an organized campaign to derail the U.S. presidential election and deliver the White House to Trump, then expelling a few dozen diplomats after the election seems like an oddly weak and ill-timed response. Voices in both parties are saying this now.
Breotan wrote: Seems like the Rolling Stone is throwing cold water on the whole DNC hacked by Russians story. They're even making comparisons to the Bush WMD bad intel stuff.
The problem with this story is that, like the Iraq-WMD mess, it takes place in the middle of a highly politicized environment during which the motives of all the relevant actors are suspect. Nothing quite adds up.
If the American security agencies had smoking-gun evidence that the Russians had an organized campaign to derail the U.S. presidential election and deliver the White House to Trump, then expelling a few dozen diplomats after the election seems like an oddly weak and ill-timed response. Voices in both parties are saying this now.
Read the article for more.
A) I read a little bit of that...
B) I don't put much credence to what the Stones write... especially after the fake rape story at UVA.
C) it is accepted that wikileak is a front for Russian intelligence, so it isn't really all that outrageous to think that Russian Intelligence has tried to create some chaos.
D) if there were some smoking gun, and the intelligence/Obama admin withheld it, that's a god damned disaster imo. The people has the right to know this, and our government ought to spill the beans. If it does exist... the only reason I can think of why Obama admin would suppress it, is because it's casus belli for fething war.
E) However, considering D, I'd think that the Obama admistration would certainly release such evidence now in order to handcuff the incoming Trump administration.
Compel wrote: we had someone that, in a not atypical post than one would see from some people on twitter who would identify themselves as Republican claim that it's not sexual assault unless you actively try to, I dunno, punch them in the face? This is really bad.
And this is me saying it, not only as an outsider and not an American but also as someone on the UK politics thread finds myself sitting on the right side of the fence on most of the discussions there.
I didn't say anything of the sort. What I said was, that if they are fine with it, it's not sexual assault. There have been several other posters from this very thread that have stated that consent can be given after the fact (although strangely their opinions seem to shift when it comes to Trump instead of drunken college sex). As a side note, he NEVER actually did grab a woman by her nether area, he just made a really tasteless joke about it. A tasteless joke that I criticized him for and said I was ashamed of. Better check yourself next time.
Compel wrote: we had someone that, in a not atypical post than one would see from some people on twitter who would identify themselves as Republican claim that it's not sexual assault unless you actively try to, I dunno, punch them in the face? This is really bad.
And this is me saying it, not only as an outsider and not an American but also as someone on the UK politics thread finds myself sitting on the right side of the fence on most of the discussions there.
I didn't say anything of the sort. What I said was, that if they are fine with it, it's not sexual assault. There have been several other posters from this very thread that have stated that consent can be given after the fact (although strangely their opinions seem to shift when it comes to Trump instead of drunken college sex). As a side note, he NEVER actually did grab a woman by her nether area, he just made a really tasteless joke about it. A tasteless joke that I criticized him for and said I was ashamed of. Better check yourself next time.
So you're in the camp of 'all those women are liars', then? I'm not going to argue, it's totally pointless. I just want to check for the record.
I don't know if they are lying or not. They very well could be telling the truth, and the fact that there is so many of them is pretty damning. On the other hand, all of them coming out at the same time, after many years, many of them after having been paid to do so, is also more than a little eyebrow raising.
Even more so when this election was plagued (by both sides) with a "we'll do anything to beat them" mentality. Hacking, death threats and harassment to electors, questionable finances, conspiring against other candidates, media corruption and bias, etc.
Am I saying the women are lying, no. I don't necessarily take what the say as fact either, especially when they chose a REALLY bad time to come out.
whembly wrote: 'cuz, you'd have to admit his actions so far has been surprising.
No, I really don't. The exact names he picked to fill his swamp might have been hard to predict, but he's been doing exactly what we expected from him. If you're surprised by his actions it's only because you believed his lies and wanted everything to be ok.
Look at it from Compel's viewpoint... in a westminster system, do go against your party is big news. Unlike here, US congressional critters aren't as beholden to their party.
Maybe in a relative sense, but party loyalty is strong enough in the US, especially on major issues, that the difference doesn't really mean much.
You can sure as gak know that the establishment GOP didn't want him in the early primary.
They might not have wanted him, but they sure didn't hesitate to fall in line behind him once he proved that he could be a winner. If the party leadership had wanted Trump gone they could have easily said "Trump is removed from our party's primaries, Cruz is now our presidential candidate" at any time. But instead the republican party accepted that Trump is the new leadership.
I'm in Calvin Ball mode here... I really couldn't give a gak what Trump does.
So, you're just here to play partisan politics and tell everyone how awful The Other Team is without caring at all about the stuff you're arguing about? I mean, we kind of knew this already, but it's nice to hear you confirm it.
My apparent loyalty towards the rest of the GOP is really more of a reflection of my abject opposition to most things modern Democrats had done/advocated for...
No, it's very clearly based on My Team vs. The Other Team, not any practical policy issues. This is demonstrated over and over again each time you embrace every single low-credibility source that makes The Other Team look bad, ignore the mountains of evidence presented that you're wrong and come right back with the same old arguments, etc. Perhaps the straw man democrats in your own version of the world are truly as awful as you believe, but in the real world your opposition is unconvincing at best.
What's SoS getting out of it?
He's making a feth-ton of money as CEO *now*... so, he's taking a serious paycut.
Do you honestly not see how being secretary of state has a lot of potential to get income (both for yourself and for your allies) other than just the official salary? I mean, the whole "pay to play" thing about Clinton certainly wasn't about the vast riches she was getting from her official salary. So why are you suddenly forgetting how this works when it comes to Trump's version of the swamp?
Are you implying that he paid Trump for the SoS pick? If so, I'd be interesting in some investigation on that.
Nobody is implying anything, they're stating it explicitly. Trump's SoS pick is a major donor to Trump's foundation. This is at least as compelling as any of the evidence of donors to Clinton's foundation getting special privileges in return, but instead of the outrage you had over everything related to Clinton you're just calmly expressing interest in an investigation. Have you already forgotten your outrage over Clinton's "scandal", or is Trump's version less objectionable because it's Your Team doing it?
There is no such thing as a hobby without politics. "Leave politics at the door" is itself a political statement, an endorsement of the status quo and an attempt to silence dissenting voices.
Compel wrote: I suppose one thing to say, Whembly is, I guess why some of the frustration is that ultimately, people more on the left really would like you to speak out more on the things on the right you're less happy with. Because, basically, when it comes to those on the centre-right or the right, on the forums at least, your word does carry more weight with them. And that's why people further left get really frustrated with you.
I'm a conservative. Polices and what our government does will dictate my reaction.
Cheeto Jesus hasn't done jack gak because HE'S NOT POTUS yet.
So, for all the cries of 'why aren't you bitching at Trump for the same thing that Clinton has done!!!!!!'...
It's a bit silly to harangue me over this...
Ultimately, former presidential candidates are now irrelevant if they no longer hold office.
Ultimately, yes that's true.
In 20 days time, the current administration is also going to become, effectively irrelevant.
I'll be one fething happy camper in that regard.
Noone has actually really answered my questions a few days ago about how, in 20 days time, the Democratic party are going to be, effectively, irrelevant.
Not really. US political critters do NOT vote like the way your UK Westminster system does.
It's not a given that the party votes in 'lock-step' with their colleagues.
In the Senate, most things will still need 60 votes to allow a bill to be vote for laws (with some few exceptions), so the Democrats still has some sway.
I'm oft reminded of the common argument made after incidents of, "why don't the X community leaders speak out against subfaction Y if they supposedly oppose it. Nah I think that X community leaders secretly approve of it." And that's because the words of community leaders X hold more weight towards the greater members of X. Ultimately, whether you wanted to be or not, (probably by the fact you post more often), you are one of the Republican community leaders on Dakka and I really would ask you to call out any BS you see from the Right, because to be honest, if it comes from anyone judged to be one iota left of even 'center right', it's just going to be ignored as... I think the phrase someone used a few days ago was "libetard ramblings." - Something like that anyway.
And this is me saying it, not only as an outsider and not an American but also as someone on the UK politics thread finds myself sitting on the right side of the fence on most of the discussions there.
If I see some shenanigans by the GOP party, I'll speak up.
Lord knows that they'll be ample opportunites to feth up.
Whatever a presidential candidate has said becomes internationally politically significant as soon as he is elected.
Cheeto Jesus has already upset the China policy, pissed on the UK government's chips, stuck his tongue a long way up Russia's arse, interfered in the Middle East, and annoyed the Mexicans, Canadians, South Korea and Japan.
d-usa wrote: While it's clear that whembly is a main offender, I have tried not to single out posters in particular. But t is a general trend, both on this thread as well as in general politics and social media.
then don't post or read the thread.
Isn't there a Cali kid you should be chasing off a lawn somewhere? That would be more productive than complaining about people complaining. Especially coming from Mr. I'm Old And I Hate Everything.
ah,no thats my intent. to be clear most of this thread is now just that 'trump is evilz' and lets trade fire with Whembly.Whike useful in keeping this out of the OTT (like an OT for the OT). Its pretty toxic and one should consider taking breaks from it. same advice I gace Whembly actually.
-"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!
whembly wrote: D) if there were some smoking gun, and the intelligence/Obama admin withheld it, that's a god damned disaster imo. The people has the right to know this, and our government ought to spill the beans. If it does exist... the only reason I can think of why Obama admin would suppress it, is because it's casus belli for fething war.
Another reason for not releasing the "smoking gun" could be how that proof was acquired. Could be a mole/spy within the Russian government itself. Could be some secret government system or monitoring program. There's also something to be said for keeping the proof secret, so that Russia can't be certain about what we really know. Could be the proof was gained because we hacked Russia, and we don't want them to know we hacked them because we're just that good.
"Through the darkness of future past, the magician longs to see.
One chants out between two worlds: Fire, walk with me." - Twin Peaks
"You listen to me. While I will admit to a certain cynicism, the fact is that I am a naysayer and hatchetman in the fight against violence. I pride myself in taking a punch and I'll gladly take another because I choose to live my life in the company of Gandhi and King. My concerns are global. I reject absolutely revenge, aggression, and retaliation. The foundation of such a method... is love. I love you Sheriff Truman." - Twin Peaks
cuda1179 wrote: I don't know if they are lying or not. They very well could be telling the truth, and the fact that there is so many of them is pretty damning. On the other hand, all of them coming out at the same time, after many years, many of them after having been paid to do so, is also more than a little eyebrow raising.
Even more so when this election was plagued (by both sides) with a "we'll do anything to beat them" mentality. Hacking, death threats and harassment to electors, questionable finances, conspiring against other candidates, media corruption and bias, etc.
Am I saying the women are lying, no. I don't necessarily take what the say as fact either, especially when they chose a REALLY bad time to come out.
When I was in the army, I had mandatory SHARP training... For those who don't know, it is anti-sexual harrassment, assault, rape, etc. training.
One of the big things always brought up during the training was the phenomena that when someone makes a quiet report and things are investigated, they often find that that reporter is not the only person who's been "got" by the perpetrator, and they ask if they can go with an official report, to have an investigation with intent to prosecute started. In the early days of the program, they found that people, in the army's case it's predominately women who report, are more likely to come forward and report issues if they know that someone else has gone through what they have, AND it was done by the same person as them.
In this case, dealing with Trump, who is a very public figure, its only natural that this sort of thing comes out and is used against him. My guess is, the thought process goes something like, if they come out publicly, during a time where he cannot really pay off the victims, the court, the jury, etc. they may get to a trial and actually get justice for them and others.
whembly wrote: D) if there were some smoking gun, and the intelligence/Obama admin withheld it, that's a god damned disaster imo. The people has the right to know this, and our government ought to spill the beans. If it does exist... the only reason I can think of why Obama admin would suppress it, is because it's casus belli for fething war.
Another reason for not releasing the "smoking gun" could be how that proof was acquired. Could be a mole/spy within the Russian government itself. Could be some secret government system or monitoring program. There's also something to be said for keeping the proof secret, so that Russia can't be certain about what we really know. Could be the proof was gained because we hacked Russia, and we don't want them to know we hacked them because we're just that good.
Everybody accepts that the USA spies on Russia and vice versa.
As a neutral with an interest in US history and politics, I think the real reason why your government is annoyed is because Russia beat you to the punch, did to you what you were going to do to them.
That's why your government is off
Good old fashioned jealousy, that and the fact that Putin ran rings around you guys in Syria and the UK as well to an extent.
"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
cuda1179 wrote: I don't know if they are lying or not. They very well could be telling the truth, and the fact that there is so many of them is pretty damning. On the other hand, all of them coming out at the same time, after many years, many of them after having been paid to do so, is also more than a little eyebrow raising.
Even more so when this election was plagued (by both sides) with a "we'll do anything to beat them" mentality. Hacking, death threats and harassment to electors, questionable finances, conspiring against other candidates, media corruption and bias, etc.
Am I saying the women are lying, no. I don't necessarily take what the say as fact either, especially when they chose a REALLY bad time to come out.
When I was in the army, I had mandatory SHARP training... For those who don't know, it is anti-sexual harrassment, assault, rape, etc. training.
One of the big things always brought up during the training was the phenomena that when someone makes a quiet report and things are investigated, they often find that that reporter is not the only person who's been "got" by the perpetrator, and they ask if they can go with an official report, to have an investigation with intent to prosecute started. In the early days of the program, they found that people, in the army's case it's predominately women who report, are more likely to come forward and report issues if they know that someone else has gone through what they have, AND it was done by the same person as them.
In this case, dealing with Trump, who is a very public figure, its only natural that this sort of thing comes out and is used against him. My guess is, the thought process goes something like, if they come out publicly, during a time where he cannot really pay off the victims, the court, the jury, etc. they may get to a trial and actually get justice for them and others.
I really don't want to wade into this, but there's also the simple truth that when someone rich and powerful has just made a grab at you, what are you going to do? They're rich. They're powerful. It's your word against theirs. One phone call and they could ruin your career, and any future prospects within your chosen field. They can hire the $1000/hr attorneys that will drown you in mountains of legal paperwork that you can't really deal with because you can barely afford a $10/hr attorney after you've been blacklisted in your career field by that phone call.
"Through the darkness of future past, the magician longs to see.
One chants out between two worlds: Fire, walk with me." - Twin Peaks
"You listen to me. While I will admit to a certain cynicism, the fact is that I am a naysayer and hatchetman in the fight against violence. I pride myself in taking a punch and I'll gladly take another because I choose to live my life in the company of Gandhi and King. My concerns are global. I reject absolutely revenge, aggression, and retaliation. The foundation of such a method... is love. I love you Sheriff Truman." - Twin Peaks
whembly wrote: 'cuz, you'd have to admit his actions so far has been surprising.
No, I really don't. The exact names he picked to fill his swamp might have been hard to predict, but he's been doing exactly what we expected from him. If you're surprised by his actions it's only because you believed his lies and wanted everything to be ok.
Nah... I was worried that he wouldn't pick competent people.
I'm relieved that he's listening to his peeps (VP, Conway, et. el.) rather going rogue.
Look at it from Compel's viewpoint... in a westminster system, do go against your party is big news. Unlike here, US congressional critters aren't as beholden to their party.
Maybe in a relative sense, but party loyalty is strong enough in the US, especially on major issues, that the difference doesn't really mean much.
I disagree. It's nothing like the Westminster system where official sanctions are a thing if you don't toe the line.
You can sure as gak know that the establishment GOP didn't want him in the early primary.
They might not have wanted him, but they sure didn't hesitate to fall in line behind him once he proved that he could be a winner. If the party leadership had wanted Trump gone they could have easily said "Trump is removed from our party's primaries, Cruz is now our presidential candidate" at any time. But instead the republican party accepted that Trump is the new leadership.
And incur the wrath of many Trump voters? Yeah... the GOP isn't the DNC to have 'superdelegates' to guide the primary.
I'm in Calvin Ball mode here... I really couldn't give a gak what Trump does.
So, you're just here to play partisan politics and tell everyone how awful The Other Team is without caring at all about the stuff you're arguing about? I mean, we kind of knew this already, but it's nice to hear you confirm it.
:roll eyes:
No... I just don't give a gak about Trump (and by extension Clinton had she won). I already went through my stages of grief back when it was obvious it was going to be both Trump v. Clinton.
My apparent loyalty towards the rest of the GOP is really more of a reflection of my abject opposition to most things modern Democrats had done/advocated for...
No, it's very clearly based on My Team vs. The Other Team, not any practical policy issues. This is demonstrated over and over again each time you embrace every single low-credibility source that makes The Other Team look bad, ignore the mountains of evidence presented that you're wrong and come right back with the same old arguments, etc. Perhaps the straw man democrats in your own version of the world are truly as awful as you believe, but in the real world your opposition is unconvincing at best.
That's load of horse manure.
Democrats deserves whatever scorn and ire. Apparently the rest of America though so as Democrats got spanked in every government level since 2008. That's going to be Obama's true legacy... and he'll own that decimation for quite sometime. They're only saving grace is Trump feths up royally, that the Democrats will experience a 'Tea Party-like' uprising.
What's SoS getting out of it?
He's making a feth-ton of money as CEO *now*... so, he's taking a serious paycut.
Do you honestly not see how being secretary of state has a lot of potential to get income (both for yourself and for your allies) other than just the official salary? I mean, the whole "pay to play" thing about Clinton certainly wasn't about the vast riches she was getting from her official salary. So why are you suddenly forgetting how this works when it comes to Trump's version of the swamp?
Is this you admitting the Clintons did a bad thing?
Are you implying that he paid Trump for the SoS pick? If so, I'd be interesting in some investigation on that.
Nobody is implying anything, they're stating it explicitly. Trump's SoS pick is a major donor to Trump's foundation. This is at least as compelling as any of the evidence of donors to Clinton's foundation getting special privileges in return, but instead of the outrage you had over everything related to Clinton you're just calmly expressing interest in an investigation. Have you already forgotten your outrage over Clinton's "scandal", or is Trump's version less objectionable because it's Your Team doing it?
That politics dejour... in every administration political positions are filled with donors.
I'm just waiting for proof that the SoS is monetizing SoS access like the Clinton Foundation.
whembly wrote: D) if there were some smoking gun, and the intelligence/Obama admin withheld it, that's a god damned disaster imo. The people has the right to know this, and our government ought to spill the beans. If it does exist... the only reason I can think of why Obama admin would suppress it, is because it's casus belli for fething war.
Another reason for not releasing the "smoking gun" could be how that proof was acquired. Could be a mole/spy within the Russian government itself. Could be some secret government system or monitoring program. There's also something to be said for keeping the proof secret, so that Russia can't be certain about what we really know. Could be the proof was gained because we hacked Russia, and we don't want them to know we hacked them because we're just that good.
That's... a good point.
However, I'd argue that it worth burning those systems in favor of publically displaying the smoking gun prior to the elections.
Compel wrote: I suppose one thing to say, Whembly is, I guess why some of the frustration is that ultimately, people more on the left really would like you to speak out more on the things on the right you're less happy with. Because, basically, when it comes to those on the centre-right or the right, on the forums at least, your word does carry more weight with them. And that's why people further left get really frustrated with you.
I'm a conservative. Polices and what our government does will dictate my reaction.
Cheeto Jesus hasn't done jack gak because HE'S NOT POTUS yet.
So, for all the cries of 'why aren't you bitching at Trump for the same thing that Clinton has done!!!!!!'...
It's a bit silly to harangue me over this...
Ultimately, former presidential candidates are now irrelevant if they no longer hold office.
Ultimately, yes that's true.
In 20 days time, the current administration is also going to become, effectively irrelevant.
I'll be one fething happy camper in that regard.
Noone has actually really answered my questions a few days ago about how, in 20 days time, the Democratic party are going to be, effectively, irrelevant.
Not really. US political critters do NOT vote like the way your UK Westminster system does.
It's not a given that the party votes in 'lock-step' with their colleagues.
In the Senate, most things will still need 60 votes to allow a bill to be vote for laws (with some few exceptions), so the Democrats still has some sway.
I'm oft reminded of the common argument made after incidents of, "why don't the X community leaders speak out against subfaction Y if they supposedly oppose it. Nah I think that X community leaders secretly approve of it." And that's because the words of community leaders X hold more weight towards the greater members of X. Ultimately, whether you wanted to be or not, (probably by the fact you post more often), you are one of the Republican community leaders on Dakka and I really would ask you to call out any BS you see from the Right, because to be honest, if it comes from anyone judged to be one iota left of even 'center right', it's just going to be ignored as... I think the phrase someone used a few days ago was "libetard ramblings." - Something like that anyway.
And this is me saying it, not only as an outsider and not an American but also as someone on the UK politics thread finds myself sitting on the right side of the fence on most of the discussions there.
If I see some shenanigans by the GOP party, I'll speak up.
Lord knows that they'll be ample opportunites to feth up.
Whatever a presidential candidate has said becomes internationally politically significant as soon as he is elected.
Cheeto Jesus has already upset the China policy, pissed on the UK government's chips, stuck his tongue a long way up Russia's arse, interfered in the Middle East, and annoyed the Mexicans, Canadians, South Korea and Japan.
So? He really can't do gak yet.
A) I'm glad he talked to Taiwan... that's a good tactic to keep China on their toes.
B) 'pissed on UK government's chips'... huh? Is that the windmill thing by his golf course?
C) Trump dry humping Russia is concerning. I can only hope it's simply an 'Alpha Male' club acknowledgement... in that, 'hey, I'm top dog here... you are top dog there... let's be cool'.
D) Interfered with Middle East? You mean announcing his oppostion to the last UN resolution? Good for Trump. feth the UN.
E) Annoyed the Mexican, Canadians, South Korea and Japan - Tough gak. He's going to be President. Deal. Or, don't deal. :shrugs:
This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2016/12/31 18:40:09
off 
