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.

Anyone else suspicious about the GOP trying to ditch the ethics committee thing, only for Saint Trump to tell them off?

I suspect flim-flammery to support his 'drain the swamp' having undermined it with his cabinet of billionaires and suspect characters?

 A Town Called Malus wrote:

 Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:

 Frazzled wrote:
Former Director of CIA Woolsey has resigned from the Trump team.

Eh? How can you resign before you've even been sworn in?

Maybe it's similar to how you can know an election is rigged before anyone has even voted?

I don't believe for a minute the US election was rigged. That belief gives too much credit and importance to the CIA, which is in it's own words, is woefully incompetent.

Somewhere, deep inside Langley, is somebody who believes that the South can still win the Vietnam war...

 Just Tony wrote:
Historically in the US, though, if there is a welfare program that allows the poor to have access to a free service, then a majority of people will use it instead of being bothered to get the same thing on their dime.

What historical program are you talking about? When has the US ever provided a free resource unchecked to all who turned up, and just hoped that people who could afford to pay went and did so? There's always been income limits, needs testing etc.

You're talking like you're coming from some position of hard won experience, but it has nothing to do with anything that's happened in your country.

 Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote:
Anyone else suspicious about the GOP trying to ditch the ethics committee thing, only for Saint Trump to tell them off?

I suspect flim-flammery to support his 'drain the swamp' having undermined it with his cabinet of billionaires and suspect characters?

Meh. I'm living in the middle of nowhere, i.e Scottish Highlands. I've got enough unpainted miniatures to last 40 years, never mind 4. I've got a small income, a roof over my head, and plenty of boxed sets to see me through. Food supplies are good.

I'm under the radar, keeping a low profile, unknown to Trump, Putin, North Vietnam, North Korea, Castro, the Ayatollah...

I think the fact that policy was secondary to people's gut feelings is exactly why Sanders would have a chance.

Proof that policy was irrelevant was pretty much the debates themselves. It makes me feel like a dick to say it but anyone who watched the debates and thought Trump would be a good President is straight up an idiot.

 whembly wrote:
Do you wanna know the irony about the state of US healthcare?

It's damn near the social model of the UK or even Canada.

This is one of, if not the most, heavily regulated industry in the US.

Regulation doesn't mean socialism. The stock market is probably the second most regulated market, and no-one is calling that socialism

But yeah, healthcare is regulated - it is simply the nature of it and will always be such, because it involves incredible complexity, people in need and piles of government money. What is important then is to accept that reality and work with it.

'Tis why I'm an advocate of two things:
a) we don't need to gut everything to go to NHS/Canadian Medicare model... just nationalize the INSURANCE side of the industry, state Medicaid funding and change the requisite tax laws to fund it to be modeled as the Canadian single-payor system.

b) more importantly, especially before 'a)' above is done, mandate transparency at EVERY STAGE of each delivered healthcare transactions. Because, right now, it's nothing more than a massive shell game.

Excellent point about transparency in billing. I think a big step there in mandating single price procedures would go a long way - if a hospital can make a deal with an insurer to charge $1,000 for a procedure, then it shouldn't cost the uncovered guy $10,000.

On the first point, well there's another reality in US healthcare - special interests. ACA was almost dead before launch, suffered furious attacks from the insurers, and all it wanted to do was cap insurance profits and get insurers to accept people with pre-existing conditions, while giving a structure that would still be profitable. In that environment do you think its viable to just take over insurance entirely? Never gonna happen. What is possible though is an expansion of Medicare/Medicaid to guarantee coverage for everyone. Everyone gets a good level of basic coverage. If it costs say $5,000 per person to cover each person on that government deal, then government would then offer a up a direct $4,500 subsidy to any insurer who takes someone on their own plan and off the government plan (either individual or employee provided).

 Just Tony wrote:
Historically in the US, though, if there is a welfare program that allows the poor to have access to a free service, then a majority of people will use it instead of being bothered to get the same thing on their dime.

The issue I have with "free" entitlements as such is that it doesn't motivate someone to better themselves, it motivates them to stick their hand out further. Even more so if they don't have to contribute themselves.

This is why we can't have nice things.

I dont recall living in Mexico, I moved away from southern california, but apparently my taxes are going to be raised now

Thanks, Trump! (Yay I can start using this phrase now sarcastically)

http://www.cnn.com/2017/01/05/politics/border-wall-house-republicans-donald-trump-taxpayers/index.html

 WrentheFaceless wrote:
I dont recall living in Mexico, I moved away from southern california, but apparently my taxes are going to be raised now

Thanks, Trump! (Yay I can start using this phrase now sarcastically)

http://www.cnn.com/2017/01/05/politics/border-wall-house-republicans-donald-trump-taxpayers/index.html

So now the wall will be built, the US will pay for it and then Mexico will reimburse them.

Yeah, good luck with that Trump, you couldn't even get a couple of scots to pay for a mound of earth at one of your golf clubs, let alone an entire nation!

 A Town Called Malus wrote:

 WrentheFaceless wrote:
I dont recall living in Mexico, I moved away from southern california, but apparently my taxes are going to be raised now

Thanks, Trump! (Yay I can start using this phrase now sarcastically)

http://www.cnn.com/2017/01/05/politics/border-wall-house-republicans-donald-trump-taxpayers/index.html

So now the wall will be built, the US will pay for it and then Mexico will reimburse them.

Yeah, good luck with that Trump, you couldn't even get a couple of scots to pay for a mound of earth at one of your golf clubs, let alone an entire nation!

He could ask Congress to slap a remittance tax to Mexico.

Seriously doubt it'll pay for all of it though...

 Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote:
Anyone else suspicious about the GOP trying to ditch the ethics committee thing, only for Saint Trump to tell them off?

I suspect flim-flammery to support his 'drain the swamp' having undermined it with his cabinet of billionaires and suspect characters?

Occam's Razor says it was "enlightened self interest" to get rid of the last vestiges of the ethics group (the committee is something else actually).

 Ensis Ferrae wrote:
You make an excellent point here... but I don't think Sanders would've triumphed because of policy... I think he would have triumphed for focusing on the right people during the campaign. I've seen him holding events around the country even after the primaries/election, and he's continued focusing on the 99% of the population. I think Sanders would've campaigned in the Michigans, Wisconsins, and other heavily blue collar areas that Clinton neglected because she had already "won" them historically.

It's fair to assume Sanders would have played a smarter EC game. He certainly couldn't have played a worse won. However, given it's unclear whether any of that stuff actually does anything. Afterall Trump's EC strategy was at least as terrible as Clinton's, he looked like he spent the first month or so learning what the EC was, and he's gonna be president in a few weeks.

I guess though we can look at a rough level of popularity by looking at primary results between Clinton and Sanders in the swing states. A lot gets made about Sanders in Michigan, but what people mostly remember is how much he amazingly beat the polls by, his actual margin of victory over Clinton was 1.5 points. It's hard to conclude that's evidence of significantly greater popularity that would translate in a national election. However Sanders did do much better than Clinton in Wisconsin where he won by 13, and Minnesota where he won by 23. But then if we look at the other swing states... Pennsylvania, Clinton beat Sanders by 12, North Carolina Clinton won by 14, Florida Clinton won by 31. So even flipping Michigan and Wisconsin (Minnesota was already blue) it still doesn't flip the election.

I mean, I'm not saying I know Sanders would have also lost. I don't know. I'm just saying there is little show he was a more electable candidate, in either a general sense or on an EC level.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:
Trump voters worried about losing their ACA?

What can you do? It's why I love and hate the human race in equal measure.

Here in the UK, we have people like that as well.

Conservative government cuts flood defence funding, people's homes get flooded, those same people elect those that cut flood defence funding...

you couldn't make it up...

"Low information voter" is often seen as an attack, but really it's the kindest way to describe a lot of voters

 Frazzled wrote:

 Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote:
Anyone else suspicious about the GOP trying to ditch the ethics committee thing, only for Saint Trump to tell them off?

I suspect flim-flammery to support his 'drain the swamp' having undermined it with his cabinet of billionaires and suspect characters?

Occam's Razor says it was "enlightened self interest" to get rid of the last vestiges of the ethics group (the committee is something else actually).

The ethic committee does have massive issues... even the Congressional Black Caucus & Freedom Caucus tried to kill it in 2010.

Besides... the whole 'independent' board thing is a misnomer in the sense that there's no accountability for the entity itself.

Regardless... at the same time, this is a definite PR disaster for the incoming Republican Congress... they left their brain on the pillow that day.

 Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote:
Anyone else suspicious about the GOP trying to ditch the ethics committee thing, only for Saint Trump to tell them off?

If it was arranged, Trump's telling off would have had more theatre and grandstanding to it. Instead Trump's lecture seemed more about priority, "you should focus on my tax cut", not morals.

I suspect flim-flammery to support his 'drain the swamp' having undermined it with his cabinet of billionaires and suspect characters?

As I was saying before the election, Trump fundamentally doesn't understand the idea that you are actually supposed to mean the words you say. The line played well so Trump said it. In a sense Trump wasn't even lying, because it's so obviously untrue, it's more like when guys brag about ridiculous sexual exploits or internet posters brag about their time in special forces.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 TheArmorOfContempt wrote:
I think the fact that policy was secondary to people's gut feelings is exactly why Sanders would have a chance.

It's possible. His grumpy uncle character played nicer than Clinton's smug auntie.

Proof that policy was irrelevant was pretty much the debates themselves. It makes me feel like a dick to say it but anyone who watched the debates and thought Trump would be a good President is straight up an idiot.

It wasn't just policy that didn't matter, but competence. Trump answered a question on cyber security by talking about how good his son is on computers. He made up random answers on the fly, spoke in near total gibberish, and only seemed coherent when he could fall back on his reliable attacks on Clinton. The guy clearly has no concept of what the US president does, or what the US' place is in the world and why.

And what we've learned in 2016 is that kind of incompetence isn't seen as a problem by a very large number of voters.

d-usa wrote:

 BigWaaagh wrote:
Motherfething, spineless, lying, piece-of-gak hypocrites! Just another vindication of the tearing up of my RNC card. Nothing but fething two-faced weasels.

http://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics/conservatives-ready-to-support-dollar1-trillion-hole-in-the-budget/ar-BBxX2DD?li=BBnb7Kz&ocid=ASUDHP

The GOP has NEVER given a crap about balancing the budget.

Yet the Dems do, as they overspend and overborrow, and once realizing they can't fund their programs, try to raise the debt ceiling to borrow more. You can't borrow your way out of debt. I'm telling you, we need a single mother of four in there to write a budget. gak will fall in line fast.

sebster wrote:

 Just Tony wrote:
Historically in the US, though, if there is a welfare program that allows the poor to have access to a free service, then a majority of people will use it instead of being bothered to get the same thing on their dime.

What historical program are you talking about? When has the US ever provided a free resource unchecked to all who turned up, and just hoped that people who could afford to pay went and did so? There's always been income limits, needs testing etc.

You're talking like you're coming from some position of hard won experience, but it has nothing to do with anything that's happened in your country.

The quickest example I can come up with having seen personally was during the Hurricane Katrina relief effort. I was deployed down there to establish security at several places, including a few of the Red Cross stations that were writing the checks for people in need and the food issue stations. One person at the food station asked for a pallet of MREs as he was a pastor and had set up a safe zone at his church. We wound up getting another unloading station set up in a small town, and had to drive by this guy's house for about 2 weeks straight. His truck, still loaded with the pallet, sat in the driveway every day with the adequate cases missing to feed 4 or 5 people.

Also at the check stations people were "getting their stories straight" right in front of us soldiers on duty, insuring that everyone has the criteria that gets them maximum payout. An example was a single father of four would get maximum payout. So as a miracle of miracles, EVERY male coming through the line was a single father of four.


When you get a chance, try an experiment: go to a public place or your place of employment and set out a bowl of candy with an honor box for payment. Leave a sign for what constitutes a share, and what is the correct price per piece of candy. I'm sure the amounts will jive.

 whembly wrote:
The ethic committee does have massive issues... even the Congressional Black Caucus & Freedom Caucus tried to kill it in 2010.

Not quite. The CBC wanted to curtail powers, especially on making investigations public. It never moved to remove independence from the organisation.

Besides... the whole 'independent' board thing is a misnomer in the sense that there's no accountability for the entity itself.

I think you've gotten yourself quite confused about how independence works. You seem to be implying that the organisation would have to be accountable to congress to be independent, when that's the exact way in which it would no longer be independent. Instead to be independant the organisation would need to be accountable to a board outside of and not connected to congress.

Which the committee is. It is actually overseen by a board of former politicians, public servants and an army general. That's how independent boards work.

Regardless... at the same time, this is a definite PR disaster for the incoming Republican Congress... they left their brain on the pillow that day.

This wasn't just a PR disaster. This was an effort to bring an organisation designed to investigate congressmen under the control of congress. The reason it looked bad is because it was bad.

 sebster wrote:

 Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:
The richest nation on the world seeing some of its citizens with the begging bowl, and a few miles away, the Pentagon, CIA HQ and all the billions of dollars wasted on people and organisations who couldn't find their rears without a 3 man search party...

You're right that US healthcare is absurd, but it isn't for a lack of money. And not just rich people money, there's more government money in US healthcare than in most public systems around the world (more thany public system in the world if you account for the cost of exempting employee healthcare schemes). The issue is about as far as possible as you can get from money. The issue is with the extraordinary waste within the system, with overpayments and general accounting chaos, and with denied or delayed access.


Your CIA thing is getting weird, by the way.

My CIA thing is not getting weird.

Having recently read some books about them, I'm still shocked at the level of incompetence within the agency that has existed since day 1

Every president has hated them, they themselves admit that they're not as good as they could be, and so on...

In any other walk of life, job, business, they would have been run out of town, sacked, liquidated, made bankrupt, dissolved, jailed, exiled to Mars, what ever the hell you want to call it.

In any other walk of life, failure on such a gargantuan scale is rewarded with nothing but defeat and despair.

And yet, these people are rewarded for their failure to the tune of billions of dollars every year...

I don't get it.

America, I have failed at a lot of things in life - throw some dollars my way

 sebster wrote:


And what we've learned in 2016 is that kind of incompetence isn't seen as a problem by a very large number of voters.

I'll go a step further and say that kind of incompetence is seen as a strength by a large number of voters.

Large numbers of voters want their hand held by a strong father figure and their feelings assuaged by his firm bluster.

That the strong figure is a fraud and all the words lies is irrelevant. What matters is the feeling of security he provides.

 Just Tony wrote:
Yet the Dems do, as they overspend and overborrow, and once realizing they can't fund their programs, try to raise the debt ceiling to borrow more. You can't borrow your way out of debt. I'm telling you, we need a single mother of four in there to write a budget. gak will fall in line fast.

Republicans have an actual stated policy of debt, They call it starve the beast, they think you push through tax cuts, make lots of noise about the deficit and force Democrats to accept spending cuts. That's the logic behind the Reagan tax cut, the Bush tax cut and the planned Trump tax cut.

Meanwhile any spending increase, Democrat or Republican, is required to be budget neutral unless in extraordinary circumstances.

Government spending as a % of GDP is the same as it was in 1980, when debt was at its lowest point since before the Great Depression. What's caused the massive spike in the debt over that time is the US takes in about 2% less of GDP as tax revenue than it used to.

The quickest example

It may be a quick example. but it isn't an example of a program that gives stuff away for free, while asking people to pay for it if they can.

When you get a chance, try an experiment: go to a public place or your place of employment and set out a bowl of candy with an honor box for payment. Leave a sign for what constitutes a share, and what is the correct price per piece of candy. I'm sure the amounts will jive.

 Just Tony wrote:

d-usa wrote:

 BigWaaagh wrote:
Motherfething, spineless, lying, piece-of-gak hypocrites! Just another vindication of the tearing up of my RNC card. Nothing but fething two-faced weasels.

http://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics/conservatives-ready-to-support-dollar1-trillion-hole-in-the-budget/ar-BBxX2DD?li=BBnb7Kz&ocid=ASUDHP

The GOP has NEVER given a crap about balancing the budget.

Yet the Dems do, as they overspend and overborrow, and once realizing they can't fund their programs, try to raise the debt ceiling to borrow more. You can't borrow your way out of debt. I'm telling you, we need a single mother of four in there to write a budget. gak will fall in line fast.

Yes, the notorious Republican Bill Clinton balanced the book, and then that darned Democrat George W Bush cut taxes and started two wars.

Further, a nation is not a household. Pretending that it is will only make things worse.

 Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:
My CIA thing is not getting weird.

Having recently read some books about them, I'm still shocked at the level of incompetence within the agency that has existed since day 1

Every president has hated them, they themselves admit that they're not as good as they could be, and so on...

Meh, the US didn't get to its position of global dominance with nothing but a constant stream of bad intel. It's more that like any intel agency, the CIA wins some and it loses some. But there's an old saying in Washington, you either have great policy or bad intel (ie when things go well the politicians take the credit, when they go bad you blame the intel guys. See Iraq as the classic example, where the Bush admin decided they wanted to invade, decided WMDs was the best cause, and then went to the CIA to build the case for WMDs. Then when that all turned to crap the Bush admin blamed the CIA for the whole thing.

And please don't make me defend the CIA anymore. Those guys have done some brutal, nasty stuff. And some stupid, even comically stupid stuff. I feel I'm ending up sound like I'm pro-CIA when I'm not. I'm just trying to point out they're no different to any other intel service in their general efficacy over time.

 sebster wrote:

 Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:
My CIA thing is not getting weird.

Having recently read some books about them, I'm still shocked at the level of incompetence within the agency that has existed since day 1

Every president has hated them, they themselves admit that they're not as good as they could be, and so on...

Meh, the US didn't get to its position of global dominance with nothing but a constant stream of bad intel. It's more that like any intel agency, the CIA wins some and it loses some. But there's an old saying in Washington, you either have great policy or bad intel (ie when things go well the politicians take the credit, when they go bad you blame the intel guys. See Iraq as the classic example, where the Bush admin decided they wanted to invade, decided WMDs was the best cause, and then went to the CIA to build the case for WMDs. Then when that all turned to crap the Bush admin blamed the CIA for the whole thing.

And please don't make me defend the CIA anymore. Those guys have done some brutal, nasty stuff. And some stupid, even comically stupid stuff. I feel I'm ending up sound like I'm pro-CIA when I'm not. I'm just trying to point out they're no different to any other intel service in their general efficacy over time.

Fair enough. For the time being, I've moved on from US politics/history.

With Dunkirk hitting the cinemas in July, I'm reading up on the Battle for France, but that's for another thread.

 Just Tony wrote:

d-usa wrote:

 BigWaaagh wrote:
Motherfething, spineless, lying, piece-of-gak hypocrites! Just another vindication of the tearing up of my RNC card. Nothing but fething two-faced weasels.

http://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics/conservatives-ready-to-support-dollar1-trillion-hole-in-the-budget/ar-BBxX2DD?li=BBnb7Kz&ocid=ASUDHP

The GOP has NEVER given a crap about balancing the budget.

Yet the Dems do, as they overspend and overborrow, and once realizing they can't fund their programs, try to raise the debt ceiling to borrow more. You can't borrow your way out of debt. I'm telling you, we need a single mother of four in there to write a budget. gak will fall in line fast.

both sides overspend and borrow, its not unique to either party, one side just likes to play it that way. They just want it spent on different things is all. They GOP doesnt seem to mind spending nearly a billion dollars a unit on "stealth" unseaworthy coastal cutters that arent able to bring much more firepower to bear than a single Apache helicopter, and they didnt seem to have an issue forcing the army to spend 9 digits on tanks it didnt want because the factory was in a certain representatives district...

There seems to also be a mistake about what the debt ceiling actually is, which is something we have addressed here plenty of times of course.

The GOP simply lies about caring about debts and deficits.

 Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:

 sebster wrote:

 Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:
The richest nation on the world seeing some of its citizens with the begging bowl, and a few miles away, the Pentagon, CIA HQ and all the billions of dollars wasted on people and organisations who couldn't find their rears without a 3 man search party...

You're right that US healthcare is absurd, but it isn't for a lack of money. And not just rich people money, there's more government money in US healthcare than in most public systems around the world (more thany public system in the world if you account for the cost of exempting employee healthcare schemes). The issue is about as far as possible as you can get from money. The issue is with the extraordinary waste within the system, with overpayments and general accounting chaos, and with denied or delayed access.


Your CIA thing is getting weird, by the way.

My CIA thing is not getting weird.

Having recently read some books about them, I'm still shocked at the level of incompetence within the agency that has existed since day 1

Every president has hated them, they themselves admit that they're not as good as they could be, and so on...

In any other walk of life, job, business, they would have been run out of town, sacked, liquidated, made bankrupt, dissolved, jailed, exiled to Mars, what ever the hell you want to call it.

In any other walk of life, failure on such a gargantuan scale is rewarded with nothing but defeat and despair.

And yet, these people are rewarded for their failure to the tune of billions of dollars every year...

I don't get it.

America, I have failed at a lot of things in life - throw some dollars my way

keep in mind that the really bad things the CIA has done usually ends up publicized... and guess who bears the brunt of that? Yep... the President.

Where as any "good' or "successful" CIA activities are usually unherald (or classified for decades).

To quote the greatest show on television, " When you do things right, people won't be sure you've done anything at all."

 Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:

 sebster wrote:

 Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:
My CIA thing is not getting weird.

Having recently read some books about them, I'm still shocked at the level of incompetence within the agency that has existed since day 1

Every president has hated them, they themselves admit that they're not as good as they could be, and so on...

Meh, the US didn't get to its position of global dominance with nothing but a constant stream of bad intel. It's more that like any intel agency, the CIA wins some and it loses some. But there's an old saying in Washington, you either have great policy or bad intel (ie when things go well the politicians take the credit, when they go bad you blame the intel guys. See Iraq as the classic example, where the Bush admin decided they wanted to invade, decided WMDs was the best cause, and then went to the CIA to build the case for WMDs. Then when that all turned to crap the Bush admin blamed the CIA for the whole thing.

And please don't make me defend the CIA anymore. Those guys have done some brutal, nasty stuff. And some stupid, even comically stupid stuff. I feel I'm ending up sound like I'm pro-CIA when I'm not. I'm just trying to point out they're no different to any other intel service in their general efficacy over time.

Fair enough. For the time being, I've moved on from US politics/history.

With Dunkirk hitting the cinemas in July, I'm reading up on the Battle for France, but that's for another thread.

I just finished Snook's works on Islandwana and Rorke's Drift, and am reading a slightly fictionalized version from Ian Knight and some other guy. If you stand behind knee high double stacked biscuit boxes and hold off a force 26x times your size, you are officially Uber Bad Ass of the century.

America will pay for wall says, Trump, and hopes to get Mexico to reimburse.

Open your wallets boys and girls Glorious Leader has spoken. So let it be written. So let it be done.

 Frazzled wrote:

 Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:

 sebster wrote:

 Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:
My CIA thing is not getting weird.

Having recently read some books about them, I'm still shocked at the level of incompetence within the agency that has existed since day 1

Every president has hated them, they themselves admit that they're not as good as they could be, and so on...

Meh, the US didn't get to its position of global dominance with nothing but a constant stream of bad intel. It's more that like any intel agency, the CIA wins some and it loses some. But there's an old saying in Washington, you either have great policy or bad intel (ie when things go well the politicians take the credit, when they go bad you blame the intel guys. See Iraq as the classic example, where the Bush admin decided they wanted to invade, decided WMDs was the best cause, and then went to the CIA to build the case for WMDs. Then when that all turned to crap the Bush admin blamed the CIA for the whole thing.

And please don't make me defend the CIA anymore. Those guys have done some brutal, nasty stuff. And some stupid, even comically stupid stuff. I feel I'm ending up sound like I'm pro-CIA when I'm not. I'm just trying to point out they're no different to any other intel service in their general efficacy over time.

Fair enough. For the time being, I've moved on from US politics/history.

With Dunkirk hitting the cinemas in July, I'm reading up on the Battle for France, but that's for another thread.

I just finished Snook's works on Islandwana and Rorke's Drift, and am reading a slightly fictionalized version from Ian Knight and some other guy. If you stand behind knee high double stacked biscuit boxes and hold off a force 26x times your size, you are officially Uber Bad Ass of the century.

Alternatively, don't bring a spear to a gun fight.

 Ahtman wrote:
America will pay for wall says, Trump, and hopes to get Mexico to reimburse.

Open your wallets boys and girls Glorious Leader has spoken. So let it be written. So let it be done.

...with Metallica's Creeping Death as the theme song:

\m/