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.
naxium wrote: So I just want to put out there, one more day until we make America great again!!!
Since it probably wasn't answered the first time.... and it was perhaps in the previous politics thread, but answer a few questions, if you will?
Is America not great now?
If America is not great now, at what point were we great?
Who was America great for, during this period in the past in which it was great?
It's not as great as it's glory days when blue collar jobs were booming and there was less class/cultural division.
See above^.
The working middle class
Here is just one articles similar take/opinion on it, if you are truly interested in my opinion/stance and not just arguing the choice of wordage in my explanation like the majority of the experiences I've had with online discussions.
Blowdry preceded that by a decade. His hair could withstand a hurricane without being messed up.
-"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!
While those degrees may have been of some use they're really not directly related to a job that is primarily maintaining a nuclear weapons stockpile. If all Perry does is leave the DoE to keep running as it currently is while taking every opportunity to say nice things as a spokesperson for the US Oil and Natural Gas Industry we'll be fine. Perry will probably focus primarily on helping US companies increase domestic energy exploration and production and let the bulk of the DoE run on autopilot.
The pick wouldn't have been controversial if a cornerstone of Perry's presidential run hadn't been the shutting down of certain federal departments, Energy among them.
There's a theme amongst all of Trump's picks (Perry, Kennedy, Carson, DeVos, Pruitt, Puzder, Price, etc.). They're all diametrically opposed to the organizations they're supposed to be leading. If I wanted to go full-on loony, tinfoil hat conspiracy theorist here: how does a proto-authoritarian government further convince citizens that certain segments of the government need to be done away with? By placing people who will run those departments into the ground into power.
I've noticed over the years that on their final day, the President always seems to have extra bodyguards.
Is this to stop him blowing the lid on Area 51 or pardoning everybody, or releasing millions of classified documents in one final act of defiance?
The extra bodyguards being there to wrestle him to the ground?
I often wonder.
"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
Frazzled wrote: If you believe thats why America got Trump you are living in a bubble and haven't learned anything from the election.
Really?
You have a "news" network that perpetuated around the clock coverage of crap like "Obama's not actually an American citizen" or "Black Lives Matter advocates for the death of police officers"...and you want to say that it's [b]not a big factor?
That's a hacktastic article where the author provides ZERO evidence in supporting the author's thesis...
It's a hit job.
#FakeNews indeed.
Remember, facts don't matter anymore. What you feel matters.
"What do we want?" "Dead pigs!" "When do we want 'em?" "Now!" "Fry 'em like bacon!" were some of the gems being shouted at several BLM rallies. Of course they weren't advocating the death of police officers, and I'm sure it had no correlation with the officers ambushed and slain after the rallies started.
Probably because there are going to be a lot of people around, all eyes are on him, and it would make for a very high profile assassination.
warboss wrote: Is there a permanent stickied thread for Chaos players to complain every time someone/anyone gets models or rules besides them? If not, there should be.
And that, of course, is exactly the message and theme behind Trump's slogan...
If that is true, then why is the word "again" in the slogan? See... the word "again" carries with it certain weight and meaning. Again means that something has ceased and restarted, or there's a desire to restart/return to that thing. If I say I'm going to the gym again, it's because at some point I've ceased gym activities, and now I've returned to them.
Which is why I asked those few questions I did above. I'll be honest, they were originally written by another member of this forum, as I said on the previous post, probably in the 2016 politics thread.... but when people continue to spout nonsense like "MAGA" I'm going to have to question them, if nothing else then to understand what these people are really wanting.
I'm pretty sure the laughing orc emoji was meant to show that BW didn't mean his comment in a serious manner.
While I didn't support or vote for Trump I'll try to give you a real answer this time around.
Trump is a populist, he ran a populist campaign based on tapping into the anger, fear and angst of a large portion of the electorate. Trump's MAGA slogan is all about reassurance, conveying to people that he acknowledges their concerns about their livlihoods, their earning potential, their social structure in world that is changing more rapidly than ever. What is the future going to look like? Will you still have a job, will you and/or your children have job opportunities? What kind of society will we have, what values will be important? What role will the govt play in our lives? What kind of education do you and/or your children need, what will it cost, how will you/they get it?
It's human nature to romanticize the past as we get further from it. It's easy to look back a few decades and think that we used to have a well ordered society where everyone grew up going to good schools, went to college, graduated, got a job, got married, had kids, had a single income nuclear family living in a nice neighborhood, sent your kids to college, retired to Florida and learned to play shuffleboard and then died peacefully in bed surrounded by your loving descendants. The past really wasn't that idyllic but people reminisce that it was because our struggles seem greater because they're happening to us now so they're a primary concern. The past wasn't really better than the present we just tend to remember the good more than the bad and we were either younger then so we had fewer responsibilities weighing on us or it happened before we were around so we don't realize all of the problems and struggles that were occurring back then too. MAGA is really just an empty promise that an empowered Donald Trump will take on the burden of your problems and solve them. He will fix what is broken, bring order to confusing world, provide you with financial security so that you will be content with your lot in life and have peace of mind. It's total bunk but thirsty people in the desert always get fooled by the mirage.
naxium wrote: It's not as great as it's glory days when blue collar jobs were booming
When was that, specifically?
and there was less class/cultural division.
Yes, everything was fine as long as you were a white straight Christian (at least on the exterior) man.
The working middle class
That is filled with people that vote against their own self interest because the "the queers shouldn't get married" and "the liberals want to take all of my guns!"
d-usa wrote: "When the Internet sends its people, they're not sending their best. They're not sending you. They're not sending you. They're sending posters that have lots of problems, and they're bringing those problems with us. They're bringing strawmen. They're bringing spam. They're trolls. And some, I assume, are good people."
I've noticed over the years that on their final day, the President always seems to have extra bodyguards.
Is this to stop him blowing the lid on Area 51 or pardoning everybody, or releasing millions of classified documents in one final act of defiance?
The extra bodyguards being there to wrestle him to the ground?
I often wonder.
No... it's due to the inauguration.
SS, popo, and other federal officers are "all hands on deck" mode.
Yeah pretty much every high profile federal official is there. The outgoing PotUS and VP are there, the incoming PotUS and VP are there, the SCotUS is there to do the swearing in, members of Congress are there to witness it, cabinet members might be there. All the VIPs are there so there is a big ramp up in security. The family and friends I have that work in DC pretty much all get the day off from work and stay away from that part of DC because security shuts everything down for the ceremony.
I've noticed over the years that on their final day, the President always seems to have extra bodyguards.
Is this to stop him blowing the lid on Area 51 or pardoning everybody, or releasing millions of classified documents in one final act of defiance?
The extra bodyguards being there to wrestle him to the ground?
I often wonder.
No... it's due to the inauguration.
SS, popo, and other federal officers are "all hands on deck" mode.
Thats what the lizard people want you to think!
-"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!
I've noticed over the years that on their final day, the President always seems to have extra bodyguards.
Is this to stop him blowing the lid on Area 51 or pardoning everybody, or releasing millions of classified documents in one final act of defiance?
The extra bodyguards being there to wrestle him to the ground?
I often wonder.
No... it's due to the inauguration.
SS, popo, and other federal officers are "all hands on deck" mode.
You disappoint me, I'd never thought you'd buy the official line.
"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
And that, of course, is exactly the message and theme behind Trump's slogan...
If that is true, then why is the word "again" in the slogan? See... the word "again" carries with it certain weight and meaning. Again means that something has ceased and restarted, or there's a desire to restart/return to that thing. If I say I'm going to the gym again, it's because at some point I've ceased gym activities, and now I've returned to them.
Which is why I asked those few questions I did above. I'll be honest, they were originally written by another member of this forum, as I said on the previous post, probably in the 2016 politics thread.... but when people continue to spout nonsense like "MAGA" I'm going to have to question them, if nothing else then to understand what these people are really wanting.
I'm pretty sure the laughing orc emoji was meant to show that BW didn't mean his comment in a serious manner.
While I didn't support or vote for Trump I'll try to give you a real answer this time around.
Trump is a populist, he ran a populist campaign based on tapping into the anger, fear and angst of a large portion of the electorate. Trump's MAGA slogan is all about reassurance, conveying to people that he acknowledges their concerns about their livlihoods, their earning potential, their social structure in world that is changing more rapidly than ever. What is the future going to look like? Will you still have a job, will you and/or your children have job opportunities? What kind of society will we have, what values will be important? What role will the govt play in our lives? What kind of education do you and/or your children need, what will it cost, how will you/they get it?
It's human nature to romanticize the past as we get further from it. It's easy to look back a few decades and think that we used to have a well ordered society where everyone grew up going to good schools, went to college, graduated, got a job, got married, had kids, had a single income nuclear family living in a nice neighborhood, sent your kids to college, retired to Florida and learned to play shuffleboard and then died peacefully in bed surrounded by your loving descendants. The past really wasn't that idyllic but people reminisce that it was because our struggles seem greater because they're happening to us now so they're a primary concern. The past wasn't really better than the present we just tend to remember the good more than the bad and we were either younger then so we had fewer responsibilities weighing on us or it happened before we were around so we don't realize all of the problems and struggles that were occurring back then too. MAGA is really just an empty promise that an empowered Donald Trump will take on the burden of your problems and solve them. He will fix what is broken, bring order to confusing world, provide you with financial security so that you will be content with your lot in life and have peace of mind. It's total bunk but thirsty people in the desert always get fooled by the mirage.
I've banged this message on the drums several times on these boards, but that was quite eloquently and accurately put.
Close examination and critique shows that MAGA is bullgak, but it was absolute precision in the form of a message and imagery that resonated at the right time, with the right demographic, to give Trump the win.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2017/01/19 16:19:54
Yes, everything was fine as long as you were a white straight Christian (at least on the exterior) man.
The working middle class
That is filled with people that vote against their own self interest because the "the queers shouldn't get married" and "the liberals want to take all of my guns!"
I guess that the Irish weren't white, straight or of similar religion when they were the minority group.... nor when the Italians held that position in society? It's never been perfect but lets not be so snarky about it ok? I'm not going to take the bait of that last line.
Yes, everything was fine as long as you were a white straight Christian (at least on the exterior) man.
The working middle class
That is filled with people that vote against their own self interest because the "the queers shouldn't get married" and "the liberals want to take all of my guns!"
I guess that the Irish weren't white, straight or of similar religion when they were the minority group.... nor when the Italians held that position in society?
Uhm, you're kind of getting your time periods mixed up there. Back in the nineteenth century, when discrimination against Irish/Italians was highest, they weren't considered white (or at least of the same anglo-saxon/german makeup), and they weren't trusted by Protestants (you know, being Catholics and all.)
And the time period most people are referring to when talking about the affluent middle class is the 1950s. Not the 1850s.
This message was edited 6 times. Last update was at 2017/01/19 16:30:16
Then, please show me the evidence/justification that the author reached that Perry didn't know about DoE....
I'll wait...
You don't have to wait, just pay attention to Perry's confirmation hearing. His prepared statements (copies of which already leaked) have him admitting he had to be briefed on all the responsibilities of the department to understand how important it is.
I certainly hope every fething appointees get these briefing after accepting the nomination.
To me, that common sense.
Perry could very well end up doing a brilliant job, but it is a warning sign that he didn't know what the job truly entailed to begin with.
IMO, mountains are being made out of this molehill...
Then, please show me the evidence/justification that the author reached that Perry didn't know about DoE....
I'll wait...
You don't have to wait, just pay attention to Perry's confirmation hearing. His prepared statements (copies of which already leaked) have him admitting he had to be briefed on all the responsibilities of the department to understand how important it is.
Perry could very well end up doing a brilliant job, but it is a warning sign that he didn't know what the job truly entailed to begin with.
Thats a nonsensical argument. Few department heads at this level know what the job truly entails.
Indeed.
Guys... save your outrage. Perry is one of those 'uncontroversial' cabinet picks.
Uh, Whembly, YOU were the one with the "outrage" over an article that you claimed had no evidence that Perry didn't know what the DoE does. I merely pointed out that Perry's own prepared statement admits he had to be told everything the DoE does in order for him to realize that it actually is an important agency.
There's no "outrage" from me over this. I do simply have a concern over the idea of appointing agency heads who have historically opposed those very agencies. It didn't work for Reagan, I doubt it'll work today.
"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
It's not as great as it's glory days when blue collar jobs were booming and there was less class/cultural division.
See above^.
The working middle class
Here is just one articles similar take/opinion on it, if you are truly interested in my opinion/stance and not just arguing the choice of wordage in my explanation like the majority of the experiences I've had with online discussions.
Then, please show me the evidence/justification that the author reached that Perry didn't know about DoE....
I'll wait...
You don't have to wait, just pay attention to Perry's confirmation hearing. His prepared statements (copies of which already leaked) have him admitting he had to be briefed on all the responsibilities of the department to understand how important it is.
I certainly hope every fething appointees get these briefing after accepting the nomination.
To me, that common sense.
Perry could very well end up doing a brilliant job, but it is a warning sign that he didn't know what the job truly entailed to begin with.
IMO, mountains are being made out of this molehill...
Then, please show me the evidence/justification that the author reached that Perry didn't know about DoE....
I'll wait...
You don't have to wait, just pay attention to Perry's confirmation hearing. His prepared statements (copies of which already leaked) have him admitting he had to be briefed on all the responsibilities of the department to understand how important it is.
Perry could very well end up doing a brilliant job, but it is a warning sign that he didn't know what the job truly entailed to begin with.
Thats a nonsensical argument. Few department heads at this level know what the job truly entails.
Indeed.
Guys... save your outrage. Perry is one of those 'uncontroversial' cabinet picks.
Uh, Whembly, YOU were the one with the "outrage" over an article that you claimed had no evidence that Perry didn't know what the DoE does. I merely pointed out that Perry's own prepared statement admits he had to be told everything the DoE does in order for him to realize that it actually is an important agency.
I'm not getting that from the prepared statements I've read... care to point it out?
When he accepted the nomination, he said this on Dec 14th after accepting the nomination:
"I look forward to engaging in a conversation about the development, stewardship and regulation of our energy resources, safeguarding our nuclear arsenal and promoting an American energy policy that creates jobs and puts America first."
There's no "outrage" from me over this. I do simply have a concern over the idea of appointing agency heads who have historically opposed those very agencies. It didn't work for Reagan, I doubt it'll work today.
And that's a fair criticism... however, I'd point to Perry's Governor legacy how he adeptly handled it in the state of Texas. There's something to be said there...
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2017/01/19 16:55:24
naxium wrote: So I just want to put out there, one more day until we make America great again!!!
Rather before laughing stock of the world begins to damage america.
Nah, they have until monday. Trump is taking the weekend off, remember?
Nah that's first part of being laughing stock. Inauguration must be exhausting when it requires instant holiday. And didn't he boast of his stamina over Clinton?
infinite_array wrote: Uhm, you're kind of getting your time periods mixed up there. Back in the nineteenth century, when discrimination against Irish/Italians was highest, they weren't considered white (or at least of the same anglo-saxon/german makeup), and they weren't trusted by Protestants (you know, being Catholics and all.)
And the time period most people are referring to when talking about the affluent middle class is the 1950s. Not the 1850s.
Going back to my original response to answer Ensis Ferrae, was to help him understand my perspective. My stance has nothing to do with racial makeup, sexual or religious orientations. I was trying to (ineffectively) to convey that discrimination has always been, in Every country since man has existed. during the world wars Germans and Japanese were the target, then Koreans and Vietnamese (granted the immigration percentages are much lower). I don't think it's right and I don't agree with it regardless of the target demographic but the argument being made has been one that's existed forever with the demographics being the only change. I don't think this generations going to be able to change that aspect of human nature, so it's not something I consider heavily in my stance. Rather my class, the working class (which is the most diverse ethnically etc I believe?) Is what I was making my post about and the current state of the country and its outlook on said class.
d-usa wrote: Can't wait to have commercials and product placement on PBS.
They've had that for decades. Product placement is done by the show itself to secure financing. On PBS, every time a show ends there's always some blurb about how it was funded by so-and-so car corporation or such-and-such foundation or whatever. Sometimes there's even visuals similar to a normal commercial. Fortunately the shows haven't been interrupted for commercials the way network television does and I hope it stays that way.
Besides, I thought PBS didn't get that much money from the Federal government anyway, it's corporate sponsors and private donations that fund almost all of PBS services and shows.
There's a theme amongst all of Trump's picks (Perry, Kennedy, Carson, DeVos, Pruitt, Puzder, Price, etc.). They're all diametrically opposed to the organizations they're supposed to be leading. If I wanted to go full-on loony, tinfoil hat conspiracy theorist here: how does a proto-authoritarian government further convince citizens that certain segments of the government need to be done away with? By placing people who will run those departments into the ground into power.
Wouldn't it be more likely an authoritarian would want to GROW gov't and therefore their power, rather than shrink it?
Every time a terrorist dies a Paratrooper gets his wings.
Can't wait to have commercials and product placement on PBS.
I don't see most of that happening. There's a reason it hasn't happened before. Having said that, reduction in the horrific bureaucracy of the federal government would be a good thing.
All the kerfluffle about Trump and the Russians and 17 agencies saying this or that, very few seemed to ask WHY DO WE HAVE SEVENTEEN AGENCIES?
-"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!
There's a theme amongst all of Trump's picks (Perry, Kennedy, Carson, DeVos, Pruitt, Puzder, Price, etc.). They're all diametrically opposed to the organizations they're supposed to be leading. If I wanted to go full-on loony, tinfoil hat conspiracy theorist here: how does a proto-authoritarian government further convince citizens that certain segments of the government need to be done away with? By placing people who will run those departments into the ground into power.
Wouldn't it be more likely an authoritarian would want to GROW gov't and therefore their power, rather than shrink it?
Depends on the segment of government. I'd expect a pro-business authoritarian to go after regulatory and ethical agencies - oh, dear...
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2017/01/19 17:50:41
There's a theme amongst all of Trump's picks (Perry, Kennedy, Carson, DeVos, Pruitt, Puzder, Price, etc.). They're all diametrically opposed to the organizations they're supposed to be leading. If I wanted to go full-on loony, tinfoil hat conspiracy theorist here: how does a proto-authoritarian government further convince citizens that certain segments of the government need to be done away with? By placing people who will run those departments into the ground into power.
Wouldn't it be more likely an authoritarian would want to GROW gov't and therefore their power, rather than shrink it?
Depends on the segment of government. I'd expect a pro-business authoritarian to go after regulatory and ethical agencies - oh, dear...
And I would expect a good POTUS to shrink the overgrown Fed gov't, and reduce the regulatory burdens to the economy. And by doing so he/she would be lessening the power of the Federal gov't, which is a good thing, as opposed to a POTUS declaring "If somebody wants to build a coal-fired power plant, they can. It’s just that it will bankrupt them" or "Under my plan … electricity rates would necessarily skyrocket."
Every time a terrorist dies a Paratrooper gets his wings.
Can't wait to have commercials and product placement on PBS.
I don't see most of that happening. There's a reason it hasn't happened before. Having said that, reduction in the horrific bureaucracy of the federal government would be a good thing.
All the kerfluffle about Trump and the Russians and 17 agencies saying this or that, very few seemed to ask WHY DO WE HAVE SEVENTEEN AGENCIES?
What specific horrific bureaucracy do you want to see gone?
The Laws of Thermodynamics:
1) You cannot win. 2) You cannot break even. 3) You cannot stop playing the game.
Colonel Flagg wrote:You think you're real smart. But you're not smart; you're dumb. Very dumb. But you've met your match in me.
(That... sounds like a pron stage name 
