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.
Frankly having people registered in multiple states and dead people registered isn't actually a problem we should concern ourselves with. That someone is on more than one rolls isn't a huge problem since you have to be in state to actually cast your vote, or apply for an absentee ballot which can only be issued if you meet certain requirements. We can confirm that someone only voted once with a simple multi-state cross checking system which already exists and is how they caught two people in 2016 who tried to vote twice in early voting.
It gives millions of people the ability to legally double vote. This can be a problem especially on college towns and jurisdictions with lots of snow refugees: Florida and Arizona for example. It should be a paramount issue to eliminate all voter fraud and abuse, as well as insure all lawful citizens can vote.
-"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!
Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote: A general reply to those who replied to my earlier post about what Fascism is.
I'll try to avoid going OT.
ISIL is a threat, but to compare this to powerful nation states such as Nazi Germany and the Soviet Union, states that had coherent ideologies and powerful militaries, is risible nonsense in my book.
The post-WW2 Soviet Union was a clear and present danger to the West, as it had 300 Divisions ready to roll across Europe, and a powerful nuclear arsenal to back them up...which could have wiped out humanity a dozen times over.
ISIL, though a regional problem, with the odd inspired terrorist attack here and there, is not even in the same ball park, the same city, as the Soviet Union.
The USA was nearly strangled at birth, could have been snuffed out during the war of 1812, and was almost destroyed by its civil war. If Lee had won at Antietam, and the British had come over on the South's side, then the Union was finished, and we're looking at the CSA. That's how close it was...
The USA has survived many threats and challenges in its 250+ years, but it's still here because of the strength of those institutions, the foundations are strong, and its love of liberty will never die.
Yes, the war on terror was and has been a disaster IMO, but the best comparison I can make is Vietnam.
The War on Terror is Vietnam 2.0, and Trump is approaching Richard Nixon territory,
but the USA came through Vietnam and Nixon, and it will survive Trump, because the foundations are strong, very strong...
That's my take.
Lot's of good points and observations there. I find perspective to be the medicine to get through this Presidency, but then I look at the fact it's only been barely a week of Trump and, well, gak! Can't wait to see the SCOTUS choice..."shudder"!
Judge Trump after a year, or even 4 years, but the man has barely got his foot in the door. I think it's premature to be judging him this early.
I agree with you that lot of people need to calm down a bit.
I think I may have been too soothing in my commentary on perspective with Trump, because I'm really not of a mind to "calm down a bit", nor would I advise others to do so. I had that "wait-and-see" perspective around inauguration time, I even posted as much on these boards. But barely a week in and he's shown that his xenophobic, alt-reality, vindictive pettiness "bark" that we saw on the campaign trail, and were sickened by, is being translated into "bite". This POTUS needs to get the message that he doesn't have the privilege of operating a private company surrounded by his relatives and sycophants, but rather, is now CEO of a rather large and diverse publicly held and operated company...and the majority of shareholders don't like where he's steering the firm.
I don't see the problem, he built his businesses up from scratch. Why should he let other people ruin them? I understand that there is a certain conflict of interest, but a President would never get away with giving government contracts etc to their own private enterprises so why worry? There are worse people in power for mis-use of public interest. Just look at the leader of South Africa! He spent public money on a huge swimming pool for himself, and then got away with it by declaring it was an 'emergency water storage facility'. At least Trump is honest about his actions as President, it wasn't like he has tried to hide anything.
Yes, it's easy for me to lecture others about Trump, because I don't have to live in the USA, but I honestly believe that things are not as bad as made out...
...if you're wealthy, white, born in the US, and/or have investments with Trump or his staff. Yes, nothing to worry about.
Even then, if you have co-workers with work visas, work in an international company with coworkers with spouses from outside the US, etc., you're still affected by his bull gak.
And let's not forget having sick family members on ACA worrying about what happens next.
Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote: A general reply to those who replied to my earlier post about what Fascism is.
I'll try to avoid going OT.
ISIL is a threat, but to compare this to powerful nation states such as Nazi Germany and the Soviet Union, states that had coherent ideologies and powerful militaries, is risible nonsense in my book.
The post-WW2 Soviet Union was a clear and present danger to the West, as it had 300 Divisions ready to roll across Europe, and a powerful nuclear arsenal to back them up...which could have wiped out humanity a dozen times over.
ISIL, though a regional problem, with the odd inspired terrorist attack here and there, is not even in the same ball park, the same city, as the Soviet Union.
The USA was nearly strangled at birth, could have been snuffed out during the war of 1812, and was almost destroyed by its civil war. If Lee had won at Antietam, and the British had come over on the South's side, then the Union was finished, and we're looking at the CSA. That's how close it was...
The USA has survived many threats and challenges in its 250+ years, but it's still here because of the strength of those institutions, the foundations are strong, and its love of liberty will never die.
Yes, the war on terror was and has been a disaster IMO, but the best comparison I can make is Vietnam.
The War on Terror is Vietnam 2.0, and Trump is approaching Richard Nixon territory,
but the USA came through Vietnam and Nixon, and it will survive Trump, because the foundations are strong, very strong...
That's my take.
Lot's of good points and observations there. I find perspective to be the medicine to get through this Presidency, but then I look at the fact it's only been barely a week of Trump and, well, gak! Can't wait to see the SCOTUS choice..."shudder"!
Judge Trump after a year, or even 4 years, but the man has barely got his foot in the door. I think it's premature to be judging him this early.
I agree with you that lot of people need to calm down a bit.
I think I may have been too soothing in my commentary on perspective with Trump, because I'm really not of a mind to "calm down a bit", nor would I advise others to do so. I had that "wait-and-see" perspective around inauguration time, I even posted as much on these boards. But barely a week in and he's shown that his xenophobic, alt-reality, vindictive pettiness "bark" that we saw on the campaign trail, and were sickened by, is being translated into "bite". This POTUS needs to get the message that he doesn't have the privilege of operating a private company surrounded by his relatives and sycophants, but rather, is now CEO of a rather large and diverse publicly held and operated company...and the majority of shareholders don't like where he's steering the firm.
Trump is bad in many ways, I've always consistently said that, and I'm not trying to deflect, but the USA would be no better off with Clinton as POTUS. IMO.
Trump is the lesser of two evils in my book.
If Clinton had won, we'd be looking at:
No change for millions of people suffering in rural America. I focused a lot on this area during the campaign, and these people have it tough. In a way, I can see why they voted for Trump, and let's not forget, these people voted for Obama as well. They want change, ANY change. An I don't blame them for that.
Clinton would have been the green light to wall street and more crony capitalism. Drone strikes would have been signed off from Day 1. The media would not have given two
An anti-Iran/Russia stance would have been ramped up under Clinton. That could have led to death and destruction. Trump's foreign policy is exactly what the USA needs after 15 years of half-assed war on terror blundering.
Ultimately, the USA needs to take a long hard look at itself: how did a great nation like America be reduced to choosing between Trump and Clinton?
That is a massive failure in my book.
"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
d-usa wrote: If i take a crap in your living room, do you need to wait a year to judge me?
Trump is doing exactly what he said he'd do if elected. I think that took a lot of people by surprise.
I know that you and other people are worried about Trump. I respect and appreciate that. After watching that documentary about fracking earthquakes in Oklahoma and the effects on people, you have double sympathy from me.
Yes, it's easy for me to lecture others about Trump, because I don't have to live in the USA, but I honestly believe that things are not as bad as made out.
I grew up in 1980s Britain with Thatcher wrecking the country, and that was 10 times worse. We had people jumping off bridges
I think you guys will get through this.
I'll also admit that there are areas where it will be worth waiting a year or more to judge Trump on: the economy, unemployment rate, healthcare access, etc. it's hard to judge him on long term effects for things he really hasn't done anything with.
But we can judge on stuff we know now and we disagree with now. Appointments who are ideologically opposed to the mission of the departments they are heading, appointments who refused to answer questions, the potential for conflicts of interests for Trump, and statements and actions that go against what many people consider moral foundations that this country stands for.
Liberals have their own pillars of morality that they stand on.
As I've said many a time before, the USA has the democracy it deserves. If the American people are worried where this is going, they need to fight for it. By fighting, I don't mean guns or violence, but being informed and fighting back through the political system.
The American people could start by sweeping away the zombie parties of the GOP and the Democrats. They have long outlived their usefulness.
New political parties are needed, but that's for the American people to act and to decide.
People are fighting for it with protests and voicing them outrage of the actions of Trumps administration. This quote does contradict what you said a few posts ago
Judge Trump after a year, or even 4 years, but the man has barely got his foot in the door. I think it's premature to be judging him this early.
I agree with you that lot of people need to calm down a bit.
You don't wait to fight until a year or 4 years after the gak starts to hit the fan. If you smell gak coming you try and stop it instead of letting it go through ruining everything and then letting hindsight be the decider if you should of done something then or not.
What exactly needs to be fought right now? Trump is President he can issue Executive Orders to Federal departments. If the Democrats think any of his EO's are illegal they can contest them in court just like the Republicans did with Obama. Trump hasn't gotten all of his cabinet appointments confirmed yet and hasn't signed a single piece of legislation into law. There are already court injunctions against Trump's immigration ban EO so that's already being contested. For Trump to do anything of real significance he needs legislation to move through congress. If you want to push back against Trump's political agenda then communicate with your Congressional Representative and Senators because they're the ones who can actually do something about it. Expressing yourself with protests is fine but understand that protests won't affect Congress because they're only concerned with their constituents.
Yes, it's easy for me to lecture others about Trump, because I don't have to live in the USA, but I honestly believe that things are not as bad as made out...
...if you're wealthy, white, born in the US, and/or have investments with Trump or his staff. Yes, nothing to worry about.
Even then, if you have co-workers with work visas, work in an international company with coworkers with spouses from outside the US, etc., you're still affected by his bull gak.
And let's not forget having sick family members on ACA worrying about what happens next.
I respect and appreciate the difficulties some people are having.
Not having a go at you Kronk, but I can assure you that it's not a bed of roses here in Britain, either.
Times are tough, but not that bad.
"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
Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote: A general reply to those who replied to my earlier post about what Fascism is.
I'll try to avoid going OT.
ISIL is a threat, but to compare this to powerful nation states such as Nazi Germany and the Soviet Union, states that had coherent ideologies and powerful militaries, is risible nonsense in my book.
The post-WW2 Soviet Union was a clear and present danger to the West, as it had 300 Divisions ready to roll across Europe, and a powerful nuclear arsenal to back them up...which could have wiped out humanity a dozen times over.
ISIL, though a regional problem, with the odd inspired terrorist attack here and there, is not even in the same ball park, the same city, as the Soviet Union.
The USA was nearly strangled at birth, could have been snuffed out during the war of 1812, and was almost destroyed by its civil war. If Lee had won at Antietam, and the British had come over on the South's side, then the Union was finished, and we're looking at the CSA. That's how close it was...
The USA has survived many threats and challenges in its 250+ years, but it's still here because of the strength of those institutions, the foundations are strong, and its love of liberty will never die.
Yes, the war on terror was and has been a disaster IMO, but the best comparison I can make is Vietnam.
The War on Terror is Vietnam 2.0, and Trump is approaching Richard Nixon territory,
but the USA came through Vietnam and Nixon, and it will survive Trump, because the foundations are strong, very strong...
That's my take.
Lot's of good points and observations there. I find perspective to be the medicine to get through this Presidency, but then I look at the fact it's only been barely a week of Trump and, well, gak! Can't wait to see the SCOTUS choice..."shudder"!
Judge Trump after a year, or even 4 years, but the man has barely got his foot in the door. I think it's premature to be judging him this early.
I agree with you that lot of people need to calm down a bit.
I think I may have been too soothing in my commentary on perspective with Trump, because I'm really not of a mind to "calm down a bit", nor would I advise others to do so. I had that "wait-and-see" perspective around inauguration time, I even posted as much on these boards. But barely a week in and he's shown that his xenophobic, alt-reality, vindictive pettiness "bark" that we saw on the campaign trail, and were sickened by, is being translated into "bite". This POTUS needs to get the message that he doesn't have the privilege of operating a private company surrounded by his relatives and sycophants, but rather, is now CEO of a rather large and diverse publicly held and operated company...and the majority of shareholders don't like where he's steering the firm.
I don't see the problem, he built his businesses up from scratch. Why should he let other people ruin them? I understand that there is a certain conflict of interest, but a President would never get away with giving government contracts etc to their own private enterprises so why worry? There are worse people in power for mis-use of public interest. Just look at the leader of South Africa! He spent public money on a huge swimming pool for himself, and then got away with it by declaring it was an 'emergency water storage facility'. At least Trump is honest about his actions as President, it wasn't like he has tried to hide anything.
You have completely missed my point. It has nothing to do with Trump's vested or divested business interests. One of his titles as POTUS is CEO of the USA and as such is answerable to all of us shareholders(citizens), so disregard at your own peril Mr. Trump, unlike the environment he operates his businesses from in the private sector.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2017/01/31 15:54:03
W
HITE SUPREMACISTS AND other domestic extremists maintain an active presence in U.S. police departments and other law enforcement agencies. A striking reference to that conclusion, notable for its confidence and the policy prescriptions that accompany it, appears in a classified FBI Counterterrorism Policy Guide from April 2015, obtained by The Intercept. The guide, which details the process by which the FBI enters individuals on a terrorism watchlist, the Known or Suspected Terrorist File, notes that “domestic terrorism investigations focused on militia extremists, white supremacist extremists, and sovereign citizen extremists often have identified active links to law enforcement officers,” and explains in some detail how bureau policies have been crafted to take this infiltration into account.
Although these right-wing extremists have posed a growing threat for years, federal investigators have been reluctant to publicly address that threat or to point out the movement’s longstanding strategy of infiltrating the law enforcement community.
No centralized recruitment process or set of national standards exists for the 18,000 law enforcement agencies in the United States, many of which have deep historical connections to racist ideologies. As a result, state and local police as well as sheriff’s departments present ample opportunities for white supremacists and other right-wing extremists looking to expand their power base.
In a heavily redacted version of an October 2006 FBI internal intelligence assessment, the agency raised the alarm over white supremacist groups’ “historical” interest in “infiltrating law enforcement communities or recruiting law enforcement personnel.” The effort, the memo noted, “can lead to investigative breaches and can jeopardize the safety of law enforcement sources or personnel.” The memo also states that law enforcement had recently become aware of the term “ghost skins,” used among white supremacists to describe “those who avoid overt displays of their beliefs to blend into society and covertly advance white supremacist causes.” In at least one case, the FBI learned of a skinhead group encouraging ghost skins to seek employment with law enforcement agencies in order to warn crews of any investigations.
That report appeared after a series of scandals involving local police and sheriff’s departments. In Los Angeles, for example, a U.S. District Court judge found in 1991 that members of a local sheriff’s department had formed a neo-Nazi gang and habitually terrorized black and Latino residents. In Chicago, Jon Burge, a police detective and rumored KKK member, was fired, and eventually prosecuted in 2008, over charges relating to the torture of at least 120 black men during his decadeslong career. Burge notoriously referred to an electric shock device he used during interrogations as the “[see forum posting rules] box.” In Cleveland, officials found that a number of police officers had scrawled “racist or Nazi graffiti” throughout their department’s locker rooms. In Texas, two police officers were fired when it was discovered they were Klansmen. One of them said he had tried to boost the organization’s membership by giving an application to a fellow officer he thought shared his “white, Christian, heterosexual values.”
Although the FBI has not publicly addressed the issue of white supremacist infiltration of law enforcement since that 2006 report, in a 2015 speech, FBI Director James Comey made an unprecedented acknowledgment of the role historically played by law enforcement in communities of color: “All of us in law enforcement must be honest enough to acknowledge that much of our history is not pretty.” Comey and the agency have been less forthcoming about that history’s continuation into the present.
IN 2009, SHORTLY after the election of Barack Obama, a Department of Homeland Security intelligence study, written in coordination with the FBI, warned of the “resurgence” of right-wing extremism. “Right-wing extremists have capitalized on the election of the first African-American president, and are focusing their efforts to recruit new members, mobilize existing supporters, and broaden their scope and appeal through propaganda,” the report noted, singling out “disgruntled military veterans” as likely targets of recruitment. “Right-wing extremists will attempt to recruit and radicalize returning veterans in order to exploit their skills and knowledge derived from military training and combat.”
The report concluded that “lone wolves and small terrorist cells embracing violent right-wing extremist ideology are the most dangerous domestic terrorism threat in the United States.” Released just ahead of nationwide Tea Party protests, the report caused an uproar among conservatives, who were particularly angered by the suggestion that veterans might be implicated, and by the broad brush with which the report seemed to paint a range of right-wing groups.
Faced with mounting criticism, DHS Secretary Janet Napolitano disavowed the document and apologized to veterans. The agency’s unit investigating right-wing extremism was largely dismantled and the report’s lead investigator was pushed out. “They stopped doing intel on that, and that was that,” Heidi Beirich, who leads the Southern Poverty Law Center’s tracking of extremist groups, told The Intercept. “The FBI in theory investigates right-wing terrorism and right-wing extremism, but they have limited resources. The loss of that unit was a loss for a lot of people who did this kind of work.”
“Federal law enforcement agencies in general — the FBI, the Marshals, the ATF — are aware that extremists have infiltrated state and local law enforcement agencies and that there are people in law enforcement agencies that may be sympathetic to these groups,” said Daryl Johnson, who was the lead researcher on the DHS report. Johnson, who now runs DT Analytics, a consulting firm that analyzes domestic extremism, says the problem has since gotten “a lot more troublesome.”
Johnson singled out the Oath Keepers and the Constitutional Sheriffs and Peace Officers Association for their anti-government attitudes and efforts to recruit active as well as retired law enforcement officers. “That’s the biggest issue and it’s greater now than it’s ever been, in my opinion.” Johnson added that Homeland Security has given up tracking right-wing domestic extremists. “It’s only the FBI now,” he said, adding that local police departments don’t seem to be doing anything to address the problem. “There’s not even any training now to make state and local police aware of these groups and how they could infiltrate their ranks.”
A spokesperson for DHS declined to comment on the 2009 report or on the agency’s specific concerns about white supremacist and right-wing groups.
IN 2014, THE Department of Justice re-established its Domestic Terrorism Task Force, a unit that was created following the Oklahoma City bombing. But for the most part, the government’s efforts to confront domestic terrorism threats over the last decade have focused on homegrown extremists radicalized by foreign groups. Last year, a group of progressive members of Congress called on President Obama and DHS to update the controversial 2009 report. “The United States allocates significant resources towards combating Islamic violent extremism while failing to devote adequate resources to right-wing extremism,” they wrote. “This lack of political will comes at a heavy price.”
Critics fear that the backlash following the 2009 DHS report hindered further action against the growing white supremacist threat, and that it was largely ignored because the issue was so politically controversial. “I believe that because that report was so denounced by conservatives, it sort of closed the door on whatever the FBI may have been considering doing with respect to combating infiltration of law enforcement by white supremacists,” said Samuel Jones, a professor of law at the John Marshall School of Law in Chicago who has written about white power ideology in law enforcement. “Because after the 2006 FBI report, we simply cannot find anything by local law enforcement or the federal government that addresses this issue.”
Pete Simi, a sociologist at Chapman University who spent decades studying the proliferation of white supremacists in the U.S. military, agreed. “The report underscores the problem of even discussing this issue. It underscores how difficult this issue is to get any traction on, because a lot of people don’t want to discuss this, let alone actually do something about it.” Simi said that the extremist strategy to infiltrate the military and law enforcement has existed “for decades.” In a study he conducted of individuals indicted for far-right terrorism-related activities, he found that at least 31 percent had military experience.
After a series of investigations uncovered substantial numbers of extremists in the military, the Department of Defense moved to impose stricter screenings, including monitoring recruits’ tattoos for white supremacist symbols and discharging those found to espouse racist views.
“The military has completely reformed its process on this front,” said the SPLC’s Beirich, who lobbied the DOD to adopt those reforms. “I don’t know why it wouldn’t be the same for police officers; we can’t have people with guns having crazy ideas or ideas that threaten certain populations.”
“I believe that because that report was so denounced by conservatives, it sort of closed the door on whatever the FBI may have been considering doing with respect to combating infiltration of law enforcement by white supremacists,” said Samuel Jones, a professor of law at the John Marshall School of Law in Chicago who has written about white power ideology in law enforcement. “Because after the 2006 FBI report, we simply cannot find anything by local law enforcement or the federal government that addresses this issue.”
Odd how the emails were a source of public concern -- and of course the super secret infiltration of the USA govt. by Muslim B'hood /whomever -- but neo -nazi infiltration doesn't merit a mention.
The poor man really has a stake in the country. The rich man hasn't; he can go away to New Guinea in a yacht. The poor have sometimes objected to being governed badly; the rich have always objected to being governed at all
We love our superheroes because they refuse to give up on us. We can analyze them out of existence, kill them, ban them, mock them, and still they return, patiently reminding us of who we are and what we wish we could be.
"the play's the thing wherein I'll catch the conscience of the king,
People say Trump is moving the U.S.A forward in a bad way. If Clinton had won, the U.S.A would have been moving two steps back. She would have been continuing the Democrats policies, white-washing over the developing cracks and ignoring the deepening social divides. If Clinton had won everyone here would be moaning about her being a bad leader, that there was no change in the system and that there relatives sons, daughters, child's, future existence was on the brink of disaster. So either way things wouldn't have been good for all those pessimists out there.
Trump is bad in many ways, I've always consistently said that, and I'm not trying to deflect, but the USA would be no better off with Clinton as POTUS. IMO.
Trump is the lesser of two evils in my book.
If Clinton had won, we'd be looking at:
No change for millions of people suffering in rural America. I focused a lot on this area during the campaign, and these people have it tough. In a way, I can see why they voted for Trump, and let's not forget, these people voted for Obama as well. They want change, ANY change. An I don't blame them for that.
Clinton would have been the green light to wall street and more crony capitalism. Drone strikes would have been signed off from Day 1. The media would not have given two
An anti-Iran/Russia stance would have been ramped up under Clinton. That could have led to death and destruction. Trump's foreign policy is exactly what the USA needs after 15 years of half-assed war on terror blundering.
Ultimately, the USA needs to take a long hard look at itself: how did a great nation like America be reduced to choosing between Trump and Clinton?
That is a massive failure in my book.
If this were a conversation, I'd be left speechless. It's amazing that you can tell everyone to give Trump a little time to prove himself, and then go on to insist that the world would be ending the second Clinton was elected.
Because in no way has Trump offered any kind of relief to rural Americans, nor has he taken any kind of stance or actions that indicates he's not going to do everything to make the wealthy wealthier over the course of his presidency. And his actions so far will likely increase the amount of death and destruction we see from terrorists abroad.
Sentinel1 wrote: People say Trump is moving the U.S.A forward in a bad way. If Clinton had won, the U.S.A would have been moving two steps back. She would have been continuing the Democrats policies, white-washing over the developing cracks and ignoring the deepening social divides. If Clinton had won everyone here would be moaning about her being a bad leader, that there was no change in the system and that there relatives sons, daughters, child's, future existence was on the brink of disaster. So either way things wouldn't have been good for all those pessimists out there.
First, it's not the Democrats that are driving wedges in our society, especially since they're the party that has the most to lose. Second, no, only certain posters who still manage to bring up Clinton in Trump's presidency would be moaning as they sat comfortably behind their computer screens.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2017/01/31 15:54:14
Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote: A general reply to those who replied to my earlier post about what Fascism is.
I'll try to avoid going OT.
ISIL is a threat, but to compare this to powerful nation states such as Nazi Germany and the Soviet Union, states that had coherent ideologies and powerful militaries, is risible nonsense in my book.
The post-WW2 Soviet Union was a clear and present danger to the West, as it had 300 Divisions ready to roll across Europe, and a powerful nuclear arsenal to back them up...which could have wiped out humanity a dozen times over.
ISIL, though a regional problem, with the odd inspired terrorist attack here and there, is not even in the same ball park, the same city, as the Soviet Union.
The USA was nearly strangled at birth, could have been snuffed out during the war of 1812, and was almost destroyed by its civil war. If Lee had won at Antietam, and the British had come over on the South's side, then the Union was finished, and we're looking at the CSA. That's how close it was...
The USA has survived many threats and challenges in its 250+ years, but it's still here because of the strength of those institutions, the foundations are strong, and its love of liberty will never die.
Yes, the war on terror was and has been a disaster IMO, but the best comparison I can make is Vietnam.
The War on Terror is Vietnam 2.0, and Trump is approaching Richard Nixon territory,
but the USA came through Vietnam and Nixon, and it will survive Trump, because the foundations are strong, very strong...
That's my take.
Lot's of good points and observations there. I find perspective to be the medicine to get through this Presidency, but then I look at the fact it's only been barely a week of Trump and, well, gak! Can't wait to see the SCOTUS choice..."shudder"!
Judge Trump after a year, or even 4 years, but the man has barely got his foot in the door. I think it's premature to be judging him this early.
I agree with you that lot of people need to calm down a bit.
I think I may have been too soothing in my commentary on perspective with Trump, because I'm really not of a mind to "calm down a bit", nor would I advise others to do so. I had that "wait-and-see" perspective around inauguration time, I even posted as much on these boards. But barely a week in and he's shown that his xenophobic, alt-reality, vindictive pettiness "bark" that we saw on the campaign trail, and were sickened by, is being translated into "bite". This POTUS needs to get the message that he doesn't have the privilege of operating a private company surrounded by his relatives and sycophants, but rather, is now CEO of a rather large and diverse publicly held and operated company...and the majority of shareholders don't like where he's steering the firm.
Trump is bad in many ways, I've always consistently said that, and I'm not trying to deflect, but the USA would be no better off with Clinton as POTUS. IMO.
Trump is the lesser of two evils in my book.
If Clinton had won, we'd be looking at:
No change for millions of people suffering in rural America. I focused a lot on this area during the campaign, and these people have it tough. In a way, I can see why they voted for Trump, and let's not forget, these people voted for Obama as well. They want change, ANY change. An I don't blame them for that.
Clinton would have been the green light to wall street and more crony capitalism. Drone strikes would have been signed off from Day 1. The media would not have given two
An anti-Iran/Russia stance would have been ramped up under Clinton. That could have led to death and destruction. Trump's foreign policy is exactly what the USA needs after 15 years of half-assed war on terror blundering.
Ultimately, the USA needs to take a long hard look at itself: how did a great nation like America be reduced to choosing between Trump and Clinton?
That is a massive failure in my book.
Sorry, I just can't waste time engaging in "woulda, coulda, shoulda" pseudo-prescience with regards to a hypothetical Clinton presidency, for the same reasons I don't participate in "woulda, coulda, shoulda" debates of a Sanders vs Trump election. I see what I see and I respond accordingly, there's only 24 hours in a day, man!
Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote: A general reply to those who replied to my earlier post about what Fascism is.
I'll try to avoid going OT.
ISIL is a threat, but to compare this to powerful nation states such as Nazi Germany and the Soviet Union, states that had coherent ideologies and powerful militaries, is risible nonsense in my book.
The post-WW2 Soviet Union was a clear and present danger to the West, as it had 300 Divisions ready to roll across Europe, and a powerful nuclear arsenal to back them up...which could have wiped out humanity a dozen times over.
ISIL, though a regional problem, with the odd inspired terrorist attack here and there, is not even in the same ball park, the same city, as the Soviet Union.
It maybe nonsense to you, but it doesn't matter what you think. As I have learned, it matters what the voting majority of people think. Guess what, they do not agree with you.
Support Blood and Spectacles Publishing:
https://www.patreon.com/Bloodandspectaclespublishing
Trump is bad in many ways, I've always consistently said that, and I'm not trying to deflect, but the USA would be no better off with Clinton as POTUS. IMO.
Trump is the lesser of two evils in my book.
If Clinton had won, we'd be looking at:
No change for millions of people suffering in rural America. I focused a lot on this area during the campaign, and these people have it tough. In a way, I can see why they voted for Trump, and let's not forget, these people voted for Obama as well. They want change, ANY change. An I don't blame them for that.
Clinton would have been the green light to wall street and more crony capitalism. Drone strikes would have been signed off from Day 1. The media would not have given two
An anti-Iran/Russia stance would have been ramped up under Clinton. That could have led to death and destruction. Trump's foreign policy is exactly what the USA needs after 15 years of half-assed war on terror blundering.
Ultimately, the USA needs to take a long hard look at itself: how did a great nation like America be reduced to choosing between Trump and Clinton?
That is a massive failure in my book.
If this were a conversation, I'd be left speechless. It's amazing that you can tell everyone to give Trump a little time to prove himself, and then go on to insist that the world would be ending the second Clinton was elected.
Because in no way has Trump offered any kind of relief to rural Americans, nor has he taken any kind of stance or actions that indicates he's not going to do everything to make the wealthy wealthier over the course of his presidency. And his actions so far will likely increase the amount of death and destruction we see from terrorists abroad.
We don't know what Trump will do to help rural America. He's talked of a massive infrastructure programme, so maybe this will help?
If, after a year, nothing has happened on this, feel free to call me out on this, and I would probably agree with you.
Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote: A general reply to those who replied to my earlier post about what Fascism is.
I'll try to avoid going OT.
ISIL is a threat, but to compare this to powerful nation states such as Nazi Germany and the Soviet Union, states that had coherent ideologies and powerful militaries, is risible nonsense in my book.
The post-WW2 Soviet Union was a clear and present danger to the West, as it had 300 Divisions ready to roll across Europe, and a powerful nuclear arsenal to back them up...which could have wiped out humanity a dozen times over.
ISIL, though a regional problem, with the odd inspired terrorist attack here and there, is not even in the same ball park, the same city, as the Soviet Union.
It maybe nonsense to you, but it doesn't matter what you think. As I have learned, it matters what the voting majority of people think. Guess what, they do not agree with you.
My own family doesn't agree with me most of the time
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2017/01/31 15:55:58
"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
Frankly having people registered in multiple states and dead people registered isn't actually a problem we should concern ourselves with. That someone is on more than one rolls isn't a huge problem since you have to be in state to actually cast your vote, or apply for an absentee ballot which can only be issued if you meet certain requirements. We can confirm that someone only voted once with a simple multi-state cross checking system which already exists and is how they caught two people in 2016 who tried to vote twice in early voting.
It gives millions of people the ability to legally double vote. This can be a problem especially on college towns and jurisdictions with lots of snow refugees: Florida and Arizona for example. It should be a paramount issue to eliminate all voter fraud and abuse, as well as insure all lawful citizens can vote.
While I agree that having voter rolls regularly purged so they are more accurate that is a state issue and is easier said than done. If you moved from Texas to Wyoming how does the Texas Secretary of State's Election Division know that you have moved and that they need to remove you from the voter rolls? If you don't personally notify the Elections Division there is no mechanism in place that automatically tells them you left. The Elections Divisions can purge deceased voters by using the database of death certificates issued by the state but for people who move there's no database. The easiest way to purge people who left the state is to purge people who haven't voted but that can also result in people who haven't voted but simply not voting doesn't mean you left the state. One of our kids was born the day after Election Day and that year my wife didn't vote because she was way too pregnant to go to the polls. Is missing one election enough to get purged? How many elections do you have to abstain from to get purged? While accurate voter rolls is a good idea and harms no one making it a reality is quite complicated.
Sentinel1 wrote: People say Trump is moving the U.S.A forward in a bad way. If Clinton had won, the U.S.A would have been moving two steps back. She would have been continuing the Democrats policies, white-washing over the developing cracks and ignoring the deepening social divides. If Clinton had won everyone here would be moaning about her being a bad leader, that there was no change in the system and that there relatives sons, daughters, child's, future existence was on the brink of disaster. So either way things wouldn't have been good for all those pessimists out there.
In some ways maybe but voicing concerns and complaints is how the representative process works. If they aren't doing a good job you call them out on it and give push back. Just because "the other option" wasn't great doesn't give the current administration a pass to be a dumpster fire.
"Hold my shoota, I'm goin in"
Armies (7th edition points)
7000+ Points Death Skullz
4000 Points
+ + 3000 Points "The Fiery Heart of the Emperor"
3500 Points "Void Kraken" Space Marines
3000 Points "Bard's Booze Cruise"
Sentinel1 wrote: People say Trump is moving the U.S.A forward in a bad way. If Clinton had won, the U.S.A would have been moving two steps back. She would have been continuing the Democrats policies, white-washing over the developing cracks and ignoring the deepening social divides. If Clinton had won everyone here would be moaning about her being a bad leader, that there was no change in the system and that there relatives sons, daughters, child's, future existence was on the brink of disaster. So either way things wouldn't have been good for all those pessimists out there.
That's the problem, people think these negative thoughts based on what exactly? Their feelings.
I can tell you, the data in the end of the Obama Presidency shows the opposite. Employment improved. Standard of living improved across the board, even for the poor. Troops deployed had gone down. More health insurance coverage and health care. By any measure, Obama killed it as a President.
I wonder where the people got the idea that everything was terrible? How would we get these impressions of gloom and doom when the data says otherwise?
Hmmmmm?
Support Blood and Spectacles Publishing:
https://www.patreon.com/Bloodandspectaclespublishing
Trump is bad in many ways, I've always consistently said that, and I'm not trying to deflect, but the USA would be no better off with Clinton as POTUS. IMO.
Trump is the lesser of two evils in my book.
If Clinton had won, we'd be looking at:
No change for millions of people suffering in rural America. I focused a lot on this area during the campaign, and these people have it tough. In a way, I can see why they voted for Trump, and let's not forget, these people voted for Obama as well. They want change, ANY change. An I don't blame them for that.
Clinton would have been the green light to wall street and more crony capitalism. Drone strikes would have been signed off from Day 1. The media would not have given two
An anti-Iran/Russia stance would have been ramped up under Clinton. That could have led to death and destruction. Trump's foreign policy is exactly what the USA needs after 15 years of half-assed war on terror blundering.
Ultimately, the USA needs to take a long hard look at itself: how did a great nation like America be reduced to choosing between Trump and Clinton?
That is a massive failure in my book.
If this were a conversation, I'd be left speechless. It's amazing that you can tell everyone to give Trump a little time to prove himself, and then go on to insist that the world would be ending the second Clinton was elected.
Because in no way has Trump offered any kind of relief to rural Americans, nor has he taken any kind of stance or actions that indicates he's not going to do everything to make the wealthy wealthier over the course of his presidency. And his actions so far will likely increase the amount of death and destruction we see from terrorists abroad.
We don't know what Trump will do to help rural America. He's talked of a massive infrastructure programme, so maybe this will help?
If, after a year, nothing has happened on this, feel free to call me out on this, and I would probably agree with you.
Do you really think that an infrastructure bill passed by Republicans is going to bother gathering, training, and putting rural Americans to work? The same party that condemned Clinton when she tried offering the same deal to out-of-work coal miners?
Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote: A general reply to those who replied to my earlier post about what Fascism is.
I'll try to avoid going OT.
ISIL is a threat, but to compare this to powerful nation states such as Nazi Germany and the Soviet Union, states that had coherent ideologies and powerful militaries, is risible nonsense in my book.
The post-WW2 Soviet Union was a clear and present danger to the West, as it had 300 Divisions ready to roll across Europe, and a powerful nuclear arsenal to back them up...which could have wiped out humanity a dozen times over.
ISIL, though a regional problem, with the odd inspired terrorist attack here and there, is not even in the same ball park, the same city, as the Soviet Union.
It maybe nonsense to you, but it doesn't matter what you think. As I have learned, it matters what the voting majority of people think. Guess what, they do not agree with you.
Um....guess what your guy lost by the same metric.
-"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!
Trump is bad in many ways, I've always consistently said that, and I'm not trying to deflect, but the USA would be no better off with Clinton as POTUS. IMO.
Trump is the lesser of two evils in my book.
If Clinton had won, we'd be looking at:
No change for millions of people suffering in rural America. I focused a lot on this area during the campaign, and these people have it tough. In a way, I can see why they voted for Trump, and let's not forget, these people voted for Obama as well. They want change, ANY change. An I don't blame them for that.
Clinton would have been the green light to wall street and more crony capitalism. Drone strikes would have been signed off from Day 1. The media would not have given two
An anti-Iran/Russia stance would have been ramped up under Clinton. That could have led to death and destruction. Trump's foreign policy is exactly what the USA needs after 15 years of half-assed war on terror blundering.
Ultimately, the USA needs to take a long hard look at itself: how did a great nation like America be reduced to choosing between Trump and Clinton?
That is a massive failure in my book.
If this were a conversation, I'd be left speechless. It's amazing that you can tell everyone to give Trump a little time to prove himself, and then go on to insist that the world would be ending the second Clinton was elected.
Because in no way has Trump offered any kind of relief to rural Americans, nor has he taken any kind of stance or actions that indicates he's not going to do everything to make the wealthy wealthier over the course of his presidency. And his actions so far will likely increase the amount of death and destruction we see from terrorists abroad.
We don't know what Trump will do to help rural America. He's talked of a massive infrastructure programme, so maybe this will help?
If, after a year, nothing has happened on this, feel free to call me out on this, and I would probably agree with you.
Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote: A general reply to those who replied to my earlier post about what Fascism is.
I'll try to avoid going OT.
ISIL is a threat, but to compare this to powerful nation states such as Nazi Germany and the Soviet Union, states that had coherent ideologies and powerful militaries, is risible nonsense in my book.
The post-WW2 Soviet Union was a clear and present danger to the West, as it had 300 Divisions ready to roll across Europe, and a powerful nuclear arsenal to back them up...which could have wiped out humanity a dozen times over.
ISIL, though a regional problem, with the odd inspired terrorist attack here and there, is not even in the same ball park, the same city, as the Soviet Union.
It maybe nonsense to you, but it doesn't matter what you think. As I have learned, it matters what the voting majority of people think. Guess what, they do not agree with you.
My own family doesn't agree with me most of the time
Exactly, no previous president has spelled out their entire policy plan for a year within a month of taking office, he will have large infrastructure plans but they may be spread out over the duration of his presidency. I believe he will benefit traditional industries including agriculture, most likely in a new form of farming subsidy system. Only time will tell.
Phew! I am completely Trumped out now, time for a rest
Trump is bad in many ways, I've always consistently said that, and I'm not trying to deflect, but the USA would be no better off with Clinton as POTUS. IMO.
Trump is the lesser of two evils in my book.
If Clinton had won, we'd be looking at:
No change for millions of people suffering in rural America. I focused a lot on this area during the campaign, and these people have it tough. In a way, I can see why they voted for Trump, and let's not forget, these people voted for Obama as well. They want change, ANY change. An I don't blame them for that.
Clinton would have been the green light to wall street and more crony capitalism. Drone strikes would have been signed off from Day 1. The media would not have given two
An anti-Iran/Russia stance would have been ramped up under Clinton. That could have led to death and destruction. Trump's foreign policy is exactly what the USA needs after 15 years of half-assed war on terror blundering.
Ultimately, the USA needs to take a long hard look at itself: how did a great nation like America be reduced to choosing between Trump and Clinton?
That is a massive failure in my book.
If this were a conversation, I'd be left speechless. It's amazing that you can tell everyone to give Trump a little time to prove himself, and then go on to insist that the world would be ending the second Clinton was elected.
Because in no way has Trump offered any kind of relief to rural Americans, nor has he taken any kind of stance or actions that indicates he's not going to do everything to make the wealthy wealthier over the course of his presidency. And his actions so far will likely increase the amount of death and destruction we see from terrorists abroad.
We don't know what Trump will do to help rural America. He's talked of a massive infrastructure programme, so maybe this will help?
If, after a year, nothing has happened on this, feel free to call me out on this, and I would probably agree with you.
Do you really think that an infrastructure bill passed by Republicans is going to bother gathering, training, and putting rural Americans to work? The same party that condemned Clinton when she tried offering the same deal to out-of-work coal miners?
Call me naïve, but I would hope that the GOP would reward states that voted for them with investment and infrastructure projects, or am I being naïve?
That's how politics works in Britain. Town X votes for party Z, and town X gets shiny stuff in return.
Trump is bad in many ways, I've always consistently said that, and I'm not trying to deflect, but the USA would be no better off with Clinton as POTUS. IMO.
Trump is the lesser of two evils in my book.
If Clinton had won, we'd be looking at:
No change for millions of people suffering in rural America. I focused a lot on this area during the campaign, and these people have it tough. In a way, I can see why they voted for Trump, and let's not forget, these people voted for Obama as well. They want change, ANY change. An I don't blame them for that.
Clinton would have been the green light to wall street and more crony capitalism. Drone strikes would have been signed off from Day 1. The media would not have given two
An anti-Iran/Russia stance would have been ramped up under Clinton. That could have led to death and destruction. Trump's foreign policy is exactly what the USA needs after 15 years of half-assed war on terror blundering.
Ultimately, the USA needs to take a long hard look at itself: how did a great nation like America be reduced to choosing between Trump and Clinton?
That is a massive failure in my book.
If this were a conversation, I'd be left speechless. It's amazing that you can tell everyone to give Trump a little time to prove himself, and then go on to insist that the world would be ending the second Clinton was elected.
Because in no way has Trump offered any kind of relief to rural Americans, nor has he taken any kind of stance or actions that indicates he's not going to do everything to make the wealthy wealthier over the course of his presidency. And his actions so far will likely increase the amount of death and destruction we see from terrorists abroad.
We don't know what Trump will do to help rural America. He's talked of a massive infrastructure programme, so maybe this will help?
If, after a year, nothing has happened on this, feel free to call me out on this, and I would probably agree with you.
Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote: A general reply to those who replied to my earlier post about what Fascism is.
I'll try to avoid going OT.
ISIL is a threat, but to compare this to powerful nation states such as Nazi Germany and the Soviet Union, states that had coherent ideologies and powerful militaries, is risible nonsense in my book.
The post-WW2 Soviet Union was a clear and present danger to the West, as it had 300 Divisions ready to roll across Europe, and a powerful nuclear arsenal to back them up...which could have wiped out humanity a dozen times over.
ISIL, though a regional problem, with the odd inspired terrorist attack here and there, is not even in the same ball park, the same city, as the Soviet Union.
It maybe nonsense to you, but it doesn't matter what you think. As I have learned, it matters what the voting majority of people think. Guess what, they do not agree with you.
My own family doesn't agree with me most of the time
Exactly, no previous president has spelled out their entire policy plan for a year within a month of taking office, he will have large infrastructure plans but they may be spread out over the duration of his presidency. I believe he will benefit traditional industries including agriculture, most likely in a new form of farming subsidy system. Only time will tell.
Phew! I am completely Trumped out now, time for a rest
Yeah, I'm having 40 different conversations here, so I may need a break as well.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2017/01/31 16:04:34
"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
Do you really think that an infrastructure bill passed by Republicans is going to bother gathering, training, and putting rural Americans to work? The same party that condemned Clinton when she tried offering the same deal to out-of-work coal miners?
Call me naïve, but I would hope that the GOP would reward states that voted for them with investment and infrastructure projects, or am I being naïve?
That's how politics works in Britain. Town X votes for party Z, and town X gets shiny stuff in return.
Oh, I don't doubt that with Obama out of the way, Republicans won't stop any infrastructure improvements that they can claim were their own ideas. I'm disputing the idea that any of the money would make its way into the pockets of rural Americans instead of corporations that provide Republican politicians with donations.
A new bridge or repaved road isn't exactly comforting when you're still out of a job and half your town is dying from heroin addiction. And don't forget, Trump's the candidate that's floated the privatization of America's infrastructure. So I hope those rural Americans are read to pay whenever they want to cross one of those new bridges or repaved roads.
This message was edited 3 times. Last update was at 2017/01/31 16:11:01
I'm not really sure why people are interpreting the outrage directed at Trump's first ten days as "surprise." I mean... did we all forget the outrage directed at him before the 21st or something? Are people that genuinely "surprised" that outrage directed at a man when he is just talking about stuff might get worse when he actually does the things he talked about?
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2017/01/31 16:12:39
Although Trump likes to make a big thing about this, I honestly don't think it bothers him, he is a man throughout life has never taken no for an answer, particularly now at the start of his political career he will be focusing on decisive action. I recon that when these topics cool off and he focuses on implementing policies to help Americans at home, the opinion pols will warm up to him. Particularly all the Social Justice Warriors on protest at the minute will eventually loose steam and public interest. When they give up it will be plain sailing for him.
Nah he will keep doing bad orders that hurt america like so far. Humans don't instantly change. Would require complete personality change for him to be even passable president.
He looks to boost his wealth and ego knowing very well it hurts america. He just doesn't care.
He has shown already all he is. This has been known for years
Frankly having people registered in multiple states and dead people registered isn't actually a problem we should concern ourselves with. That someone is on more than one rolls isn't a huge problem since you have to be in state to actually cast your vote, or apply for an absentee ballot which can only be issued if you meet certain requirements. We can confirm that someone only voted once with a simple multi-state cross checking system which already exists and is how they caught two people in 2016 who tried to vote twice in early voting.
It gives millions of people the ability to legally double vote. This can be a problem especially on college towns and jurisdictions with lots of snow refugees: Florida and Arizona for example. It should be a paramount issue to eliminate all voter fraud and abuse, as well as insure all lawful citizens can vote.
Even if we accept such things were possible, there is no evidence that such exists on any meaningful scale, certainly not enough to have tipped any election, despite many investigations on both sides.
No change for millions of people suffering in rural America. I focused a lot on this area during the campaign, and these people have it tough. In a way, I can see why they voted for Trump, and let's not forget, these people voted for Obama as well. They want change, ANY change. An I don't blame them for that.
This assumes Trump is going to do anything for them, and that it will be positive. There is no appearance that such is the case.
Clinton would have been the green light to wall street and more crony capitalism.
and this isnt even more the case with Donald Fething Trump?
Drone strikes would have been signed off from Day 1. The media would not have given two
this didnt happen with Trump?
An anti-Iran/Russia stance would have been ramped up under Clinton. That could have led to death and destruction. Trump's foreign policy is exactly what the USA needs after 15 years of half-assed war on terror blundering.
this is rather wild supposition, particularly given the heavily nationalist and hawkish bent of the Republicans and the Trump crowd in general. From who publicly made this statement...
"The United States must greatly strengthen and expand its nuclear capability until such time as the world comes to its senses regarding nukes"
And asked why have them if we're not gonna use them.
So...not seeing the logic here in Trump being the safer bet.
Ultimately, the USA needs to take a long hard look at itself: how did a great nation like America be reduced to choosing between Trump and Clinton?
That is a massive failure in my book.
thats an excellent question
IRON WITHIN, IRON WITHOUT.
New Heavy Gear Log! Also...Grey Knights! The correct pronunciation is Imperial Guard and Stormtroopers, "Astra Militarum" and "Tempestus Scions" are something you'll find at Hogwarts.
Sentinel1 wrote: People say Trump is moving the U.S.A forward in a bad way. If Clinton had won, the U.S.A would have been moving two steps back. She would have been continuing the Democrats policies, white-washing over the developing cracks and ignoring the deepening social divides. If Clinton had won everyone here would be moaning about her being a bad leader, that there was no change in the system and that there relatives sons, daughters, child's, future existence was on the brink of disaster. So either way things wouldn't have been good for all those pessimists out there.
The kind of leader Clinton would have been was well evidenced in her desertion without a word to her supporters on election night when she lost.
7000+ Points Death Skullz
4000 Points
+ 
+ 3000 Points "The Fiery Heart of the Emperor"
3000 Points "Bard's Booze Cruise" 
