US Politics: 2017 Edition

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.

**Frazzled**

Trump's fraudulent "university" says hi.
***Yep. He's what might later be referred to as a criminal sleazebag. We shall see.

It's a sign of how dysfunctional US conservatives are that "Clinton is being investigated for being a typical politician*"
***No she was investigated for committed felony violations of secrecy laws. Thats justn this side of treason...and for what again? Oh yea she destroyed all the evidence.

is portrayed as some uniquely horrible situation where voting for literally anyone is justified as long as it keeps her out of office, but deliberately running a for-profit "university" that blatantly scammed its customers for large amounts of money is completely forgotten.
****Yep you guys picked the most worst candidate possible of the field available to you. I will give the Democrats this, when they suck, they suck hard.

The investigation into Trump's scam may be less prominent than the Clinton scandals, but it should be a much bigger red flag when considering who is worth voting for.
***One is a felony that could have killed people. One's a fraud scam. Both bad, one is just wow...

*Remember, republicans have used similar email servers and had similar issues with mishandling classified information, with a similar lack of punishment.
***None that ran for President.

I don't think that a political party putting its support behind a particular candidate is really that alarming,
***Giving debate questions to one candidate, yea that kind of is.

Remember that parties have no obligation to hold primaries at all, and are free to nominate whoever they want by whatever means they want.
***Don't tell me about your regrets about not running Biden.

On the positive you can still run Julian Castro next time.

**Gordon Shumway**

jasper76 wrote:
Gordon Shumway wrote:
jasper76 wrote:
infinite_array wrote:

No, because the voters in the primaries listened to what Trump was promising, not his background. Trump out-conservatived the actual conservatives, which is what happens when you work your base into a frenzy for eight years and then try asking them to calm down long enough to pick someone who could be considered somewhat reasonable.

If you think Trump was running on a conservative platform, then we just have different working definitions of "conservative".

Trump ran on a big government, anti-trade, and isolationist platform.

And the fact that conservatives supported him en masse (against tradionally conservative candidates) tells you what the modern conservative movement wants. Simple.

I think Trumpism is so much different than traditional conservatism, that continuing to use the the conservative isn't too helpful. Or we should give traditional conservatism a new name like Reaganism or something.

It would be more helpful with a different name, but Regan isn't it, if you go by what Regan supported and what the last twenty years of conservatives claim they want. Maybe "traditionalists" or "imaginary 1950s hopefulists"? I prefer "fabulists". The heart and idea is in the right place, but the world view is a fairy tale where there is "good vs.evil" and the good always wins.

**Frazzled**

I didn't vote for Clinton in the primaries, and "your guy is just as bad" is not a compelling counter-argument.

***No not at all. I am saying your guy WAS WORSE. Your guy sucked so bad she lost...to PT Barnum's illegitimate love child.

Automatically Appended Next Post:

Peregrine wrote:
Also, this idea that Clinton was some uniquely horrible candidate that needed to be opposed at all costs is utter lunacy. She's a center-left career politician, with the usual rumors of scandals and corruption that go along with pretty much any prominent politician. FFS, her primary campaign was essentially "I'm business as usual, let's keep doing more of the same". There are legitimate things to disagree with about her policy choices, but stop repeating this absurd propaganda myth that Clinton is Satan incarnate.

You're right. Satan would have won. She lost.

I'll second what was said-no more Clintons! (ok i'd vote for Bill in a heart beat, but I don't think he's got a lot of time left frankly).

**jasper76**

Gordon Shumway wrote:

It would be more helpful with a different name, but Regan isn't it, if you go by what Regan supported and what the last twenty years of conservatives claim they want. Maybe "traditionalists" or "imaginary 1950s hopefulists"? I prefer "fabulists".

I just chose Reaganism because traditional conservatives worship Reagan as a god.

**Gordon Shumway**

Frazzled wrote:
I didn't vote for Clinton in the primaries, and "your guy is just as bad" is not a compelling counter-argument.

***No not at all. I am saying your guy WAS WORSE. Your guy sucked so bad she lost...to PT Barnum's illegitimate love child.

Automatically Appended Next Post:

Peregrine wrote:
Also, this idea that Clinton was some uniquely horrible candidate that needed to be opposed at all costs is utter lunacy. She's a center-left career politician, with the usual rumors of scandals and corruption that go along with pretty much any prominent politician. FFS, her primary campaign was essentially "I'm business as usual, let's keep doing more of the same". There are legitimate things to disagree with about her policy choices, but stop repeating this absurd propaganda myth that Clinton is Satan incarnate.

You're right. Satan would have won. She lost.

I'll second what was said-no more Clintons! (ok i'd vote for Bill in a heart beat, but I don't think he's got a lot of time left frankly).

I don't either, sadly. He should have been allowed to just continue eating cheeseburgers during jogs. At least he was happy and had a voice. He is looking more and more like Carter every day. I wonder if Obama will someday look like Carter?

**Frazzled**

Co'tor Shas wrote:
jasper76 wrote:
infinite_array wrote:

No, because the voters in the primaries listened to what Trump was promising, not his background. Trump out-conservatived the actual conservatives, which is what happens when you work your base into a frenzy for eight years and then try asking them to calm down long enough to pick someone who could be considered somewhat reasonable.

If you think Trump was running on a conservative platform, then we just have different working definitions of "conservative".

Trump ran on a big government, anti-trade, and isolationist platform.

Yeah, he's not conservative, simply nationalist. I would, however, posit that the majority of republicans are also not Conservative. It has been at least a decade since the republican party could truly call it'self conservative. The leadership is, but it's not the leadership who controls the party, as we all found out during this election.

Good points.

**Gordon Shumway**

jasper76 wrote:
Gordon Shumway wrote:

It would be more helpful with a different name, but Regan isn't it, if you go by what Regan supported and what the last twenty years of conservatives claim they want. Maybe "traditionalists" or "imaginary 1950s hopefulists"? I prefer "fabulists".

I just chose Reaganism because traditional conservatives worship Reagan as a god.

"Fabulist" would account for that

**infinite_array**

Frazzled wrote:
Co'tor Shas wrote:
jasper76 wrote:
infinite_array wrote:

No, because the voters in the primaries listened to what Trump was promising, not his background. Trump out-conservatived the actual conservatives, which is what happens when you work your base into a frenzy for eight years and then try asking them to calm down long enough to pick someone who could be considered somewhat reasonable.

If you think Trump was running on a conservative platform, then we just have different working definitions of "conservative".

Trump ran on a big government, anti-trade, and isolationist platform.

Yeah, he's not conservative, simply nationalist. I would, however, posit that the majority of republicans are also not Conservative. It has been at least a decade since the republican party could truly call it'self conservative. The leadership is, but it's not the leadership who controls the party, as we all found out during this election.

Good points.

True, Cotor said it better than I did.

**jasper76**

Gordon Shumway wrote:
Frazzled wrote:
I didn't vote for Clinton in the primaries, and "your guy is just as bad" is not a compelling counter-argument.

***No not at all. I am saying your guy WAS WORSE. Your guy sucked so bad she lost...to PT Barnum's illegitimate love child.

Automatically Appended Next Post:

Peregrine wrote:
Also, this idea that Clinton was some uniquely horrible candidate that needed to be opposed at all costs is utter lunacy. She's a center-left career politician, with the usual rumors of scandals and corruption that go along with pretty much any prominent politician. FFS, her primary campaign was essentially "I'm business as usual, let's keep doing more of the same". There are legitimate things to disagree with about her policy choices, but stop repeating this absurd propaganda myth that Clinton is Satan incarnate.

You're right. Satan would have won. She lost.

I'll second what was said-no more Clintons! (ok i'd vote for Bill in a heart beat, but I don't think he's got a lot of time left frankly).

I don't either, sadly. He should have been allowed to just continue eating cheeseburgers during jogs. At least he was happy and had a voice. He is looking more and more like Carter every day. I wonder if Obama will someday look like Carter?

There was something about the way old Bill was looking at those balloons at the DNC that suggests to me he has finally entered his second childhood.

**Frazzled**

I hope so. Real life sucks balls.

**Gordon Shumway**

jasper76 wrote:
Gordon Shumway wrote:
Frazzled wrote:
I didn't vote for Clinton in the primaries, and "your guy is just as bad" is not a compelling counter-argument.

***No not at all. I am saying your guy WAS WORSE. Your guy sucked so bad she lost...to PT Barnum's illegitimate love child.

Automatically Appended Next Post:

Peregrine wrote:
Also, this idea that Clinton was some uniquely horrible candidate that needed to be opposed at all costs is utter lunacy. She's a center-left career politician, with the usual rumors of scandals and corruption that go along with pretty much any prominent politician. FFS, her primary campaign was essentially "I'm business as usual, let's keep doing more of the same". There are legitimate things to disagree with about her policy choices, but stop repeating this absurd propaganda myth that Clinton is Satan incarnate.

You're right. Satan would have won. She lost.

I'll second what was said-no more Clintons! (ok i'd vote for Bill in a heart beat, but I don't think he's got a lot of time left frankly).

I don't either, sadly. He should have been allowed to just continue eating cheeseburgers during jogs. At least he was happy and had a voice. He is looking more and more like Carter every day. I wonder if Obama will someday look like Carter?

There was something about the way old Bill was looking at those balloons at the DNC that suggests to me he has finally entered his second childhood.

When he can talk quietly and doesn't sound hoarse, he still has the magic. He sounds like a strangely intelligent child. Extremely hopeful against all odds even though he knows what the odds are. He is like America's Yoda. Too bad his last padowan was an old Kylo Ren.

**jasper76**

Frazzled wrote:
I hope so. Real life sucks balls.

Yep. Keep bouncing those balloons, Bill! And keep on paintin them purty pictures, George!

**Frazzled**

jasper76 wrote:
Frazzled wrote:
I hope so. Real life sucks balls.

Yep. Keep bouncing those balloons, Bill! And keep on paintin them purty pictures, George!

I was on the road during the superbowl. Did he manage to do the coin toss ok? Both the wife and I thought he was a goner this hospital trip.

**Gordon Shumway**

jasper76 wrote:
Frazzled wrote:
I hope so. Real life sucks balls.

Yep. Keep bouncing those balloons, Bill! And keep on paintin them purty pictures, George!

I am really glad that W. found art and Carter found practicality (building those Carter houses) in their post political years. It's like they found the missing piece of their lives that allowed them to find peace. One final olive branch to nobody in particular but themselves.

**kronk**

Frazzled wrote:

I was on the3 road during the superbowl. Did he manage to do the coin toss ok? Both the wife and I thought he was a goner this hospital trip.

He's looking pretty frail. He was in a chair the whole time. Barb wasn't exactly spry, but she stood next to him during the toss.

I saw him several years ago at a Houston Texans game. Before the game, he was mingling with the players and waving to the crowd. A kicker put a ball on the T on the sidelines (practicing into a net). When the kicker stepped away, George ran (shuffled 2x his normal rate) and kicked the ball. The crowd on that side went nuts. I wish I had filmed it, but it's a cool memory, anyway.

Edit: I used to go to 5 or 6 Houston Astros games a season. Their seats were immediately behind home plate. From anywhere in the stands, you can tell they are there from Barbara's white hair. I saw them on the Kiss Kam many times. They were excellent sports about it.

**jasper76**

Speaking of aging, I saw this on facebook the other day and thought it was funny. For laughs only:

Spoiler:

Automatically Appended Next Post:

Gordon Shumway wrote:
jasper76 wrote:
Frazzled wrote:
I hope so. Real life sucks balls.

Yep. Keep bouncing those balloons, Bill! And keep on paintin them purty pictures, George!

I am really glad that W. found art and Carter found practicality (building those Carter houses) in their post political years. It's like they found the missing piece of their lives that allowed them to find peace. One final olive branch to nobody in particular but themselves.

I couldn't agree more. Carter's done alot with himself, and W. in particular has become quite the charming guy.

**Ustrello**

kronk wrote:
Frazzled wrote:

I was on the3 road during the superbowl. Did he manage to do the coin toss ok? Both the wife and I thought he was a goner this hospital trip.

He's looking pretty frail. He was in a chair the whole time. Barb wasn't exactly spry, but she stood next to him during the toss.

I saw him several years ago at a Houston Texans game. Before the game, he was mingling with the players and waving to the crowd. A kicker put a ball on the T on the sidelines (practicing into a net). When the kicker stepped away, George ran (shuffled 2x his normal rate) and kicked the ball. The crowd on that side went nuts. I wish I had filmed it, but it's a cool memory, anyway.

Edit: I used to go to 5 or 6 Houston Astros games a season. Their seats were immediately behind home plate. From anywhere in the stands, you can tell they are there from Barbara's white hair. I saw them on the Kiss Kam many times. They were excellent sports about it.

HW and Barb aren't long for this world I think, they are both over 90 and that is the top end even with current medical knowledge

**Do_I_Not_Like_That**

Please, please don't invade us America,

but it looks as though the House of Commons has blocked Trump from giving them a speech when he visits Britain

We have checks and balances too, and Parliament and the House Speaker have moved to block Trump from entering the hall.

And there's nothing the Prime Minister/Government can do about it.

Previous House Speakers have stood up to King Charles on the eve of the English Civil War, so they have form for this.

So yeah, please don't invade.

**feeder**

Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:
Please, please don't invade us America,

but it looks as though the House of Commons has blocked Trump from giving them a speech when he visits Britain

We have checks and balances too, and Parliament and the House Speaker have moved to block Trump from entering the hall.

And there's nothing the Prime Minister/Government can do about it.

Previous House Speakers have stood up to King Charles on the eve of the English Civil War, so they have form for this.

So yeah, please don't invade.

You won't get invaded. You will get a poorly worded, enraged twitter rant filled with typos though. Sad!

**Frazzled**

Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:
Please, please don't invade us America,

but it looks as though the House of Commons has blocked Trump from giving them a speech when he visits Britain

We have checks and balances too, and Parliament and the House Speaker have moved to block Trump from entering the hall.

And there's nothing the Prime Minister/Government can do about it.

Previous House Speakers have stood up to King Charles on the eve of the English Civil War, so they have form for this.

So yeah, please don't invade.

Just don't let CNN or FOX show a map of where the UK is and you'll be fine. I don't think certain persons.. cough cough have actually read a book in the last decade or so.

Automatically Appended Next Post:

feeder wrote:
Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:
Please, please don't invade us America,

but it looks as though the House of Commons has blocked Trump from giving them a speech when he visits Britain

We have checks and balances too, and Parliament and the House Speaker have moved to block Trump from entering the hall.

And there's nothing the Prime Minister/Government can do about it.

Previous House Speakers have stood up to King Charles on the eve of the English Civil War, so they have form for this.

So yeah, please don't invade.

You won't get invaded. You will get a poorly worded, enraged twitter rant filled with typos though. Sad!

It will include "sad" "bad people" and "nasty" though.
Inversely if he says something about the Queen being old you are not allowed to sail the HMS Victory up NY Harbor and bombard Trump Tower.
OK, by that I mean, please please do.

But if Old Ironsides comes out to challenge you must retire, as a good Brit gentlemen always respects his elders, and thats an old ship.

**Do_I_Not_Like_That**

Frazz, do you think we forgot 1776?

We're always playing the long game: trick China, Russia, and the USA into taking each other out, then rebuild the Empire and take over the world again...

It'll be back to tea drinking for you damn colonials!

and you'll learn how to write a date properly! Day/Month/Year. Not Month/Day/Year.

That American method annoys the HELL out of me!

Automatically Appended Next Post:

feeder wrote:
Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:
Please, please don't invade us America,

but it looks as though the House of Commons has blocked Trump from giving them a speech when he visits Britain

We have checks and balances too, and Parliament and the House Speaker have moved to block Trump from entering the hall.

And there's nothing the Prime Minister/Government can do about it.

Previous House Speakers have stood up to King Charles on the eve of the English Civil War, so they have form for this.

So yeah, please don't invade.

You won't get invaded. You will get a poorly worded, enraged twitter rant filled with typos though. Sad!

I'm not on Twitter

**LordofHats**

jasper76 wrote:

Spoiler:

You know I think Obama came out of his eight years fairly well, but damn Bush seriously gained a solid 20 years in appearance. Though I think he looks a bit better now than he did when he left office.

**feeder**

LordofHats wrote:
jasper76 wrote:

Spoiler:

You know I think Obama came out of his eight years fairly well, but damn Bush seriously gained a solid 20 years in appearance. Though I think he looks a bit better now than he did when he left office.

**Gordon Shumway**

Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:
Frazz, do you think we forgot 1776?

We're always playing the long game: trick China, Russia, and the USA into taking each other out, then rebuild the Empire and take over the world again...

It'll be back to tea drinking for you damn colonials!

and you'll learn how to write a date properly! Day/Month/Year. Not Month/Day/Year.

That American method annoys the HELL out of me!

Automatically Appended Next Post:

feeder wrote:
Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:
Please, please don't invade us America,

but it looks as though the House of Commons has blocked Trump from giving them a speech when he visits Britain

We have checks and balances too, and Parliament and the House Speaker have moved to block Trump from entering the hall.

And there's nothing the Prime Minister/Government can do about it.

Previous House Speakers have stood up to King Charles on the eve of the English Civil War, so they have form for this.

So yeah, please don't invade.

You won't get invaded. You will get a poorly worded, enraged twitter rant filled with typos though. Sad!

I'm not on Twitter

I hope you haven't forgotten anything. Arthur will still rise to take the sword, Jimmy Paige will be playing a solo in the background, Willy Shakes and Mr. Marlowe will be feeding him lines, and good ole OED will be making sure all the words have meaning. Whenever ther world combusts to whatever cinder we make it, let the British music and letters remain. Humans did good, here's what we got. Aliens will be rocking to "When the Levee Breaks" long after we are gone.

**Do_I_Not_Like_That**

Gordon Shumway wrote:
Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:
Frazz, do you think we forgot 1776?

We're always playing the long game: trick China, Russia, and the USA into taking each other out, then rebuild the Empire and take over the world again...

It'll be back to tea drinking for you damn colonials!

and you'll learn how to write a date properly! Day/Month/Year. Not Month/Day/Year.

That American method annoys the HELL out of me!

Automatically Appended Next Post:

feeder wrote:
Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:
Please, please don't invade us America,

but it looks as though the House of Commons has blocked Trump from giving them a speech when he visits Britain

We have checks and balances too, and Parliament and the House Speaker have moved to block Trump from entering the hall.

And there's nothing the Prime Minister/Government can do about it.

Previous House Speakers have stood up to King Charles on the eve of the English Civil War, so they have form for this.

So yeah, please don't invade.

You won't get invaded. You will get a poorly worded, enraged twitter rant filled with typos though. Sad!

I'm not on Twitter

I hope you haven't forgotten anything. Arthur will still rise to take the sword, Jimmy Paige will be playing a solo in the background, Willy Shakes and Mr. Marlowe will be feeding him lines, and good ole OED will be making sure all the words have meaning. Whenever ther world combusts to whatever cinder we make it, let the British music and letters remain. Humans did good, here's what we got. Aliens will be rocking to "When the Levee Breaks" long after we are gone.

Well said. have an exalt.

Anyway, I'm going to leave the web and get back to the printed word, which in this case is a very famous, and so far very good, American novel: Moby Dick.

**Hybrid Son Of Oxayotl**

Vaktathi wrote:
so then who exactly voted *for* Trump? Who was showing up at his rallies? Who pushed him through over the likes of Jeb and Ryan and Cruz? Who are these Republican voting non-conservatives and what would one call them? Who are all these people identifying as "conservative" in polls that have consistently shown support for trump and approval of his tenure thus far?

I asked that question and got no answer. Please, do explain the poor lost Frenchman in here who are those people that do support Trump, if they aren't conservative. Are they progressives?

Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:
Please, please don't invade us America,

Well, we would have defended you with our NUKES!!!!11!!, but you left the EU so now you should work on getting your own NUKES!!!!11!!, just in case. If you are invaded, we may blow the feth out of America just because we hate Trump, but maybe not because we didn't like Brexit.
Remember, the message the US sent you by electing Trump is GET YOUR OWN NUKES!!!!11!!

Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:
and you'll learn how to write a date properly! Day/Month/Year. Not Month/Day/Year.

I approve this message.

**jasper76**

Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:

Anyway, I'm going to leave the web and get back to the printed word, which in this case is a very famous, and so far very good, American novel: Moby Dick.

One of the best books ever written, IMO, if a bit tedious with the details of the whaling trade. I hope you enjoy it!

**Gordon Shumway**

Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:
Gordon Shumway wrote:
Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:
Frazz, do you think we forgot 1776?

We're always playing the long game: trick China, Russia, and the USA into taking each other out, then rebuild the Empire and take over the world again...

It'll be back to tea drinking for you damn colonials!

and you'll learn how to write a date properly! Day/Month/Year. Not Month/Day/Year.

That American method annoys the HELL out of me!

Automatically Appended Next Post:

feeder wrote:
Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:
Please, please don't invade us America,

but it looks as though the House of Commons has blocked Trump from giving them a speech when he visits Britain

We have checks and balances too, and Parliament and the House Speaker have moved to block Trump from entering the hall.

And there's nothing the Prime Minister/Government can do about it.

Previous House Speakers have stood up to King Charles on the eve of the English Civil War, so they have form for this.

So yeah, please don't invade.

You won't get invaded. You will get a poorly worded, enraged twitter rant filled with typos though. Sad!

I'm not on Twitter

I hope you haven't forgotten anything. Arthur will still rise to take the sword, Jimmy Paige will be playing a solo in the background, Willy Shakes and Mr. Marlowe will be feeding him lines, and good ole OED will be making sure all the words have meaning. Whenever ther world combusts to whatever cinder we make it, let the British music and letters remain. Humans did good, here's what we got. Aliens will be rocking to "When the Levee Breaks" long after we are gone.

Well said. have an exalt.

Anyway, I'm going to leave the web and get back to the printed word, which in this case is a very famous, and so far very good, American novel: Moby Dick.

Moby Dick is great, but it is a slog and tells you way more about whaling (and everything else) than you ever need to know. Want to know about the American psyche as far as literarature? The Great Gatsby. It is the ID and ego of America no matter where you fall on the political,spectrum. It is who we are, how we perceive and delude ourselves, and where we want to go from here. It is also beautifully written. Take any paragraph and hang it on the wall as a sign of "America"

**jasper76**

Hybrid Son Of Oxayotl wrote:
Vaktathi wrote:
so then who exactly voted *for* Trump? Who was showing up at his rallies? Who pushed him through over the likes of Jeb and Ryan and Cruz? Who are these Republican voting non-conservatives and what would one call them? Who are all these people identifying as "conservative" in polls that have consistently shown support for trump and approval of his tenure thus far?

I asked that question and got no answer. Please, do explain the poor lost Frenchman in here who are those people that do support Trump, if they aren't conservative. Are they progressives?

For the most part, they are people who feel that both political parties have failed them miserably.

**Hybrid Son Of Oxayotl**

feeder wrote:
Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:
Please, please don't invade us America,

but it looks as though the House of Commons has blocked Trump from giving them a speech when he visits Britain

We have checks and balances too, and Parliament and the House Speaker have moved to block Trump from entering the hall.

And there's nothing the Prime Minister/Government can do about it.

Previous House Speakers have stood up to King Charles on the eve of the English Civil War, so they have form for this.

So yeah, please don't invade.

You won't get invaded. You will get a poorly worded, enraged twitter rant filled with typos though. Sad!

And maybe an ill-thought out poorly-worded set of economic sanction that would hurt both economies and which EO will be partly suspended by the court because it's just pain STUPID!

Automatically Appended Next Post:

jasper76 wrote:
For the most part, they are people who feel that both political parties have failed them miserably.

So people that didn't vote in previous elections?