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.
A CNN reported asked Trump about the rumoured tensions in the G7 meetings. Trump attacked the reporter and called him fake news. Trump then got on AF1 and started tweeting attacks at Trudeau. A few hours after that the president's economics advisor Larry Kudlow claimed Trudeau 'stabbed us in the back', while his trade advisor Peter Navarro said there 'was a special place in hell' for people like Trudeau.
I think that reporter maybe wasn't fake news. He might have been on to something. I'm beginning to suspect that just maybe Trump might sometimes claim some things are fake news when they're actually real news. Maybe.
Also, I just learned today that there is a guy who's job it is to keep taping Trump's papers back together. Any document presented to the president has to be kept per the records act, but Trump doesn't about that kind of stuff and routinely tears papers up once he's done with them. So there's a guy on stuff who has the job of sitting there with sticky tape putting all this stuff back together again. It really captures how every day there are so many tiny humiliations visited on people who work for or try to support Trump, and then by extension on everyone who has to deal with such a deeply ridiculous man.
Kilkrazy wrote: Russia's economy is about the size of Spain and isn't in the top 10. There is also a GATT 27 meeting which does include Russia so I would guess that takes care of them and this is just Trump being Trump. Maybe he wants a close ally so he doesn't feel so isolated against the other six.
Yep. G7 isn't just about economic power. If it was China and India would be in before China, as both have much bigger economies than Russia. And both are nuclear powers as well, so it isn't about Russia being part of the nuclear club.
Trump wants Putin there because Trump is unique among US presidents in the post-war era as having no functioning working relationship with any of the leaders of the major developed countries. Trump does not have those relationships because those relationships are built on shared values and mutual gain, and Trump does not understand relationships built on those ideas because Trump is horribly broken man. The only relationships Trump understands are built on sycophancy, or bullies/crooks banding together to victimise a third party.
Lacking anyone in the G7 willing to give Trump a relationship he can understand, he felt isolated and insecure. I don't know if he then turned to Putin because he really felt the need for Putin there as an ally, or because Trump was just throwing a hand grenade because he felt more comfortable if things were more chaotic. I don't know, but the point is this is not how functional adults work. It is certainly not how functional heads of state work.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Kilkrazy wrote: The average EU tariff on imports from the USA is about 3%. The reason why there's a trade imbalance is that the EU produces more stuff that Americans want to buy than the USA produces stuff that Europeans want to buy.
Frazzled wrote: He's a gun confiscator, illegal criminal alien hugger and the rpitomy of SF nannystate cronyism.
So after making big claims that Newsom was a criminal on par with Blagojevich... when pushed on the matter all you can produce is some policies of his you don't like.
I don't want to say I called this but... okay yeah I do want to say I called this.
"Of course, frazzled failed to demonstrate any evidence of said corruption, but I didn't even bother to address that because it's just the same old Republican mudslinging lies."
I thought Trump was against NAFTA, TTIP and the EU.
The Canadian dairy tariffs that Trump is now fixated on would have been removed through the TPP that Trump walked away from.
What does it all mean?
Nothing. None of it means anything. Trump knows basically nothing about how the world works, and has no interest in remaining consistent in his beliefs or opinions from one moment to the next. So he just makes up whatever nonsense suits him in the moment. He is supported in this make it up as you go approach by a large network of shamelessly partisan media who will happily flip to the president's new opinion, scurrying to find some set of reasons to justify it, even when it directly contradicts previous statements.
Maybe you didn't follow the conversation. Frazzled said Newsom was a criminal on par with Blagojevich and was asked for something to substantiate that. Frazzled replied with nothing. The only thing approximating substantiation came from me, I pointed out Newsom had an affair with a staffer. Frazzled was asked a bunch more times, and eventually responded, not with any kind of criminal activity, all Frazzled did was list a bunch of Newsom policies he didn't like.
Sure, we could point out Frazzled descriptions of Newsom's policies are false (Newsom isn't actually planning on grabbing anyone's guns, Newsom's actual position is actually a fairly typical do nothing Democrat position, 'smart' guns etc). Or we could have a laugh that Frazzled thinks it is interesting or any way relevant that a Texas Republican doesn't like a California Democrat's policies.
But all that is besides the point. Frazzled claimed Newsom was a criminal. When asked for anything to substantiate this, Frazzled produced nothing. It was yet another instance of Republican mud slinging and rumour mongering based on nothing but lies and bs.
It's fething terrible.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Jadenim wrote: I think the key quote in that link was "No tariffs, no barriers. That's the way it should be. And no subsidies. I even said, 'no tariffs'," (emphasis mine); Boeing et al have always hated the way strategic industries are supported in Europe and Canada (no matter that they get equivalent support through tax breaks, etc.). So I guess this will turn into the USA offering to remove tariffs if the rest of the G7 stop subsidising key industries.
The US also subsidises its industries. One of the major reasons Canada maintains its tariffs on US dairy is the US dairy industry is subsidised to a stupid level, leading to a chronic oversupply that the US wants to dump somewhere else. Canada's dairy market doesn't have those production subsidies, instead it is propped up by production controls and import quotas in a model more like the sort of thing we used to see in the 1930s.
I mean hey, if someone was able to wave a magic wand and get rid of all the special interests that keep the remaining tariffs & subsidies in place and take us to a truly free market, then great. But of course, that is was what was happening, slowly and surely, right up to and including TPP, which would have removed some of the last remaining truly protected industries (like Japanese farming). Which Trump walked away from. After which Trump decided to play protectionist on steel. And it was only as that started to backfire that Trump has now tried to claim all he wants is an end to tariffs.
That is not the actions of a man able to take on special interests in the US, and work with like minded leaders in other major nations so they do the same, to move towards an end to market interference.
Those are the actions of a man-child who by this time next week will be knee deep in a different self-inflicted disaster.
This message was edited 6 times. Last update was at 2018/06/11 05:29:45
“We may observe that the government in a civilized country is much more expensive than in a barbarous one; and when we say that one government is more expensive than another, it is the same as if we said that that one country is farther advanced in improvement than another. To say that the government is expensive and the people not oppressed is to say that the people are rich.”
Adam Smith, who must have been some kind of leftie or something.
Maybe you didn't follow the conversation. Frazzled said Newsom was a criminal on par with Blagojevich and was asked for something to substantiate that. Frazzled replied with nothing. The only thing approximating substantiation came from me, I pointed out Newsom had an affair with a staffer. Frazzled was asked a bunch more times, and eventually responded, not with any kind of criminal activity, all Frazzled did was list a bunch of Newsom policies he didn't like.
Sure, we could point out Frazzled descriptions of Newsom's policies are false (Newsom isn't actually planning on grabbing anyone's guns, Newsom's actual position is actually a fairly typical do nothing Democrat position, 'smart' guns etc). Or we could have a laugh that Frazzled thinks it is interesting or any way relevant that a Texas Republican doesn't like a California Democrat's policies.
But all that is besides the point. Frazzled claimed Newsom was a criminal. When asked for anything to substantiate this, Frazzled produced nothing. It was yet another instance of Republican mud slinging and rumour mongering based on nothing but lies and bs.
It's fething terrible.
Frazz said and I quote "elect Blagoyivich level sleazebag Newsom as Governor?".
It is *you* who chose to interpret that Frazz is saying Newsom was a criminal.
Is it hyperbolic? Yeah... welcome to US politics.
But you saying that this is "yet another instance of Republican mud slinging..." is downright insulting. Your abject hatred of anything Republican is blinding you to much of these conversations... as its one of the reasons why I've stepped back a bit.
Me and Frazz has stated numerous times that we had issues with the Republican party and in Trump in particular.... but, you don't even find some common grounds here and just insist of getting your fair share of "lets bash anyone that looks like a Republican... because, hey... they deserve it.".
It's attitude like this, is a large part of "why Trump won". I can hear you rolling your eyes... but, if Democrats keeps electing the far left, like Newsom and the level of personal discourse keeps on trucking, nothing worthwhile is going to change.
The sooner ya'll realize that... the sooner a real and effective opposition towards Trump/GOP can be achieved.
Kilkrazy wrote: I think you do have to think about the so-called "delusionals".
To ignore their concerns and win by mobilising the opposition will only entrench the divisive attitudes that seem to have gripped the USA in recent decades.
I'm not saying you should give in to them, but I think you do have to engage with them and try to persuade them that their ideas are not working.
You have to reach out and persuade people who think climate change is a swizz, or that the Laffer Curve works, or that trickle-down economics make the poor better off.
It shouldn't be too hard to get these points over because reality increasingly obviously is on your side. But it's a potentially humiliating climb-down for a lot of people who need to un-nail their colours from those various masts. You can help get them through that by not trying to humiliate them.
I mean these people are often accused of being stupid, but they aren't stupid. They've got something else pushing their views, and part of it probably is resentment at the way the the other side talks about them.
I sympathise with what you're saying, and I agree they're not stupid. And I think the point you make about focusing on the harm of measles is a good one, but I just don't think it can apply in this case. Things are that far gone.
The culture Trump/Republican supporters have built for themselves is fundamentally dishonest culture, where lies that suit the group go unchallenged, but any claim that threatens the group, whether it is true or not, is rejected and anyone who supported the claim is attacked and likely expelled from the group. What the group believes is decided entirely by what is good for the tribe, not by what is actually true.
Consider this recent silliness with tariffs. Trump ran a campaign opposed to free trade. He attacked TPP and when in office refused to sign the US on to it. He then put in place tariffs on steel to boost US steel. Then just a couple after putting those tariffs in place Trump turns on his head and starts saying he wants no tariffs within the G7. I have seen many Trump supporters switch to this new position, I have not seen a single Trump supporter question Trump's sudden position reversal.
Or to look here on dakka, Frazzled claimed one of the nominees for CA governor, democrat Gavin Newsom, was corrupt on a level equal to Rod Blagojevich. He was asked to provide evidence and spent a couple of posts talking around the subject while giving no evidence. Gray Templar waded in, trying to back up Frazzled by claiming Newsom was absent from his work, using an example that was then proven to also be dishonest. Frazzled returned after a bit, he gave no evidence supporting his allegations, instead he just listed some Newsom policies he doesn't like. People noted Frazzled still wasn't giving evidence for his claim of corruption, at which point whembly waded in, ignoring the point that Frazzled's earlier claim was a lie, and instead trying to claim there was nothing wrong with Frazzled's list of Newsom policies he doesn't like. And then back came Gray Templar, who wanted to also ignore the point around Frazzled's false claim, and expand the debate on those policies that Gray Templar also doesn't like.
So that's three people from the right, one told a lie, and then all three tried everything they could to move the conversation on without ever addressing that Frazzled made a false allegation with nothing to back it up.
That's the broken state of right wing politics. Even on a level as meaningless as an on-line forum, these guys won't hold each other to account for making up false allegations. Tell a lie, if called on it move on, and in a couple of hours tell a new lie, or even just repeat that same lie because hey why not there is literally no accountability for spamming constant lies.
This is why, for instance, Republicans have been able to mudsling on the Mueller investigation with a string of plainly false allegations. It's produced a dynamic where the liars are free to basically troll the media, teasing a big new revelation that will destroy the Mueller investigation, and keep that teaser going for weeks, letting mud stick to Mueller. Then when they finally release the details of the allegation, it is immediately shown to be a plain lie, and the liars walk away to go plan a new lie. There was wire tapping, then unmasking, then getting Page warrant based on the Steel dossier only, then FBI spying, each of them was a plain lie that was proven as a lie as soon as the substance of the allegation was made clear. But in each case the liars suffered no penalty, and were instead just left to make up a new lie.
It's an utterly broken state of affairs, and it is allowed to continue because Republicans simply will not hold their own to account for telling these lies. Do you know which Republicans have actually been attacked because of the allegations against the FBI? Trey Gowdy and Paul Ryan finally told the truth about part of the investigation, and said the FBI acted as we would expect them to. That was true, but it went against Team Trump/Republicans, and so they got attacked.
By trying to debate against that, thinking if you just keep looking for new ways to engage with people who are plainly quite happy to repeat any Trump/Republican lie, you aren't going to one day stumble on the perfect angle. Instead all that will happen is what happens now, what's happened for years now. People try to engage in good faith and they just end up arguing with jelly - any attempt to make them stick to a single point will just watch them squirm, and then claim some other, wildly new position.
What needs to be done now is not to debate these people, but to define them, and make them accountable not for their ever changing arguments, but for their actions. What they have done to healthcare, to taxes, to international standing. Define them as the radical no-nothings they are, and then trust this is enough to get the large number of non-voters motivated and turning up at the polls to vote against them.
“We may observe that the government in a civilized country is much more expensive than in a barbarous one; and when we say that one government is more expensive than another, it is the same as if we said that that one country is farther advanced in improvement than another. To say that the government is expensive and the people not oppressed is to say that the people are rich.”
Adam Smith, who must have been some kind of leftie or something.
whembly wrote: Frazz said and I quote "elect Blagoyivich level sleazebag Newsom as Governor?".
It is *you* who chose to interpret that Frazz is saying Newsom was a criminal.
Blagojevich is a criminal. he is currently imprisoned after being convicted of 17 criminal charges.
There is no interpretation that is possible otherwise. If you are comparing someone to Blagojevich, you are saying they are similar to a convicted felon.
You are literally posting gibberish.
whembly wrote: It's attitude like this, is a large part of "why Trump won".
The real problem with this forum is that as long as you remain superficially polite, you can keep doing this over and over again. Peregrine is totally right.
lord_blackfang wrote: Respect to the guy who subscribed just to post a massive ASCII dong in the chat and immediately get banned.
Flinty wrote: The benefit of slate is that its.actually a.rock with rock like properties. The downside is that it's a rock
whembly wrote: Frazz said and I quote "elect Blagoyivich level sleazebag Newsom as Governor?".
It is *you* who chose to interpret that Frazz is saying Newsom was a criminal.
Blagojevich is a criminal. he is currently imprisoned after being convicted of 17 criminal charges.
There is no interpretation that is possible otherwise. If you are comparing someone to Blagojevich, you are saying they are similar to a convicted felon.
You are literally posting gibberish.
Convicted felon for corruption. As in, "the Democratic Party Chicago Way" of politics.
I mean, nuance can be challenging on a message board... but, I didn't think it was that nuanced.
whembly wrote: It's attitude like this, is a large part of "why Trump won".
The real problem with this forum is that as long as you remain superficially polite, you can keep doing this over and over again. Peregrine is totally right.
Because we all have opinions. Just because you have one doesn't make it stone cold fact.
That's what you and Peregrine often misses.
'Tis like the old argument we'd have about Senate not giving up/down votes, Voter IDs or Popular Vote vs Electoral College or even BENGHAZI. We simply come across with different opinions in debating the merits/demerits of such topics. But, oft times it devolves into strawman/goalpost shifting pissing contest (which I'm surly guilty of too).
There's a difference between tolerating opposing views vs rejecting a view point because of a belief that said poster doesn't have any credibility. Far too many of the latter than the former lately.
What I would do here going forward is that anyone making a assertion should work to back it up and at the same time the board gives that poster a chance to back it up.
whembly wrote: Frazz said and I quote "elect Blagoyivich level sleazebag Newsom as Governor?". It is *you* who chose to interpret that Frazz is saying Newsom was a criminal.
Blagojevich is a criminal. he is currently imprisoned after being convicted of 17 criminal charges.
There is no interpretation that is possible otherwise. If you are comparing someone to Blagojevich, you are saying they are similar to a convicted felon.
You are literally posting gibberish.
Convicted felon for corruption. As in, "the Democratic Party Chicago Way" of politics.
I mean, nuance can be challenging on a message board... but, I didn't think it was that nuanced.
It isn't nuance. None of you have supplied any evidence that Newsom is corrupt at all, let alone to the level he would be on the same level as someone serving years in prison for corruption.
If I were to say that someone was a sleazebag on the level of Bill Cosby, what would you interpret that to mean?
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2018/06/11 08:59:13
The Laws of Thermodynamics:
1) You cannot win. 2) You cannot break even. 3) You cannot stop playing the game.
Colonel Flagg wrote:You think you're real smart. But you're not smart; you're dumb. Very dumb. But you've met your match in me.
it's not an opinion that Blagovich is a convicted criminal. It's not an opinion that comparing someone to him is saying they have committed criminal acts.
The arguments you are making are desperate justification for a weak, lazy lie that was quickly abandoned because there was no possibility of defending it.
So, keep responding to you (and this inserting a new quarter into the bs spin machine over and over again), or just stop responding (and let the lazy, weak lies stand unchallenged)? The game of the OT
lord_blackfang wrote: Respect to the guy who subscribed just to post a massive ASCII dong in the chat and immediately get banned.
Flinty wrote: The benefit of slate is that its.actually a.rock with rock like properties. The downside is that it's a rock
whembly wrote: Because we all have opinions. Just because you have one doesn't make it stone cold fact.
That's what you and Peregrine often misses.
It's not that you have opinions, it's that you post factually incorrect statements and assorted other dishonest arguments, evade and weasel out of acknowledging the overwhelming evidence that is presented to counter your claims, and then come back again later to re-post the same original claim as if none of the previous discussion ever happened. It's like how, back in election season, you kept posting the argument that the electoral college favors smaller states no matter how much indisputable mathematical evidence we provided to prove that it does not. It's incredibly frustrating to deal with and you'd be banned from many other forums (including forums with a significant right-wing presence, so don't try to make this about your choice of party) but because you don't use any bad words dakka considers it acceptable behavior.
There is no such thing as a hobby without politics. "Leave politics at the door" is itself a political statement, an endorsement of the status quo and an attempt to silence dissenting voices.
Ouze wrote: it's not an opinion that Blagovich is a convicted criminal. It's not an opinion that comparing someone to him is saying they have committed criminal acts.
The arguments you are making are desperate justification for a weak, lazy lie that was quickly abandoned because there was no possibility of defending it.
So, keep responding to you (and this inserting a new quarter into the bs spin machine over and over again), or just stop responding (and let the lazy, weak lies stand unchallenged)? The game of the OT
I'm not disputing Blogvich is a convict. Not sure why you think I am...
whembly wrote: Because we all have opinions. Just because you have one doesn't make it stone cold fact.
That's what you and Peregrine often misses.
It's not that you have opinions, it's that you post factually incorrect statements and assorted other dishonest arguments, evade and weasel out of acknowledging the overwhelming evidence that is presented to counter your claims, and then come back again later to re-post the same original claim as if none of the previous discussion ever happened. It's like how, back in election season, you kept posting the argument that the electoral college favors smaller states no matter how much indisputable mathematical evidence we provided to prove that it does not. It's incredibly frustrating to deal with and you'd be banned from many other forums (including forums with a significant right-wing presence, so don't try to make this about your choice of party) but because you don't use any bad words dakka considers it acceptable behavior.
And this is exactly what I mean.
You tried to convince me otherwise and I've submitted/posited counter points. You simply reject them out of hand. That Electoral College debate was exactly that. (I'm still stunned that you keep harping that EC doesn't strengthen smaller state's stature... the math is indisputable, especially when you break it down by population per EV).
This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2018/06/11 09:06:05
whembly wrote: Frazz said and I quote "elect Blagoyivich level sleazebag Newsom as Governor?".
It is *you* who chose to interpret that Frazz is saying Newsom was a criminal.
Blagojevich is a criminal. he is currently imprisoned after being convicted of 17 criminal charges.
There is no interpretation that is possible otherwise. If you are comparing someone to Blagojevich, you are saying they are similar to a convicted felon.
You are literally posting gibberish.
Convicted felon for corruption. As in, "the Democratic Party Chicago Way" of politics.
I mean, nuance can be challenging on a message board... but, I didn't think it was that nuanced.
It isn't nuance. None of you have supplied any evidence that Newsom is corrupt at all, let alone to the level he would be on the same level as someone serving years in prison for corruption.
If I were to say that someone was a sleazebag on the level of Bill Cosby, what would you interpret that to mean?
That's he's a sleazbag providing that you support it with some credible evidence/source.
Take Gavin for instance:
“It’s been 5 years since 20 first graders were shot dead at Sandy Hook.
Since then:
14 killed in San Bernardino
49 killed in Orlando
58 killed in Vegas
26 killed in a Texas church
Enough.
We have a message for the @NRA: If you hurt people, we are coming for your guns.”
Am I not to infer that he want's to confiscate guns or is that too nuanced?
You guys tell me. Should we not infer so much? Maybe we all need to do a better job of expounding our arguments without leaving a barn door open for detractors to derail the conversation?
whembly wrote: You tried to convince me otherwise and I've submitted/posited counter points. You simply reject them out of hand. That Electoral College debate was exactly that. (I'm still stunned that you keep harping that EC doesn't strengthen smaller state's stature... the math is indisputable, especially when you break it down by population per EV).
I reject your counterpoints because your counterpoints are factually incorrect. The math for EC votes is that small states do not benefit, period. Your simplistic analysis of population per EV does not accurately evaluate the situation. Wyoming may have a very low ratio of population per EV, probably the lowest in the US, but it has very little electoral power. Wyoming is going to give its three EV to the republican candidate every year, no matter what. Therefore neither party spends any meaningful amount of time or effort campaigning there, and there is minimal incentive to consider Wyoming in any policy decisions. All of the attention and policy consideration goes to a small number of swing states. It is those states, not small states, that have disproportionately high electoral power. Abolish the EC, on the other hand, and every Wyoming citizen's vote is worth as much as a citizen of a swing state's vote.
But of course we've told you this, over and over again. We've provided the hard evidence of campaign time and effort spent on each state, evidence which clearly shows that both parties ignore the small states you claim the EC benefits. And yet you refuse to accept it because Your Team considers the EC a good thing.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
whembly wrote: Am I not to infer that he want's to confiscate guns or is that too nuanced?
There you go again, moving the goalposts. The original comparison was with a convicted felon who is in prison for being a corrupt politician. Now, instead of providing evidence of corruption by the new guy (which would establish that the comparison was a reasonable one) you're arguing that he wants strict gun control, as if proving any flaw in his policies is somehow proof of every other flaw. And apparently we're supposed to get drawn into yet another gun control argument and forget the fact that the original claim was about corruption.
This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2018/06/11 09:36:02
There is no such thing as a hobby without politics. "Leave politics at the door" is itself a political statement, an endorsement of the status quo and an attempt to silence dissenting voices.
Dreadwinter wrote: We should use facts to justify statements and stop use hyperbolic statements to derail threads.
How 'bout it? I am still waiting for you to provide evidence he is even close to the level Blagojevich is at.
So if we're trying to dial down hyperbole... why bring up Blogojevich? Why not "Why is Gavin such a problem for you whem?"
I don't care what your problems are with him. Stop attempting to misdirect. I care that people are held accountable for sleazy, hyperbolic comments and for defending those sleazy, hyperbolic comments.
whembly wrote: You tried to convince me otherwise and I've submitted/posited counter points. You simply reject them out of hand. That Electoral College debate was exactly that. (I'm still stunned that you keep harping that EC doesn't strengthen smaller state's stature... the math is indisputable, especially when you break it down by population per EV).
I reject your counterpoints because your counterpoints are factually incorrect. The math for EC votes is that small states do not benefit, period. Your simplistic analysis of population per EV does not accurately evaluate the situation. Wyoming may have a very low ratio of population per EV, probably the lowest in the US, but it has very little electoral power. Wyoming is going to give its three EV to the republican candidate every year, no matter what. Therefore neither party spends any meaningful amount of time or effort campaigning there, and there is minimal incentive to consider Wyoming in any policy decisions. All of the attention and policy consideration goes to a small number of swing states. It is those states, not small states, that have disproportionately high electoral power. Abolish the EC, on the other hand, and every Wyoming citizen's vote is worth as much as a citizen of a swing state's vote.
But of course we've told you this, over and over again. We've provided the hard evidence of campaign time and effort spent on each state, evidence which clearly shows that both parties ignore the small states you claim the EC benefits. And yet you refuse to accept it because Your Team considers the EC a good thing.
*sigh* Both parties ignore small states at their own peril. There are even memes about HRC not campaigning enough in WI thinking they had that in the bag.
CA was a red state for Reagan. States shift generationally to one party to another. It's not all fixed Peregrine.
In my opinion, there is that dirty word again, the abolition of EC would cause more harm than good by concentrating political power to smaller more populous regions. We'd see Panem. Furthermore, it'd destroy the last vestige of federalism and turn the US into a super-state, rather than a collection of 50 independent states.
Dreadwinter wrote: We should use facts to justify statements and stop use hyperbolic statements to derail threads.
How 'bout it? I am still waiting for you to provide evidence he is even close to the level Blagojevich is at.
So if we're trying to dial down hyperbole... why bring up Blogojevich? Why not "Why is Gavin such a problem for you whem?"
I don't care what your problems are with him. Stop attempting to misdirect. I care that people are held accountable for sleazy, hyperbolic comments and for defending those sleazy, hyperbolic comments.
My view of Newsom is the same as I view Nancy Pelosi. Keep 'em there in CA where they can't spread their crap nationally.
This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2018/06/11 09:50:14
*sigh*
Both parties ignore small states at their own peril. There are even memes about HRC not campaigning enough in WI thinking they had that in the bag.
CA was a red state for Reagan. States shift generationally to one party to another. It's not all fixed Peregrine.
In my opinion, there is that dirty word again, the abolition of EC would cause more harm than good by concentrating political power to smaller more populous regions. We'd see Panem. Furthermore, it'd destroy the last vestige of federalism and turn the US into a super-state, rather than a collection of 50 independent states.
This makes zero sense. Your example of why you "ignore small states at their own peril" is that California went to Reagan, literally the biggest state flipping is an example of why the small ones matter? If 10 small states all flip we're talking about a blowout scenario in which the small states would only enlarge the victory, but do zero to deliver the victory in the first place. Even in your example to advocate why small states matter, small states still don't matter.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2018/06/11 10:23:11
Sorry for my spelling. I'm not a native speaker and a dyslexic.
1750 pts Blood Specters
2000 pts Imperial Fists
6000 pts Disciples of Fate
3500 pts Peridia Prime
2500 pts Prophets of Fate
Lizardmen 3000 points Tlaxcoatl Temple-City
Tomb Kings 1500 points Sekhra (RIP)
Dreadwinter wrote: Again, I do not care. How is he as sleazy as Blagojevich?
That he's a politician.
The @NRA is completely complicit in yesterday's shooting, as are all our leaders who have done nothing to stop this violence. If you cannot protect the kids of this country, you should not maintain any position of influence or power.
^Newsom tweated that.
Sleaze ball.
Spoiler:
Have you seen San Fran lately?
Sleaze ball.
Does he amount to the level of Blagovich's corruption? <me not being hyperbolic> No, of course not.
*sigh*
Both parties ignore small states at their own peril. There are even memes about HRC not campaigning enough in WI thinking they had that in the bag.
CA was a red state for Reagan. States shift generationally to one party to another. It's not all fixed Peregrine.
In my opinion, there is that dirty word again, the abolition of EC would cause more harm than good by concentrating political power to smaller more populous regions. We'd see Panem. Furthermore, it'd destroy the last vestige of federalism and turn the US into a super-state, rather than a collection of 50 independent states.
This makes zero sense. Your example of why you "ignore small states at their own peril" is that California went to Reagan, literally the biggest state flipping is an example of why the small ones matter? If 10 small states all flip we're talking about a blowout scenario in which the small states would only enlarge the victory, but do zero to deliver the victory in the first place. Even in your example to advocate why small states matter, small states still don't matter.
Huh?
Wisconsin was part of the blue wall that's solidedly in those collections of "small states". HRC chose not to compaign there believing WI is safe.
WI was a pivotal state for Trump to win the EC vote. So... small states *do* matter. Maybe not individually on it's own ala, Texas, NY, CA... but, they do add up.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2018/06/11 10:25:49
*sigh*
Both parties ignore small states at their own peril. There are even memes about HRC not campaigning enough in WI thinking they had that in the bag.
CA was a red state for Reagan. States shift generationally to one party to another. It's not all fixed Peregrine.
In my opinion, there is that dirty word again, the abolition of EC would cause more harm than good by concentrating political power to smaller more populous regions. We'd see Panem. Furthermore, it'd destroy the last vestige of federalism and turn the US into a super-state, rather than a collection of 50 independent states.
This makes zero sense. Your example of why you "ignore small states at their own peril" is that California went to Reagan, literally the biggest state flipping is an example of why the small ones matter? If 10 small states all flip we're talking about a blowout scenario in which the small states would only enlarge the victory, but do zero to deliver the victory in the first place. Even in your example to advocate why small states matter, small states still don't matter.
Huh?
Wisconsin was part of the blue wall that's solidedly in those collections of "small states". HRC chose not to compaign there believing WI is safe.
WI was a pivotal state for Trump to win the EC vote. So... small states *do* matter. Maybe not individually on it's own ala, Texas, NY, CA... but, they do add up.
But your example of California flipping is a bad example. It shows if you expect a shift you're still better off going for the larger shifting state.
Even WI didn't change the outcome. Those 10 EC didn't decide the election. Just helped Trump's margin, but that is still 3 times the EC difference from Wyoming, with 3 votes that is never going to change the outcome. You would have to spend a major amount if time convincing 3 deeply red small states to turn blue when you can just go to Wisconsin, so why bother? If you want to win its better to spend limited time in larger deep red states if you are certainly able to flip. The end of the line is, if a state like Wyoming is becoming an option to flip, why not just invest all that effort in Texas if the political shift is so significant?
There have only been 2 election in which the EC difference was less than 10. And again, if the margin is that close, why not campaign some more in the swing states that are known with multiple times the EC votes? Like Gore vs. Bush. sure Gore could have flipped Wyoming, but why not just focus on Florida that had a guaranteed history of swinging instead of going for the hail mary and campaign in WY and lose both? It makes zero sense as a strategy.
If you have time to campaign in a 3 EC state with the intensity to flip it, you're victory is as good as certain. No intelligent person is going to spend time and effort in a small entrenched state when its a closer race and their opponent is going to dump their efforts in less entrenched bigger states. You would be setting yourself up to lose.
This message was edited 6 times. Last update was at 2018/06/11 10:55:34
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2018/06/11 11:08:54
Sorry for my spelling. I'm not a native speaker and a dyslexic.
1750 pts Blood Specters
2000 pts Imperial Fists
6000 pts Disciples of Fate
3500 pts Peridia Prime
2500 pts Prophets of Fate
Lizardmen 3000 points Tlaxcoatl Temple-City
Tomb Kings 1500 points Sekhra (RIP)
Lacking anyone in the G7 willing to give Trump a relationship he can understand, he felt isolated and insecure. I don't know if he then turned to Putin because he really felt the need for Putin there as an ally, or because Trump was just throwing a hand grenade because he felt more comfortable if things were more chaotic. I don't know, but the point is this is not how functional adults work. It is certainly not how functional heads of state work.
If I had to guess, I'd say Putin is what Trump thinks he is / wants to be. A charismatic strongman who cultivated a reputation as the icon of his country, and a "magnificent bastard" who leaves other countries shaking their fist in impotent rage at his latest show of strength. The difference being that Putin is smart.
"The 75mm gun is firing. The 37mm gun is firing, but is traversed round the wrong way. The Browning is jammed. I am saying "Driver, advance." and the driver, who can't hear me, is reversing. And as I look over the top of the turret and see twelve enemy tanks fifty yards away, someone hands me a cheese sandwich."
Amusingly, other countries aren't shaking their fists in impotent rage at Putin, because there are sanctions and so on. But we are shaking our fists with impotent rage at Trump, who is supposed to be a close ally and is behaving like an idiot hooligan. (It's easier to understand Putin's thinking.)
However, sanctions in the form of increased tariffs on various US goods are coming in July, and it will be interesting to see what happens then.
Furthermore, it'd destroy the last vestige of federalism and turn the US into a super-state, rather than a collection of 50 independent states. 
1750 pts Blood Specters
6000 pts Disciples of Fate
3500 pts Peridia Prime
2500 pts Prophets of Fate
Lizardmen 3000 points Tlaxcoatl Temple-City
