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.
You cant really blockade Gaza without Egypt going along though. I don't think that Gaza was ever a part of Mandatory Palestine? just a part of Egyptian territory (until 1967)
d-usa wrote: A lot of the “food culture” issues also goes towards public policy issues because quite often “cultural” issues are driven by factors such as poverty and access to food resources.
As an example: Native American rates obesity and diabetes are not just driven by the fact that nomadic lifestyles have gone. Via packaged commodities we have provided them with a diet that drives health disparities through the roof.
The reality is that healthy food is expensive, often too expensive for many to afford with any regularity. $5 can buy someone a single healthy meal, or a 3000 calorie pizza for the same price.
Or people can go back to cooking their own food, not prepackaged crap.
Buying a roast, cutting it up and using it for several meals is not that expensive - I buy my roasts at between $2.50 and $4.00 per pound on sale.
Last week I bought a pork butt for $0.99 per pound - and I got about three meals for two people out of a four pound butt.
Rice, potatoes, and onions are still inexpensive, and can bulk out the meal - for maybe another $1.
Gods bless the crock pot.
The Auld Grump
Kilkrazy wrote:When I was a young boy all my wargames were narratively based because I played with my toy soldiers and vehicles without the use of any rules.
The reason I bought rules and became a real wargamer was because I wanted a properly thought out structure to govern the action instead of just making things up as I went along.
thekingofkings wrote: I don't think that Gaza was ever a part of Mandatory Palestine? just a part of Egyptian territory (until 1967)
Incorrect. Gaza was part of Mandatory Palestine, however, it was occupied by Egypt following the 1948 Arab-Israeli war under the terms of the Israel–Egypt Armistice Agreement until the Six Day War.
As far as Egypt is concerned Gaza is a political hot potato they're hoping will just go away. The real concern is that refugees will flood into Egypt, which cannot support them in the current economic climate.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2018/05/15 00:40:49
Fate is in heaven, armor is on the chest, accomplishment is in the feet. - Nagao Kagetora
thekingofkings wrote: I don't think that Gaza was ever a part of Mandatory Palestine? just a part of Egyptian territory (until 1967)
Incorrect. Gaza was part of Mandatory Palestine, however, it was occupied by Egypt following the 1948 Arab-Israeli war under the terms of the Israel–Egypt Armistice Agreement until the Six Day War.
d-usa wrote: A lot of the “food culture” issues also goes towards public policy issues because quite often “cultural” issues are driven by factors such as poverty and access to food resources.
As an example: Native American rates obesity and diabetes are not just driven by the fact that nomadic lifestyles have gone. Via packaged commodities we have provided them with a diet that drives health disparities through the roof.
The reality is that healthy food is expensive, often too expensive for many to afford with any regularity. $5 can buy someone a single healthy meal, or a 3000 calorie pizza for the same price.
Or people can go back to cooking their own food, not prepackaged crap.
Buying a roast, cutting it up and using it for several meals is not that expensive - I buy my roasts at between $2.50 and $4.00 per pound on sale.
Last week I bought a pork butt for $0.99 per pound - and I got about three meals for two people out of a four pound butt.
Rice, potatoes, and onions are still inexpensive, and can bulk out the meal - for maybe another $1.
Gods bless the crock pot.
The Auld Grump
Except diets rich in high-cholesterol and high-carb food is part of the problem. Where are the fresh greens, man? Still sitting in the supermarket because they're significantly more expensive on a per-meal basis...
d-usa wrote: A lot of the “food culture” issues also goes towards public policy issues because quite often “cultural” issues are driven by factors such as poverty and access to food resources.
As an example: Native American rates obesity and diabetes are not just driven by the fact that nomadic lifestyles have gone. Via packaged commodities we have provided them with a diet that drives health disparities through the roof.
The reality is that healthy food is expensive, often too expensive for many to afford with any regularity. $5 can buy someone a single healthy meal, or a 3000 calorie pizza for the same price.
Or people can go back to cooking their own food, not prepackaged crap.
Buying a roast, cutting it up and using it for several meals is not that expensive - I buy my roasts at between $2.50 and $4.00 per pound on sale.
Last week I bought a pork butt for $0.99 per pound - and I got about three meals for two people out of a four pound butt.
Rice, potatoes, and onions are still inexpensive, and can bulk out the meal - for maybe another $1.
Gods bless the crock pot.
The Auld Grump
Except diets rich in high-cholesterol and high-carb food is part of the problem. Where are the fresh greens, man? Still sitting in the supermarket because they're significantly more expensive on a per-meal basis...
Yeah pretty much. Cooking for oneself also involves the barrier of knowing how (not a big barrier, but still) and doesn't resolve the issue of healthy ingredients being way more expensive.
I always refer to what I call the "food trinity" which is healthy, good tasting, and inexpensive. You get two.
TheAuldGrump wrote: Last week I bought a pork butt for $0.99 per pound - and I got about three meals for two people out of a four pound butt.The Auld Grump
99 cents a pound for pork butt? I hope it was cooked well since that price points suggests a certain vintage. I'd expect to see that for at least $2 or $2.50 a pound here.
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
Da Boss wrote: It's really something to see. And it's terrifying and depressing. The only people who benefit from this spat are our enemies. Europe feels somewhat surrounded now - Russia to the East and an increasingly bellicose and irrational US to the West, with unstable and desperate neighbours to the south. I guess it really is time to start looking to our own defense and interests. It's a shame, because once you build a hammer you start looking for nails to use it on.
There's a lot of resentment in the US right now that Europe and other developed countries are getting a free ride, depending on the US military, paid for by the US tax payer. But what people don't realise is that as long as everyone else is dependent on the US for any kind of military operation, the US has almost complete say on which operations go ahead. Anything that is not in US interests does not happen.
As you say, once other countries start getting their own hammers, they're going to start looking for nails. It won't even necessarily be foreign operations, it will likely just be much stronger negotiating positions. Right now if Germany indicates disapproval, it means nothing unless the US shows an equal level of disapproval. In a world where Germany has force projection of its own, though, I think a lot of Americans who've grown up only knowing US world dominance will be in for quite a shock.
“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.
In other news, do we have a reasonably solid estimate on what percentage of the population is the delusional base for the GOP? That is anyone who approves of the Trump administration is undoubtedly denying reality, so cannot be expected to vote on it. To my knowledge it's in the 30-40% range but I'm not sure on that. I ask this because I'm wondering how dramatic the response will be as it is revealed how corrupt the administration is. What portion of the country is willing to roll over and let it happen?
I ask because simple acceptance of blatant corruption is one thing that has me worried.
This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2018/05/15 03:44:01
NinthMusketeer wrote: The US will get more friendly next year, and a lot more friendly in 2021. Survive until then!
If Trump was just one out of the box and his political party was fighting to reign him in wherever possible then I'd see the argument for giving the US a mulligan on Trump. But given how Republicans have fallen in behind Trump's silliness and even cheered for it, I think it's only practical for most countries that have built their foreign policy around alliances with a steadfast America to start looking to at least allow for a plan B.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Disciple of Fate wrote: Literally a worse track. Recognizing Jerusalem and not just West Jerusalem is setting back the peace process, as the Palistineans wanted East Jerusalem as the capital of their state.
Yep. The US position right now is summed up as 'Okay, control of Jerusalem is one of the most hotly contested parts of relations, so we'll just arbitrarily back Israel's most extreme position on that issue, and then we'll start talking about peace and deem anyone who doesn't want to jump on board with the US plan must be trying to make trouble.'
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2018/05/15 03:17:42
“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.
d-usa wrote: A lot of the “food culture” issues also goes towards public policy issues because quite often “cultural” issues are driven by factors such as poverty and access to food resources.
As an example: Native American rates obesity and diabetes are not just driven by the fact that nomadic lifestyles have gone. Via packaged commodities we have provided them with a diet that drives health disparities through the roof.
The reality is that healthy food is expensive, often too expensive for many to afford with any regularity. $5 can buy someone a single healthy meal, or a 3000 calorie pizza for the same price.
Or people can go back to cooking their own food, not prepackaged crap.
Buying a roast, cutting it up and using it for several meals is not that expensive - I buy my roasts at between $2.50 and $4.00 per pound on sale.
Last week I bought a pork butt for $0.99 per pound - and I got about three meals for two people out of a four pound butt.
Rice, potatoes, and onions are still inexpensive, and can bulk out the meal - for maybe another $1.
Gods bless the crock pot.
The Auld Grump
Except diets rich in high-cholesterol and high-carb food is part of the problem. Where are the fresh greens, man? Still sitting in the supermarket because they're significantly more expensive on a per-meal basis...
Greens are not expensive - cabbage, spinach, broccoli - all are inexpensive, and available both fresh and frozen.
Aparagus - a bit more pricey, and seasonal.
But green beans, peas, and string beans? Not expensive.
It is more that Americans, we have no freakin' clue in the kitchen. (I am not sure that Home Ec is even in most schools anymore.)
And, again, the crock pot is your friend - the veg can be tossed in with the meat, onion, and potatoes.
Americans have bad eating habits, fueled in part by TV advertising, and in larger part from sheer cultural inertia.
TheAuldGrump wrote: Last week I bought a pork butt for $0.99 per pound - and I got about three meals for two people out of a four pound butt.The Auld Grump
99 cents a pound for pork butt? I hope it was cooked well since that price points suggests a certain vintage. I'd expect to see that for at least $2 or $2.50 a pound here.
Weekly sale - not condemned meat.
Most supermarkets have leaders that are reduced profit, in the hopes that the folks buying $0.99 pork but are also going to buy $2 soda pop and $10 wine.
The Auld Grump
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2018/05/15 03:31:03
Kilkrazy wrote:When I was a young boy all my wargames were narratively based because I played with my toy soldiers and vehicles without the use of any rules.
The reason I bought rules and became a real wargamer was because I wanted a properly thought out structure to govern the action instead of just making things up as I went along.
Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote: As I've said before, I cannot for the life of me see what the USA gets out of this from a geo-politics perspective.
There's no geo-political considerations in this. But there are domestic politics considerations.
The US has some well organised communities with very ideological positions on Israel. Most Jews vote Democrat, but the Republican Jews are meaningful (especially in dollars) and they often hold to some very hardline zionist positions - they believe very strongly in expanding the boundaries of an Israel they don't want to live in. Even weirder there's a lot of Christians who support Israel, some for some end times prophecy weirdness, most because they'd rather Jews control the holy lands. Then there's the racist/clash of culture people, who see Israel as a kind of bastion of westernism in the midst of the barbarian lands, who just back Israel out of a kind of fuzzy brained provocation.
Republicans for a long time have played up to these various groups, promising stuff like moving the embassy. None of them ever had any intention of doing it though, because it was a pointless provocation that would likely get people killed and only serve to make the tenuous US position as a peacemaker even more difficult to maintain. But then you get Trump. Trump is kind of amazing because he lies so freely to serve himself, but has no notion of breaking a promise to prevent harm to someone else. Explaining to Trump that sure, every Republican says they'll move the embassy, but it's just a lie because actually doing it will get people killed and hurt US strategic interests makes no impact on Trump, because he literally does not care at all about the lives of people in the middle east, or US strategic interests.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Disciple of Fate wrote: How will you see? Its already abundantly clear the only big supporter of this move is Israel. Who is already geopolitically tied to the US in such a manner that it can't just walk away. What did this actually achieve for the US?
Guatemala has come on board too. Big player in mid-east politics, Guatemala.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2018/05/15 03:34:57
“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.
d-usa wrote: A lot of the “food culture” issues also goes towards public policy issues because quite often “cultural” issues are driven by factors such as poverty and access to food resources.
As an example: Native American rates obesity and diabetes are not just driven by the fact that nomadic lifestyles have gone. Via packaged commodities we have provided them with a diet that drives health disparities through the roof.
The reality is that healthy food is expensive, often too expensive for many to afford with any regularity. $5 can buy someone a single healthy meal, or a 3000 calorie pizza for the same price.
Or people can go back to cooking their own food, not prepackaged crap.
Buying a roast, cutting it up and using it for several meals is not that expensive - I buy my roasts at between $2.50 and $4.00 per pound on sale.
Last week I bought a pork butt for $0.99 per pound - and I got about three meals for two people out of a four pound butt.
Rice, potatoes, and onions are still inexpensive, and can bulk out the meal - for maybe another $1.
Gods bless the crock pot.
The Auld Grump
Except diets rich in high-cholesterol and high-carb food is part of the problem. Where are the fresh greens, man? Still sitting in the supermarket because they're significantly more expensive on a per-meal basis...
Yeah pretty much. Cooking for oneself also involves the barrier of knowing how (not a big barrier, but still) and doesn't resolve the issue of healthy ingredients being way more expensive.
I always refer to what I call the "food trinity" which is healthy, good tasting, and inexpensive. You get two.
Or know what the heck you are doing, and get all three.
Again - it is not that expensive, it is a matter of buying, dividing, and freezing,
Look for books on meal prep - planning out what you are doing, a week at a time, handles the 'holy trinity'.
The Auld Grump - this week it is pork chops for $0.99, and chicken leg quarters for $0.89, corn on the cob 5/$1, and zucchini for $0.99. With 2/$4 cantalope for dessert.
Kilkrazy wrote:When I was a young boy all my wargames were narratively based because I played with my toy soldiers and vehicles without the use of any rules.
The reason I bought rules and became a real wargamer was because I wanted a properly thought out structure to govern the action instead of just making things up as I went along.
whembly wrote: Palestine need to understand that they're being used as a proxy war here...
The Palestinians understand the position very well, and thanks for your patronising nonsense thinking you know it better than they do.
We know, thanks to wikileaks funnily enough, that Palestine has given Israel peace offers that consist of what amounts to pure concession. Just letting Israel keep everything it has claimed, if Palestine can be given control of the current borders. Israel didn't even entertain the deal. Because Israel is still taking more land, every year. The longer Israel drags out negotiations, the more they can keep taking.
Everything is theater to that simple reality. And there a lot of people who do everything they can to pretend that simple reality doesn't exist, because they have a need to cheer on Israel and ignore the position that Palestinians have been forced in to.
“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.
NinthMusketeer wrote: The US will get more friendly next year, and a lot more friendly in 2021. Survive until then!
If Trump was just one out of the box and his political party was fighting to reign him in wherever possible then I'd see the argument for giving the US a mulligan on Trump. But given how Republicans have fallen in behind Trump's silliness and even cheered for it, I think it's only practical for most countries that have built their foreign policy around alliances with a steadfast America to start looking to at least allow for a plan B.
I should have been more clear; 'more friendly' doesn't mean 'good' or even 'competent' it just means 'still a hell of a lot better than what we have now'.
d-usa wrote: A lot of the “food culture” issues also goes towards public policy issues because quite often “cultural” issues are driven by factors such as poverty and access to food resources.
As an example: Native American rates obesity and diabetes are not just driven by the fact that nomadic lifestyles have gone. Via packaged commodities we have provided them with a diet that drives health disparities through the roof.
The reality is that healthy food is expensive, often too expensive for many to afford with any regularity. $5 can buy someone a single healthy meal, or a 3000 calorie pizza for the same price.
Or people can go back to cooking their own food, not prepackaged crap.
Buying a roast, cutting it up and using it for several meals is not that expensive - I buy my roasts at between $2.50 and $4.00 per pound on sale.
Last week I bought a pork butt for $0.99 per pound - and I got about three meals for two people out of a four pound butt.
Rice, potatoes, and onions are still inexpensive, and can bulk out the meal - for maybe another $1.
Gods bless the crock pot.
The Auld Grump
Except diets rich in high-cholesterol and high-carb food is part of the problem. Where are the fresh greens, man? Still sitting in the supermarket because they're significantly more expensive on a per-meal basis...
Yeah pretty much. Cooking for oneself also involves the barrier of knowing how (not a big barrier, but still) and doesn't resolve the issue of healthy ingredients being way more expensive.
I always refer to what I call the "food trinity" which is healthy, good tasting, and inexpensive. You get two.
Or know what the heck you are doing, and get all three.
Again - it is not that expensive, it is a matter of buying, dividing, and freezing,
Look for books on meal prep - planning out what you are doing, a week at a time, handles the 'holy trinity'.
The Auld Grump - this week it is pork chops for $0.99, and chicken leg quarters for $0.89, corn on the cob 5/$1, and zucchini for $0.99. With 2/$4 cantalope for dessert.
I find your sentiment to be more or less untrue, but like you yourself said in a previous post to this one, the line of discussion has gotten off-topic.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2018/05/15 03:57:52
whembly wrote: Palestine is not in a position of negotiating strength. However, they, and the rest of the world wants Isreal to destroy itself in such negotiations...
Whembly, that's absolute nonsense. It isn't even an exaggeration of anything, its just an absolutely ridiculous fantasy.
You know that eyeroll you want to give when some leftwinger would post 'no blood for oil'? What you just typed is a couple of magnitudes more ridiculous, because at least oil prices have some connection to mid east policy. What you just posted isn't even that. It's just make believe ridiculousness.
So no, the rest of the world is not secretly hoping for Israel to destroy itself. If you genuinely believe that, I think it is best you stop, realise that every part of the process you've undergone to reach that belief was actually a process of creating an elaborate but very silly fantasy, and in order to be of any use in a conversation on this subject you will have to spend months, possibly years, deconstructing the ideas that underpin such a ridiculous notion.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Vaktathi wrote: Something to note with the embassy thing, the pastor that Trump sent in for the event, Robert Jefress, is known for publicly advocating about how "Jews are going to hell" and "Islam is a false religion", and of course is a Fox News talking head. It's not hard to see what kind of driver was being the embassy move.
Yep. Backing Israel is the cover for this embassy move, but stuff like Jefress shows there's no catering to Israel here, it's all for the US domestic market.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
thekingofkings wrote: You cant really blockade Gaza without Egypt going along though. I don't think that Gaza was ever a part of Mandatory Palestine? just a part of Egyptian territory (until 1967)
The current blockade of Gaza is operated with Egyptian support.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
NinthMusketeer wrote: In other news, do we have a reasonably solid estimate on what percentage of the population is the delusional base for the GOP? That is anyone who approves of the Trump administration is undoubtedly denying reality, so cannot be expected to vote on it. To my knowledge it's in the 30-40% range but I'm not sure on that. I ask this because I'm wondering how dramatic the response will be as it is revealed how corrupt the administration is. What portion of the country is willing to roll over and let it happen?
I ask because simple acceptance of blatant corruption is one thing that has me worried.
I think given what we have seen from Trump so far, his blatant corruption and that of his cabinet, the racism but veiled and overt, the constant lying, the attacks on anyone who won't meekly submit including law enforcement, the policies that break campaign promises and hurt voters, I'd have to say that anyone who still supports Trump is delusional.
As to how many people that is... the 538 tracker shows approval for Trump is pretty tightly set around 40%, with a very narrow window each way. It drops to around 38%, and rises to about 42%. It's about 85% of Republicans.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
NinthMusketeer wrote: I should have been more clear; 'more friendly' doesn't mean 'good' or even 'competent' it just means 'still a hell of a lot better than what we have now'.
Sure, but what I'm saying is the prospect of future US presidents following foreign policy that is even somewhat as terrible as this government is enough to force a radical . Remember, GW Bush already got the mulligan. Iraq was an extraordinarily bad idea, but Bush and his administration seemed chastened by that failure and they largely normalised afterwards. So given the previous 100 years of US foreign policy, everyone just tried to forget Iraq. But now we have the next Republican president, and while he's objectively even worse than Bush, what's even more of a concern is how quickly most of his terrible ideas have been normalised within the Republican base.
It is far from certain, anything can happen, but it is entirely possible that the next Republican president will be even worse than this one. The rest of the world is waking up to what has happened to one half of US politics, and is going to need to find a way to maintain stability in a future where the US will be adopting deeply ridiculous foreign policy around half the time.
This message was edited 4 times. Last update was at 2018/05/15 05:05:23
“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.
I think it will be a good turn in the long run, like previously discussed 'turning the boss into a team leader'. It is certainly rubbish right now but it's sort of like having an army with a bad paint job; it would be easier to go through and fix it up but stripping all the models then re-painting them entirely would get a better result in the end. But that's more of a hopeful prediction on the overall trend and doesn't address the lasting damage that has and will be done to individual elements of world diplomacy.
NinthMusketeer wrote: In other news, do we have a reasonably solid estimate on what percentage of the population is the delusional base for the GOP? That is anyone who approves of the Trump administration is undoubtedly denying reality, so cannot be expected to vote on it. To my knowledge it's in the 30-40% range but I'm not sure on that. I ask this because I'm wondering how dramatic the response will be as it is revealed how corrupt the administration is. What portion of the country is willing to roll over and let it happen?
I ask because simple acceptance of blatant corruption is one thing that has me worried.
I think given what we have seen from Trump so far, his blatant corruption and that of his cabinet, the racism but veiled and overt, the constant lying, the attacks on anyone who won't meekly submit including law enforcement, the policies that break campaign promises and hurt voters, I'd have to say that anyone who still supports Trump is delusional.
As to how many people that is... the 538 tracker shows approval for Trump is pretty tightly set around 40%, with a very narrow window each way. It drops to around 38%, and rises to about 42%. It's about 85% of Republicans.
Higher than I'd hope, about what I'd expect, sadly. Thanks for the info though.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2018/05/15 06:26:57
@seb: I don't know if the right wing Jewish constituent is all that large. The Protestant community is what is pushing for this here. Why? It was foretold. Sounds crazy. It is. The wapo had a story about it the other day. it explains a lot, not in the Midwest so much, but in the south, and how good Christian folks can wrap their brains around this guy (give up all sense of decency) in order to further the end. Yup. People believe some weird stuff and are willing to give up a lot of self preservation to make their dreams come true.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2018/05/15 06:40:12
Disciple of Fate wrote: This whole Iran deal renegement was heavily driven by the Israeli lobby, the only country benefitting from it. The strings have never been more visible.
And the Saudis, right? They might hate Israel but that isn't an enemy they can actually move against (except for the normal funding of Sunni terrorists ofc), but Iran doesn't have US protection. The kings and princes of KSA are pragmatic enough that they can hate Iran together with Israel - they can't unify the ME under their banner (against Israel) as long as the Iranians are funding Shia terrorists...
If only the Iranians had some better salesmen at the helm they could have sold the Iran nuclear deal to Trump! Invited him or his advisors to Iran, let them inspect sites, the full tour. How hard would it have been to sway Trump by showing him the lot and telling him what a good deal it was, made only very much gooder if the bestest president and negotiator ever approved of it?
NinthMusketeer wrote: I think it will be a good turn in the long run, like previously discussed 'turning the boss into a team leader'. It is certainly rubbish right now but it's sort of like having an army with a bad paint job; it would be easier to go through and fix it up but stripping all the models then re-painting them entirely would get a better result in the end. But that's more of a hopeful prediction on the overall trend and doesn't address the lasting damage that has and will be done to individual elements of world diplomacy.
The problem is the US is dropping the responsibility, but not the authority. They still want to throw their weight around, they're only dropping that hard bit where they work with other countries on strategic alliances and all that boring, not fun stuff.
And at the same time I don't think Democrats are even conscious of the shift that's happening. They will still want to operate from a foreign policy position of leadership. The result is going to be schizophrenic. More than anything, foreign policy needs to be bi-partisan because it needs to be consistent. There will be shifts after elections, but it will be small shifts to smaller parts, something big like whether another country gets invaded shouldn't swing one or another based on which way Florida goes in the general.
I wish I had your optimism.
Higher than I'd hope, about what I'd expect, sadly. Thanks for the info though.
All that should be taken with a grain of salt, as its a pure poll. There's no filter for likely voters yet. It is possible a lot of people won't be willing to admit they were wrong in a poll, but they're not going to double down and turn out to vote again. This would explain the difference between the Dem's moderate advantage in generic polls, about +6, and their results in special elections, which have ranged from +10 to +20. But that's all guesswork right now.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Gordon Shumway wrote: @seb: I don't know if the right wing Jewish constituent is all that large.
Not votes. Dollars. Sheldon Adelson just handed over $30 million to Paul Ryan's warchest.
The Protestant community is what is pushing for this here. Why? It was foretold. Sounds crazy. It is. The wapo had a story about it the other day. it explains a lot, not in the Midwest so much, but in the south, and how good Christian folks can wrap their brains around this guy (give up all sense of decency) in order to further the end. Yup. People believe some weird stuff and are willing to give up a lot of self preservation to make their dreams come true.
Yep, that crazy nonsense is a big part of it.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2018/05/15 06:52:40
“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.
They didn't have the correct Twix candy bars on the pillow to sway him. He is a much harder bargainer than that. And the TV was on the wrong channel.
@seb: sadly, 30 mil is pennies. Seldon is old and looking for a place to put his money. Old people make dumb bets (Ryan already threw in the flag). If only he had a playboy bunny to see him to his end (actually, if only all of us had that..) Ryan will make sure it goes where it needs to, but it needs to go to a lot more places than he can doll out. If you think Adelsten' warchest is large, Spielberg might have a thing to say, and he will. A few of my friends are saying he is going on a dinosaur splurge. I don't know what that means exactly, but something is going to go extinct.
This message was edited 3 times. Last update was at 2018/05/15 07:10:45
Disciple of Fate wrote: This whole Iran deal renegement was heavily driven by the Israeli lobby, the only country benefitting from it. The strings have never been more visible.
And the Saudis, right? They might hate Israel but that isn't an enemy they can actually move against (except for the normal funding of Sunni terrorists ofc), but Iran doesn't have US protection. The kings and princes of KSA are pragmatic enough that they can hate Iran together with Israel - they can't unify the ME under their banner (against Israel) as long as the Iranians are funding Shia terrorists...
If only the Iranians had some better salesmen at the helm they could have sold the Iran nuclear deal to Trump! Invited him or his advisors to Iran, let them inspect sites, the full tour. How hard would it have been to sway Trump by showing him the lot and telling him what a good deal it was, made only very much gooder if the bestest president and negotiator ever approved of it?
Sure, the Saudis disliked it too. But Israel was the main outside agitator and driver behind it. Netanyahu came to Congress to preach on the evils of Iran when the Iran deal was being made and two weeks ago launched a disinformation campaign that the Trump admin ran with the moment he pulled the curtains down on those file cabinets. The Saudis are important, but they don't have the same political weight as the Israeli lobby in the US.
Trump would not have been convinced by Iran as that would be him admitting he was wrong before. As demonstrated, Trump will rather burn it all down then let himself look bad to his fans.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2018/05/15 07:12:32
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)
Gordon Shumway wrote: @seb: sadly, 30 mil is pennies. Seldon is old and looking for a place to put his money.
Dude, that was just a payment because it was a Tuesday. Adelson had already put up $150m just for the mid-terms, iirc.
Old people make dumb bets (Ryan already threw in the flag).
Ryan's decision wasn't just a political judgement. It's a combination of likely losing the House, flying cover for Nunes and Trump, babysitting the Freedom caucus, and having nowhere to go with legislation even if he gets past all that crap.
In contrast, he can walk away while he's still the biggest rainmaker outside of the president, and as a private citizen he's much more able to skim that for himself.
If you think Adelsten' warchest is large, Spielberg might have a thing to say, and he will. A few of my friends are saying he is going on a dinosaur splurge. I don't know what that means exactly, but something is going to go extinct.
Cool. At this point I say feth it, bury money with other money. Let Spielberg go nuts.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Disciple of Fate wrote: Sure, the Saudis disliked it too. But Israel was the main outside agitator and driver behind it. Netanyahu came to Congress to preach on the evils of Iran when the Iran deal was being made and two weeks ago launched a disinformation campaign that the Trump admin ran with the moment he pulled the curtains down on those file cabinets. The Saudis are important, but they don't have the same political weight as the Israeli lobby in the US.
Trump would not have been convinced by Iran as that would be him admitting he was wrong before. As demonstrated, Trump will rather burn it all down then let himself look bad to his fans.
Saudi politics are still fundamentally inward focused - the focus is on keeping their own population under control so they can keep buying Rolls Royces by the dozen. They're certainly not passive in the region, but they're not like Israel, who spend lots of political capital and actual dollars to target regional enemies, and want the Americans doing as much of that work as possible.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2018/05/15 07:51:05
“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.
BobtheInquisitor wrote: I've known gambling addicts as well as a psychologist who specializes in gambling addiction, so I can't really get on board with calling it a fool tax. Imagine if heroin were legal and an encouraged leisure activity at many popular vacation destinations, because for some people that's how pretty much how it works.
I'm not saying I believe gambling should be illegal necessarily, but I do believe our culture has an unhealthy attitude towards gambling and its victims.
Well. Certainly US had plenty of loose money. Poker economy dried up a lot when US got locked out as huge % of the so called fish(or loose money) went away from tables shared by EU players(not that US doesn't have good players. Probably more than non-US. But also way more bad players and maybe % of bad player vs good player is more bad players in US)
Automatically Appended Next Post:
whembly wrote: Palestine "claims" that land... but, they never held it as a state. Israel kicked everyone's asses in '67, if nothing else its theirs by conquest. Palestine need to understand that they're being used as a proxy war here...
Ummm...so invading and winning war makes it all right and legal? So if Russia invades and conquers say California suddenly that's legal and not illegal?
Okay so guess Russia isn't doing anything illegal in the Ukraine then if the Ukraine goverment is defeated in war? Right of conquest and all that.
This message was edited 4 times. Last update was at 2018/05/15 10:12:12
Yeah the might makes right argument is bs. It basically amounts to "If Palestinians can mount terrorist attacks, then they are right to do so because it is possible."
As you say, once other countries start getting their own hammers, they're going to start looking for nails. It won't even necessarily be foreign operations, it will likely just be much stronger negotiating positions. Right now if Germany indicates disapproval, it means nothing unless the US shows an equal level of disapproval. In a world where Germany has force projection of its own, though, I think a lot of Americans who've grown up only knowing US world dominance will be in for quite a shock.
Anyone with even a moderate amount of knowledge of world history should know that any situation where the Germans are going to build up their military power is a bad idea.
Even Norm MacDonald gets it!
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2018/05/15 13:49:23
Support Blood and Spectacles Publishing:
https://www.patreon.com/Bloodandspectaclespublishing
I think Germany should get nuclear weapons. (Not German, just live here). It's a far more responsible and positive influence on the world than most of the other nuclear powers. Taking in a million refugees caused by American and UK military blunders was a really morally good thing.
whembly wrote: Palestine is not in a position of negotiating strength. However, they, and the rest of the world wants Isreal to destroy itself in such negotiations...
Whembly, that's absolute nonsense. It isn't even an exaggeration of anything, its just an absolutely ridiculous fantasy.
You know that eyeroll you want to give when some leftwinger would post 'no blood for oil'? What you just typed is a couple of magnitudes more ridiculous, because at least oil prices have some connection to mid east policy. What you just posted isn't even that. It's just make believe ridiculousness.
So no, the rest of the world is not secretly hoping for Israel to destroy itself. If you genuinely believe that, I think it is best you stop, realise that every part of the process you've undergone to reach that belief was actually a process of creating an elaborate but very silly fantasy, and in order to be of any use in a conversation on this subject you will have to spend months, possibly years, deconstructing the ideas that underpin such a ridiculous notion.
Okay... let's gameplan this out.
These some Palestinians "protesting" at the Israeli border... and the military stands down. These "protesters" breaches the wall...
1750 pts Blood Specters
6000 pts Disciples of Fate
3500 pts Peridia Prime
2500 pts Prophets of Fate
Lizardmen 3000 points Tlaxcoatl Temple-City
