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.
thekingofkings wrote: not being eligible for welfare does not make someone a second class citizen.
It kind of does. You're literally saying that certain people do not have all of the rights that citizens normally get.
But they are not citizens at all.
That does not mean they do not have constitutional protections. . . however, immigrants of most variety (especially if they are undocumented) are unable to get welfare benefits, I will readily admit however, that I do not know if the same applies to those who are asylum seekers.
I was told they had to because their nuke was only operational using Russian infrastructure, with no way of recalibrating to using Ukrainian.
Nope, not even close. In fact, the Ukraine produced almost all of Russia's nuclear weapons. And possessed what was then the third largest nuclear weapon stockpile on earth. And did a good amount of Enrichment on site. The only thing they needed was Uranium. Cap and I have argued the Ukrainian nuclear program to death)
thekingofkings wrote: not being eligible for welfare does not make someone a second class citizen.
It kind of does. You're literally saying that certain people do not have all of the rights that citizens normally get.
But they are not citizens at all.
That does not mean they do not have constitutional protections. . . however, immigrants of most variety (especially if they are undocumented) are unable to get welfare benefits, I will readily admit however, that I do not know if the same applies to those who are asylum seekers.
didnt say it they didnt have constitutional protections, pretty much anyone who enters the country for any reason gets those.
thekingofkings wrote: not being eligible for welfare does not make someone a second class citizen.
It kind of does. You're literally saying that certain people do not have all of the rights that citizens normally get.
But they are not citizens at all.
That does not mean they do not have constitutional protections. . . however, immigrants of most variety (especially if they are undocumented) are unable to get welfare benefits, I will readily admit however, that I do not know if the same applies to those who are asylum seekers.
The Bill of Rights grants equal protection to all people within US jurisdiction. Part of the irony of Trump's strategy of treating undocumented migrants as criminals is that it takes said individuals out of the vague legal zone they occupy as individuals subject to constitutional protections who are not citizens, and instead places them into the clear category of criminal defendants. His tactic actually affords them more constitutional protections than they had in the first place, since immigration is normally a civil proceeding not a criminal one and gets around a lot of constitutional protections as a result.
The president has given no indication he intends to do so, and his attorneys have described his decision to donate foreign government profits to the Treasury as voluntary, since they argue the president is not subject to the emoluments clause or other conflicts-of-interest laws governing most federal employees.
W....T.....F!!
As the most powerful federal employee he is of course the person that should be most restricted by the emoluments clause and conflicts-of-interest laws.
I mean, he isn't the King of the United States, right?
-------------------------------------------------------
"He died because he had no honor. He had no honor and the Emperor was watching."
The president has given no indication he intends to do so, and his attorneys have described his decision to donate foreign government profits to the Treasury as voluntary, since they argue the president is not subject to the emoluments clause or other conflicts-of-interest laws governing most federal employees.
W....T.....F!!
As the most powerful federal employee he is of course the person that should be most restricted by the emoluments clause and conflicts-of-interest laws.
I mean, he isn't the King of the United States, right?
This to me is disturbing. Partly I can see that tracking restraunts, hotels, etc by individuals would be an issue, but he knew that when he ran.
See it felt like the Republicans were doing a good job of keeping their heads down and out of trouble, and keeping Trump right there with them, for awhile. Now it's just like a cacophony of Trump stupidity is ruining the whole "don't govern because all our governing policies play horribly with the general electorate and we want to be reelected to continue not governing for fear of not being reelected" strategy the GOP was running with
LordofHats wrote: See it felt like the Republicans were doing a good job of keeping their heads down and out of trouble, and keeping Trump right there with them, for awhile. Now it's just like a cacophony of Trump stupidity is ruining the whole "don't govern because all our governing policies play horribly with the general electorate and we want to be reelected to continue not governing for fear of not being reelected" strategy the GOP was running with
That appears to be the modus operandi of the GOP at this point.
They basically don't have any platform to run on except "liberals are bad". I don't see what they can bring to an election as any sort of positive that the electoral middle would actually buy as an accomplishment, nor any coherent policy package.
IRON WITHIN, IRON WITHOUT.
New Heavy Gear Log! Also...Grey Knights! The correct pronunciation is Imperial Guard and Stormtroopers, "Astra Militarum" and "Tempestus Scions" are something you'll find at Hogwarts.
LordofHats wrote: See it felt like the Republicans were doing a good job of keeping their heads down and out of trouble, and keeping Trump right there with them, for awhile. Now it's just like a cacophony of Trump stupidity is ruining the whole "don't govern because all our governing policies play horribly with the general electorate and we want to be reelected to continue not governing for fear of not being reelected" strategy the GOP was running with
That appears to be the modus operandi of the GOP at this point.
They basically don't have any platform to run on except "liberals are bad". I don't see what they can bring to an election as any sort of positive that the electoral middle would actually buy as an accomplishment, nor any coherent policy package.
Well if they hadn't finally pushed this tax reform they could fall back on the trickle down economics. But now all they have to fall back on is undoing everything Obama did so regardless of how the mid terms go, 2 more years of Obama bashing!
They basically don't have any platform to run on except "liberals are bad". I don't see what they can bring to an election as any sort of positive that the electoral middle would actually buy as an accomplishment, nor any coherent policy package.
Oh come now. It's not that bleak. I'm sure letting 40,000,000 people starve, thanking Obama, "summer" camps for kids, and gutting Medicare, Medicaid, and Social Security funding to fix a disastrous tax plan they clearly didn't think one iota through are all wonderful policies on which to built a platform
They basically don't have any platform to run on except "liberals are bad". I don't see what they can bring to an election as any sort of positive that the electoral middle would actually buy as an accomplishment, nor any coherent policy package.
Oh come now. It's not that bleak. I'm sure letting 40,000,000 people starve, thanking Obama, "summer" camps for kids, and gutting Medicare, Medicaid, and Social Security funding to fix a disastrous tax plan they clearly didn't think one iota through are all wonderful policies on which to built a platform
But when those 40 million people bootstraps themselves to become wealthy they'll be thanking Trump for those tax cuts. Trump just keeps on winning.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2018/06/23 03:58:10
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.
Honestly I'm now realizing the saddest part of all this is how horribly the Republicans have managed to build a message. Even in the Bush era of Republican politics I could see a clear image of what "Republican governance" looked like even if I didn't agree with it and found large chunks of it hypocritical. Now I honestly have no idea what Republicans want me to think about Republicans holding power. I have absolutely no idea what they're vision of America is anymore. It's clear to me that many are only willing to go so far in support of Trump's sycophancy which is a pleasant surprise, but the bar for needed to get them to push back seems so high that it's kind of irrelevant. They really come off now as little more than a party that seeks political office for the sake of holding political office.
Maybe the party is still destined for the collapse that it seemed to be facing down in the 2016 primaries? Did Trump's victory merely delay an inevitability?
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2018/06/23 04:03:44
LordofHats wrote: Honestly I'm now realizing the saddest part of all this is how horribly the Republicans have managed to build a message. Even in the Bush era of Republican politics I could see a clear image of what "Republican governance" looked like even if I didn't agree with it and found large chunks of it hypocritical. Now I honestly have no idea what Republicans want me to think about Republicans holding power. I have absolutely no idea what they're vision of America is anymore. It's clear to me that many are only willing to go so far in support of Trump's sycophancy which is a pleasant surprise, but the bar for needed to get them to push back seems so high that it's kind of irrelevant. They really come off now as little more than a party that seeks political office for the sake of holding political office.
Maybe the party is still destined for the collapse that it seemed to be facing down in the 2016 primaries? Did Trump's victory merely delay an inevitability?
I walked away from the Republican party in 2005 and consider it to be one of the best exits I've ever booked. If I could just exit all my trades this successfully, I'd be a very happy and absurdly rich camper.
So I was listening to the BBC at work and apparently the new plan is for the US military to build camps to keep all the immigrant families in.
I think this is just an incredibly cynical way to keep reporters and rights groups out (it's a military base so "becuz national security").
And it has the convenient benefit of having soldiers around these people to dehumanize them in the eyes of the troops. So when the order comes down to shoot kids instead of caging them it'll just be that much easier.
I prefer to buy from miniature manufacturers that *don't* support the overthrow of democracy.
LordofHats wrote: Honestly I'm now realizing the saddest part of all this is how horribly the Republicans have managed to build a message. Even in the Bush era of Republican politics I could see a clear image of what "Republican governance" looked like even if I didn't agree with it and found large chunks of it hypocritical. Now I honestly have no idea what Republicans want me to think about Republicans holding power. I have absolutely no idea what they're vision of America is anymore. It's clear to me that many are only willing to go so far in support of Trump's sycophancy which is a pleasant surprise, but the bar for needed to get them to push back seems so high that it's kind of irrelevant. They really come off now as little more than a party that seeks political office for the sake of holding political office.
Maybe the party is still destined for the collapse that it seemed to be facing down in the 2016 primaries? Did Trump's victory merely delay an inevitability?
Sidenote; I think anyone who was reasonably educated, not strictly partisan, and followed politics knew things were going to get much worse before getting better. They may have wanted to believe otherwise, or tried to convince themselves such (who can blame them?), but you, me, and plenty of others in this thread are part of those who knew it would come to this. It isn't quite rock bottom yet (wait for the next recession) and we don't know how long things will flail around at rock bottom, but it will eventually get better.
This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2018/06/23 06:21:14
ScarletRose wrote: So I was listening to the BBC at work and apparently the new plan is for the US military to build camps to keep all the immigrant families in.
I think this is just an incredibly cynical way to keep reporters and rights groups out (it's a military base so "becuz national security").
And it has the convenient benefit of having soldiers around these people to dehumanize them in the eyes of the troops. So when the order comes down to shoot kids instead of caging them it'll just be that much easier.
Your dumber then a rock for even insinuating US Military will willingly opt kids/adults out if ordered. It will not be the first time that refugee's/whatever were located at a military base. People from Kosovo were housed at Ft Dix NJ for quite awhile. In the barracks.
Proud Member of the Infidels of OIF/OEF
No longer defending the US Military or US Gov't. Just going to ""**feed into your fears**"" with Duffel Blog Did not fight my way up on top the food chain to become a Vegan...
Warning: Stupid Allergy
Once you pull the pin, Mr. Grenade is no longer your friend
DE 6700
Harlequin 2500
RIP Muhammad Ali.
Jihadin, Scorched Earth 791. Leader of the Pork Eating Crusader. Alpha
ScarletRose wrote: So I was listening to the BBC at work and apparently the new plan is for the US military to build camps to keep all the immigrant families in.
I think this is just an incredibly cynical way to keep reporters and rights groups out (it's a military base so "becuz national security").
And it has the convenient benefit of having soldiers around these people to dehumanize them in the eyes of the troops. So when the order comes down to shoot kids instead of caging them it'll just be that much easier.
Your dumber then a rock for even insinuating US Military will willingly opt kids/adults out if ordered. It will not be the first time that refugee's/whatever were located at a military base. People from Kosovo were housed at Ft Dix NJ for quite awhile. In the barracks.
It's not the first time in history a military has followed orders it shouldn't have. That said, I don't think most of the U.S. Military would, but there are nutjobs who would.
DQ:90S++G++M----B--I+Pw40k07+D+++A+++/areWD-R+DM+
bittersashes wrote:One guy down at my gaming club swore he saw an objective flag take out a full unit of Bane Thralls.
ScarletRose wrote: So I was listening to the BBC at work and apparently the new plan is for the US military to build camps to keep all the immigrant families in.
I think this is just an incredibly cynical way to keep reporters and rights groups out (it's a military base so "becuz national security").
And it has the convenient benefit of having soldiers around these people to dehumanize them in the eyes of the troops. So when the order comes down to shoot kids instead of caging them it'll just be that much easier.
Your dumber then a rock for even insinuating US Military will willingly opt kids/adults out if ordered. It will not be the first time that refugee's/whatever were located at a military base. People from Kosovo were housed at Ft Dix NJ for quite awhile. In the barracks.
It's not the first time in history a military has followed orders it shouldn't have. That said, I don't think most of the U.S. Military would, but there are nutjobs who would.
Ahem, Abu Ghraib? They weren’t even being ordered to torture and abuse the prisoners, it just happened. Now if you talked to most of the people involved before, in normal life, then you would absolutely say “no way, they’d never do something like that.” But there’s something weird happens when you start building camps; normal people do abnormal things in those situations. Which is why you should never put people in that situation in the first place, it may be fine right now, but it can very rapidly devolve into something very nasty, without anyone realising.
Zed wrote: *All statements reflect my opinion at this moment. if some sort of pretty new model gets released (or if I change my mind at random) I reserve the right to jump on any bandwagon at will.
ScarletRose wrote: So I was listening to the BBC at work and apparently the new plan is for the US military to build camps to keep all the immigrant families in.
I think this is just an incredibly cynical way to keep reporters and rights groups out (it's a military base so "becuz national security").
And it has the convenient benefit of having soldiers around these people to dehumanize them in the eyes of the troops. So when the order comes down to shoot kids instead of caging them it'll just be that much easier.
Your dumber then a rock for even insinuating US Military will willingly opt kids/adults out if ordered. It will not be the first time that refugee's/whatever were located at a military base. People from Kosovo were housed at Ft Dix NJ for quite awhile. In the barracks.
It's not the first time in history a military has followed orders it shouldn't have. That said, I don't think most of the U.S. Military would, but there are nutjobs who would.
Ahem, Abu Ghraib? They weren’t even being ordered to torture and abuse the prisoners, it just happened. Now if you talked to most of the people involved before, in normal life, then you would absolutely say “no way, they’d never do something like that.” But there’s something weird happens when you start building camps; normal people do abnormal things in those situations. Which is why you should never put people in that situation in the first place, it may be fine right now, but it can very rapidly devolve into something very nasty, without anyone realising.
It didn't "just" happen. . . there were orders, after a sort (i mean, there was certainly an absence of orders as well). . . And yeah, during my 10 years in, I saw plenty of people who were lacking in the head-space department just enough that I could very easily see them following any ol' orders they receive. . . Whether they are a sizable enough number, that. . . I honestly don't know.
Now, this can basically be seen one of two ways. On the one hand, it can be painted as a centralized response to a refugee crisis. On the other hand, it clearly does not sound like people will be free to come and go at these places, so we're not talking about just housing refugees, what we're really talking about detention camps for tens of thousands of people.
What's interesting to me is how much of this they appear to intend to do in California near the Bay Area and Pendleton, anticipating holding nearly a hundred thousand people between the two sites. I suspect the state of CA will do everything it can to frustrate that, in fact, I can imagine that becoming the mother of all gak shows.
IRON WITHIN, IRON WITHOUT.
New Heavy Gear Log! Also...Grey Knights! The correct pronunciation is Imperial Guard and Stormtroopers, "Astra Militarum" and "Tempestus Scions" are something you'll find at Hogwarts.
Dude, Europe outspends Russia in defense something like 10 to 1. It's cool to think about columns of T-72 rolling through the Fulda gap over a few beers on a FoW TY game, but those days are long gone.
The Ukraine thought that too. Even agreed to give up their Nuclear weapons. Boy were they wrong!
Europe hasn't given up on their nukes so....
When Russia gets to, say, 50% of the (conventional) capability of a combined Europe we'll talk. So far Russia has a lot of poorly paid near-conscripts and a fethton of 70s vintage tracked and winged scrap metal but little of the good stuff.
LordofHats wrote: Honestly I'm now realizing the saddest part of all this is how horribly the Republicans have managed to build a message. Even in the Bush era of Republican politics I could see a clear image of what "Republican governance" looked like even if I didn't agree with it and found large chunks of it hypocritical. Now I honestly have no idea what Republicans want me to think about Republicans holding power. I have absolutely no idea what they're vision of America is anymore. It's clear to me that many are only willing to go so far in support of Trump's sycophancy which is a pleasant surprise, but the bar for needed to get them to push back seems so high that it's kind of irrelevant. They really come off now as little more than a party that seeks political office for the sake of holding political office.
Maybe the party is still destined for the collapse that it seemed to be facing down in the 2016 primaries? Did Trump's victory merely delay an inevitability?
The republican party is in disarray because things are changing in their electorate. Due to changes in the economy and the world because globalization the political fundamentals are changing. Old faction lines are being moved and new factions are being created, and this will reflect in the party. Due to how the US system is setup I dont think the republican party will collapse, but I think we will likely see big changes in the party in the coming years. The mess we see right now is that change happening.
But things will get real interesting when we start seeing these changes in the "left" wing electorate
Now, this can basically be seen one of two ways. On the one hand, it can be painted as a centralized response to a refugee crisis. On the other hand, it clearly does not sound like people will be free to come and go at these places, so we're not talking about just housing refugees, what we're really talking about detention camps for tens of thousands of people.
What's interesting to me is how much of this they appear to intend to do in California near the Bay Area and Pendleton, anticipating holding nearly a hundred thousand people between the two sites. I suspect the state of CA will do everything it can to frustrate that, in fact, I can imagine that becoming the mother of all gak shows.
Now, this can basically be seen one of two ways. On the one hand, it can be painted as a centralized response to a refugee crisis. On the other hand, it clearly does not sound like people will be free to come and go at these places, so we're not talking about just housing refugees, what we're really talking about detention camps for tens of thousands of people.
What's interesting to me is how much of this they appear to intend to do in California near the Bay Area and Pendleton, anticipating holding nearly a hundred thousand people between the two sites. I suspect the state of CA will do everything it can to frustrate that, in fact, I can imagine that becoming the mother of all gak shows.
To be fair, there's plenty of multimillion dollar estates built on the same Chaparral shrubland down there with dramatically less fire protection than the Pendelton base, which is larger than the nation of Andorra and mostly empty space.
That's definitely one thing I definitely don't miss about southern california though...having to worry about evacuation notices every year due to fires.
But yeah, a large scale evactuation in case of wildfires is a valid concern if there's an extra 50,000 people there.
IRON WITHIN, IRON WITHOUT.
New Heavy Gear Log! Also...Grey Knights! The correct pronunciation is Imperial Guard and Stormtroopers, "Astra Militarum" and "Tempestus Scions" are something you'll find at Hogwarts.
The poor man really has a stake in the country. The rich man hasn't; he can go away to New Guinea in a yacht. The poor have sometimes objected to being governed badly; the rich have always objected to being governed at all
We love our superheroes because they refuse to give up on us. We can analyze them out of existence, kill them, ban them, mock them, and still they return, patiently reminding us of who we are and what we wish we could be.
"the play's the thing wherein I'll catch the conscience of the king,
Maybe the party is still destined for the collapse that it seemed to be facing down in the 2016 primaries? Did Trump's victory merely delay an inevitability?
We can only hope... but, if enough voters are #MAGA, it'll probably be either Trump loses his re-election or his 2nd term. In fact, both parties need to move towards the center more...
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2018/06/23 12:10:35
The republican party is in disarray because things are changing in their electorate. Due to changes in the economy and the world because globalization the political fundamentals are changing. Old faction lines are being moved and new factions are being created, and this will reflect in the party. Due to how the US system is setup I dont think the republican party will collapse, but I think we will likely see big changes in the party in the coming years. The mess we see right now is that change happening.
But things will get real interesting when we start seeing these changes in the "left" wing electorate
The Democratic Party has collapsed twice in its history, and the Whigs collapsed before the Republicans rose to take their place.
There will always of course be an American conservative right party, but the conservative right can be held as distinct from the Republican Party in so far as the Party is an organization to facilitate a political dogma rather than a dogma itself. Now what happens when the Party ends up as seemingly disfunctional as it now appears to be? For a long time the Republicans were probably the best organized and most unified of the two big parties but that seems to be gone. Question is will that disunity we're seeing now remain the norm of the party cause if it does I don't see the party lasting. For a long time they got by on "let's just get control of the government and then we'll fix everything without worrying about the democrats" but they've had control for a year and a half and their divisions seem to have enhanced in that time rather than died down, not at all helped by Trump and Trumpites acting like bulls in the China shop.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
whembly wrote: In fact, both parties need to move towards the center more...
The Democrats are already at center and have been for a good 30 years. They've been running on more or less the same principals they rebuilt themselves around under LBJ ever since the Civil Rights era. That Conservatives keep insisting the Democratic party is this bastion of ultra left yahoos says a lot more about how far right the Republicans have shifted than it has ever said about the Democrats. Hell you don't even have to look at the Democrats to see this. When he was appointed to the court John Roberts was held up as "the conservative Judge we need to restore America" by the Republican party, and now the party itself has shifted so far right of where it was a mere decade ago that he's lambasted as being a secret liberal all along. John McCain is pretty much the poster boy for Central-Right populism and despite being a very popular Republican when he ran in 2008 he's now a traitor to the party just because he didn't follow the young bloods to the deep end right their now occupying.
Grant you under Bernie Sander's explosive run in 2016 I feared that the Dems might start shifting hard left, becoming the exact same barrel of madness the Republicans now are but in the opposite direction, but ultimately Bernie doesn't seem to have managed to maintain that push within the party. The Center-Left staples remain the leaders of the party, and defectors from the Republican party who were always kind of center-left anyway have been bolstering them. A good example is Michael Bloomberg who has shifted his resources from being a sort of central-right political financier willing to work with lots of Democrats on key issues to a Center-left financier willing to work with some Republicans.
To anyone who isn't a partisan hack the Democrats already are about as center as it gets. The closest they've come to a far left candidate in my entire lifetime is Sanders who had popular support but no party support. Both Clintons, Obama, and John Kerry were all very center-left political candidates coming out of a party where the party itself holds a veto ability on its nominees with a base that generally leans towards centrist positions even when bleeding its heart all over the floor. Even Al Gore despite his now infamous reputation as a guy who maybe likes the smell of his own farts too much was a pretty centrist candidate when he ran in 2000.
Get over this "both sides are bad" nonsense. One side is bad. The other is at worst a bunch of drama queens who scream "think of the poor ______" and then just maintain the status quo anyway.
This message was edited 3 times. Last update was at 2018/06/23 14:42:00
(who was the President when that happened? And who was President when Crimea was lost to RU??)
You seem to think this has some sort of meaning.
Is the meaning feth Hillary for wanting to start WW3 over Syria and feth Obama for not starting WW3 over Crimea?
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)
18.000 
3.500 
8.200 
3.300 
2.400 
3.100 
5.500 
2.500 
3.200 
3.000
1750 pts Blood Specters
6000 pts Disciples of Fate
3500 pts Peridia Prime
2500 pts Prophets of Fate
Lizardmen 3000 points Tlaxcoatl Temple-City