If this is your first visit, be sure to
check out the FAQ by clicking the
link above. You may have to register
before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages,
select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.
Policy / Politique
The fee for tournament organizers advertising on ChessTalk is $20/event or $100/yearly unlimited for the year.
Les frais d'inscription des organisateurs de tournoi sur ChessTalk sont de 20 $/événement ou de 100 $/année illimitée.
You can etransfer to Henry Lam at chesstalkforum at gmail dot com
Transfér à Henry Lam à chesstalkforum@gmail.com
Dark Knight / Le Chevalier Noir
General Guidelines
---- Nous avons besoin d'un traduction français!
Some Basics
1. Under Board "Frequently Asked Questions" (FAQs) there are 3 sections dealing with General Forum Usage, User Profile Features, and Reading and Posting Messages. These deal with everything from Avatars to Your Notifications. Most general technical questions are covered there. Here is a link to the FAQs. https://forum.chesstalk.com/help
2. Consider using the SEARCH button if you are looking for information. You may find your question has already been answered in a previous thread.
3. If you've looked for an answer to a question, and not found one, then you should consider asking your question in a new thread. For example, there have already been questions and discussion regarding: how to do chess diagrams (FENs); crosstables that line up properly; and the numerous little “glitches” that every new site will have.
4. Read pinned or sticky threads, like this one, if they look important. This applies especially to newcomers.
5. Read the thread you're posting in before you post. There are a variety of ways to look at a thread. These are covered under “Display Modes”.
6. Thread titles: please provide some details in your thread title. This is useful for a number of reasons. It helps ChessTalk members to quickly skim the threads. It prevents duplication of threads. And so on.
7. Unnecessary thread proliferation (e.g., deliberately creating a new thread that duplicates existing discussion) is discouraged. Look to see if a thread on your topic may have already been started and, if so, consider adding your contribution to the pre-existing thread. However, starting new threads to explore side-issues that are not relevant to the original subject is strongly encouraged. A single thread on the Canadian Open, with hundreds of posts on multiple sub-topics, is no better than a dozen threads on the Open covering only a few topics. Use your good judgment when starting a new thread.
8. If and/or when sub-forums are created, please make sure to create threads in the proper place.
Debate
9. Give an opinion and back it up with a reason. Throwaway comments such as "Game X pwnz because my friend and I think so!" could be considered pointless at best, and inflammatory at worst.
10. Try to give your own opinions, not simply those copied and pasted from reviews or opinions of your friends.
Unacceptable behavior and warnings
11. In registering here at ChessTalk please note that the same or similar rules apply here as applied at the previous Boardhost message board. In particular, the following content is not permitted to appear in any messages:
* Racism
* Hatred
* Harassment
* Adult content
* Obscene material
* Nudity or pornography
* Material that infringes intellectual property or other proprietary rights of any party
* Material the posting of which is tortious or violates a contractual or fiduciary obligation you or we owe to another party
* Piracy, hacking, viruses, worms, or warez
* Spam
* Any illegal content
* unapproved Commercial banner advertisements or revenue-generating links
* Any link to or any images from a site containing any material outlined in these restrictions
* Any material deemed offensive or inappropriate by the Board staff
12. Users are welcome to challenge other points of view and opinions, but should do so respectfully. Personal attacks on others will not be tolerated. Posts and threads with unacceptable content can be closed or deleted altogether. Furthermore, a range of sanctions are possible - from a simple warning to a temporary or even a permanent banning from ChessTalk.
Helping to Moderate
13. 'Report' links (an exclamation mark inside a triangle) can be found in many places throughout the board. These links allow users to alert the board staff to anything which is offensive, objectionable or illegal. Please consider using this feature if the need arises.
Advice for free
14. You should exercise the same caution with Private Messages as you would with any public posting.
I usually refuse to get into these back and forth's, Peter, but...
Did I miss something where I said Trump would "drain the swamp?" Maybe I forgot something I said or goofed? Or, did you simply put words in my mouth?
Trump can't hire only outsiders or nothing will get done. My biggest disappointment so far is that Gingrich is not in his choices. He will need someone from the "swamp" to help him navigate. He has done well so far by not hiring all the "old boys/girls." There are some fresh faces in his camp, that makes me hopeful!
Have you ever seen anything like the excoriation of Trump since he won the Presidency? Has any other President ever faced so much criticism after winning?
I don't know if Trump lied, BUT, imagine that, a politician who lies!
Finally, are you suggesting that someone will shoot trump OR even recommending it? :)
Ken, it wasn't my intention to put words in your mouth and if I've misinterpreted what you were trying to say the I apologize.
But consider this from my point of view for a moment. Elsewhere on this board you've indicated that you support Trump. Would it not be reasonable for me to conclude from that that you also support some/most/all of Trump's personal initiatives?; i.e. those initiatives, such as 'drain the swamp', which are not part of the Republican Party's official platform. Then, in a thread titled "Drain the swamp?", you say this:
A very nice pick by Trump. The EPA has been the swamp for 8 years.
Was it really out of line for me to conclude that a) you support Trump's 'drain the swamp' initiative and, b) for some reason you think the EPA is part of the swamp?
In any event, I'm all ears if you feel like explaining what you really meant.
Last edited by Peter McKillop; Thursday, 8th December, 2016, 09:37 PM.
"We hang the petty thieves and appoint the great ones to public office." - Aesop
"Only the dead have seen the end of war." - Plato
"If once a man indulges himself in murder, very soon he comes to think little of robbing; and from robbing he comes next to drinking and Sabbath-breaking, and from that to incivility and procrastination." - Thomas De Quincey
If the only thing Trump does is end American "adventures" overseas he will be one of the greatest Presidents ever, imo.
Yes, the US has caused a lot of damage with their 'interventions'. Vietnam and Cuba are just two of the more egregious examples.
"We hang the petty thieves and appoint the great ones to public office." - Aesop
"Only the dead have seen the end of war." - Plato
"If once a man indulges himself in murder, very soon he comes to think little of robbing; and from robbing he comes next to drinking and Sabbath-breaking, and from that to incivility and procrastination." - Thomas De Quincey
Was it really out of line for me to conclude that a) you support Trump's 'drain the swamp' initiative and, b) for some reason you think the EPA is part of the swamp?
In any event, I'm all ears if you feel like explaining what you really meant.
The EPA, IRS. Justice Department are all significant parts of the swamp which will be addressed I would suspect.
I am amused by the supplicants Al Gore and Leonardo de Caprio lining up to talk to Ivanka. The EPA choice indicates who will hold sway.
You have to hope Donald Trump succeeds as a Canadian. If the U.S. sneezes we catch pneumonia.
Last edited by Vlad Drkulec; Friday, 9th December, 2016, 01:48 AM.
Yes, the US has caused a lot of damage with their 'interventions'. Vietnam and Cuba are just two of the more egregious examples.
Cuba? I never got that one, to be honest.
Everyone says the US and their big corporations are evil and the root of all problems. Then there's that one little island, completely insulated from the big and evil corporations.
Life is so crappy over there that people are willing to flee on lifeboats to get to Florida. And yet, all of that is still US' fault... If the embargo was the problem, you have to wonder if capitalism and free trade was the solution all along. No?
Everyone says the US and their big corporations are evil and the root of all problems. Then there's that one little island, completely insulated from the big and evil corporations.
Life is so crappy over there that people are willing to flee on lifeboats to get to Florida. And yet, all of that is still US' fault... If the embargo was the problem, you have to wonder if capitalism and free trade was the solution all along. No?
Not taking sides here, just asking the question.
Life is so crappy there due in large part to a U.S. trade embargo extending back over a half century. Cuba is a case of an abused and impoverished underclass rising up against its oppressors, some of whom were Americans and American corporations. I've wondered why the U.S. didn't just send in its armed forces to retake the island and protect American interests before Castro had a chance to become entrenched. I suspect that decision makers in the U.S. recognized that they didn't have the moral high ground, that the U.S. had been happy to plunder the country economically while turning a blind eye to rampant social injustice. John Kennedy provided a nice summary of the extent of U.S. involvement in Cuba at a presidential campaign speech in Cincinnati in October, 1960:
"At the beginning of 1959 United States companies owned about 40 percent of the Cuban sugar lands—almost all the cattle ranches—90 percent of the mines and mineral concessions—80 percent of the utilities—practically all the oil industry—and supplied two-thirds of Cuba's imports.". — John F. Kennedy
Last edited by Peter McKillop; Friday, 9th December, 2016, 11:05 AM.
"We hang the petty thieves and appoint the great ones to public office." - Aesop
"Only the dead have seen the end of war." - Plato
"If once a man indulges himself in murder, very soon he comes to think little of robbing; and from robbing he comes next to drinking and Sabbath-breaking, and from that to incivility and procrastination." - Thomas De Quincey
The issue may be however, the extent to which Trump crosses legal lines, and sets himself up to be impeached.
I do fear that possibility......
There is a great interview with Evan McMullin on the Daily Show with Trevor Noah. If you recall, McMullin was the 3rd party Conservative candidate who challenged Trump in Utah and a few other red states. McMullin talks about his CIA days where he saw up close the methodology of dictators and strong men throughout the 3rd world and compares them to Donald Trump. I wish I could find a video clip for all. If anyone can find it, please post.
Anyway, Bob you maybe soft pedaling the case here. The greater fear is that Trump will remain in power and they won't be able to impeach him. He will indeed break all the rules and should be impeached, The question really is: Will the US democracy be strong enough to impeach him, or will enough supporters bow down to the new Emperor?
Last edited by Bob Gillanders; Saturday, 10th December, 2016, 11:28 AM.
There is a great interview with Evan McMullin on the Daily Show with Trevor Noah. If you recall, McMullin was the 3rd party Conservative candidate who challenged Trump in Utah and a few other red states. McMullin talks about his CIA days where he saw up close the methodology of dictators and strong men throughout the 3rd world and compares them to Donald Trump. I wish I could find a video clip for all. If anyone can find it, please post.
Anyway, Bob you maybe soft pedaling the case here. The greater fear is that Trump will remain in power and they won't be able to impeach him. He will indeed break all the rules and should be impeached, The question really is: Will the US democracy be strong enough to impeach him, or will enough supporters bow down to the new Emperor?
Don't you hate it when you prepare a long reply and it disappears? I have to repeat mine now.
Bob, You talk about impeachment as if it were a simple thing to do. If CONGRESS were to impeach a President, the Senate has to hold a trial.
Life is so crappy there due in large part to a U.S. trade embargo extending back over a half century. Cuba is a case of an abused and impoverished underclass rising up against its oppressors, some of whom were Americans and American corporations. I've wondered why the U.S. didn't just send in its armed forces to retake the island and protect American interests before Castro had a chance to become entrenched. I suspect that decision makers in the U.S. recognized that they didn't have the moral high ground, that the U.S. had been happy to plunder the country economically while turning a blind eye to rampant social injustice. John Kennedy provided a nice summary of the extent of U.S. involvement in Cuba at a presidential campaign speech in Cincinnati in October, 1960:
"At the beginning of 1959 United States companies owned about 40 percent of the Cuban sugar lands—almost all the cattle ranches—90 percent of the mines and mineral concessions—80 percent of the utilities—practically all the oil industry—and supplied two-thirds of Cuba's imports.". — John F. Kennedy
I get all of that and I know about Cuba's history. IMHO, they should have bought the assets owned by foreigners, instead of kicking them out. Just like we did here in Quebec when they nationalized hydroelectricity.
Regardless, what I'm asking has to do with their current situation: if a trade embargo leads to poverty, maybe captialism and free trade will help them increase their standard of living?
Not directing my comment at you specifically, but some people are so biased against the US that they want to have it both sides on that one. If the US makes business with you, they're exploiting you. If the US won't do business with you, you're poor because you can't do business and it's the US' fault.
Last edited by Mathieu Cloutier; Saturday, 10th December, 2016, 09:58 PM.
67 votes is a heckuva lot of votes from any Senate, whoever controls it.
Cease day-dreaming, please!
Actually Clinton did get impeached in the House of Representatives though the Wikipedia article seems a bit confused on the topic. The threshold to remove him from office in the Senate was not met but that does not mean he was not impeached. He also lost his law license as a result of all of the proceedings.
Bob, You talk about impeachment as if it were a simple thing to do.
No, I never said that. In fact, I fear it maybe very difficult to impeach Trump even if he does commit impeachable offenses.
His supporters tend to excuse all his bad behaviour. If he is successful in cowing enough Republicans to do his bidding, either with appointments or by bullying them, then he is secure in the Presidency. With a free hand to do whatever.
If the whatever is benevolent, good for the country, helps the little guy, then it ain't so bad.
But if the whatever, is lining his own pockets, stripping citizens of their rights, starting a war, well then, not so good.
Trump is a potential threat to democracy in the US.
If you can't see that, well then I rest my case.
Last edited by Bob Gillanders; Sunday, 11th December, 2016, 08:51 AM.
No, I never said that. In fact, I fear it maybe very difficult to impeach Trump even if he does commit impeachable offenses.
His supporters tend to excuse all his bad behaviour. If he is successful in cowing enough Republicans to do his bidding, either with appointments or by bullying them, then he is secure in the Presidency. With a free hand to do whatever.
If the whatever is benevolent, good for the country, helps the little guy, then it ain't so bad.
But if the whatever, is lining his own pockets, stripping citizens of their rights, starting a war, well then, not so good.
Trump is a potential threat to democracy in the US.
If you can't see that, well then I rest my case.
Your palpable hysteria (and that of others, not referring to CT) really surprises me.
I get all of that and I know about Cuba's history. IMHO, they should have bought the assets owned by foreigners, instead of kicking them out. Just like we did here in Quebec when they nationalized hydroelectricity.
Regardless, what I'm asking has to do with their current situation: if a trade embargo leads to poverty, maybe captialism and free trade will help them increase their standard of living?
Not directing my comment at you specifically, but some people are so biased against the US that they want to have it both sides on that one. If the US makes business with you, they're exploiting you. If the US won't do business with you, you're poor because you can't do business and it's the US' fault.
A brand new revolutionary government probably wouldn't have had much, if anything, in the way of foreign currency reserves. In addition, the Cuban peso (or whatever it was called at the time) probably wouldn't have been readily tradeable/exchangeable due to sovereign risk (how long would the Castro government last, etc.?). So how would the revolutionary gov't have paid for the assets they nationalized? Perhaps more to the point, if you revolt against the people who've been busy raping you, why would you want to pay them for anything?
Re your second paragraph, maybe capitalism was a betterapproach, maybe not. This would be a good question for an economist or a political scientist (not me :) ). What does seem clear is that having the world's biggest economy and military power trying to crush the crap out of a tiny country because that country revolted against a violent, abusive, authoritarian regime which, up until the very last minute, was supported, aided, and abetted by the U.S., was not the way to go.
I'm not anti-American but come on, they need a more skilkfully nuanced approach to foreign policy than 'let's bomb the shit out of them and then walk away leaving behind a mess that may take generations to sort out'.
"We hang the petty thieves and appoint the great ones to public office." - Aesop
"Only the dead have seen the end of war." - Plato
"If once a man indulges himself in murder, very soon he comes to think little of robbing; and from robbing he comes next to drinking and Sabbath-breaking, and from that to incivility and procrastination." - Thomas De Quincey
A brand new revolutionary government probably wouldn't have had much, if anything, in the way of foreign currency reserves. In addition, the Cuban peso (or whatever it was called at the time) probably wouldn't have been readily tradeable/exchangeable due to sovereign risk (how long would the Castro government last, etc.?). So how would the revolutionary gov't have paid for the assets they nationalized? Perhaps more to the point, if you revolt against the people who've been busy raping you, why would you want to pay them for anything?
Re your second paragraph, maybe capitalism was a betterapproach, maybe not. This would be a good question for an economist or a political scientist (not me :) ). What does seem clear is that having the world's biggest economy and military power trying to crush the crap out of a tiny country because that country revolted against a violent, abusive, authoritarian regime which, up until the very last minute, was supported, aided, and abetted by the U.S., was not the way to go.
I'm not anti-American but come on, they need a more skilkfully nuanced approach to foreign policy than 'let's bomb the shit out of them and then walk away leaving behind a mess that may take generations to sort out'.
And despite all of that, the history of exploitation by the big bad US of A... thousands and thousands of Cubans flee the island to go to the US, risking their lives in the process...
Not saying the US is doing good things there. I know there's a lot we can blame them for and I agree with most of the points you bring up. My point is that living in a communist, 100% centralized economy is simply much worse than living in a bad, but capitalist country. In fact, communism, as we've seen in the 20th century, is so bad that they had to put fences around all these countries and yet, people were still willing to risk their lives to go wherever they just let you do what you want with a bigger chunk of your money.
What the communist governement in Cuba did to its people over the last 60 years is just as bad or even worse than whatever the US did, IMHO. Remove the embargo and the only ones getting richer in Cuba are Castro's family and friends. Forcefully taking economic liberties away from people is an extremely violent crime.
Your palpable hysteria (and that of others, not referring to CT) really surprises me.
Ken, that's a bit harsh.
hys·ter·i·a (hĭ-stĕr′ē-ə, -stîr′-)
n.
1. Behavior exhibiting excessive or uncontrollable emotion, such as fear or panic.
2. A group of psychiatric symptoms, including heightened emotionality, attention-seeking behavior, and preoccupation with physical symptoms that may not be explainable by a medical condition. The term hysteria is no longer in clinical use, and such symptoms are currently attributed to any of several psychiatric conditions, including somatic symptom disorder, conversion disorder, and histrionic personality disorder.
I think any reasonable person should be concerned about a Trump presidency. His actions, statements, and behaviour to date are not conducive to the Presidency. Extrapolating that he will do something impeachable is logical and predictable. It will be up to the Republicans to eventually pull the plug. Will enough of them muster the ethical backbone required, or will their lust for power reign supreme?
Tweet
Comment