Possibly a downward spiral .......... who knows
#21
11-21-2016, 10:33 AM
TReK
So it's your claim that the disintegration of the British Empire BEGAN after WWII? Charlie, go back and read some history. The Empire was in jeopardy well before WWI. By the end of WWII the UK was in ruins.
Frankly, I'm always astonished at how little people know of history. I'm particularly amazed when I here people utter such nonsense as "make America great again." Great like when? Great for whom? Invariably, people chanting that phrase speak of better times in the Leave it to Beaver days of the 1950's when men were men and women were barefoot and pregnant. First, America wasn't GREAT for everyone in the 1950's and 1960's. I wouldn't have wanted to be African American, Asian, Jewish, Gay or any other minority that was either blatantly discriminated against or forced into the closet.
We have to be careful what we wish for and remember we aren't, and by "we" I mean white people, the only Americans. America owes a great deal to immigrants and to those who were brought to this continent against their will. When we say we want America to be great, it should mean for everyone, not a select few. And, honestly, I am sick and tired of the bull**** claims of many about how today white men are the victims.
Getting back to the UK. With the unification of Germany (1848-1871) the UK really had a formidable rival bent on quickly establishing its own world empire. Couple that with numerous expensive wars draining the coffers of the Empire through the later half of the 19th century, by the time the 20th century arrived the UK was under pressure on all fronts. For all practical purposes, WWI knocked the knees out from under the Empire. Yes, she still had colonies stretching the globe but they were held more tenuously than ever before.
World War II finished off the remnants of the Empire. By the end of the war she had lost so many young men (twice as many as the US), seen so much of her infrastructure destroy and was so heavily in debt (lend lease) that any dreams of a resurgence of the empire were just that, dreams.
The Bretton Woods Agreement of 1944, the establishment of the IMF, World Bank, Gatt, ect. were a marvel when it came to creating an economic framework for rebuilding Europe after the war. Nevertheless, the unexpected end of Lend Lease by the US lead to further hardships in the UK. If I'm not mistaken, the UK instituted bread rationing AFTER the war for the very first time. Yes, things were that bad in the Empire.
So, to say that "It seems to me that the British fall began when it stopped seeing the world as its oyster and instead began seeing Europe as its partner, then was subsumed within the EU" I think you can see that by 1945 the Empire was in shambles. India wanted out, most of the African colonies too. Everyone was jumping from the Empire that once spanned the globe.
To blame the fall of the Empire on the EU, which began as the EEC in 1957 with the Treaty of Rome, is nonsense. Were you aware that the UK didn't even join the EEC until 1973? The European Union, as we know it, didn't even begin until 1993 with the ratification and implimentation of the Treaty of Maastritch. You're also aware that through all of it's time in the EU the UK kept it's own currency, refusing to adopt the Euro.
Now I could go on into greater detail but for the time being, we all HAVE TO TRY to get a better understanding of our history before we make these fantastic claims.
Frankly, I'm always astonished at how little people know of history. I'm particularly amazed when I here people utter such nonsense as "make America great again." Great like when? Great for whom? Invariably, people chanting that phrase speak of better times in the Leave it to Beaver days of the 1950's when men were men and women were barefoot and pregnant. First, America wasn't GREAT for everyone in the 1950's and 1960's. I wouldn't have wanted to be African American, Asian, Jewish, Gay or any other minority that was either blatantly discriminated against or forced into the closet.
We have to be careful what we wish for and remember we aren't, and by "we" I mean white people, the only Americans. America owes a great deal to immigrants and to those who were brought to this continent against their will. When we say we want America to be great, it should mean for everyone, not a select few. And, honestly, I am sick and tired of the bull**** claims of many about how today white men are the victims.
Getting back to the UK. With the unification of Germany (1848-1871) the UK really had a formidable rival bent on quickly establishing its own world empire. Couple that with numerous expensive wars draining the coffers of the Empire through the later half of the 19th century, by the time the 20th century arrived the UK was under pressure on all fronts. For all practical purposes, WWI knocked the knees out from under the Empire. Yes, she still had colonies stretching the globe but they were held more tenuously than ever before.
World War II finished off the remnants of the Empire. By the end of the war she had lost so many young men (twice as many as the US), seen so much of her infrastructure destroy and was so heavily in debt (lend lease) that any dreams of a resurgence of the empire were just that, dreams.
The Bretton Woods Agreement of 1944, the establishment of the IMF, World Bank, Gatt, ect. were a marvel when it came to creating an economic framework for rebuilding Europe after the war. Nevertheless, the unexpected end of Lend Lease by the US lead to further hardships in the UK. If I'm not mistaken, the UK instituted bread rationing AFTER the war for the very first time. Yes, things were that bad in the Empire.
So, to say that "It seems to me that the British fall began when it stopped seeing the world as its oyster and instead began seeing Europe as its partner, then was subsumed within the EU" I think you can see that by 1945 the Empire was in shambles. India wanted out, most of the African colonies too. Everyone was jumping from the Empire that once spanned the globe.
To blame the fall of the Empire on the EU, which began as the EEC in 1957 with the Treaty of Rome, is nonsense. Were you aware that the UK didn't even join the EEC until 1973? The European Union, as we know it, didn't even begin until 1993 with the ratification and implimentation of the Treaty of Maastritch. You're also aware that through all of it's time in the EU the UK kept it's own currency, refusing to adopt the Euro.
Now I could go on into greater detail but for the time being, we all HAVE TO TRY to get a better understanding of our history before we make these fantastic claims.
#22
11-21-2016, 10:38 AM
TReK
#23
11-21-2016, 10:51 AM
TReK
#24
11-21-2016, 01:33 PM
That's a very astute question, because it is readily apparent what Trump supporters are against, but more difficult to pin what they are for. The bigger question may be what a vast majority of Americans are for and against because it seems apparent to me that both Trump and Bernie Sanders should not, by conventional wisdom, have gone as far as they did.
I can only speak for myself, which I generally do not do online. My guess is that the major categories of Trump voters:
1. Reject the Clinton political "dynasty" and HRC in particular. They would be for just about anyone else, including Bernie Sanders (a socialist--that's not a good word in the USA, by the way).
2. Reject the media, generally, and in specific instances where their fake astonishment and offense was more obvious than usual, and be for whomever the media is not being fair to (for the little guy).
3. Reject career politicians and the two parties, and be for anyone who promises to make a difference in the current situation.
4. Be for the coal industry.
5. Be for destroying ISIS and related entities without artificial constraints.
6. Be for curbing federal spending and taming the economy and the federal reserve.
7. Take over the Supreme Court--and thereby change the social landscape to return to conservative values for a very, very long time. I can tell you that the people who I know who considered the election to be a literal "do or die" situation were focused almost exclusively on the Supreme Court.
8. Be for altering or ending disavantageous trade deals that hurt American jobs. Shortly after Trump was elected, Ford Motor Company rescinded its plans to send the nulk of its manufacturing to Mexico.
9. Be for controlling immigration by enforcing the law.
10. Be for a closer look at "climate change."
11. Be for the Second Amendment (right to keep and bear arms).
12. Be for "right to life" and defunding planned parenthood.
That's all I can think of at the moment, Paul.
#25
11-21-2016, 01:47 PM
They are both populist movements. I can't imagine that the average British person is happy to turn over more and more minute control to elites in Brussels. I wouldn't be. What does Britain really get from membership in the EU anyway? Easier travel and immigration? More favorable trade deals (are they actually more favorable thane before the EU as a net of import/export activity???)? Freedom of movement? I just don't get it.
Same for the United States. Control by the federal government of more and more minute details of everyone's lives--pushing a very liberal agenda most of the time--is, I believe, a reason that Trump did so well.
#26
11-21-2016, 02:05 PM
So it's your claim that the disintegration of the British Empire BEGAN after WWII? Charlie, go back and read some history. The Empire was in jeopardy well before WWI. By the end of WWII the UK was in ruins.
The UK was a world power--a "superpower"--well into the 1900's. I agree that the UK was less than its former self, and not a "superpower" before WWII.
Frankly, I'm always astonished at how little people know of history. I'm particularly amazed when I here people utter such nonsense as "make America great again." Great like when? Great for whom? Invariably, people chanting that phrase speak of better times in the Leave it to Beaver days of the 1950's when men were men and women were barefoot and pregnant. First, America wasn't GREAT for everyone in the 1950's and 1960's. I wouldn't have wanted to be African American, Asian, Jewish, Gay or any other minority that was either blatantly discriminated against or forced into the closet.
That's nonsense. Trump is referring to manufacturing/jobs/economy/military concerns in juxtaposition to the Obama years. Picking groups who did not benefit at any particular time would prevent use of the word "great" as to any country, republic, empire, etc.
We have to be careful what we wish for and remember we aren't, and by "we" I mean white people, the only Americans. America owes a great deal to immigrants and to those who were brought to this continent against their will. When we say we want America to be great, it should mean for everyone, not a select few. And, honestly, I am sick and tired of the bull**** claims of many about how today white men are the victims.
I have no response to this. Trump gathered an additional 1% of white votes, but 8% of blacks and 6% of hispanics over Romney... so I am not sure how you reach the conclusion that Trump is some sort of white power candidate. Hillary Clinton is white. I am not following you here.
Getting back to the UK. With the unification of Germany (1848-1871) the UK really had a formidable rival bent on quickly establishing its own world empire. Couple that with numerous expensive wars draining the coffers of the Empire through the later half of the 19th century, by the time the 20th century arrived the UK was under pressure on all fronts. For all practical purposes, WWI knocked the knees out from under the Empire. Yes, she still had colonies stretching the globe but they were held more tenuously than ever before.
I don't think the average Amercian, myself included, cares much about "colonies". It seems like a quaint system. But then, the USA was, in part, former British colonies, so what would you expect me to say?
World War II finished off the remnants of the Empire. By the end of the war she had lost so many young men (twice as many as the US), seen so much of her infrastructure destroy and was so heavily in debt (lend lease) that any dreams of a resurgence of the empire were just that, dreams.
I assume that is true, but the USA entered the war later, too.
The Bretton Woods Agreement of 1944, the establishment of the IMF, World Bank, Gatt, ect. were a marvel when it came to creating an economic framework for rebuilding Europe after the war. Nevertheless, the unexpected end of Lend Lease by the US lead to further hardships in the UK. If I'm not mistaken, the UK instituted bread rationing AFTER the war for the very first time. Yes, things were that bad in the Empire.
I agree. The UK took a beating in every sense of the word.
So, to say that "It seems to me that the British fall began when it stopped seeing the world as its oyster and instead began seeing Europe as its partner, then was subsumed within the EU" I think you can see that by 1945 the Empire was in shambles. India wanted out, most of the African colonies too. Everyone was jumping from the Empire that once spanned the globe.
I do. I don't like the colonial system. And to be honest, I wasn't talking about the "empire".
To blame the fall of the Empire on the EU, which began as the EEC in 1957 with the Treaty of Rome, is nonsense. Were you aware that the UK didn't even join the EEC until 1973? The European Union, as we know it, didn't even begin until 1993 with the ratification and implimentation of the Treaty of Maastritch. You're also aware that through all of it's time in the EU the UK kept it's own currency, refusing to adopt the Euro.
I think if you look at what I said, there is a chronology that you are ignoring. But no, I wasn't aware of the specific dates. They still fit my theory, though.
Now I could go on into greater detail but for the time being, we all HAVE TO TRY to get a better understanding of our history before we make these fantastic claims.
Okay, I'll try, but my desire to fully understand British history is pretty low.
The UK was a world power--a "superpower"--well into the 1900's. I agree that the UK was less than its former self, and not a "superpower" before WWII.
Frankly, I'm always astonished at how little people know of history. I'm particularly amazed when I here people utter such nonsense as "make America great again." Great like when? Great for whom? Invariably, people chanting that phrase speak of better times in the Leave it to Beaver days of the 1950's when men were men and women were barefoot and pregnant. First, America wasn't GREAT for everyone in the 1950's and 1960's. I wouldn't have wanted to be African American, Asian, Jewish, Gay or any other minority that was either blatantly discriminated against or forced into the closet.
That's nonsense. Trump is referring to manufacturing/jobs/economy/military concerns in juxtaposition to the Obama years. Picking groups who did not benefit at any particular time would prevent use of the word "great" as to any country, republic, empire, etc.
We have to be careful what we wish for and remember we aren't, and by "we" I mean white people, the only Americans. America owes a great deal to immigrants and to those who were brought to this continent against their will. When we say we want America to be great, it should mean for everyone, not a select few. And, honestly, I am sick and tired of the bull**** claims of many about how today white men are the victims.
I have no response to this. Trump gathered an additional 1% of white votes, but 8% of blacks and 6% of hispanics over Romney... so I am not sure how you reach the conclusion that Trump is some sort of white power candidate. Hillary Clinton is white. I am not following you here.
Getting back to the UK. With the unification of Germany (1848-1871) the UK really had a formidable rival bent on quickly establishing its own world empire. Couple that with numerous expensive wars draining the coffers of the Empire through the later half of the 19th century, by the time the 20th century arrived the UK was under pressure on all fronts. For all practical purposes, WWI knocked the knees out from under the Empire. Yes, she still had colonies stretching the globe but they were held more tenuously than ever before.
I don't think the average Amercian, myself included, cares much about "colonies". It seems like a quaint system. But then, the USA was, in part, former British colonies, so what would you expect me to say?
World War II finished off the remnants of the Empire. By the end of the war she had lost so many young men (twice as many as the US), seen so much of her infrastructure destroy and was so heavily in debt (lend lease) that any dreams of a resurgence of the empire were just that, dreams.
I assume that is true, but the USA entered the war later, too.
The Bretton Woods Agreement of 1944, the establishment of the IMF, World Bank, Gatt, ect. were a marvel when it came to creating an economic framework for rebuilding Europe after the war. Nevertheless, the unexpected end of Lend Lease by the US lead to further hardships in the UK. If I'm not mistaken, the UK instituted bread rationing AFTER the war for the very first time. Yes, things were that bad in the Empire.
I agree. The UK took a beating in every sense of the word.
So, to say that "It seems to me that the British fall began when it stopped seeing the world as its oyster and instead began seeing Europe as its partner, then was subsumed within the EU" I think you can see that by 1945 the Empire was in shambles. India wanted out, most of the African colonies too. Everyone was jumping from the Empire that once spanned the globe.
I do. I don't like the colonial system. And to be honest, I wasn't talking about the "empire".
To blame the fall of the Empire on the EU, which began as the EEC in 1957 with the Treaty of Rome, is nonsense. Were you aware that the UK didn't even join the EEC until 1973? The European Union, as we know it, didn't even begin until 1993 with the ratification and implimentation of the Treaty of Maastritch. You're also aware that through all of it's time in the EU the UK kept it's own currency, refusing to adopt the Euro.
I think if you look at what I said, there is a chronology that you are ignoring. But no, I wasn't aware of the specific dates. They still fit my theory, though.
Now I could go on into greater detail but for the time being, we all HAVE TO TRY to get a better understanding of our history before we make these fantastic claims.
Okay, I'll try, but my desire to fully understand British history is pretty low.
I have to type something here so my comments above will show up.
Last edited by Charlie_V; 11-21-2016 at 02:08 PM.
#27
11-21-2016, 03:57 PM
TReK
Charlie,
I’m going to work my way backwards through your comments.
To start with, I’ll ignore the comment about your desire to fully understand British history, a topic you seem all to willing to engage in.
Nonetheless, you talk about a chronology that I assume relates directly to the period from 1973 to the present, with regard to, as you put it, “the British fall.” You seem to want to ignore the fact that the UK, by 1973, was a shadow of it’s once greatness. The UK in the 1970’s was a small industrialized country struggling to find its place in a world that had grown more competitive. It had shed almost all of its colonies and whether you want to talk about that or not it had a tremendous impact on the UK economy. True, the UK still enjoyed favorable deals within the Commonwealth but things were nothing like they were 100 years earlier.
By 1973 the UK NEEDED the EEC in many ways to remain competitive. The fact is, the amount of money the UK was paying into the EU, was overshadowed by the benefits the country received from it’s membership. It’s a shame but time will tell. In the meanwhile, the Pound Sterling is trading at lows I haven’t seen in decades. I think today I can buy a Pound for $1.23. It wasn’t that long ago, before Brexit, that the Pound was worth 25% more.
I’m sorry Charlie, but all I’m hearing about the UK and the EU are worn out bromides, the implications of which, haven’t really been clearly thought out.
I’m going to work my way backwards through your comments.
To start with, I’ll ignore the comment about your desire to fully understand British history, a topic you seem all to willing to engage in.
Nonetheless, you talk about a chronology that I assume relates directly to the period from 1973 to the present, with regard to, as you put it, “the British fall.” You seem to want to ignore the fact that the UK, by 1973, was a shadow of it’s once greatness. The UK in the 1970’s was a small industrialized country struggling to find its place in a world that had grown more competitive. It had shed almost all of its colonies and whether you want to talk about that or not it had a tremendous impact on the UK economy. True, the UK still enjoyed favorable deals within the Commonwealth but things were nothing like they were 100 years earlier.
By 1973 the UK NEEDED the EEC in many ways to remain competitive. The fact is, the amount of money the UK was paying into the EU, was overshadowed by the benefits the country received from it’s membership. It’s a shame but time will tell. In the meanwhile, the Pound Sterling is trading at lows I haven’t seen in decades. I think today I can buy a Pound for $1.23. It wasn’t that long ago, before Brexit, that the Pound was worth 25% more.
I’m sorry Charlie, but all I’m hearing about the UK and the EU are worn out bromides, the implications of which, haven’t really been clearly thought out.
#28
11-21-2016, 04:52 PM
TReK
Charlie,
Now, about my comments on MAGA. What really infuriates me is that voters truly believed the bilge Trump offered. The nonsense about bringing back manufacturing. It aint’ gonna happen. We have moved past the mass manufacturing economy of the 1950’s-’70’s. Bethlehem Steel’s not coming back. Hell there are only 200 steel workers still employed in Pittsburgh any more. It’s done. We can’t compete. China had to provide the steel and the installation know how to complete the San Francisco Oakland Bay Bridge a few years ago. No amount of jaw flapping from Trump is going to change reality.
We don’t live in a world of “I Dream of Jeanie” where we cross our arms, nod and our wish is granted.
The tweets about Trump stopping Ford from leaving KY is a classic example of Trumpian lBS. You might want to read this accurate account of what really happened:
Blindsided by Trump Tweet, UAW Meets With Ford on SUV Plan - Bloomberg
But then, I guess by your statements about the MSM of which I assume Bloomberg news is a part, you don’t trust or believe them anyway.
To deny that there are racist overtones in Trump’s platform would be to ignore the fact that he has been heralded by white supremists ranging from David Duke (former KKK Grand Wizard), to Michael Spencer (who coined the expression alt-right), to **** leader Rocky Suhayda, to the KKK itself. His rhetoric has been nothing but inflammatory all throughout the campaign. In the end we have the Governor of NY, establishing a hot line for reporting racist incidents that have climbed significantly over the last couple of weeks. The town just to the south of me, Danbury, CT has seen a flurry of swaztikas and hateful comments spray painted on homes, buildings, automobiles and in playgrounds. It’s despicable. And to say that Trump’s rhetoric isn’t to blame is ridiculous.
He was elected because he is a bomb thrower. People on the fringes, now feel they’ve received an invitation from the President Elect to turn back all of the progress towards equality we’ve seen over the last 50 years.
But let’s get back too the other things you say Trump is referring to when he states he wants to make America great again. Besides manufacturing you mention jobs. I guess you choose not to believe that unemployment has been consistently dropping and that wages have actually been rising. I know plenty of people who voted for Trump believe that unemployment is at 40% but this is part of the problem with these voters and I think Gore Vidal said it best when he said ‘you can have your own opinions but you can’t have your own facts.”
It’s kind of like how Trump kept saying the election was rigged. The irony is that in the end, he won the election in the Electoral College but lost the popular vote by over 1,500,000 votes! That’s a fact and the number keeps growing as more contested ballots and absentee ballots in California, Oregon and Washington are counted.
Now, if you’d like to get into it over rigging, the fact that the Electoral College, a process developed to help the southern states maintain equal or greater power over the more populous northern states by counting all slaves as 3/5ths a person thus giving extra Electors to states like Virginia (isn’t it a bit surprising that four of the first five presidents were all Virginians???) is a classic example of rigging.
Back to the notion that Trump will make the military great again. At what point do we stop and really think about how much money we spend on our military. Right now (the latest numbers are from 2014), we spend more money on our military than Russia, China, Saudi Arabia, France, the UK, India and Germany. It’s scary to think but if you took every cent spent on the military IN THE WORLD, you’d find 34% was spent by the US. (http://books.sipri.org/files/FS/SIPRIFS1504.pdf)
That’s crazy. And, what, Trump is going to increase that percentage. Come on. At what point have we had enough.
One last thing before I sign off for now. You say picking groups who did not benefit at any particular time would prevent use of the word great. YES, THAT’S VERY TRUE. If you claim to be a land of freedom it better well be for everyone. We’re nothing more than the red, white and bull*** if we actually think things are good in this country when millions are being discriminated against and treated as second class citizens. It’s a shame but for some reason we fail to see that we have more in common and our hopes and dreams are more alike regardless of our ethnic background or the color of our skin. That white coal miner in eastern KY has more in common with the green card carrying Latino in California picking strawberries than he’d like to believe. But with the type of rhetoric spewed by Trump that sense commonality isn’t embraced. Instead you get white nationalists flocking to his side pledging their support.
Something is very wrong.
Now, about my comments on MAGA. What really infuriates me is that voters truly believed the bilge Trump offered. The nonsense about bringing back manufacturing. It aint’ gonna happen. We have moved past the mass manufacturing economy of the 1950’s-’70’s. Bethlehem Steel’s not coming back. Hell there are only 200 steel workers still employed in Pittsburgh any more. It’s done. We can’t compete. China had to provide the steel and the installation know how to complete the San Francisco Oakland Bay Bridge a few years ago. No amount of jaw flapping from Trump is going to change reality.
We don’t live in a world of “I Dream of Jeanie” where we cross our arms, nod and our wish is granted.
The tweets about Trump stopping Ford from leaving KY is a classic example of Trumpian lBS. You might want to read this accurate account of what really happened:
Blindsided by Trump Tweet, UAW Meets With Ford on SUV Plan - Bloomberg
But then, I guess by your statements about the MSM of which I assume Bloomberg news is a part, you don’t trust or believe them anyway.
To deny that there are racist overtones in Trump’s platform would be to ignore the fact that he has been heralded by white supremists ranging from David Duke (former KKK Grand Wizard), to Michael Spencer (who coined the expression alt-right), to **** leader Rocky Suhayda, to the KKK itself. His rhetoric has been nothing but inflammatory all throughout the campaign. In the end we have the Governor of NY, establishing a hot line for reporting racist incidents that have climbed significantly over the last couple of weeks. The town just to the south of me, Danbury, CT has seen a flurry of swaztikas and hateful comments spray painted on homes, buildings, automobiles and in playgrounds. It’s despicable. And to say that Trump’s rhetoric isn’t to blame is ridiculous.
He was elected because he is a bomb thrower. People on the fringes, now feel they’ve received an invitation from the President Elect to turn back all of the progress towards equality we’ve seen over the last 50 years.
But let’s get back too the other things you say Trump is referring to when he states he wants to make America great again. Besides manufacturing you mention jobs. I guess you choose not to believe that unemployment has been consistently dropping and that wages have actually been rising. I know plenty of people who voted for Trump believe that unemployment is at 40% but this is part of the problem with these voters and I think Gore Vidal said it best when he said ‘you can have your own opinions but you can’t have your own facts.”
It’s kind of like how Trump kept saying the election was rigged. The irony is that in the end, he won the election in the Electoral College but lost the popular vote by over 1,500,000 votes! That’s a fact and the number keeps growing as more contested ballots and absentee ballots in California, Oregon and Washington are counted.
Now, if you’d like to get into it over rigging, the fact that the Electoral College, a process developed to help the southern states maintain equal or greater power over the more populous northern states by counting all slaves as 3/5ths a person thus giving extra Electors to states like Virginia (isn’t it a bit surprising that four of the first five presidents were all Virginians???) is a classic example of rigging.
Back to the notion that Trump will make the military great again. At what point do we stop and really think about how much money we spend on our military. Right now (the latest numbers are from 2014), we spend more money on our military than Russia, China, Saudi Arabia, France, the UK, India and Germany. It’s scary to think but if you took every cent spent on the military IN THE WORLD, you’d find 34% was spent by the US. (http://books.sipri.org/files/FS/SIPRIFS1504.pdf)
That’s crazy. And, what, Trump is going to increase that percentage. Come on. At what point have we had enough.
One last thing before I sign off for now. You say picking groups who did not benefit at any particular time would prevent use of the word great. YES, THAT’S VERY TRUE. If you claim to be a land of freedom it better well be for everyone. We’re nothing more than the red, white and bull*** if we actually think things are good in this country when millions are being discriminated against and treated as second class citizens. It’s a shame but for some reason we fail to see that we have more in common and our hopes and dreams are more alike regardless of our ethnic background or the color of our skin. That white coal miner in eastern KY has more in common with the green card carrying Latino in California picking strawberries than he’d like to believe. But with the type of rhetoric spewed by Trump that sense commonality isn’t embraced. Instead you get white nationalists flocking to his side pledging their support.
Something is very wrong.
#29
11-21-2016, 05:01 PM
TReK
Charlie, you said:
"pushing a very liberal agenda most of the time--is, I believe, a reason that Trump did so well."
I mentioned this in a prior post but this notion that Trump did well or that he represents the majority of Americans is just plain wrong.
Yes, he won the Electoral College, is the President Elect and will be sworn into the office in January. But, to delude yourself with the notion that he represents a majority simply flies in the face of the fact that currently, the popular vote shows HRC with a lead of over 1,500,000 votes.
Hillary Clinton's Popular Vote Lead Over Donald Trump Now Exceeds 1.5 Million Votes - ABC News
Like I said in a prior post, I make no claim that she should be the one to be sworn in to the office of President in January. Trump won. But, I can't help but feel there's a certain amount of irony in all of this. Trump won by virtue of a system, the Electoral College, he categorized as a disaster back in 2012.
Donald Trump Described the Electoral College as a 'Disaster' in 2012 : snopes.com
"pushing a very liberal agenda most of the time--is, I believe, a reason that Trump did so well."
I mentioned this in a prior post but this notion that Trump did well or that he represents the majority of Americans is just plain wrong.
Yes, he won the Electoral College, is the President Elect and will be sworn into the office in January. But, to delude yourself with the notion that he represents a majority simply flies in the face of the fact that currently, the popular vote shows HRC with a lead of over 1,500,000 votes.
Hillary Clinton's Popular Vote Lead Over Donald Trump Now Exceeds 1.5 Million Votes - ABC News
Like I said in a prior post, I make no claim that she should be the one to be sworn in to the office of President in January. Trump won. But, I can't help but feel there's a certain amount of irony in all of this. Trump won by virtue of a system, the Electoral College, he categorized as a disaster back in 2012.
Donald Trump Described the Electoral College as a 'Disaster' in 2012 : snopes.com
#30
11-21-2016, 06:05 PM
TReK
Charlie, a response to your thoughts on Trump and why he was elected.
1. Reject the Clinton political "dynasty" and HRC in particular. They would be for just about anyone else, including Bernie Sanders (a socialist--that's not a good word in the USA, by the way).
You are aware she got over 1..5 million more votes that Trump.
2. Reject the media, generally, and in specific instances where their fake astonishment and offense was more obvious than usual, and be for whomever the media is not being fair to (for the little guy).
And believe in fake news or conspiracy theories without the slightest need for facts or proof.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/natio...fcd_story.html
3. Reject career politicians and the two parties, and be for anyone who promises to make a difference in the current situation.
Rather dangerous, I’d say. Every hear of a guy named Hitler. You might want to do a little research on how he slithered into power.
4. Be for the coal industry.
The coal industry wasn’t killed off by Obama, it was killed of by economics. Natural gas is just too cheap an alternative and the more we spend on natural gas production the deeper we bury the coal industry. Right now, the only growth for coal is in exports to South America. Overall, exporting is still down. It’s a dying industry with no chance of a significant comeback and any claim otherwise is just pandering.
5. Be for destroying ISIS and related entities without artificial constraints.
Planning on enlisting or do you just want to send your neighbors kid off to the Middle East to become another target for and IED. Hey, maybe we should just Nuke them and turn the whole region into glass. Yeah, let’s bomb the hell out of them because we saw how well that worked in Vietnam. Didn’t we drop more ordinance on that country (7 million tons) than had been dropped used at anytime in the history of the world?
We need a smarter plan, not just more bombing. Trump: “I would bomb the **** out of ISIS”
6. Be for curbing federal spending and taming the economy and the federal reserve.
Are you aware that the Federal Budget has shrunk consistently over the last six years?
https://www.whitehouse.gov/blog/2015...e-fourths-2009
He’s also shrunk the size of the Federal workforce over his eight years in office.
Barack Obama has shrunk the US federal workforce more than Ronald Reagan ? Quartz
Please explain what you mean by taming the federal reserve?
7. Take over the Supreme Court--and thereby change the social landscape to return to conservative values for a very, very long time. I can tell you that the people who I know who considered the election to be a literal "do or die" situation were focused almost exclusively on the Supreme Court.
I know plenty of people on the left who felt the same way. After Roberts and Alito the court took a decidedly conservative tilt, frankly, someone like Merrick Garland would have been the ideal ninth juror, highly regarded by both sides of the aisle. Unfortunately, McConnell decided to abuse the roll of the Senate in offering “advice and consent” for a nominee. There was absolutely no historical precedence for denying Garland a fair hearing.
I am frightened by a strong conservative tilt in the court. I am concerned about what it will mean for the rights of minorities, women, the environment and a long list of other concerns.
Have known two families who lost loved ones at Sandy Hook, I feel deep concern for the direction of gun ownership in this country. I own a gun but I can’t quite get my hands around the notion that as a country there are more legally owned guns out there than there are people. Never mind all the illegally owned guns. I also can’t get over the fact that fewer people own guns today but the number of guns sold every year keeps going up. WTF????
8. Be for altering or ending disavantageous trade deals that hurt American jobs. Shortly after Trump was elected, Ford Motor Company rescinded its plans to send the nulk of its manufacturing to Mexico.
You know that your statement is false. Ford was always intending on replacing the Mercury with the Ford Escape. There was no intention of closing the factory other than perhaps for retooling. That’s just another Trumpian falsehood.
Ford tells Trump no Lincoln SUV production going to Mexico | Reuters
9. Be for controlling immigration by enforcing the law.
Are you aware that more illegal immigrants were deported under the current administration that at any other time?
Obama Has Deported More People Than Any Other President - ABC News
10. Be for a closer look at "climate change."
Here’s another one of those, “you can have your own opinion but you can’t have your own facts” situations. Trump has clearly stated that climate change is a hoax perpetrated by the Chinese. Come on.
11. Be for the Second Amendment (right to keep and bear arms).
I don’t know anyone who wants to or thinks that the 2nd amendment will be repealed. More guns were sold under the Obama administration than any other President. But, curiously, to fewer people. Hmmm. I get concerned about people stockpiling arms.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/...a-30-year-low/
12. Be for "right to life" and defunding planned parenthood.
I bet you believe that James O’Keefe video that purported to show Planned Parenthood officials attempting to sell fetal tissue and the other on abortion. I hope you’re aware of the serious credibility gap in O’Keefe’s work. This from a Fox News Co-host:
Fox Host Calls Out James O'Keefe And His Track Record Of Misleading Supporters On Issues Like Abortion
Planned Parenthood provides a lot more in the way of services to women, especially women who would otherwise be unable to afford things like prenatal services, adoption referrals, testing for STD’s, pap tests, breast exams and contraception. Factcheck.org showed, in an article written back in 2015 that abortions account for about 3% of all services provided by Planned Parenthood.
Why would anyone want to defund an organization that helps to provide millions of women with valuable services they would be unable to get otherwise?
1. Reject the Clinton political "dynasty" and HRC in particular. They would be for just about anyone else, including Bernie Sanders (a socialist--that's not a good word in the USA, by the way).
You are aware she got over 1..5 million more votes that Trump.
2. Reject the media, generally, and in specific instances where their fake astonishment and offense was more obvious than usual, and be for whomever the media is not being fair to (for the little guy).
And believe in fake news or conspiracy theories without the slightest need for facts or proof.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/natio...fcd_story.html
3. Reject career politicians and the two parties, and be for anyone who promises to make a difference in the current situation.
Rather dangerous, I’d say. Every hear of a guy named Hitler. You might want to do a little research on how he slithered into power.
4. Be for the coal industry.
The coal industry wasn’t killed off by Obama, it was killed of by economics. Natural gas is just too cheap an alternative and the more we spend on natural gas production the deeper we bury the coal industry. Right now, the only growth for coal is in exports to South America. Overall, exporting is still down. It’s a dying industry with no chance of a significant comeback and any claim otherwise is just pandering.
5. Be for destroying ISIS and related entities without artificial constraints.
Planning on enlisting or do you just want to send your neighbors kid off to the Middle East to become another target for and IED. Hey, maybe we should just Nuke them and turn the whole region into glass. Yeah, let’s bomb the hell out of them because we saw how well that worked in Vietnam. Didn’t we drop more ordinance on that country (7 million tons) than had been dropped used at anytime in the history of the world?
We need a smarter plan, not just more bombing. Trump: “I would bomb the **** out of ISIS”
6. Be for curbing federal spending and taming the economy and the federal reserve.
Are you aware that the Federal Budget has shrunk consistently over the last six years?
https://www.whitehouse.gov/blog/2015...e-fourths-2009
He’s also shrunk the size of the Federal workforce over his eight years in office.
Barack Obama has shrunk the US federal workforce more than Ronald Reagan ? Quartz
Please explain what you mean by taming the federal reserve?
7. Take over the Supreme Court--and thereby change the social landscape to return to conservative values for a very, very long time. I can tell you that the people who I know who considered the election to be a literal "do or die" situation were focused almost exclusively on the Supreme Court.
I know plenty of people on the left who felt the same way. After Roberts and Alito the court took a decidedly conservative tilt, frankly, someone like Merrick Garland would have been the ideal ninth juror, highly regarded by both sides of the aisle. Unfortunately, McConnell decided to abuse the roll of the Senate in offering “advice and consent” for a nominee. There was absolutely no historical precedence for denying Garland a fair hearing.
I am frightened by a strong conservative tilt in the court. I am concerned about what it will mean for the rights of minorities, women, the environment and a long list of other concerns.
Have known two families who lost loved ones at Sandy Hook, I feel deep concern for the direction of gun ownership in this country. I own a gun but I can’t quite get my hands around the notion that as a country there are more legally owned guns out there than there are people. Never mind all the illegally owned guns. I also can’t get over the fact that fewer people own guns today but the number of guns sold every year keeps going up. WTF????
8. Be for altering or ending disavantageous trade deals that hurt American jobs. Shortly after Trump was elected, Ford Motor Company rescinded its plans to send the nulk of its manufacturing to Mexico.
You know that your statement is false. Ford was always intending on replacing the Mercury with the Ford Escape. There was no intention of closing the factory other than perhaps for retooling. That’s just another Trumpian falsehood.
Ford tells Trump no Lincoln SUV production going to Mexico | Reuters
9. Be for controlling immigration by enforcing the law.
Are you aware that more illegal immigrants were deported under the current administration that at any other time?
Obama Has Deported More People Than Any Other President - ABC News
10. Be for a closer look at "climate change."
Here’s another one of those, “you can have your own opinion but you can’t have your own facts” situations. Trump has clearly stated that climate change is a hoax perpetrated by the Chinese. Come on.
11. Be for the Second Amendment (right to keep and bear arms).
I don’t know anyone who wants to or thinks that the 2nd amendment will be repealed. More guns were sold under the Obama administration than any other President. But, curiously, to fewer people. Hmmm. I get concerned about people stockpiling arms.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/...a-30-year-low/
12. Be for "right to life" and defunding planned parenthood.
I bet you believe that James O’Keefe video that purported to show Planned Parenthood officials attempting to sell fetal tissue and the other on abortion. I hope you’re aware of the serious credibility gap in O’Keefe’s work. This from a Fox News Co-host:
Fox Host Calls Out James O'Keefe And His Track Record Of Misleading Supporters On Issues Like Abortion
Planned Parenthood provides a lot more in the way of services to women, especially women who would otherwise be unable to afford things like prenatal services, adoption referrals, testing for STD’s, pap tests, breast exams and contraception. Factcheck.org showed, in an article written back in 2015 that abortions account for about 3% of all services provided by Planned Parenthood.
Why would anyone want to defund an organization that helps to provide millions of women with valuable services they would be unable to get otherwise?