America - The Official Thread

[ryzno]

I think there's still a distinct possibility that Trump will collapse the GOP & lead to it splintering into different factions.

Last time I checked it seems the Democratic party is the one actually falling apart. Keep dreaming...

Off base, no point in arguing with an unfounded, stereotyping opinion. How many actual conservatives do you think Biggles really knows. Wait, don't answer that, pointless. The fact remains that Democrats are the party of slavery. They started the Klan, they wrote Jim crow laws in the 1880's that lasted through the 1960's. Southern Democrats fought against the Civil rights act in the 1964 while Northern Democrats supported it. Did you know that more Republicans voted in support for the Bill than Democrats? Same thing with the Voter Rights Acts of 1965. And then there is Margaret Sanger, another Democrat and founder of planned parenthood (and hero to Hillary), Sanger’s Negro Project had a main goal of reducing the black population, yeah, that doesn't sound racist at all.

https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-39371715p

There are many more examples of blatantly racists Progressive Democrats. Did you know FDR called Mussolini an "admirable Gentleman"? He even sent members overseas to study fascists programs because he felt the New Deal wasn't advanced enough. Even JFK praised Hitler at one point, called him the "stuff of Legends" in his diary. he also thought the anger against Hitler would eventually die down and that he would be considered a great leader in the end. If any dissenters want to fact check everything I just said, go for it because it's all true. The fact of the matter is there are racists in both parties, not just one, but the irony is that historically speaking, the Democrats have been far worse.

Don't waste your finger tips, they'll say the parties have changed stance/views since then.
And don't forget Hillary calling a KKK Dragon her mentor!

 

[DDastardly00]

Last time I checked it seems the Democratic party is the one actually falling apart. Keep dreaming...

Don't waste your finger tips, they'll say the parties have changed stance/views since then.
And don't forget Hillary calling a KKK Dragon her mentor!

Hillary Clinton calling African Americans "super Predators" would seem to indicate otherwise. But, I know.... I know.

 

[TexRex]

Off base, no point in arguing with an unfounded, stereotyping opinion. How many actual conservatives do you think Biggles really knows. Wait, don't answer that, pointless. The fact remains that Democrats are the party of slavery. They started the Klan, they wrote Jim crow laws in the 1880's that lasted through the 1960's. Southern Democrats fought against the Civil rights act in the 1964 while Northern Democrats supported it. Did you know that more Republicans voted in support for the Bill than Democrats? Same thing with the Voter Rights Acts of 1965. And then there is Margaret Sanger, another Democrat and founder of planned parenthood (and hero to Hillary), Sanger’s Negro Project had a main goal of reducing the black population, yeah, that doesn't sound racist at all.

There are many more examples of blatantly racist Progressive Democrats. Did you know FDR called Mussolini an "admirable Gentleman"? He even sent members overseas to study fascists programs because he felt the New Deal wasn't advanced enough (will someone please tell that fact to the Antifa?). Even JFK praised Hitler at one point, called him the "stuff of Legends" in his diary. he also thought the anger against Hitler would eventually die down and that he would be considered a great leader in the end. If any dissenters want to fact check everything I just said, go for it because it's all true. The fact of the matter is there are racists in both parties, not just one, but the irony is that historically speaking, the Democrats have been far worse.

Gee, what happened to "I'm tired of Trump talk so let's post pictures of America's natural beauty"?

Last time I checked it seems the Democratic party is the one actually falling apart.

Checked what? I imagine that's probably a significant portion of the narrative that you've accepted, seemingly without endeavoring a modicum of critical thought.

Don't waste your finger tips

Now hang on...

I cited something you said without directly referring to you and you jumped down my throat, telling me to "be a man" and tag you.

Now someone has referred to someone else directly, to the point of citing their username, and you appear to be okay with it. What gives?

And don't forget Hillary calling a KKK Dragon her mentor!

Peculiar you have no difficulty remembering that but somehow failed to grasp this. I suggest you get more sleep to aid conversion of short term memories into long term.

Or perhaps that too is a significant part of the aforementioned narrative and you've simply been informed of it again recently.

 

[Johnnypenso]

1. I began by comparing two things that, in principle are similar.
2. I then explained one of those things.
3. I then asked you a question.
It isnt a riddle. If you think me, literally linking a definition, is me agreeing with president Trump, then I’m not sure how to proceed.

You claim I hold a contradictory stance, yet fail to understand what free and fair trade is. It’s difficult to have a conversation with someone who has zero grasp of the topic being discussed.

1. No, they aren't the same, in principle or any other way. You equated free and fair trade with anarchy.
2. You provided a link with several thousands words and 75 references when I asked you what your opinion was on free and fair trade. Unless you wrote that Wikipedia article, that's not your opinion, it's a generic definition of trade.
3. Asked a question after answering none of mine.
I suggested you agree with Trump because Trump is imposing tariffs and the only part of the article you quoted talks about tariffs. Naturally I thought you were agreeing that tariffs were good. So I asked more questions, none of which were answered, and you responded with questions.

Wich businesses would go out of business? Most domestic industies the US have been having trouble in recent decades. The automotiveindustry, the Luxury market, farmers (food industry), energy etc. That is what I see in first glance at the trade deficit. But I could somebody with more indepth knowledge tell me what the US greatest exports to the EU are? And which are hindered by tariffs?

And by the way, looking for free trade without tariffs and regulations will also mean the same for asia. That would mean the end of the majority manufacturing job in the US (and EU)

America does have a lead in the tech industry... but that isnt a tradeable commodity.

I don't see the "why" there. The U.S. has some of the lowest mean weight mean applied tariffs in the world. China's numbers are far higher, more than twice as high. True free and fair trade would mean Chinese tariffs and trade barriers becoming significantly lower and it would open up it's markets to the world and the U.S. How can that be bad for the U.S.?

 

[ryzno]

Now someone has referred to someone else directly, to the point of citing their username, and you appear to be okay with it. What gives?

What? I don't recall mocking someone or using their post as the butt of a joke...

 

[TexRex]

What? I don't recall mocking someone or using their post as the butt of a joke...

Ah. So that makes all the difference...I guess.

 

[ryzno]

Ah. So that makes all the difference...I guess.

What are you trying to say? I'm lost. YOU mocked ME in your post, what does that have to do with this? Or are you trying to find ANYTHING to pick at except my point as always?
He brought up the fact the Democratic party supported the "old South"(keeping it simple). I've been told numerous times by numerous members here, the party has changed. I was just trying to save him the argument(debate), his examples are verifiable, as is mine.

 

[TexRex]

What are you trying to say?

I didn't quote or tag you at one point and that somehow made me not a man because you interpreted it as me talking to or about you, but now that someone who seems to subscribe to the same narrative as you is clearly talking about someone else who has an opposing view without tagging them, and you seem to be okay with it. But, as I said, apparently that this wasn't an instance involving mockery (I mean...it sure looks like mockery to me) makes all the difference.

It strikes me as hypocritical. Sort of like you-know-who (uh oh, I didn't quote or tag him) accusing those he opposes of whiteknighting for others but ignoring it when views that conform to his own, or even are his own, are being defended.

 

[ryzno]

I didn't quote or tag you at one point and that somehow made me not a man because you interpreted it as me talking to or about you, but now that someone who seems to subscribe to the same narrative as you is clearly talking about someone else who has an opposing view without tagging them, and you seem to be okay with it. But, as I said, apparently that this wasn't an instance involving mockery (I mean...it sure looks like mockery to me) makes all the difference.

It strikes me as hypocritical. Sort of like you-know-who (uh oh, I didn't quote or tag him) accusing those he opposes of whiteknighting for others but ignoring it when views that conform to his own, or even are his own, are being defended.

You used my post word for word!
Regardless this has nothing nor is similar to the posts I quoted or responded to.

 

[Biggles]

Off base, no point in arguing with an unfounded, stereotyping opinion. How many actual conservatives do you think Biggles really knows. Wait, don't answer that, pointless. The fact remains that Democrats are the party of slavery. They started the Klan, they wrote Jim crow laws in the 1880's that lasted through the 1960's. Southern Democrats fought against the Civil rights act in the 1964 while Northern Democrats supported it. Did you know that more Republicans voted in support for the Bill than Democrats? Same thing with the Voter Rights Acts of 1965. And then there is Margaret Sanger, another Democrat and founder of planned parenthood (and hero to Hillary), Sanger’s Negro Project had a main goal of reducing the black population, yeah, that doesn't sound racist at all.

There are many more examples of blatantly racist Progressive Democrats. Did you know FDR called Mussolini an "admirable Gentleman"? He even sent members overseas to study fascists programs because he felt the New Deal wasn't advanced enough (will someone please tell that fact to the Antifa?). Even JFK praised Hitler at one point, called him the "stuff of Legends" in his diary. he also thought the anger against Hitler would eventually die down and that he would be considered a great leader in the end. If any dissenters want to fact check everything I just said, go for it because it's all true. The fact of the matter is there are racists in both parties, not just one, but the irony is that historically speaking, the Democrats have been far worse.

Okey dokey. Actual conservatives? I guess it depends what you consider "actual conservatives". I am by no means lumping all conservatives into the "deplorables" category. The positive virtues of conservatism would be things like self-reliance, fiscal responsibility, personal generosity, personal integrity, public spiritedness, adherence to well-founded social values like marital fidelity & honesty ... & so forth. There are lots of conservatives (even some in politics) who follow these precepts. Unfortunately, Donald Trump isn't one of them. In fact, he is an appalling role model for ALL the virtues I listed. Instead he exemplifies a host of vices: greed, vanity, selfishness, lack of public spiritedness, dishonesty, marital infidelity etc.

Your anti-Democrat thing reads like parroted talking points of the Right. They mean nothing to me, because as a Canadian I don't have any allegiance to the Democrat party at all & I have no problem agreeing that Democrats have historically done all kinds of reprehensible things. This has zero relevance to the present day & your examples are almost completely meaningless taken out of their historical context.

The larger point is that people voted for Trump for all sorts of reasons. Given the structure of the American political system they really only had a choice (with apologies to Danoff) between two options. By the time Trump became the GOP nominee, the damage was done. Many respectable, principled conservatives were stuck in a difficult position. I fully appreciate that. However, continuing to support Trump now is just nuts.

The US desperately needs a third - & preferably fourth & fifth parties - that represent more nuanced & genuine political beliefs & a Congress that doesn't feel obliged to slavishly follow the party line, whether Democrat or Republican. Perhaps the splintering of the Republican party AND the Democratic party would help achieve that.

 

[DDastardly00]

I’d happily go back to discussing beautiful locations, for the record, but that is not what people were choosing to discuss today. If people want to believe that one party’s is overtly racist while ignoring the other party very checkered past, then fine, but that makes you a hypocrite in my book.

 

[TexRex]

You used my post word for word!

I know, right? Punctuation for punctuation as well. It wouldn't have been as funny if I'd cut anything out.

Finding something funny isn't mockery in and of itself, and while I suppose I could have pinpointed certain aspects of it that may have been deemed worthy of mockery, I didn't. Perhaps the most humorous part of it was the nature of the outburst itself rather than any part therein. Who said it wasn't terribly necessary either, other than the fact that it came from a Trump supporter, but that fact was fairly obvious by the comment itself:

"Told y'all they had it in for Trump...
One reason why I don't be studying y'all..."

Frankly, having quoted or tagged you could have been enough to move it into the realm of mockery if it hadn't otherwise been considered such. I will say, though, that that rationale didn't actually enter my mind at the time because I wasn't trying to pass my comment off as anything other than what I did.

But for argument's sake, let's say that I was talking about you directly and indeed even stated your username to reinforce that fact. If not quoting or tagging you makes me any less of a man, why does it not when someone else neglects doing so in similar circumstances?

Since that's the crux of my earlier solicitation and I'd really like an answer, I'll repeat the question in simpler terms:

When two individuals fail to quote or tag another individual to whom they are referring, why would one be made less of a man and the other not?

 

[DDastardly00]

Okey dokey. Actual conservatives? I guess it depends what you consider "actual conservatives". I am by no means lumping all conservatives into the "deplorables" category. The positive virtues of conservatism would be things like self-reliance, fiscal responsibility, personal generosity, personal integrity, public spiritedness, adherence to well-founded social values like marital fidelity & honesty ... & so forth. There are lots of conservatives (even some in politics) who follow these precepts. Unfortunately, Donald Trump isn't one of them. In fact, he is an appalling role model for ALL the virtues I listed. Instead he exemplifies a host of vices: greed, vanity, selfishness, lack of public spiritedness, dishonesty, marital infidelity etc.

Your anti-Democrat thing reads like parroted talking points of the Right. They mean nothing to me, because as a Canadian I don't have any allegiance to the Democrat party at all & I have no problem agreeing that Democrats have historically done all kinds of reprehensible things. This has zero relevance to the present day & your examples are almost completely meaningless taken out of their historical context.

The larger point is that people voted for Trump for all sorts of reasons. Given the structure of the American political system they really only had a choice (with apologies to Danoff) between two options. By the time Trump became the GOP nominee, the damage was done. Many respectable, principled conservatives were stuck in a difficult position. I fully appreciate that. However, continuing to support Trump now is just nuts.

The US desperately needs a third - & preferably fourth & fifth parties - that represent more nuanced & genuine political beliefs & a Congress that doesn't feel obliged to slavishly follow the party line, whether Democrat or Republican. Perhaps the splintering of the Republican party AND the Democratic party would help achieve that.

If you say so, your post sure didn’t read that way..

Paragraph 2 is your opinion nothing more. History doesn’t stop being relevant either, given the times we are in, I think we could all use a reminder. The last sentence in particular is a complete joke, I’ll get back to that when I have more time.

The last paragraph I somewhat agree with, but we need more accountability in politics and far less lobbyists way more than we need another prominent party.

 

[Johnnypenso]

I don't think it's complacency. A significant part Trump's base demographic isn't freedom loving, limited government, human rights advocates - they're "America First", nationalist, pro-gun (certainly), xenophobic, racisty, anti-free trade, economically insecure & under-educated. Additionally, there seems to be a strain of anti-neo con isolationism combined weirdly with a traditional Republican militaristic, aggressive foreign policy stance.

Trump has, somehow, managed to co-opt a big chunk of the mainstream Republican party, but I can't imagine he's impressing many in the libertarian wing of the Republican party, let alone actual libertarians (other than the schizophrenic Dotini). I think there's still a distinct possibility that Trump will collapse the GOP & lead to it splintering into different factions.

Support for increased immigration has never been higher among Republicans or Americans in general. Ever.
Only 9% of Americans oppose a bi-lateral free trade agreement between the U.K. and U.S.A.

Frankly your post looks full of the kind of lazy generalizations that are usually associated with the very people you despise, aren't worth investigating, and can't be proven either way anyway in some cases.

 

[baldgye]

1. No, they aren't the same, in principle or any other way. You equated free and fair trade with anarchy.

...all-most-there! Just keeep pushing! Push-PUSH!

 

[Johnnypenso]

Trump, EU agree to work on lowering tariffs, averting a potential trade war

President Donald Trump on Wednesday said the United States and the European Union had launched a "new phase" in their relationship, saying that the two major economies would start negotiations immediately on a number of areas that include working toward "zero tariffs" on industrial goods, and further cooperation on energy issues.

"We agreed today, first of all, to work together towards zero tariffs, zero non-tariff barriers and zero subsidies for the non-auto industrial goods," Trump said at a joint press conference in the White House Rose Garden with European Commission President Jean-Claude Juncker.

North Korea to transfer remains of U.S. soldiers from Korean War on Friday, South Korean media reports

North Korea will transfer the remains of an unspecified number of soldiers killed in the Korean War on Friday, South Korea’s Yonhap news agency reported, after accepting about 100 wooden caskets sent by the United States. The repatriation of remains of U.S. soldiers killed in the 1950-53 Korean War was one of the agreements reached during a landmark summit between U.S. President Donald Trump and North Korean leader Kim Jong-un in Singapore on June 12. U.S. Forces Korea said later last month they had moved 100 wooden temporary transit cases into the demilitarised zone separating the two Koreas to receive and transport the remains. Yonhap, citing an unidentified diplomatic source, said on Thursday North Korea had accepted the caskets, which were carried in two trucks, and was expected to transfer the remains on Friday.

Looks like freer/fairer trade negotiations with Europe are proceeding as planned, NK appears to be dismantling nuclear facilities and the remains of soldiers held by NK for more than a half century are about to be returned. All in a week's work for the POTUS.

 

[Biggles]

If you say so, your post sure didn’t read that way..

A significant part Trump's base demographic isn't freedom loving, limited government, human rights advocates - they're "America First", nationalist, pro-gun (certainly), xenophobic, racisty, anti-free trade, economically insecure & under-educated. Additionally, there seems to be a strain of anti-neo con isolationism combined weirdly with a traditional Republican militaristic, aggressive foreign policy stance.

Just to make it clear: I' m not saying that conservatives in general are like this, I'm not saying that people who voted for Trump in general are like this, I'm saying that a significant part of Trumps hardcore base of support comes from people like this. Principled conservatives were faced with an impossible situation in the last GE: vote for Trump, or vote for Hillary Clinton. The damage was done in the GOP primaries where Trump came to the forefront due to the determined support of the above-mentioned people.

 

[Dotini]

The damage was done in the GOP primaries where Trump came to the forefront due to the determined support of the above-mentioned people.

This sounds like a good argument to ****-can democracy and voting and simply have a government of elite, wise, benevolent despots. Perhaps an hereditary King from the Bush/Romney line would do well?

 

[Danoff]

King from the Bush/Romney line

I didn't know they had a kid. Mazel tov to them!

 

[PocketZeven]

I don't see the "why" there. The U.S. has some of the lowest mean weight mean applied tariffs in the world. China's numbers are far higher, more than twice as high. True free and fair trade would mean Chinese tariffs and trade barriers becoming significantly lower and it would open up it's markets to the world and the U.S. How can that be bad for the U.S.?

China's market is already open to the world. I can only see more benefits for china with less tariffs and barriers. Industrially they are stronger then the US. Most trump tariffs where put on for example on aircraft parts, batteries, flat-panel televisions, medical devices, satellites, and various weapons. (wikipedia)

Wasnt the whole goal of the trade war with china to promote US manufacturing and stop outsourcing to China? Or am I wrong? Removing barriers and tariffs will only move more jobs to China. The only way to save these jobs and give the domestic economy a boost is to negotiate tariffs so that domestic manufacturers can compete fairly with China.

Trump, EU agree to work on lowering tariffs, averting a potential trade war


North Korea to transfer remains of U.S. soldiers from Korean War on Friday, South Korean media reports

Looks like freer/fairer trade negotiations with Europe are proceeding as planned, NK appears to be dismantling nuclear facilities and the remains of soldiers held by NK for more than a half century are about to be returned. All in a week's work for the POTUS.

You do understand the EU have the upper hand in these negotiations? Trump had to bailout US farmers 12 billion which would have never been neccesary if he didnt start his trade war. This 12 billion could have gone to education and healthcare. I think most republicans dislike the idea of bailing out anyone. It is more of a democrat/ socialist (almost communist) thing to do. I hardly think the republican party is going to be happy. And I really wonder where that money comes from and what it will do to the US deficit.

But do you personally really think Trump is the right man for the job and support all the decisions he makes? Or are you able to be critical?

As for N-Korea thats great... but still no signed agreement or anything concrete on denuclearisation. Sadly the majority direct relatives of those soldiers arent there anymore. Hopefully their grandchildren can have peace in their mind for their grandfathers to be buried on homesoil.

edit: added response to earlier quote

 

[Biggles]

This sounds like a good argument to ****-can democracy and voting and simply have a government of elite, wise, benevolent despots. Perhaps an hereditary King from the Bush/Romney line would do well?

Hereditary leaders? Great idea! So many fantastic role models from the past! Even better: have them inter-marry for a few generations!

 

[baldgye]

Trump, EU agree to work on lowering tariffs, averting a potential trade war


North Korea to transfer remains of U.S. soldiers from Korean War on Friday, South Korean media reports

Looks like freer/fairer trade negotiations with Europe are proceeding as planned, NK appears to be dismantling nuclear facilities and the remains of soldiers held by NK for more than a half century are about to be returned. All in a week's work for the POTUS.

I can't tell if you're being deliberately misleading or not.

 

[PocketZeven]

I can't tell if you're being deliberately misleading or not.

Its an example how news can be spinned. At least , at first glance, there isnt any blatant lie in both your links. Trumps lies in his tweets are just easily debunked or factcheckable.

 

[Eunos_Cosmo]

Perspective: Mark Zuckerberg lost more money this morning than I could earn at my (respectably upper middle class) salary in 160,000 years.

 

[DDastardly00]

Just to make it clear: I' m not saying that conservatives in general are like this, I'm not saying that people who voted for Trump in general are like this, I'm saying that a significant part of Trumps hardcore base of support comes from people like this. Principled conservatives were faced with an impossible situation in the last GE: vote for Trump, or vote for Hillary Clinton. The damage was done in the GOP primaries where Trump came to the forefront due to the determined support of the above-mentioned people.

Thank you for the clarification, I appreciate that. You had me worried for a minute there. Though I'm not a conservative (I'm a fiscally conservative, socially liberal, green-thumbed tree-hugger, slightly-libertarian-leaning Independent that used to call myself a Democrat ), count me in the group that found the situation too impossible to vote for either, I know people here like to hate on others choosing to vote 3rd party, calling it a wasted vote (which is probably true), but I wasn't going to swallow the Blue pill anymore. I simply couldn't stomach a vote for either. Out the Republicans in the primary, I felt the best, most qualified candidate was probably John Kasich. Other than that, I really liked Gary Johnson's resume and he had a good record as Gov for New Mexico. If I seem angry and bitter at Democrat party then it's probably because I feel alienated by the progressives trying to take over the party, and being small government fiscal conservative and former Democrat, I do not exactly align well with progressive ideology...

 

[Johnnypenso]

I can't tell if you're being deliberately misleading or not.

You mean deliberately misleading by copying and pasting the actual headline word for word and then embedding a link inside of it to the article? Being deliberately misleading is a serious offense around here. I would like to see what evidence you have for that.

 

[PocketZeven]

You mean deliberately misleading by copying and pasting the actual headline word for word and then embedding a link inside of it to the article? Being deliberately misleading is a serious offense around here. I would like to see what evidence you have for that.

Ithink he meant there is absolutely no evidence of denuclearisation and no evidence the US is going to negotiate zero tariffs with EU out of an advantage position, because Trump is doing a "good job".

 

[baldgye]

Being deliberately misleading is a serious offense around here.

Is that so...

 

[Johnnypenso]

Ithink he meant there is absolutely no evidence of denuclearisation and no evidence the US is going to negotiate zero tariffs with EU out of an advantage position, because Trump is doing a "good job".

I posted links from mainstream reputable sources. Anyone can click the links and get the full story. Earlier I posted a link to the denuclearization story with links. How is that deliberately misleading.

Is that so...

It is. So do you have some evidence or no?

 

[baldgye]

It is. So do you have some evidence or no?

Two things;
1. You might find this useful
2. If I had a grievance with you breaking the rules I'd present my evidence to a moderator or admin.