America - The Official Thread

  • Thread starter ///M-Spec
  • 39,920 comments
  • 1,803,920 views
http://nymag.com/intelligencer/2019/11/trump-why-wasnt-suffrage-centennial-observed-years-ago.html

New York Magazine
Yesterday, President Trump signed the Women’s Suffrage Centennial Commemorative Coin Act. The effect of this law is self-explanatory — it creates a coin to commemorate the 100th anniversary of the 19th Amendment, ratifying women’s suffrage. Or, at least, it is self-explanatory to everybody except Donald Trump, who was mystified as to why the 100th anniversary was not recognized earlier.

After working his way through the prepared remarks, Trump interjected with his own riff. “They’ve been working on this for years and years,” he said, suddenly wondering, “And I’m curious, why wasn’t it done a long time ago, and also — well, I guess the answer to that is because now I’m president, and we get things done. We get a lot of things done that nobody else got done.”
Click to expand...

Jesus Christ, this man is an idiot.
 
I mean, technically he's not wrong, it really could have been ratified at any point leading up to the 100th anniversary.
Of course, signing the bill the year before hand isnt exactly a "look at us doing things others havent" moment either since he also could have gotten it done last year or in 2017 when NY did theirs. All in all, just some low hanging fruit Trump can toot his horn about. And boy, I really havent met someone more into tooting their own horn.
 
Bringing this over to America.

@ryzno


Biggles
One of the constants on the Fox News website is articles pointing out how "progressive" California is in desperate straits, with people fleeing in the tens of thousands due to gang bangers, M13, homeless people ... & some of the highest real estate prices in the country. There doesn't seem to be any appreciation of the simple, "Economics 101" reality that high real estate prices are a clear indication that people WANT to live there.

Rynzo: the US national debt is close to 23 trillion, so even if California's debt is still 1.3 trillion, it would be proportionately less than the national debt. FWIW: the 10 poorest states in the US are all Red states in the South East, with the exception of New Mexico. Georgia, is the 9th poorest state, but is gradually moving up ... at the same time that it is gradually becoming a "purple state".
Click to expand...

I really wish I could imagine what San Francisco must look like in the imagination of Fox News watchers who have never been here and are not interested in actually knowing what this place is like. As a half-time resident, I have a lot to complain about, don't get me wrong. The public-sector unions have wedged themselves into city hall good and tight. The homeless issue is not getting better. Some parts of the city are pretty....unappealing. The city has already lost a lot of its character. But the city is not extremely expensive because of liberal policies (though some of those policies contribute, sure), it's because its a 7 mile by 7 mile city with 900,000+ people where at least half of the land does not easily support tall building construction, where existing property owners fight any development, and where people are exceptionally well paid and really, really want to be here - the median household income is just below $100,000 and San Francisco (again, 49 square miles) has 75 billionaires. For reference, the entire state of Texas has 56. Whatever their political leanings, there's only so much the city leadership can even do to influence what happens in a place with so many competing dynamics.

I would challenge you to name a very large, dense, economically productive city in the US that does not have democratic leadership. This is my opinion I've been contemplating for a while (for reference I've lived nearly the full gamut of urban conditions in the US, from rural Maine, to suburban Texas, to full on city, California, and I've studied urban planning extensively as a student and a professional, I'd like to think my perspective is somewhat informed): it seems like an eventuality, rather than a discreet choice, that as density increases, the more likely it is for the democratic party to hold power - Republican policies tend to favor the individual and personal freedom over cooperation among groups.

That works up until a certain density (rural to suburban) but becomes basically untenable in very dense cities. In rural and suburban areas, it's unlikely that any disputes or agreements would involve more than 2 parties - you don't need a mediating hand (government) to control things. It's hard to care what old Man Gunn is doing on his property when he's a quarter mile away from his nearest neighbor. You can't just set your trash on fire in the yard or go out shooting clay pigeons in the middle of the day (two things I did somewhat frequently in Texas) if you live in a high rise tower in the financial district. You have to, necessarily, limit the freedom of individuals in cities otherwise you risk making life pretty much hell for everyone. The more limits the less applicable the Republican party (as it broadly exists at the moment) becomes. Now you might say, "well screw that, I want my freedoms!". Well that's fine, you've made that choice and you don't live in an urban center. But you can't at the same time criticize people who do make the choice to live in an Urban Center, as they have prioritized the things that affords them: High paying jobs, bustling activity, access to world culture, etc. Urban centers are not largely democratic because they want to be "elite", they are democratic because it just naturally occurs.

American cities face challenges because of the nature of a city in the first place. It's damn hard to put that many people into one place and to have it work with any degree of efficiency and quality of life. It's pretty miraculous that they work at all, considering the vast array of types of people living in them. While it might be a dream to let all the inhabitants of a city enjoy the freedoms they would have in rural areas (aka, to govern in a conservative manner) in practice it doesn't happen. Cities become regulated (democratic) organically. The other thing to consider is that city leadership can only do so much, period. No amount of political leadership (right or left, and god knows that city tried everything) could have saved Detroit from its post industrial fall.
 
Last edited:
Eunos_Cosmo
Bringing this over to America.

@ryzno




I really wish I could imagine what San Francisco must look like in the imagination of Fox News watchers who have never been here and are not interested in actually knowing what this place is like. As a half-time resident, I have a lot to complain about, don't get me wrong. The public-sector unions have wedged themselves into city hall good and tight. The homeless issue is not getting better. Some parts of the city are pretty....unappealing. The city has already lost a lot of its character. But the city is not extremely expensive because of liberal policies (though some of those policies contribute, sure), it's because its a 7 mile by 7 mile city with 900,000+ people where at least half of the land does not easily support tall building construction, where existing property owners fight any development, and where people are exceptionally well paid and really, really want to be here - the median household income is just below $100,000 and San Francisco (again, 49 square miles) has 75 billionaires. For reference, the entire state of Texas has 56. Whatever their political leanings, there's only so much the city leadership can even do to influence what happens in a place with so many competing dynamics.

I would challenge you to name a very large, dense, economically productive city in the US that does not have democratic leadership. This is my opinion I've been contemplating for a while (for reference I've lived nearly the full gamut of urban conditions in the US, from rural Maine, to suburban Texas, to full on city, California, and I've studied urban planning extensively as a student and a professional, I'd like to think my perspective is somewhat informed): it seems like an eventuality, rather than a discreet choice, that as density increases, the more likely it is for the democratic party to hold power - Republican policies tend to favor the individual and personal freedom over cooperation among groups.

That works up until a certain density (rural to suburban) but becomes basically untenable in very dense cities. In rural and suburban areas, it's unlikely that any disputes or agreements would involve more than 2 parties - you don't need a mediating hand (government) to control things. It's hard to care what old Man Gunn is doing on his property when he's a quarter mile away from his nearest neighbor. You can't just set your trash on fire in the or go out shooting clay pigeons in the middle of the day (two things I did somewhat frequently in Texas) if you live in a high rise tower in the financial district. You have to, necessarily, limit the freedom of individuals in cities otherwise you risk making life pretty much hell for everyone. The more limits the less applicable the Republican party (as it broadly exists at the moment) becomes. Now you might say, "well screw that, I want my freedoms!". Well that's fine, you've made that choice and you don't live in an urban center. But you can't at the same time criticize people who do make the choice to live in an Urban Center, as they have prioritized the things that affords them: High paying jobs, bustling activity, access to world culture, etc. Urban centers are not largely democratic because they want to be "elite", they are democratic because it just naturally occurs.

American cities face challenges because of the nature of a city in the first place. It's damn hard to put that many people into one place and to have it work with any degree of efficiency and quality of life. It's pretty miraculous that they work at all, considering the vast array of types of people living in them. While it might be a dream to let all the inhabitants of a city enjoy the freedoms they would have in rural areas (aka, to govern in a conservative manner) in practice it doesn't happen. Cities become regulated (democratic) organically. The other thing to consider is that city leadership can only do so much, period. No amount of political leadership (right or left, and god knows that city tried everything) could have saved Detroit from its post industrial fall.
Click to expand...

Precisely !

It's not reasonable to expect people living in rural, or small town USA to have the same values or expectations that people have living in huge urban centres. Almost EVERY major urban centre in the US is "Democratic". This includes cities as widely situated as San Francisco, New York, Minneapolis/St. Paul, Dallas, Denver, Raleigh, Boston, Atlanta, Seattle, Pittsburgh etc. etc. It also includes cities in decline like Detroit & Cleveland. Republicans like to focus on the cities in decline to make their case that Democratic cities are "failing."
Not co-incidentally, those are usually cities with large African-American populations.

The split in American politics is not Red state/Blue state ... it's urban/rural. The 2020 elections will likely be decided by the suburban areas which are the only significant "swing areas" of the country.
 
Last edited:
Rallywagon
I mean, technically he's not wrong, it really could have been ratified at any point leading up to the 100th anniversary.
Click to expand...

It could, but it would have been nice to have done the 100th anniversary earlier. That way they could probably be on the way to the 80th by now, or the eleventy-seventh, or something like that.
 
Eunos_Cosmo
Bringing this over to America.

@ryzno




I really wish I could imagine what San Francisco must look like in the imagination of Fox News watchers who have never been here and are not interested in actually knowing what this place is like. As a half-time resident, I have a lot to complain about, don't get me wrong. The public-sector unions have wedged themselves into city hall good and tight. The homeless issue is not getting better. Some parts of the city are pretty....unappealing. The city has already lost a lot of its character. But the city is not extremely expensive because of liberal policies (though some of those policies contribute, sure), it's because its a 7 mile by 7 mile city with 900,000+ people where at least half of the land does not easily support tall building construction, where existing property owners fight any development, and where people are exceptionally well paid and really, really want to be here - the median household income is just below $100,000 and San Francisco (again, 49 square miles) has 75 billionaires. For reference, the entire state of Texas has 56. Whatever their political leanings, there's only so much the city leadership can even do to influence what happens in a place with so many competing dynamics.

I would challenge you to name a very large, dense, economically productive city in the US that does not have democratic leadership. This is my opinion I've been contemplating for a while (for reference I've lived nearly the full gamut of urban conditions in the US, from rural Maine, to suburban Texas, to full on city, California, and I've studied urban planning extensively as a student and a professional, I'd like to think my perspective is somewhat informed): it seems like an eventuality, rather than a discreet choice, that as density increases, the more likely it is for the democratic party to hold power - Republican policies tend to favor the individual and personal freedom over cooperation among groups.

That works up until a certain density (rural to suburban) but becomes basically untenable in very dense cities. In rural and suburban areas, it's unlikely that any disputes or agreements would involve more than 2 parties - you don't need a mediating hand (government) to control things. It's hard to care what old Man Gunn is doing on his property when he's a quarter mile away from his nearest neighbor. You can't just set your trash on fire in the yard or go out shooting clay pigeons in the middle of the day (two things I did somewhat frequently in Texas) if you live in a high rise tower in the financial district. You have to, necessarily, limit the freedom of individuals in cities otherwise you risk making life pretty much hell for everyone. The more limits the less applicable the Republican party (as it broadly exists at the moment) becomes. Now you might say, "well screw that, I want my freedoms!". Well that's fine, you've made that choice and you don't live in an urban center. But you can't at the same time criticize people who do make the choice to live in an Urban Center, as they have prioritized the things that affords them: High paying jobs, bustling activity, access to world culture, etc. Urban centers are not largely democratic because they want to be "elite", they are democratic because it just naturally occurs.

American cities face challenges because of the nature of a city in the first place. It's damn hard to put that many people into one place and to have it work with any degree of efficiency and quality of life. It's pretty miraculous that they work at all, considering the vast array of types of people living in them. While it might be a dream to let all the inhabitants of a city enjoy the freedoms they would have in rural areas (aka, to govern in a conservative manner) in practice it doesn't happen. Cities become regulated (democratic) organically. The other thing to consider is that city leadership can only do so much, period. No amount of political leadership (right or left, and god knows that city tried everything) could have saved Detroit from its post industrial fall.
Click to expand...

This is an argument against Libertarians, not Republicans. Republicans are not for small government.
 
It's great that Trump is slapping himself on the back about the women's sufferage commemorative coins but Harriet Tubman still won't be on the $20 bill. They were originally supposed to be in circulation next year under previous Treasury Secretary Jack Lew's plans but under current Secretary Steve Mnuchin, the Bureau of Engraving & Printing keep shuffling their feet for no other reason than "we don't like change" and most likely won't do it at all. Trump even called it "political correctness".
 
Supposedly we are on the cusp of cashless society. Supposedly there are good reasons for that and cash is not protected in the constitution. I would be surprised and disappointed to see it happen, irrespective of the mug on the bill. My favorite part anyway is the eye floating above the truncated pyramid. WTF is going on around here? HTF can we go on without a disembodied eye floating above a pyramid?? :lol:
 
Dotini
Supposedly we are on the cusp of cashless society
Click to expand...

It's cultural-centric though; true of a lot of places like Europe and North America but not other places like Africa and Asia.

It is estimated that 50% of the world doesn't have a bank account and that 50-70% of the world's transactions are still cash or other forms of bartering and arbitration.

Dotini
My favorite part anyway is the eye floating above the truncated pyramid. WTF is going on around here? HTF can we go on without a disembodied eye floating above a pyramid??
Click to expand...

The all-seeing eye of providence is originally a Christian symbol. It was introduced on the reverse of the Great Seal of the United States in 1782 and didn't become a symbol of Freemasonry until 14 years, in 1797, after its introduction on the Great Seal, contrary to what almost everyone else will have you think.

Of the committee who designed these things, only Ben Franklin was a Freemason and his designs weren't even accepted.
 
Dennisch
4 more years! 4 more years!

:lol:
Click to expand...
At least it would give Trump the opportunity to commemorate the 100th anniversary of the 19th Amendment at least four more times.

Dotini
OMFG! Talking of floating pyramids and just now I learn the White House and Capitol went to Orange Alert and scrambled fighter jets yesterday when a "large, slow-moving blob" was spotted on radar! Probably birds, but I'll bet there's more than a few Christians worried about Jesus coming back. What a world we live in.
https://www.cnn.com/2019/11/26/politics/white-house-lockdown-airspace/index.html
https://www.foxnews.com/politics/of...-hovering-object-that-prompted-lockdown-in-dc
Click to expand...

Wasn't there a connection between a flock of seagulls and Iran established in 1982?
 
Rallywagon
Coincidentally you could have clicked the link attached to the ? In his post and would have found the same video
Click to expand...
Heh, I didn't even see that tiny little link. I listened to the song - it was pretty bad - and could not imagine what it has to do with anything. Sorry, I don't think seagulls murmerate.
 
It's been apparent for a long time that Fox News opposes democracy but to hear Tucker Carlson actually endorse autocracy is shocking.

Maybe not to their regular viewers though I guess, who have been gradually groomed and normalized to these subversions.
 
Sander 001
It's been apparent for a long time that Fox News opposes democracy but to hear Tucker Carlson actually endorse autocracy is shocking.

Maybe not to their regular viewers though I guess, who have been gradually groomed and normalized to these subversions.
Click to expand...

Citation?
 
Sander 001
It's been apparent for a long time that Fox News opposes democracy but to hear Tucker Carlson actually endorse autocracy is shocking.

Maybe not to their regular viewers though I guess, who have been gradually groomed and normalized to these subversions.
Click to expand...

Sadly, I think you're right. That's what has happened to Republicans under Trumpism. The end result of a steady diet of fake news & "postmodernist" lies.
 
Biggles
Sadly, I think you're right. That's what has happened to Republicans under Trumpism. The end result of a steady diet of fake news & "postmodernist" lies.
Click to expand...
Question: Where does Ronald Reagan rate on the scale of Republican postmodernism?
 
Trumpism... I agree with you on some things but I can't help but laugh when you use a word like that.
I believed in "Obamaism", I drank the kool-aid too and look what happened...

And don't dare say we are going in the direction of Nazism. We're NOT.

I'm still waiting for the people to respond who here said we'd be in a nuclear war in his first year.

Do y'all not get how we can't take everything the left and the people who suck up their news seriously, without laughing?
 
Last edited:

Similar threads

Ross
  • Poll
Britain - The Official Thread
444 445 446
Replies
13K
Views
618K
Strittan
Strittan
Harley45
What did you do in GT7 today?
449 450 451
Replies
14K
Views
744K
Turbokoo
T
The_Greaser
Forza Motorsport (2023): The Bugfest Thread
2 3 4
Replies
96
Views
19K
UKMikey
UKMikey
Dotini
Trump's Legacy: the US Space Force and conservative judges
Replies
1
Views
792
Dotini
Dotini
Joey D
High Altitude Objects Over North America
2 3
Replies
75
Views
7K
Liquid
Liquid

Latest Posts

Back