Thread: American Politics
+
Add Report
Results 2,326 to 2,340 of 14538
-
04-12-23 01:30 #12213
Posts: 1807Originally Posted by JustTK [View Original Post]
I disagree on "3", as based on what I've read, I believe Ukrainians are responsible for the action against the pipeline. Although it wouldn't surprise me if the USA is covering for the Ukrainians.
I'm not sure about "1. " Normally I'd say that nationalizing Mexican power plants is stupid, especially given how Pemex (the inefficient, corrupt national oil company) has turned out. It's a basket case. But crony capitalism is rampant in Mexico. Look at Cemex and Carlos Slim, who gouge consumers. I suspect it's a bad move on AMLO's part, as the power plants are owned by private Spanish interests, which probably operate more efficiently and in the long run will deliver electricity at cheaper prices than the Mexican state. Unlike the Mexican crony capitalists and the narcotraficantes, the Spanish probably aren't buying off the politicians and bureaucrats. Yes, it does seem like this is a matter for the Mexicans and the Spanish. A little off topic, I believe U.S. investment in Mexico has benefited both countries. Most here would probably disagree with me.
-
04-12-23 01:12 #12212
Posts: 1807Originally Posted by EihTooms [View Original Post]
In my book the only great president during our adult lifetimes was Ronald Reagan, and Clinton during his second term was the only good one. Again coincidentally or not, GDP grew more during their terms than other modern Presidents. But it's their policies and their abilities to work across the aisle that set them above the rest. George H. W. Bush wasn't bad either. He was handicapped by when he came to the office in relation to the economic cycle.
-
04-12-23 01:08 #12211
Posts: 1823Originally Posted by Elvis2008 [View Original Post]
Colombia v El Salvador. Again, no idea what claim you are trying to make. Just a random story without any clear purpose.
About the dollar bing a strong currency and others being weak. All of this was bcos of the petrodollar. US economy and dollar has been supported by US bullying of other countries in to mandaory use of dollar to buy oil. Its nothing more than that. But those days are over. Now Saudi is, France, Japan, Brazil, Russia, China, 20 countiries are all chooisng to ditch the dollar. So that USA can no longer bully them.
"Maybe you can name a few where the USA is actually guilty of doing something wrong" - you serious? Whch week? Just this past week I can name 3.
1 USA bulying Mexico bcos govt wants to buy operate state owned power plants. USA wants the Mex energy industry open to US corporate exploitation.
2 USA bullying Saudi bcos Russia and China have brokered peace deals with Syria and Iran. USA does not want peace, it wants constant militray oppression of Iran and Syria.
3. USA bullying UN Sec Council not to open investigation in to casue of Nord Stream pipeline terrorism. Its obvious why USA doesn't want this bcos it committed a gross terrorist action against soverign infrastructure and caused huge environmental and financial damage.
Its every week. It seems ever clearer that the USA is a sinking ship, no different to any other fallen empire. Its is getting desperate to hold on to power, that is clear in its ever more belligerent and authoritarian stance, both domestically and internationally. Yet it can do nothing to change it. The tide has turned. Thank goodness.
-
04-11-23 19:49 #12210
Posts: 6461Disingenuous
Originally Posted by Tiny12 [View Original Post]
https://www.marketwatch.com/story/am...ars-2014-05-23
1. American Civil War = Republican President: and to say that it doesn't count because it was a different Republican party from a long time ago is a bunch of malarky!
2. World War 2 = Democratic President: America was sucker punched by Japan and Hitler was running amuck around Europe and North Africa. If ever there was a war worth fighting this one was it!
3. World War 1 = Democratic President: we should have dealt with the Hun more appropriately then (was too punitive a peace towards Germany), and had we, then we could have headed off the rise of the Nazis.
4. Vietnam War = Republican President: to be fair this tragic war spanned a number of administrations, but it was a Republican who got us into it (Eisenhower) and a Republican who oversaw our shameful withdrawal in defeat from it (Nixon).
5, Korean War = Republican President: Vietnam wasn't enough no sir so the GOP dragged us kicking and screaming into another east Asian war (excuse me "police action" that would be).
6. Mexican-American War = Democratic President: this war of aggression against Mexico goes even further back than the American Civil War so, if in your view the latter doesn't count against a changed Republican party, how in the world can you hold with a straight face that this one should count against a Democratic party that too has changed over time?
7. Iraq War (there were actually two) = Republican President: need I really say more (the GOP started this mess in search of weapons of mass destruction mission accomplished)?
8. Revolutionary War = Non-partisan President: no comment other than this one goes way, way back!
9. Spanish-American War = Republican President: the GOP was in the White House when this "yellow journalism" fueled war allowed one of the most disgusting Republican war mongers of all time Theodore Roosevelt to rise to fame and eventually seize the Oval Office himself.
10. Afghanistan War = Republican President: well old Georgie boy was at it again, and Donald Chump left Biden standing there holding a stinky bag of shit!
What say ye now my fellows?
-
04-11-23 19:03 #12209
Posts: 1807Originally Posted by Elvis2008 [View Original Post]
Originally Posted by EihTooms [View Original Post]
That said, you are wise to view Sanders with suspicion. Like Elvis, I like Sanders' anti-war stance. But if he had become president I would have high tailed it out of the country. I might have ended up one of your neighbors in the Land of Smiles!
-
04-11-23 18:48 #12208
Posts: 1807Out of the 623,715 USA military fatalities during the 20th and 21st centuries, 602,450 occurred under Democrat Presidents:
https://www.statista.com/statistics/...-1775-present/
Most of the 21,267 deaths under Republicans occurred in Vietnam, when President Nixon was extracting us from that conflict, which LBJ started.
So Democrat Presidents are responsible for over 95% of the deaths of our young men and women.
Democrats are a bloodthirsty lot. A Democratic Party president will start a war at the drop of a hat to boost his approval rating. Democrats know the best way to win an election or pull the country out of a recession is to start a war.
And this post, like all my others on this topic, is satirical. Like I said, there's no cause and effect. For some reason Tooms feels compelled to argue against what I'm labeling as a spurious correlation. I do not believe Democrats are any more responsible for war deaths than Republicans.
Originally Posted by Paulie97 [View Original Post]
Originally Posted by EihTooms [View Original Post]
https://www.archives.gov/research/mi...lty-statistics
Now that I've cleared that up, it would be nice if you'd admit that Republican Presidents weren't responsible for recessions in 1981, 1990, and 2008, and the 2020 pandemic.
-
04-11-23 05:56 #12207
Posts: 5536Originally Posted by Elvis2008 [View Original Post]
Your post suggested Trump's Repub Party is antwar. They initiated boots-on-the-ground USA combat maneuvers in all of the past three wars in which the USA fought over the past 35 years. Dems? Zero.
LOL. You even praised Repub Trump for not giving the defense industry a Trillion Dollar blowjob but he sure gave a good imitation of giving it a whopping $750 Billion blowjob. What was that worth in blowjob terms? One less stroke at the finish?
BTW, I'm sure Paulie will jump in any minute now to slam you for all those "falsehoods" and point out that Wilson did not "start" WW1, the same with FDR re WW2, Truman re the Korean War and, of course, LBJ re the Vietnam War, where Ike had already replaced French military boots-on-the-ground with USA boots-on-the-ground by 1954, about a year before the Vietnam War officially began by many historian's assessment.
-
04-10-23 14:39 #12206
Posts: 3354Originally Posted by JustTK [View Original Post]
Take your worker in Colombia versus El Salvador where the dollar is used versus a native currency. You take a worker who saves a $1000 a year in Colombia versus El Salvador. Twenty years later, the guy in El Salvador has double what the guy in Colombia does because the Colombian Peso has gone to shit without even taking into account interest. Toss that in and the guy in El Salvador is on the order of 3 to 4 X richer than the guy in Colombia.
So are you for people being poorer? And then there is this bullshit about USA oppression? The truth is the USA has done a better job of managing its currency than Colombia has and almost all other parts of the world. Only Europe and the Euro can come close.
And BRICS? China is the largest economy in BRICS, and their currency is propped up and pegged to the dollar, and you do not see much of it being exchanged in the currency markets because China does not let out that much of it out. If China let the yuan float, it would be devalued in no time.
Everything with you is the USA abuses other nations when the truth is so many countries print up money to solve their problems thus devaluing their currency. All third world countries are good; it is just the USA is evil.
The USA has never defaulted on its debt. Argentina and Venezuela have gone bankrupt like a combined 20 times, and they have not had any crippling wars like Europe or even Asia has had. Your blaming the USA lets those nations and their shitty monetary policies off the hook.
There are plenty of instances of American policy fucking countries up. Maybe you can name a few where the USA is actually guilty of doing something wrong versus just blaming us for everything.
-
04-10-23 14:20 #12205
Posts: 3354Originally Posted by EihTooms [View Original Post]
Oh right, I forgot who I was talking about. There is no such thing as an antiwar and prowar party. Everything HAS to be split into Republicans and Democrats.
And all the prowar Dems (Wilson, FDR, Truman, LBJ) do not count. Only the Bushes count. Sigh. Bagdad Bob strikes again.
Republicans bad, Dems good, and the facts do not matter. Hell, that should be your tag line Tooms.
-
04-09-23 16:25 #12204
Posts: 5536Uh. You completely missed it.
Originally Posted by Paulie97 [View Original Post]
One Repub Winger, Tiny, recently posted this:
However, in the end, I believe the researchers came up with a spurious correlation, like Tooms' spurious correlations between Republican Presidents and recessions, lower GDP growth, higher unemployment, and a pandemic. Or mine between Democratic Presidents and the number of Americans who've died in wars that started when they were in office. There's no cause and effect.
And you will now please notice something you presumably failed to notice or refused to notice in my "files" examples to which you devoted not one but two outraged objections replies; I did not say anything about wars "started" by the POTUS at the time.
Another Repub Winger, Elvis, even more recently posted this:
To me, it is not even Democrat or Republican any more, it is pro or antiwar party presidents. Bernie Sanders is anti-war party and you can be damned sure he will never get a nomination. That is what this is really all about. A trump victory means no more trillion dollar blowjobs to the defense industry.
Please note that TWO recent presidents ordered boots-on-the-ground combat by USA military in the THREE most recent wars in which the USA military fought; Kuwait, Afghanistan and Iraq.
Neither of them were Dems.
Biden has not ordered such a thing.
Obama did not order such a thing.
Clinton did not order such a thing.
Carter did not order such a thing.
Again, not one word of objection from you about that mischaracterization of which Party is pro war and which Party is antiwar. Interesting, isn't it?
Next.
Now, the only thing I recall you providing that suggested those Happy Days under Ike were good for the working man was some opinion piece where the dude who wrote it said so without any linked data to substantiate that opinion.
By stark contrast, I provided links showing the USA suffered through three, not one, not two, but three Recessions during Ike's 8 years in office, that his economy produced one of the worst jobs creating records in the past century and that the working man in America was so opposed to him and his Party that every major labor union in the country endorsed his right hand man's Dem opponent in 1960.
You got anything to refute the actual data, the verifiable record of results and the historical facts about that yet? Or do you only have your recommendation to watch a couple of episodes of Happy Days to see how much fun it looked like Ritchie and The Fonz were having at the time?
-
04-08-23 21:34 #12203
Posts: 1680P.S. Regarding War
Would be nice if it were never necessary, or if we didn't need armed police departments or personal self defense, but that's not the real world. And since when did Republicans "start" the "War in Kuwait?" Lolol This was a multi-national, UN sanctioned response to Iraq's invasion. Iraq was repeatedly warned to get out but refused. Today Kuwait is an important partner in the region, and our relations with them are good and cooperative.
https://mei.edu/publications/beyond-...ty-partnership
It's also worth asking what the future would have looked like had Lincoln not acted to preserve the Union. We likely would not be the great nation we are today. How would the world wars have turned out? Though a "Republican Lolol" (whatever that meant in 1861) Lincoln's place among America's greatest heros is deserved.
But anyway I got enough going here to keep Tooms scrambling and typing away for the best part of a morning or afternoon, and that's the objective. There's plenty enough hyper-partisan websites and far left anti-war hogwash online for him to come up with something to ramble on about.
-
04-08-23 06:00 #12202
Posts: 1680P.s.
Why did the southern Democrats secede from the Union? "State rights, correct?" State rights to do WHAT? Own slaves. They tell you with their own words, in the minutes of state legislatures concerned with secession and in precise comments from the leaders of the Confederacy. Yea the southern Democrats not only fired the first shot but in all other respects caused the Civil War. Slavery was the very motivation of their actions. No amount of "Democrat good / Republican Bad" posturing day after day even back to 1860 in a hooker forum is going to change that (eyeroll).
https://constitutioncenter.org/blog/...ag-and-slavery
-
04-08-23 02:46 #12201
Posts: 1680Except
Originally Posted by EihTooms [View Original Post]
But anyway I've already posted my links and evidence a dozen times and am not doing it again, but this is the fallacy Tooms has going, twist or ignore all rebuttals and keep repeating the same errant talking points over and over. My retirement is just around the corner and I sure hope I find better things to do on a daily basis than that. Wink.
https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Argumentum_ad_nauseam
He has these going as well, the old false dichotomy and black and white thinking error.
https://www.studysmarter.us/explanat...lse-dichotomy/
https://yourlogicalfallacyis.com/black-or-white
-
04-06-23 22:27 #12200
Posts: 1604Wrong Again
Originally Posted by Elvis2008 [View Original Post]
Did Donnie the Dumbass "cook the books" and mis-report the hush money payment to Stormy as something else? Yes, and it needs to be proven in court.
Was the above mis-reporting of the payment designed to assist Donnie the Dumbass in winning the 2016 election? Yes, and it needs to be proven in court.
Did a New York grand jury decide to indict (or is it indicate?) Donnie the Dumbass? Yes.
Will Donnie the Dumbass get his "day in court"? Yes.
Does every Repub in the USA believe that any trial of Donnie the Dumbass is political. Duh, yes.
Does every Repub in the USA believe that Donnie the Dumbass is above the law. Duh, yes.
-
04-06-23 16:05 #12199
Posts: 1823Originally Posted by Golfinho [View Original Post]