American Politics

**Elvis 2008** · 04-10-23 14:20

Originally Posted by EihTooms [View Original Post]

My "files" examples were reactions to recent Repub Winger posts.

One Repub Winger, Tiny, recently posted this:

Another Repub Winger, Elvis, even more recently posted this:

How do you take a post where I am complimenting Bernie freaking Sanders on being anti-war and call that a right winger 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.

**EihTooms** · 04-09-23 16:25

Originally Posted by Paulie97 [View Original Post]

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..

My "files" examples were reactions to recent Repub Winger posts.

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.

I notice you, already a highly suspect advertant or inadvertent pro Repub Winger Bothsider / Neithersider, offered no objections to another Repub Winger alluding to dead Americans in wars REGARDLESS whether or not the Dem in the WH had anything whatsoever to do with "starting" it. No problem with you in him doing that, right?

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.

The clear inference being Dems are "pro war" while Trump's Repub Party is "antiwar". Lololol.

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?

**Paulie97** · 04-08-23 21:34

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.

**Paulie97** · 04-08-23 06:00

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

**Paulie97** · 04-08-23 02:46

Originally Posted by EihTooms [View Original Post]

You'll find it next to the "Repub Stewardship Producing Every Great Recession And Massive Jobs Destruction of the Past 100 Years and None of the Historic Expansions and Jobs Creation is Merely a Wild, Inexplicable Coincidence" file and right there after the "No USA-involved Wars Were Started Under Repubs, only Dems, Oh Except For The Civil War, the Vietnam War, The War in Kuwait, The War in Afghanistan, The War in Iraq, etc" file.

Much of this isn't true, and has been comprehensively demonstrated as untrue many times here on this thread, especially with evidence of significant economic expansion and success during the 1950's under Ike, and in the unassailable fact that knee jerk Southern Democrats caused the Civil War with their fear and insistence on preserving the institution of slavery. They also began the hostilities. But it's actually hilarious when we have a bored, California leftist camped out in Southeast Asia on here daily so hell bent on preserving a Repub / Dem fake dichotomy that he reaches back to the Civil War to blame the liberal party of the day. Lolol Reminds me of the conservatives that want to blame modern Dems for the KKK, same gross error as over time the roles of the parties have reversed.

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

**PVMonger** · 04-06-23 22:27

Originally Posted by Elvis2008 [View Original Post]

Yawn. Another Democratic douche saying this is about the law and not political. Ha ha!

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...EN-ISLAND.html

Dershowitz said that Trump's hush money case, filed by the Manhattan the, was impossibly prejudiced owing to Manhattan being a Democrat stronghold.

Dershowitz said the trial should be held instead in Staten Island. The only one of New York City's five boroughs to regularly vote Republican.

And you know what the chances are this case is moved to Staten Island CM, slim and none, and slim just left town.

Oh yeah, this is all about the law. Did your nose grow as you typed that?

Does New York State law state that a misdemeanor to cover up another misdemeanor can be tried as a felony? Yes.

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.

**JustTK** · 04-06-23 16:05

Originally Posted by Golfinho [View Original Post]

Like we'll be seeing Yuan quotes at your local cambio everywhere? With the smallest spread on the board?

Otherwise, what's to think about? Unless you are like twenty-years' old and if you are and you're here at that age, then you've got other, bigger problems going on than exchange rates.

Sorry, I have no idea what you mean.

**JustTK** · 04-06-23 16:04

Originally Posted by Elvis2008 [View Original Post]

BRIC was termed made by some Goldman Sachs banker artificially linking large third world economies. It was named in 2001, and I first heard of it in 2004.

I have been listening to the dollar's demise going on for decades now, and anyone dumb enough to have invested in that idea has gotten killed. The dollar will be the world's reserve currency for the next 100 years.

There is nothing artificial about BRICS. It is an official organisation. They have a forum planned for August 2023 in Durban. SA have invited Putin and already have refused the notion of having him arrested. There are plenty of countries now wanting to join BRICS, no doubt the majority of the ex or current victims of USA intimidation and crimes. Iran, Argentina and Algeria have applied to join BRICS. Indonesia, Egypt, Nigeria and Saudi Arabia could become part of the association. It already represents 40% of the world's population. The expanded BRICS would easily take it past 50%.

It doesn't have to replace the USD, simply offer an alternative for abused countries.

**Golfinho** · 04-06-23 14:04

Originally Posted by JustTK [View Original Post]

Great piece on the latest dangers posed to US hegemony by the likely expansion of BRICS, as a result of USA foriegn policy bullying.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rnCudOKNzm0

Like we'll be seeing Yuan quotes at your local cambio everywhere? With the smallest spread on the board?

Otherwise, what's to think about? Unless you are like twenty-years' old and if you are and you're here at that age, then you've got other, bigger problems going on than exchange rates.

**Golfinho** · 04-06-23 13:58

Originally Posted by CheckMate1 [View Original Post]

Always go to the source and read a little.

https://www.secretservice.gov/about/faq/general

Here you go, from the source.

"How long do former presidents receive Secret Service protection after they leave office?

In 1965, Congress authorized the Secret Service (Public Law 89-186) to protect a former president and his / her spouse during their lifetime, unless they decline protection. ".

**Elvis 2008** · 04-06-23 11:47

Originally Posted by JustTK [View Original Post]

Great piece on the latest dangers posed to US hegemony by the likely expansion of BRICS, as a result of USA foriegn policy bullying.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rnCudOKNzm0

BRIC was termed made by some Goldman Sachs banker artificially linking large third world economies. It was named in 2001, and I first heard of it in 2004.

When I was in Brazil in 2004, it was 2. 5 reals to the dollar. Now it is 5 to the dollar.

The Russian Ruble has gone from 20 rubles to the dollar to 80 in the last 20 years.

The Indian Rupee has gone from around 45 rupees to the dollar to now 80 in the last 20 years.

The star of the show is the Chinese yuan. It has gone from 8 yuan to the dollar to about 7 now. As to why the yuan will never be the world's reserve currency, there is this, https://foreignpolicynews.org/2022/0...erve-currency/.

Geopolitician Peter Zeihan compares and contrasts the idea of money between the United States and China. In the United States, money is regarded as an economic good. In China, money is regarded as a political good. In the United States, money has value in and of itself. In China, money is a political good, and only has value if it can be used to achieve a political goal. The concepts of rate of return or profit margins do not exist in China, and therein lies the danger; eventually the law of supply and demand will win out, and the Chinese economy will have to face a correction. The longer it takes to face this economic correction, the greater damage that the inevitable correction will cause to the Chinese economy.

While the United States has an open economy, and money can be moved into and out of the United States at will, The Chinese government imposes capital control over moving money out of China.

By restricting the flow of capital in and out of China, investors risk losing all of their wealth should a political crisis develop that leads to an economic crisis or spiral into armed conflict.

In addition, the Chinese banking system is a complete disaster. If real estate in China were marked to market, they would all be insolvent.

If there were a currency that could compete with the dollar, it would not be a BRIC currency but the Euro. The Euro has the German influence all over it and the Germans are determined to have a hard currency but even with that, the banking sector in Europe is in horrible shape and that threatens the value of the Euro. Believe it or not, the banks in the USA are on much more solid ground than those in China and Europe.

And TK, you were in Venezuela. That is a nation that talked constant shit about the USA, was determined to get off the dollar. They inflated the crap out of the Bolivar to the point no one wanted it, then they tried floating a cryptocurrency no one wanted, and now they have given up and gone back to taking the dollar.

I have been listening to the dollar's demise going on for decades now, and anyone dumb enough to have invested in that idea has gotten killed. The dollar will be the world's reserve currency for the next 100 years.

**EihTooms** · 04-06-23 09:58

Originally Posted by Spidy [View Original Post]

Huge Win!! Huge Progressive Wisconsin's Supreme Court Win!!

Liberal Judge (Janet Protasiewicz) wins Wisconsins Supreme Court election, and looks to save and restore women's pregnancy rights and equal voter rights, in a swing state that traditionally votes 50/50, but under the heavy handed and heavily gerrymandering of congressional maps by State Repubs, in recent times over the last several years, has been skewed more red than purple.

Wisconsinites reject Republican partisan extremism and affirm restore women's rights, voting rights, the will of the people, democracy and the democratic process.

Liberals will win control of Wisconsin Supreme Court
https://www.ketr.org/2023-04-04/for-...-supreme-court
https://edition.cnn.com/2023/04/04/p...lts/index.html

One less swing state, Donnie "the Devil" J. Dummkopf, can't make another infamous "11th Hour" call, and ask for 11,700 votes....kkkk!

Yes, we can file this in a years' long series of historic wins for the Dems under the "Dems Keep Losing" heading promoted by outright Repubs and stealth Bothsider / Neithersider Repubs.

You'll find it next to the "Repub Stewardship Producing Every Great Recession And Massive Jobs Destruction of the Past 100 Years and None of the Historic Expansions and Jobs Creation is Merely a Wild, Inexplicable Coincidence" file and right there after the "No USA-involved Wars Were Started Under Repubs, only Dems, Oh Except For The Civil War, the Vietnam War, The War in Kuwait, The War in Afghanistan, The War in Iraq, etc" file.

**Spidy** · 04-06-23 03:19

Huge Win!! Huge Progressive Wisconsin's Supreme Court Win!!

Liberal Judge (Janet Protasiewicz) wins Wisconsin’s Supreme Court election, and looks to save and restore women's pregnancy rights and equal voter rights, in a swing state that traditionally votes 50/50, but under the heavy handed and heavily gerrymandering of congressional maps by State Repubs, in recent times over the last several years, has been skewed more red than purple.

Wisconsinites reject Republican partisan extremism and affirm restore women's rights, voting rights, the will of the people, democracy and the democratic process.

Liberals will win control of Wisconsin Supreme Court
https://www.ketr.org/2023-04-04/for-...-supreme-court
https://edition.cnn.com/2023/04/04/p...lts/index.html

One less swing state, Donnie "the Devil" J. Dummkopf, can't make another infamous "11th Hour" call, and ask for 11,700 votes....kkkk!

**JustTK** · 04-05-23 23:59

Great piece on the latest dangers posed to US hegemony by the likely expansion of BRICS, as a result of USA foriegn policy bullying.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rnCudOKNzm0

**Elvis 2008** · 04-05-23 20:41

Originally Posted by Golfinho [View Original Post]

By law (thanks to O'bama), all former Presidents for the rest of their lives are provided with round-the-clock Secret Service protection. Let's see what our Democrats come up with to get around this one.

I am not sure what would be funnier: Trump winning and being in jail or seeing Trump in jail with a secret service contingent around him.

The Democratic douches do not get that with the 2020 election, the courts were saying to the pols, "We are not getting involved in elections. That is your shit, and we are not doing it."

The judge in this case is some Democratic douche who will let this case move on, and she will be showered with presents while Republicans call her every name in the book. But it will go to an Appeals Court or the NY Supreme Court and be tossed by them and for the same reason all the judges tossed Trump's 2020 cases, the judiciary wants and needs to stay the hell out of presidential and preferably all politics.

Even in 2000 when the US Supreme Court behaved as rationally as they could, they caught huge flak. The NY Times went down to Florida and counted the votes and even they came up with a Bush victory, but the Democratic douches, who fight any election they lose, were saying Bush did not win; Scotus gave him the victory.

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.