General US Politics

[Moblin Major General]

3 minutes ago, Lushen said:

To be fair, we screwed Russia over during WW2.  The Soviet Union lost 25,000,000 people while we lost 418,500.  Yet, we got all the spoils of war (such as setting up the UN) because we had the nukes that ended the war. 

I don't consider all of Eastern Europe the short end of the stick.

[Etrurian emperor]

2 hours ago, Lushen said:

To be fair, we screwed Russia over during WW2.  The Soviet Union lost 25,000,000 people while we lost 418,500.  Yet, we got all the spoils of war (such as setting up the UN) because we had the nukes that ended the war. 

That doesn't seem very accurate. If anything one of the biggest criticisms you could give Roosevelt is that he did pretty much nothing to oppose Stalin in regards to eastern Europe. This could be either through some sort of foolish belief in Stalin's good faith or apathy to stop it. The man was dying at that point so you can excuse it but he in no way made any attempt to screw Russia over. 

As Hylian said the Soviets pretty much got all of eastern Europe as the spoils of war. That's a great expansion of territory and lots of bufferzone between Europe and Moscow. Russia suffered terribly but geopolitically they benefited a lot from the war.

While I'm a big believer that Russia did lots, lots more then America did in WW2 it must be said that a lot of what they did they managed to do with American funds and weapons so merely stating the casualty numbers give a slightly skewed perspective. 

Edited July 14, 2017 by Etrurian emperor

[Lushen]

2 hours ago, Etrurian emperor said:

That doesn't seem very accurate. If anything one of the biggest criticisms you could give Roosevelt is that he did pretty much nothing to oppose Stalin in regards to eastern Europe. This could be either through some sort of foolish belief in Stalin's good faith or apathy to stop it. The man was dying at that point so you can excuse it but he in no way made any attempt to screw Russia over. 

As Hylian said the Soviets pretty much got all of eastern Europe as the spoils of war. That's a great expansion of territory and lots of bufferzone between Europe and Moscow. Russia suffered terribly but geopolitically they benefited a lot from the war.

While I'm a big believer that Russia did lots, lots more then America did in WW2 it must be said that a lot of what they did they managed to do with American funds and weapons so merely stating the casualty numbers give a slightly skewed perspective. 

The soviet union before and after WW2 was not that different geographically.  Definitely not drastic enough to make up for 25mil Soviet deaths.  

http://www.diercke.com/kartenansicht.xtp?artId=978-3-14-100790-9&seite=36&id=17471&kartennr=3

http://www.diercke.com/kartenansicht.xtp?artId=978-3-14-100790-9&seite=36&id=17472&kartennr=4

The US won the war with their technology.  Most notably, they came up with a device to detect U-Boats which turned the table in naval battles and developed some new fighter jets which helped in aerial defense.  Our efforts on the ground were actually pretty abysmal.  Also important to note, is all this technology originated in England and was sent over to the United States (TIzard Mission) because they did not have the resources to fight a war and develop the tech on their own.  

After WW2 America grew from the 17th greatest military world power to the 1st.  GNP doubled, became the biggest creditor in the world.  Commanding half of the worlds manufacturing capacity and owning 2/3 of the world's gold stocks.  

A lot of people in the US think we were always the world's biggest superpower.  We weren't until WW2.  What happened to the Soviet Union?  Shortly after, it collapsed.  

America got very lucky; being halfway around the world meant we didn't suffer many causalities (in comparison) and while other countries were losing men and supplies, (mostly civilians) we were at home quietly building technology which skyrocketed our economy.  

Edited July 14, 2017 by Lushen

[Etrurian emperor]

20 minutes ago, Lushen said:

The soviet union before and after WW2 was not that different geographically.  Definitely not drastic enough to make up for 25mil Soviet deaths.  

http://www.diercke.com/kartenansicht.xtp?artId=978-3-14-100790-9&seite=36&id=17471&kartennr=3

http://www.diercke.com/kartenansicht.xtp?artId=978-3-14-100790-9&seite=36&id=17472&kartennr=4

The US won the war with their technology.  Most notably, they came up with a device to detect U-Boats which turned the table in naval battles and developed some new fighter jets which helped in aerial defense.  Our efforts on the ground were actually pretty abysmal.  Also important to note, is all this technology originated in England and was sent over to the United States (TIzard Mission) because they did not have the resources to fight a war and develop the tech on their own.  

After WW2 America grew from the 17th greatest military world power to the 1st.  GNP doubled, became the biggest creditor in the world.  Commanding half of the worlds manufacturing capacity and owning 2/3 of the world's gold stocks.  

A lot of people in the US think we were always the world's biggest superpower.  We weren't until WW2.  What happened to the Soviet Union?  Shortly after, it collapsed.  

America got very lucky; being halfway around the world meant we didn't suffer many causalities (in comparison) and while other countries were losing men and supplies, (mostly civilians) we were at home quietly building technology which skyrocketed our economy.  

I'm quite aware of America only rising after the war. I view it as FDR's great achievement that it did. But Russia also rose to the rank of world power while Europe shrunk. It may not have directly annexed countries like Poland and Hungary but they were left as mere satellites. Eastern Europe was still under their control. The rise to become the second world power and power over large swats or Europe, lands that can also serve as a buffer seems like a good ''reward'' for their service done. That it couldn't outlast America has more to do with their economic policies then America not giving them their due after the war. If anything Rooseveld was very willing to accommodate Stalin. 

 

[Bandit]

Hopefully this is the right place for this stuff, suprised no-one else has posted it yet, but Donald Trump Jr just tweeted emails that confirm Russia aided Trump in the 2016 election.

Pages 1-3:

https://mobile.twitter.com/DonaldJTrumpJr/status/884789418455953413

Page 4:

https://mobile.twitter.com/DonaldJTrumpJr/status/884789839522140166

EDIT: Never mind, just saw the date. Old news I guess, sorry! Please ignore this post.

Edited July 15, 2017 by Bandit

[Shoblongoo]

On 7/14/2017 at 4:43 AM, eclipse said:

 How would Russia react to something like that being published by the US?

Publicly, they may make some form of protest. Privately, they'd take it as a signal that the disclosing party has rebuked any and all efforts to compromise his office and redirect ongoing efforts accordingly. This isn't new on Russia's end--they do what they did in the last election all the time. They were just particularly successful this time around, because they found a candidate morally bankrupt enough to jump straight into bed with them.

Edited July 19, 2017 by Shoblongoo

[Skynstein]

On 14/07/2017 at 2:45 PM, Etrurian emperor said:

That doesn't seem very accurate. If anything one of the biggest criticisms you could give Roosevelt is that he did pretty much nothing to oppose Stalin in regards to eastern Europe. This could be either through some sort of foolish belief in Stalin's good faith or apathy to stop it. The man was dying at that point so you can excuse it but he in no way made any attempt to screw Russia over. 

As Hylian said the Soviets pretty much got all of eastern Europe as the spoils of war. That's a great expansion of territory and lots of bufferzone between Europe and Moscow. Russia suffered terribly but geopolitically they benefited a lot from the war.

While I'm a big believer that Russia did lots, lots more then America did in WW2 it must be said that a lot of what they did they managed to do with American funds and weapons so merely stating the casualty numbers give a slightly skewed perspective. 

The ultimate winner of WW2 were the US. With Europe in ruins, the US consolidated its position as the center of Western culture and wealth. So much that the rebuilding of Western Europe was funded by the Americans, and it wasn't just charity of course, the success of the welfare state in Western Europe was crucial to the victory of capitalism in the late 20th century, it was propaganda more powerful than anything the commies could've come up with. As a bonus, the Europeans became indebted to the Americans.

Interestingly, it was all propaganda. When it suited them, the Americans were perfectly fine with non-democratic regimes. Salazar and Franco's dictatorships in Portugal and Spain lasted well beyond WW2. In South America they were very comfortable with Nazi-worshipping military hunting, torturing and executing communists and whoever opposed such regimes all over the continent, much like they were during WW2 while Hitler kept himself to marching towards Eastern Europe.

Whatever Russia got in exchange, though significant, was chump change compared to what the Americans got.

Edited July 19, 2017 by Skynstein

[Lushen]

This is completely disgusting.  

http://www.nationalreview.com/article/449623/john-mccain-criticism-hero

 

Politics has gone way too far.  The United States has surpassed wishing death upon the opposing party, which is already outrageously unacceptable to begin with.  Now, we see people wishing death on their own party members.  This just shows how messed up some's "passion" for politics are.  I'm going to coin the phrase, political radicalism of which I expect we'll see continued progression in the foreseeable future.  People need to pull their heads out of their asses and learn how to work with others instead of acting like children.

Note:  Like any kind of radicalism, I am not claiming every politician displays this kind of behavior, but I think it's been more apparent in the recent years. 

 

edit:  Apparently political radicalism is already a thing.  Damn.

Edited July 20, 2017 by Lushen

[The Geek]

As terrible as it is, wishing death on political opponents is hardly new.  I see death wishes coming from both sides directed at both sides all the time.  The current political climate is far too forgiving to this kind of attitude.  

No matter your politics, wishing death on others is never okay unless they're some kind of inhuman monster.

[Lord Raven]

2 minutes ago, The Geek said:

The current political climate is far too forgiving to this kind of attitude.  

The political climate has always been forgiving of this kind of attitude.

Remember all those Obama effigies in 2008? Hell, people booed McCain around 8 years ago too for even daring to suggest that Obama was a decent guy.

2 hours ago, Lushen said:

edit:  Apparently political radicalism is already a thing.  Damn.

Yes, and as it is now and as it has always been, it's a fringe. You say you want the media to stop sensationalizing everything, but you haven't taken the step back to keep the sensationalism from consuming you.

Anyway, you want the anecdotal counter to your anecdotal evidence?

 

Edited July 20, 2017 by Lord Raven

[Zapp Branniglenn]

W-well, yeah any average joe American can go online and write "KYS" to a politician and nobody would bat an eye, but that behavior isn't typical of somebody that works as a public servant, let alone a member of the RNC. It's a shitty comment to make even without the cancer context. Kind of like when Trump made the "I like my war heroes to not be captured" comment, like really? At least he went to that war you chicken shit loser.

[Shoblongoo]

Smh real talk though; John McCain is one of the last good men left in Washington. Shame he's not going to be around much longer. The man is a national treasure.

[Lushen]

2 hours ago, Lord Raven said:

The political climate has always been forgiving of this kind of attitude.

Remember all those Obama effigies in 2008? Hell, people booed McCain around 8 years ago too for even daring to suggest that Obama was a decent guy.

Yes, and as it is now and as it has always been, it's a fringe. You say you want the media to stop sensationalizing everything, but you haven't taken the step back to keep the sensationalism from consuming you.

Anyway, you want the anecdotal counter to your anecdotal evidence?

 

Man you just have to disagree with me no matter what I say.  I don't see how that is a 'counter', any sane politician would say tweet that out.  I also fail to see how Obama being a nice guy has anything to do with this.  Also, this is not sensationalism.  This is literally saying someone said something on twitter, something you can find very clearly.  Sensationalism implies an expense of accuracy, of which there is none.

 

 

Anyways, I'm not saying that it is bran new, but I've never seen it occurring this dramatically or at this frequency.  Sure, some people wished death on Barack Obama when he was in office, but it wasn't done by politicians (at least that I can remember) and it wasn't like he was actually in a position where he could die from health issues (like McCain where you have to be an animal to hear about a brain tumor and tweet that it is somehow good news).  As wrong as it was, I don't think it's the same thing really.  

And the level it's being done now is clearly much worse than before.  

https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/2017/06/14/rep-jeff-duncan-ron-desantis-shooter-targeted-republicans/102847970/

http://www.npr.org/2017/05/24/529862697/republican-s-altercation-with-reporter-shakes-up-montana-race-on-eve-of-voting

(and these are just a few, I know of others)

You may be able to find specific cases where similar things have happened in the past.  But not in such a short period of time.  Political radicalism is evolving dramatically.

McCain is an awesome guy.  He is loved by many democrats and republicans alike.  Such is proof that he is a remarkable politician.  Best of luck to him and his family.

Edited July 20, 2017 by Lushen

[Lord Raven]

8 minutes ago, Lushen said:

Political radicalism is evolving dramatically.

Proof?

Because uhh...  we had lynchings, McCarthyism, locked up Japanese people, womens suffrage, and an entire half of the country seceding throughout the country. Don't forget about Malcolm X!

https://www.nytimes.com/2015/12/20/magazine/whos-really-radical.html

In either case, I think McCain's brain cancer is sad, but I personally just haven't had respect for the guy in 8 years. But I won't go into too much detail or speak too much ill of him right now.

Edited July 20, 2017 by Lord Raven

[Lushen]

1 minute ago, Lord Raven said:

Proof?

Because uhh...  we had lynchings, McCarthyism, locked up Japanese people, womens suffrage, and an entire half of the country seceding throughout the country. Don't forget about Malcolm X!

https://www.nytimes.com/2015/12/20/magazine/whos-really-radical.html

I just cited two cases in addition to this single case.  And you had to go back to the early 1900s to find an example of similar behavior.  So I suppose you did my work for me.  If you have to go back that far, then you know we put this crap behind us and it's now resurfacing. 

 

Anyways, the past is completely irrelevant.  I don't even care if political radicalism was a problem before, or when it was.  I just care that there are enough shit people in this world now that would enjoy watching their political opposition 'declared dead by a medical professional' rather than having a professional debate/discussion.  That is my reason for bringing this up.  It's something that needs to be addressed in some form IMO.

[Res]

Does Trump understand what healthcare is? 

Relevant bit quoted from this transcript:

"TRUMP: But what it does, Maggie, it means it gets tougher and tougher. As they get something, it gets tougher. Because politically, you can’t give it away. So pre-existing conditions are a tough deal. Because you are basically saying from the moment the insurance, you’re 21 years old, you start working and you’re paying $12 a year for insurance, and by the time you’re 70, you get a nice plan. Here’s something where you walk up and say, “I want my insurance.” It’s a very tough deal, but it is something that we’re doing a good job of."

 

[Shoblongoo]

1 hour ago, Lushen said:

  I don't even care if political radicalism was a problem before, or when it was.  I just care that there are enough shit people in this world now that would enjoy watching their political opposition 'declared dead by a medical professional' rather than having a professional debate/discussion.  That is my reason for bringing this up.  It's something that needs to be addressed in some form IMO.

...I mean the stuff you've been throwing out the past few pages is as close to "professional debate" as telling your opposition to go jump into traffic, tbh, and this is coming from someone who does it for a living. I would kindly suggest that issue-framing, serious treatment of facts-in-evidence, and responsive answers thereto without reliance on conclusory statements or cherry-picking is as much a part of professional debate as not telling your opponent to kill themself. Maybe polish that up a bit if you want to address the problem of politically radicalized shit debate in some way...idk...  

Edited July 20, 2017 by Shoblongoo

[Tryhard]

1 hour ago, Res said:

Does Trump understand what healthcare is? 

He hasn't really understood how it's going to work since the start of his campaign in 2015.

Pelley: How do you fix it?

Trump: There's many different ways, by the way. Everybody's got to be covered. This is an un-Republican thing for me to say because a lot of times they say, "No, no, the lower 25 percent that can't afford private. But--"

Pelley: Universal health care.

Trump: I am going to take care of everybody. I don't care if it costs me votes or not. Everybody's going to be taken care of much better than they're taken care of now.

Pelley: The uninsured person is going to be taken care of. How? How?

Trump: They're going to be taken care of. I would make a deal with existing hospitals to take care of people. And, you know what, if this is probably—

Pelley: Make a deal? Who pays for it?

Trump: —the government's gonna pay for it. But we're going to save so much money on the other side. But for the most it's going to be a private plan and people are going to be able to go out and negotiate great plans with lots of different competition with lots of competitors with great companies and they can have their doctors, they can have plans, they can have everything.

 

My favourite new thing is that 32% of Trump supporters asked said they don't believe Trump Jr met with Russian lawyer, despite the fact that Trump Jr admitted that he met with the Russian lawyer. And 24% said they aren't sure. He straight up admitted it, I don't know how you can be such a low information voter and still be comfortable answering questions about things you don't know about.

http://thehill.com/homenews/administration/342700-poll-nearly-half-of-trump-voters-dont-think-trump-jr-met-with-russian

Edited July 20, 2017 by Tryhard

[Shoblongoo]

6 hours ago, Tryhard said:

He hasn't really understood how it's going to work since the start of his campaign in 2015.

Pelley: How do you fix it?

Trump: There's many different ways, by the way. Everybody's got to be covered. This is an un-Republican thing for me to say because a lot of times they say, "No, no, the lower 25 percent that can't afford private. But--"

Pelley: Universal health care.

Trump: I am going to take care of everybody. I don't care if it costs me votes or not. Everybody's going to be taken care of much better than they're taken care of now.

Pelley: The uninsured person is going to be taken care of. How? How?

Trump: They're going to be taken care of. I would make a deal with existing hospitals to take care of people. And, you know what, if this is probably—

Pelley: Make a deal? Who pays for it?

Trump: —the government's gonna pay for it. But we're going to save so much money on the other side. But for the most it's going to be a private plan and people are going to be able to go out and negotiate great plans with lots of different competition with lots of competitors with great companies and they can have their doctors, they can have plans, they can have everything.

 

My favourite new thing is that 32% of Trump supporters asked said they don't believe Trump Jr met with Russian lawyer, despite the fact that Trump Jr admitted that he met with the Russian lawyer. And 24% said they aren't sure. He straight up admitted it, I don't know how you can be such a low information voter and still be comfortable answering questions about things you don't know about.

http://thehill.com/homenews/administration/342700-poll-nearly-half-of-trump-voters-dont-think-trump-jr-met-with-russian

"I could stand in the middle of 5th Avenue and shoot somebody and I wouldn't lose voters. Okay? Its, like, incredible" -Trump; 2016-

...pretty much sums up what the guy is all about...

Trump straight-up told his supporters to-their-face that hes just putting them on, regards them as easy marks for a con-job, and that he feels no particular need to moderate his bad behavior or educate himself on issues or put out anything of substance because he just expects them to praise him and cheer for him and eat out of his hand regardless. 

This was a thing that happened. 

Thats the common thread through the healthcare debacle, the Russia investigation, his attacks on the media--this entire joke of a presidency.

In Trump you have a man who feels 100% insulated from the consequences of bad behavior.

...you can make vague, grandiose promises of beautiful deals and unbelievable success in lieu of saying anything of substance or coming up with any real plan...  

...you can run a business into the ground, refuse to pay the business associates and contractors you screwed over, then declare bankruptcy to discharge your debts and walk away with all the money.

...you can embezzle charitable funds to pay your legal fees when they take you to court for it... 

...you can dismiss anyone who has a bad thing to say about you a liar, a loser, and a failure.

...you can tell any lie you want when called to account for empty words or bad acts, and go-off about how unfairly you're being treated if at any point the questioning becomes any harsher then "Why do you think you haven't been even more wildly successful?"

...Like seriously...go back and watch some of the old interviews with Trump and the shit he had to say when his Casino's were going belly-up in Atlantic City. They're still on youtube.

This is who he's been his entire life. He didn't magically become any less of a morally defunct, conniving  shithead when he decided to run for president.   
 

 

Edited July 20, 2017 by Shoblongoo

[Res]

7 hours ago, Tryhard said:

He hasn't really understood how it's going to work since the start of his campaign in 2015.

That's true, but at least he seemed to comprehend what it was there. In the part I quoted it sounds more like he's referring to life insurance?!

...eh, not that it matters anyway, at this rate. 

 

[Res]

7 hours ago, Tryhard said:

He hasn't really understood how it's going to work since the start of his campaign in 2015.

That's true, but at least he seemed to comprehend what it was there. In the part I quoted it sounds more like he's referring to life insurance?!

...eh, not that it matters anyway, at this rate. 

 

[Tryhard]

39 minutes ago, Res said:

That's true, but at least he seemed to comprehend what it was there. In the part I quoted it sounds more like he's referring to life insurance?!

I doubt he's ever had to worry about what his healthcare is, and it seems he has a poor understanding of most things when he talks at length. He couldn't even describe the GOP's healthcare bill in any detail.

I actually believe he thinks universal healthcare is a good idea if it were to happen, considering he's praised it on at least five occasions, but he doesn't really care about how it all turns out because it won't affect him.

Also some funny headlines this morning, too:

"Trump warns Mueller against looking into his family finances apart from Russia investigation"

3 hours later:

"Mueller Expands Probe to Trump Business Transactions"

If Mueller is fired, you know what that means.

Edited July 20, 2017 by Tryhard

[Shoblongoo]

1 hour ago, Tryhard said:

"Trump warns Mueller against looking into his family finances apart from Russia investigation"

3 hours later:

"Mueller Expands Probe to Trump Business Transactions"

Like literally the first rule of good  police-work is when a suspect gets particularly jumpy and agitated about you going into a particular area and says: "Don't look there. There's nothing there."

You search-the-fuck out of that place. 

 

Edited July 20, 2017 by Shoblongoo

[Lord Raven]

12 hours ago, Res said:

That's true, but at least he seemed to comprehend what it was there. In the part I quoted it sounds more like he's referring to life insurance?!

...eh, not that it matters anyway, at this rate. 

 

He wasn't really aware of ACA provisions until he basically met with Obama.

http://www.reuters.com/article/us-exxon-mobil-usa-ukraine-idUSKBN1A51UH

lol

Edited July 21, 2017 by Lord Raven

[Res]

Ooh, Sean Spicer has resigned.