Jump to content

chocolat steve

Board Sponsors
  • Content count

    9646
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    78

chocolat steve last won the day on January 13

chocolat steve had the most liked content!

Community Reputation

190 Excellent

About chocolat steve

  • Rank
    old hand

Profile Information

  • Gender
    Not Telling

Recent Profile Visitors

The recent visitors block is disabled and is not being shown to other users.

  1. chocolat steve

    Usa Thread

    These MAGA hats are repeatedly being synonymous with bigotry of all sorts. It may not be what Trump or many of his supports wants or intended but it seems bigots feel comfortable that the symbolism and Trump represents their feelings. For the record, I hope every college this kid applies to sees this video. I also gotta question the parenting. Not saying he doesn't have the right to do it. We have free speech but free speech also comes with responsibility and consequences (such as loss of job, career, as we have seen happen).
  2. chocolat steve

    Usa Thread

    I think it's defnitely within Trump's character to tell Cohen to lie but I think he's way too smart to provide any proof of such a conversation. Doesn't matter what Cohen says, if there is no proof it won't matter.
  3. chocolat steve

    Usa Thread

    Steve King per se was only a worry in that he previously had a say in the government via his vote and committee. But the three things that worry me the most are 1. the 4th district in Iowa that elects him. His election and re-election over the years speaks volumes on the type of people there and 2. since he's said what he has said not a peep from the President. His silence speaks volumes. King's comment is worthy of a comment from the titular head of the party. And 3. Sadly, his comments won't change a thing including galvanizing Blacks. https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2018/oct/26/hes-so-openly-racist-why-does-iowa-keep-electing-steve-king-to-congress
  4. chocolat steve

    Usa Thread

    I have to wonder why AOC (Alexandria Ocasio Cortez) triggers the right as well as the establishment Democrats so much. She is a freshman Congressperson from a district in the Bronx. No power whatsoever on the face of it. Assignments in committee are handed out by seniority. This is the House of Representatives where you can live in obscurity for years on committees such as Indian Affairs. My guess is her potential. She is the face of a new wave of very progressive, far left of center, even left of Democrats, and they are not beholden to the status quo. The left's version of what the Tea Party was supposed to be for the right (but has since been bought by special interest). I think everyone is looking for her to be a major force as a candidate perhaps in 2024. She gets scrutinized more than a priest at a a playground. The standards for her are unfairly set high in what she is supposed to know. She's young and just starting out and every small misspeak is shown as proof positive she doesn't know anything or a fraud and there are fake stories about her all the time. I've rarely seen anything like this. I'm guessing JFK went through something similar perhaps. I wasn't around back then. . Am I a fan? Yes to some extent. I like seeing new blood and I like seeing David vs Goliath stories. But that's about all there is to it for me. She came from humble beginnings, took on a person who was embedded in the Democratic machine and slated to be the Majority whip possibly. It's a huge defeat and a huge accomplishment on her part. So, in that context I thought it was a good story. I have thought the same about some on the right. She was placed on the Financial Services committee which overseas Banking and that is a high profile committee. That surprised me. The establishment Democrats don't like her because she is not beholden to the machine. I would have thought a committee like House Administration or Natural Resources and have her buried in obscurity there for the duration. But had they, I think they would have come under a lot of backlash perhaps.
  5. chocolat steve

    Usa Thread

    The state of the union was actually written up till President Wilson. Wilson was a former professor and president of Princeton so liked to hear his own voice, so he started the tradition of speaking to the entire government in the Congress chambers.
  6. chocolat steve

    Usa Thread

    I'd be shocked if Bill ISN'T having affairs..haha. Really. He's always been philandering. Not saying its a good thing, but it's a given. We all know about JFK but there is a story that when LBJ learned of JFK's many affairs said something to the effect he's forgotten about more women than JFK ever had. lol. While not a president, Ben Franklin fathered a number of out of wedlock children.
  7. chocolat steve

    Usa Thread

    I had a British boss who was on an overstayed tourist visa. She got sent back after 9/11. After 9/11 there was an increased crackdown. She appealed but didn't get to stay. Tourist and student visas are how almost all of them are done.
  8. chocolat steve

    Usa Thread

    Wow. I had no idea. I knew it was a lot but but didn't realize how much of a problem visa overstays are. https://www.npr.org/2019/01/16/686056668/for-seventh-consecutive-year-visa-overstays-exceeded-illegal-border-crossings?utm_source=facebook.com&utm_medium=social&utm_campaign=npr&utm_term=nprnews&utm_content=20190116&fbclid=IwAR3Ws-nueKXxn_cg3cEI32HSs4uHWarRYdc-UWjO1nARVrWuqn_VX76U-_g
  9. chocolat steve

    Usa Thread

    I have gotten the most accurate information about America from sources outside America. The Guardian UK and Al Jazeera America has some fairly unbiased coverage. The Daily Mail is a bit right of center but they can be very accurate. Even though its Russian run, RT News gives accurate information and has guests that mainstream media won't bring on the air or let them write articles in their online editions. That said, if CNN is fake news, then what is 'real news'? Is there "unbiased" news in America that doesn't have an obvious political slant?
  10. chocolat steve

    Usa Thread

    America has a mixed history on handouts to immigrants. The ones in the city survived by forming their own communities. Little Italy, Chinatown, Greektown, Jewish neighborhoods, etc. the truth is it was the 2nd or 3rd generation that integrated. Anyone who has lived in the northeast knows that Baltimore all the way up to Boston are basically still ethnic enclaves. South Boston is Irish, the North End is Italian, to the west is Roxbury, Black and Puerto Rican. The handouts came in the far west. Everywhere pretty much west of the Mississippi were GIVEN to European immigrants. Millions and millions of acres of land, taken from the native Americans were simply given. They weren't bought. It must be said Blacks were denied these land grants as well. So, all this heartland of America, pulled themselves up from the bootstraps is only partially true. The government supported these land give aways with setting up land grant universities, farmer's bureaus that helped them in cultivating the land. The land taken in war with Mexico that gave America, Texas and the far west were the same. These were all land given freely away to european Immigrants. We tend to romanticize our history, which is great to build pride and nationalism, but its often a bit away from the real truth.
  11. chocolat steve

    Usa Thread

    This is my attempt at complete balance, and fairness. I think the best thing about Trump's election was that it is now feasible for a non politician, who isn't a General (Washington, Grant, Ike) to be President. We have had way too many "professional politicians". So, Trump breaking that mold is great for the country in that sense. However, is he the right non Politician? There are tons of people I would suggest who would be much, much better for the job. Warren Buffet is one person that comes to mind. Jesse Ventura...don't laugh, yes, THAT Jesse Ventura comes to mind. Colin Powell would have been good, Iraq war support notwithstanding. Trump simply lacks any moral and ethical standard for the job. His supporters have lowered or eliminated any standard for him. Standards that are hypocritically applied to everyone else. Standards that were applied to Obama, rightfully so, but removed for Trump. Things work both ways. If or when we ever get the left version of Trump, and what that entails, we will have deserved whatever havoc he brings to the office, because we allowed his or hers counterpart on the right. Putting a person above morality, the law, the Constitution and America itself, is basically conceding the Republic is a Republic in name only and not in practice. I supported Obama twice. The second time weakly as a lesser of two evils between him and Romney. Any illusion I was under he would be a great president was gone by that time. I would have supported his removal for a few things he conducted such as the extrajudicial killing of American citizens abroad via drone strikes or special ops operations. As much as we want to see American citizens conspiring with known terrorists killed, they were denied their constitutional rights. As much as it angered me that Bill Clinton didn't have bin Laden kidnapped and brought to America during his presidency when a foreign leader (can't recall, but I think it was Somalia) gave him that opportunity, Clinton, and I say this grudgingly knowing the havoc bin Laden caused in 9/11 but Clinton was right in that he could not legally do it and would have not been able to convict him in a fair trial due to a lack of evidence, witnesses and having to compromise top secret information. It's how a democracy and a Republic works. You have to trust that it in the end, it will all be for the long term good if we adhere to the laws we all agreed to follow. Violate those laws wantonly and you give any future despot the precedence to violate your progeny's rights. I actually agree with Trump about certain aspects of the so-called 'deep state" (not all but some). I actually agreed with him during thhe election that the economy and jobs numbers and the stats were all "cooked" numbers. I think this is one of the reasons he was voted in. He didn't continue the lie that both sides were using. However, e is simply the wrong man for the job. Not even close to being the right man if the known history of him is anything to go by. His conduct as President proved it. This is not a post about Trump per se but the abdication of moral standards. When that democratic woman called him a 'MFer', that was the standard that Trump himself lowered the rhetoric to be. Had she said that sans Trump, the Dems would have censured her for the lack of respect to the office. He really had no cause to criticize with his own name calling. One can be brash and even a bit "rough" as President. I think there is room for that. A slight lack of perceived dignity. Johnson wasn't the most dignified person. He was a Texas good ol boy who used corrupt small town politics and applied to the Speaker of the House when he was speaker and continued a certain lack of civility as President at times. Nixon used the term MF liberally in private. FDR was said to use language not consistent with his patrician background. The American people will make allowances for a certain coarseness IF it's from a person who is morally and ethically sound. Nixon knew about the vote fraud in the 1960 election but for the better good of the nation, he didn't challenge it. Johnson had proof the same Nixon talked the South Vietnam leader into rejecting a peace deal for an "October surprise" in 1968 that would give a boost to the Democratic challenger but didn't do anything about it because it would make the people not trust in the democracy. Nixon in '60 and Johnson in '68 both took losses for what they perceived as the greater good for the Republic. Obama could have rightfully make public Trump''s campaign connection to Russia and hand the election to Hillary but in doing so it would always be questioned. Trump doesn't have an ounce of that in him. The electorate, at least portions of it, is way too short sighted and way too married to identity politics. This is in no directed at Cav. I am not including you in that. It's just a general statement. There are some people who support Trump in earnest. I just believe there are too many who do but accept clear violations of tradition and ethics.
  12. chocolat steve

    Usa Thread

    Hmm...
  13. chocolat steve

    Usa Thread

    Just my guess is, they won't find anything that will sway enough Republicans to vote for impeachment or for him to resign like Nixon did. Just my guess. My guess is the economy will tank and that will make running again tentative. I also think his family will tell him 'is it going to be worth it going through another 4 years of this shit?" My guess is he won't run in 2020. The only way he'll run is if two things happen. We avoid a recession by that time and there isn't any smoking gun to get his base and the Congress GOP to kick him to the curb.
  14. chocolat steve

    Usa Thread

    https://www.factcheck.org/2018/06/illegal-immigration-statistics/?fbclid=IwAR34RLYivv-WabrrDk6plshyFMn2FMGxA4XlT-nRp5UQqub-eBV6zvlr6fs
  15. chocolat steve

    Usa Thread

    lol...All Blacks 346 , Wallabees 0.
×