Jump to content

Usa Thread


TroyinEwa/Perv
 Share

Recommended Posts

4 hours ago, Flashermac said:

BB, it obviously seemed like a good idea in the late 18th century to the upper class gentlemen who were drawing up the Constitution, since back then you could still always challenge your opponents to a duel and settle arguments permanently. Maybe deuling isn't such a bad idea after all.

Mr Flash, although it meant torturing my brains after a bottle of fine red from France I desperately tried to find out what you want to tell me in your post but I did not succeed. What I do understand from today´s incoming Thai-originated cables is that Pam needs money for the house . Fake news and a hoax I hope .

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Trump has based his defence of impeachment on four points:

He did not ask Ukraine to investigate Biden.

He did ask Ukraine to investigate Biden, but he did so for honest reasons, to fight corruption.

He did ask Ukraine to investigate Biden, but he didn’t withhold money to obtain the favor.

He did ask Ukraine to investigate Biden and he did withhold the money to get the favor, but this doesn’t rise to the level of an impeachable offence.

An inconsistent defense is a clear sign of guilt. Trump is receiving grossly unfair treatment from the Republicans, in the House and in the Senate, to say nothing about the Republican-aligned media. They should be calling for an immediate impeachment trial with the intent to convict, remove him from power and put him on trial for treason.

To do otherwise sets a dangerous precedent.

Put him out of his misery.

 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Of the 7 justices of the Supreme Court FDR had to deal with, only 2 were nominated by a Democrat (Wilson). So, although I definitely think FDR challenged the country culturally that the court probably felt obliged to reject FDR understandably, FDR was at a huge disadvantage legally. Furthermore, Wilson wasn't a progressive. He was pro business, not a reformer and also extremely racist (originally a Virginian and openly bigoted) and appointed justices based on his bias and bigotry. 

My personal opinion was that there were only 2 great Republicans in the last 100 years or so, Teddy Roosevelt and Eistenhower. A case can be made for Reagan but I wouldn't agree. The rest were notable in their obscurity (Harding, Coolidge, Ford, Bush the elder) or infamy (Hoover, Nixon,  Bush the son., Trump). Dems had far better over the same time (Wilson for most, FDR, Truman, JFK, Clinton and Obama). They were successful in office. FDR, Clinton and Obama both took over the country from a recession/depression. I liked Carter actually and thought his presidency wasn't judged in its proper context. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, chocolat steve said:

Of the 7 justices of the Supreme Court FDR had to deal with, only 2 were nominated by a Democrat (Wilson). So, although I definitely think FDR challenged the country culturally that the probably felt obliged to reject, he was at a disadvantage. Furthermore, Wilson wasn't a progressive. He was also extremely racist (originally a Virginian and openly bigoted) and appointed justices based on his bias and bigotry. 

My personal opinion was that there were only 2 great Republicans in the last 100 years or so, Teddy Roosevelt and Eistenhower. A case can be made for Reagan but I wouldn't agree. The rest were notable in their obscurity (Harding, Coolidge, Ford, Bush the elder) or infamy (Hoover, Nixon,  Bush the son., Trump). Dems had far better over the same time (Wilson for most, FDR, Truman, JFK, Clinton and Obama). They were successful in office. FDR, Clinton and Obama both took over the country from a recession/depression. I liked Carter actually and thought his presidency wasn't judged in its proper context. 

Now the Dems are crashing and burning. 

...and the Dems have for many decades established the urban plantation. Keep the people on handouts so you get their votes. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

CS, I have no problem with FDR domestically, but internationally he was a disaster. He was determined to get the US into the war against Hitler, so much so that he goaded Japan into attacking the US in hopes of doing so.  The Pacific war did not need to have been fought. FDR was just lucky that Hitler declared war on the US after Pearl Harbor, because if he hadn't, FDR would have be f*cked.

But by the last days of WWII, FDR was a hollow shell of a man, so out of touch that he let Stalin (who had entered the war as Hitler's ally) have everything he wanted in eastern Europe, including the half of Poland which he had annexed in 1939, all three Baltic States (Latvia, Lithuania, and Estonia), the 700 year old Prussian capital of Koenigsberg, the easternmost province of Czechoslovakia, and a big hunk of Romania. He also allowed Stalin to give Germany's eastern provinces to Poland (expelling its entire population), and let Stalin annex whatever Japanese territory he wanted; he chose Karafuto (southern Sakhalin)  and the Chishima (now Kurile) Islands. If FDR hadn't died when he did, we would probably have a divided Japan today, with a capitalist south and a communist north. Truman was shocked when he saw all that FDR had agreed to, but it was too late for him to do much about it, other than keeping Japan intact as one country.

I have a friend whose father was an Royal Canadian Navy intelligence officer. Hhe told that his father said he couldn't believe how naive FDR was about his "kindly Uncle Joe", who was just as evil SOB as Hitler ever was.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
 Share

×
×
  • Create New...