What Trump did is to tell the truth: "the emperor has no cloth" -> something everyone knows but is too bullied by the media to speak about. He is giving voice to the unrepresented silent majority.

Trump is saying some things that need to be said, but he's a loose cannon. He isn't qualified to be POTUS. If he acts the way he talks, he will have us in WW III in about 90 minutes.

votes are bought with government-funded welfare. They have done a fantastic job enlarging their base by representing the Mexicans, the Columbians, ..., and now the Syrians.

Now I'm calling B.S. The politicians are all bought and paid for by corporations and most of the "popular" vote consists of people who believe the Mass Media, so their votes aren't even based on reality. People who actually understand the cesspool that is American politics have no chance against the stupid majority or the billionaires that really run the place.

and that's my opinion.

 

Easy, easy,
362 posts without anything to bad being said. There is still time for some learning for everyone.

 

If you want to discuss civil rights, look how the parties voted for the Civil Rights Act of 1957.

 

How bout we discuss the Teapot Dome Scandal?

 

Easy, easy,
362 posts without anything to bad being said. There is still time for some learning for everyone.

And your mods team appreciates that very much! Thank you all!

 

It's like cockroaches, sometimes you have tent the house and poison everything to get the last one.

Someone tried a solution like that mid last century. Today, he's considered one of the most evil leaders in history.

 

How bout we discuss the Teapot Dome Scandal?

Sure. Any particular party you want to vilify?

 

If you want to discuss civil rights, look how the parties voted for the Civil Rights Act of 1957.

Poor old Johnson. He said it would cost the Dems the South for a generation. Looks like at least 1 maybe 2 or 3.

 

Easy, easy,
362 posts without anything to bad being said. There is still time for some learning for everyone.

Well, let's see. ISIS -> war -> welfare -> slavery -> civil rights -> villifying political parties. Yep, right on topic.

 

Poor old Johnson. He said it would cost the Dems the South for a generation. Looks like at least 1 maybe 2 or 3.

So much for buying votes, eh?

 

So much for buying votes, eh?

Yea, He even played the Kennedy card.

 

In 1957, ol' LBJ wanted it both ways, people celebrating him for the passage of the bill and people celebrating him for killing the bill. Democracy is NOT a spectator sport.

 

Politics is seduction by other means. Ol' LBJ did get civil rights done by pushing the legislation and it's sequels until he had the votes he needed. In so doing, he ruined his party's chances of winning the south for generations. That's not being a political spectator.

 

That's not being a political spectator.

Johnson wasn't a spectator. The voters are.

 

Johnson wasn't a spectator. The voters are.

Really?
I think they made their feelings very clear.

 

I think they made their feelings very clear

Yes they did. Clearly voting by feeling.

 

Someone tried a solution like that mid last century. Today, he's considered one of the most evil leaders in history.

I was thinking more of Dresden.

Air Chief Marshal Arthur Harris

I ... assume that the view under consideration is something like this: no doubt in the past we were justified in attacking German cities. But to do so was always repugnant and now that the Germans are beaten anyway we can properly abstain from proceeding with these attacks. This is a doctrine to which I could never subscribe. Attacks on cities like any other act of war are intolerable unless they are strategically justified. But they are strategically justified in so far as they tend to shorten the war and preserve the lives of Allied soldiers. To my mind we have absolutely no right to give them up unless it is certain that they will not have this effect. I do not personally regard the whole of the remaining cities of Germany as worth the bones of one British Grenadier.

The feeling, such as there is, over Dresden, could be easily explained by any psychiatrist. It is connected with German bands and Dresden shepherdesses. Actually Dresden was a mass of munitions works, an intact government centre, and a key transportation point to the East. It is now none of these things.[108]

 

I don't know, Danny's rant had me fairly close to closing this thread. All the mods have been watching it closely. It is amazing it has lasted this long.

 

The military solution to the whole ISIS thing is simple and easy: any real army would be able to take out ISIS in no time, in a real war.

To a large extent, ISIS is being used as a solution to a political goal - regime change in Syria, something the Turks and Saudis want. The US, similarly, is between a rock and a hard place: getting rid of ISIS means affirming Assad's control, strengthening the Iran/Iraq/Syria alliance, something they don't want to do.

Putin's involvement there exposed the West's war on ISIS as a hoax, unfortunately.

 

There is an article recently in the journal by Maajid Nawaz about how to defeat ISIS. An ex-jihadist, Nawaz's basic strategy is for the other countries to better message their strategy and don't take on the war on terrorism (clash of civilizations in his words).

Given his openly anti-extremist position, it is pretty said that Nawaz's strategy evolves almost entirely around what others can do to defeat ISIS, not what Muslims can do to defeat ISIS.

Unless Muslims recognize the problem within and eradicate the extremists themselves, it is a hopeless situation for all.