• Announcements

    • Zapata

      Abbreviated rules   07/28/2017

      Underdawg did an excellent job of explaining the rules.  Here's the simplified version: Don't insinuate Pedo.  Warning and or timeout for a first offense.  PermaFlick for any subsequent offenses Don't out members.  See above for penalties.  Caveat:  if you have ever used your own real name or personal information here on the forums since, like, ever - it doesn't count and you are fair game. If you see spam posts, report it to the mods.  We do not hang out in every thread 24/7 If you see any of the above, report it to the mods by hitting the Report button in the offending post.   We do not take action for foul language, off-subject content, or abusive behavior unless it escalates to persistent stalking.  There may be times that we might warn someone or flick someone for something particularly egregious.  There is no standard, we will know it when we see it.  If you continually report things that do not fall into rules #1 or 2 above, you may very well get a timeout yourself for annoying the Mods with repeated whining.  Use your best judgement. Warnings, timeouts, suspensions and flicks are arbitrary and capricious.  Deal with it.  Welcome to anarchy.   If you are a newbie, there are unwritten rules to adhere to.  They will be explained to you soon enough.  
Sign in to follow this  
dylan winter

Will the American political system need tweaking post Trump?

Recommended Posts

8 hours ago, Ed Lada said:

How they did it doesn't matter, they won the war.  The fucking Btits were stuck in Normandy for 2 months after the invasion FFS.  It took the US almost a year to almost get to Berlin after the invasion.  The only way the Allies would have prevailed without the Soviets is the US would have had to nuke Berlin.  It's a little different cooking white Eurpeans than little yellow people.   Dresden notwithstanding of course.  But conventional bombs are more palatable for some reason.  

The A-Bomb project was conceived as a way *to beat Hitler* to the bomb. The people involved had no issue roasting Germans to death en-mass with conventional firebombs, I doubt they would have hesitated for a second to nuke Berlin twice over and then once more to be sure.

Stalin was a huge help keeping the Germans busy for sure, but it was an accident of history, not any kind of altruism, and if anything he was worse than Hitler. Read Bloodlands, basically Poland and the Ukraine were sheep with wolves at both ends of the pasture that were fighting over who got to eat them.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, kent_island_sailor said:

I wasn't counting submarines and airplanes. A sub *in the Bay* would have been an incredibly rare thing, since they couldn't submerge in most of it! One U-Boat did sneak around Norfolk once, but AFAIK that was it. NFW were U-boat skippers running around the Severn River terrorizing AYC and SSA junior sailing classes :rolleyes:

The worst sub depredations were early on when we weren't in the war and the coast was all lit up. After we got convoys organized (huge bureaucratic clusterfuck for some time) the subs hardly did anything but get chased off or sunk. 

The German U boats did quite a bit of damage early on in the war.  They sank a total of almost 2,800 ships, 14 million tons worth.  THe best year was 1942 when they sank more than 6 million tonswoth of ships.  It defintely made an impact.  As you said, as the years went on the Allies got better at countering the threat but it used up a lot of Allied resources that were diverted form the war on the continent.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
58 minutes ago, kent_island_sailor said:

The A-Bomb project was conceived as a way *to beat Hitler* to the bomb. The people involved had no issue roasting Germans to death en-mass with conventional firebombs, I doubt they would have hesitated for a second to nuke Berlin twice over and then once more to be sure.

Stalin was a huge help keeping the Germans busy for sure, but it was an accident of history, not any kind of altruism, and if anything he was worse than Hitler. Read Bloodlands, basically Poland and the Ukraine were sheep with wolves at both ends of the pasture that were fighting over who got to eat them.

You are preaching to the Choir.  I have read Snyder's Bloodlands, an excellent book, as well as a few hundred other books about WW II over the last 45 years. 

Again, you are avoiding the main point.  The Soviets weren't a huge help, they won the war.  The motivation or reasons are interesting but ultimately irrelevant.  We didn't drop any A bombs on Europe.  I am no fan of the evil monster Stalin but denying the truth doesn't help anything.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I am a pretty big student of WW II in general and U-Boats in particular. Pre Pear Harbor it was like shooting fish in a neon-lit barrel for them. Our coast was lit up and the shipping was clearly outlined against the lights. The only reason more ships were not sunk was the subs could only carry so many torpedoes and they would shoot them all and have to go home for more. The U-Boat crews called this the "Happy Time" and they came close to starving the UK of food and oil.

That didn't last, once the USA *finally* realized hunting small subs in a big ocean was never going to work, they instituted the convoy system and subs had to come to us. Between that, better radar, HF-DF stations, and breaking the U-Boat code system (THANKS POLAND!!!), U-Boats became target practice. Also we tooled up to build ships faster than they got sunk.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, kent_island_sailor said:

I am a pretty big student of WW II in general and U-Boats in particular. Pre Pear Harbor it was like shooting fish in a neon-lit barrel for them. Our coast was lit up and the shipping was clearly outlined against the lights. The only reason more ships were not sunk was the subs could only carry so many torpedoes and they would shoot them all and have to go home for more. The U-Boat crews called this the "Happy Time" and they came close to starving the UK of food and oil.

That didn't last, once the USA *finally* realized hunting small subs in a big ocean was never going to work, they instituted the convoy system and subs had to come to us. Between that, better radar, HF-DF stations, and breaking the U-Boat code system (THANKS POLAND!!!), U-Boats became target practice. Also we tooled up to build ships faster than they got sunk.

 

All true.  I am glad you are one of the few that know that it was Polish forces that obtained the enigma machine that allowed British code breakers to solve the puzzle and to read the German messages.  Most people forget the Poles and only credit the Brrits.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, kent_island_sailor said:

Stalin was a huge help keeping the Germans busy

 

Just as a historical sideline, the eastern front between Germany and Russia was the defining feature of the war for Europe.  More than 60% of the entire German Army was committed to fighting the Russians.  60% vs Russia, 40% vs EVERYWHERE else.  Stalin fought Hitler in a 2.5 year running battle to the death.  

http://www.axishistory.com/axis-nations/134-campaigns-a-operations/campaigns-a-operations/2085-number-of-german-divisions-by-front-in-world-war-ii

The battle of Stalingrad alone (https://historyofrussia.org/battle-of-stalingrad-facts/);

"By the time of the Soviet counter-offensive, the German military had committed 1,011,000 men, 10,250 artillery pieces, 675 tanks and 732 planes. The Soviet Union matched the Germans for manpower, but with shorter supply lines than the Germans, could bring more heavy firepower to bear. The Soviet forces number 1,103,000 men, 15,500 artillery pieces, 1,463 tanks and 1,115 aircraft."

"91,000 German troops were captured at the end of the Battle of Stalingrad. Of those 91,000, only 6,000 survived to return to Germany after the war."

Think about that - 1 MILLION men committed to a single siege,  6000 survived to return home.  That's at 99.4% death rate. not merely casualties.  The reality is that "the British/Americans"kept Hitler busy" and prevented him from turning even MORE resources to the eastern front.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 1/12/2018 at 4:00 PM, Shortforbob said:

socially liberal, economically conservative.

actually not that hard to understand.

 

On 1/12/2018 at 4:18 PM, SloopJonB said:

Make up your mind - that saying is just an easy cop-out.

Cop out? Seriously?

I will never understand the seemingly compelling need to identify oneself as either Liberal or Conservative, nor the demand that others do so. 

This is the problem.

And it is compounded by the power of the Internet, including social media, to custom tailor information provided to you based on your mined search terms, link hits, likes and dislikes, etc. 

It is what gives people in this country a complete disagreement ON WHAT REALITY IS. 

Until a good chunk of Americans stop categorizing themselves to comfortably reinforce their views, rather than thinking of themselves as political individuals and challenging their views, we will never really accomplish anything as a society. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The political system will need to be disinfected and perhaps deloused  when Bone Spurs and his elk are done. Perhaps the services of a structural engineer and termite inspector to make there is no hidden structural damage.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 1/12/2018 at 4:41 PM, Moderate said:

Many Americans hate europe because of your thankless response for the blood we spilt 

Many Americans live in trailer parks, dink a fifth of gin every night, and beat their wives. But then again, who am I to question your need to speak for your demographic? 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Game this out:

Russia came well over 90% of the way towards losing. Absent American supplies and American air raids keeping the Luftwaffe busy in the west, I don't think they had  a chance.

Absent Russian help, WW II would have been very different. If they just stayed neutral, the UK likely would have been effectively out of the fight. At best they would be on the defensive keeping Germans off the island and they might have just called it a day and went neutral like Spain. So the USA would have been faced with a vastly more difficult task in Europe.We might have decided to just sit back until we had A-bombs ready or maybe just worry about the Pacific.

Absent American help, total disaster 100%. Absent Russian help, probably a vastly bigger mess but not 100% sure. So Russia didn't win the war any more or less than the USA did, either one would have had a very hard time at best without the other and I doubt Russia would have survived.

* also note Poland did very well for their size, their code breaking help really was huge, and everyone rat-fucked them after the war if they weren't doing it during the war.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
16 hours ago, cmilliken said:

 

Just as a historical sideline, the eastern front between Germany and Russia was the defining feature of the war for Europe.  More than 60% of the entire German Army was committed to fighting the Russians.  60% vs Russia, 40% vs EVERYWHERE else.  Stalin fought Hitler in a 2.5 year running battle to the death.  

http://www.axishistory.com/axis-nations/134-campaigns-a-operations/campaigns-a-operations/2085-number-of-german-divisions-by-front-in-world-war-ii

The battle of Stalingrad alone (https://historyofrussia.org/battle-of-stalingrad-facts/);

"By the time of the Soviet counter-offensive, the German military had committed 1,011,000 men, 10,250 artillery pieces, 675 tanks and 732 planes. The Soviet Union matched the Germans for manpower, but with shorter supply lines than the Germans, could bring more heavy firepower to bear. The Soviet forces number 1,103,000 men, 15,500 artillery pieces, 1,463 tanks and 1,115 aircraft."

"91,000 German troops were captured at the end of the Battle of Stalingrad. Of those 91,000, only 6,000 survived to return to Germany after the war."

Think about that - 1 MILLION men committed to a single siege,  6000 survived to return home.  That's at 99.4% death rate. not merely casualties.  The reality is that "the British/Americans"kept Hitler busy" and prevented him from turning even MORE resources to the eastern front.

This ^^^.  As much as the Americans and the Brits want to say they won the war, the battles in France and the march to the Rhine were a sideshow.  The real war was in the East and always was.  AMerica did win the war in the Pacific but WW II was essentially 2 different wars, the one in Europe and the one in the Asia/Pacific region.

The US lost a little over 419,000 dead, Great Britain a little over 450,000 in all of the theaters during WW II.  Germany lost a little over 7,000,000 and the Soviet Union between 26,000,000 and 27,000,000.  The numbers are total military and civilian deaths.   Compared to the German and Soviet figures, the Ally death toll barely registers.  The German army deaths at Stalingrad almost equaled the entire war death toll of the US and GB combined!

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The answer to the OP question is YES.  And its very much needed.  Once this bitch is burned down, there will be the need for lots of tweeks.

And trump might quite literally be THE BEST thing that's ever happened to America.  He's such an incompetent, uncouth asshat - that surely the voting public will finally wake the fuck up and start paying attention and holding their leaders and representatives accountable.  Because the majority of us need a good slap in the face and boot in the nutz to get us out of our near term only "ME ME ME" stupor we've been in for decades now.  Trump might be exactly the cautionary tale of our future that if we don't wake the fuck up soon, this is what we have to look forward to.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, Shootist Jeff said:

And trump might quite literally be THE BEST thing that's ever happened to America.

Hate ya for making me green ya :o

 

Would of been a lot easier without that quoted sentence .

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
16 hours ago, kent_island_sailor said:

Game this out:

Russia came well over 90% of the way towards losing. Absent American supplies and American air raids keeping the Luftwaffe busy in the west, I don't think they had  a chance.

Absent Russian help, WW II would have been very different. If they just stayed neutral, the UK likely would have been effectively out of the fight. At best they would be on the defensive keeping Germans off the island and they might have just called it a day and went neutral like Spain. So the USA would have been faced with a vastly more difficult task in Europe.We might have decided to just sit back until we had A-bombs ready or maybe just worry about the Pacific.

Absent American help, total disaster 100%. Absent Russian help, probably a vastly bigger mess but not 100% sure. So Russia didn't win the war any more or less than the USA did, either one would have had a very hard time at best without the other and I doubt Russia would have survived.

* also note Poland did very well for their size, their code breaking help really was huge, and everyone rat-fucked them after the war if they weren't doing it during the war.

A few thoughts.  It is fine to play if only, what if, etc., etc.  It doesn't at all effect the reality of the outcome.  There were many turning points in the war, some caused by stupidity, some by the fog of war. 

But if you want to play that game, the Soviet Union (which is a lot more than Russia) would have eventually won the war without any help frrom the US.  The USSR is too big and has far to many people and resources comapred to the Germans.  The Soviet plan if Moscow was taken was to retreat behind the Ural mountains, they had already moved a large part of their industrial capacity there.  There is no way Germany could have ever beat them short of atomic weapons which they may or may not have had in time.  Obviously Stalin had no problem bleeding the Soviet Army there were more men waiting to be drafted as cannon fodder.  The Nazis coudn't win a war of attrition againstthe Soviets among other things, they had no effective bomber force and their rocket weapons were crude and not teribly effective.  The Germans effectively lost the war in 1942 with the failure of Operation Barbarossa, the only question then was how long would it take to end the war.  Stalin was eternally pissed off at the plodding Allied efforts, he wanted to take Berlin and as much of German west of that point as he could.  The only outcome if the US hadn't entered the war and Hitler couldn't get nukes in time is that the Soviet expansion plans to dominate Europe would have been paused to rebuild the damage from the war.  Even if that occured he still would have had most of the territory he ended up with since most of the countries were already effectively subdued before the war's end anyway.

Poland has a 1,000 year history of being rat fucked, a victim of geography and an inability of Polish kings and queens to effectively rule the country. Poles are basically anarchists and generally are concerned about individual needs as opposed to collective needs. The only time they would unite was when the country was in extreme danger, which was often throught their history.   But when they did work together they were a formidable force.   In 1920, the SOviet Union invaded the newly recreated Polish Republic after 125 years of being partioned between Germany, Russia and Austria.  The Soviet had reached the Vistula river in Warsaw and a heroic defense by Marsahl Pilsudski held of the invaders an ddrove them out of Poland, winning the war.  During WW II, the polish Army, no longer a recgnized Army because Poland didn't exist, it was under the domination of the Nazis, was called the Armia Krajowa (AK, National Army) but was commonly known as the Underground Army.  Between them and local partisans they were the only occupied country during the war that put up a constant, organized resistance against the occupying force.  During the Warsaw Uprising, the poles hoped to hold off against the Nazis for a week until the Soviets crossed the Vistula to assist them.  The Soviets were happy to sit on the left bank of the Vistula while the Nazis killed the Poles for them. Exact totals will never be known due to the virtually complete destrucyion of Warsaw during after the uprising but apporximately 16,000 soldiers and 200,00 civilians were killed during those 2 months.  Around 8,000 Nazi soldiers were killed.  The Poles resisted, against all odds, for 2 months, and inflicted heavy casualties on the Nazis before they finally surrendered.  In recognition of the bravery of the Polish forces, the German Army commander agreed to the Polish request to be treated as a recognized Army and not partisans which would have allowed for their immediate execution.  As a result the Polish POWs were sent to camps in Germany and treated reasonably well, many of them survived the camps and were repatriated to Poland after the war.  Unfortunately many of them were rounded up by the Polish communists and the Soviets shipped them to Siberia where most of them perished in the Gulag.  Another accomplishement of the Poles was that they recoverer a virtually intact V2 rocket as well as many parts of V1 and V2 rockets and managed to smuggle them to the Allies for examination.  Test rockets were regularly fired into Eastern Poland by the Nazis, where the Poles managed to recover some of them.

There are quite a few good books about he efforts of Poland during WW II and Polish history in General. Two of the best are by British historian Norman Davies, Rising '44 is probably the best account  written about the Warsaw Uprising, and God's Playground is an aptly titled and excellent overall history of the country, encompassing the entire tragic history of the country, from it's inception around 1,000 years ago, up to the modern times.  In my opinion Daivies is the best historian alive today, and he doesn't have the usual 'Great Britain won WW II' biased view that many British historians unfortunately have.  Davies married a Polish woman and he has a fondness for the country.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
25 minutes ago, Shootist Jeff said:

The answer to the OP question is YES.  And its very much needed.  Once this bitch is burned down, there will be the need for lots of tweeks.

And trump might quite literally be THE BEST thing that's ever happened to America.  He's such an incompetent, uncouth asshat - that surely the voting public will finally wake the fuck up and start paying attention and holding their leaders and representatives accountable.  Because the majority of us need a good slap in the face and boot in the nutz to get us out of our near term only "ME ME ME" stupor we've been in for decades now.  Trump might be exactly the cautionary tale of our future that if we don't wake the fuck up soon, this is what we have to look forward to.

You are more optimistic than I am.  Look at the clamor for Oprah in 2020 for President after one speech at an entertainmet awards show.  The American public seems to have developed a preference for celebrity over ability for the most impotant job in the country. In a age where people hate to read anything longer than 5 sentences, maximum, believe anything that appears on Facebook or Twitter that coincides with their views.   Many people also eat up the genuinely fake news from Fox and Alex (shudder) Jones,  so the political ignorance that is so widespread in the US isn't surprisng at all.  The Alex Jones channel on YouTube has more than 2.2 million subscribers alone and he has many other channels as well.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think the most eye opening statistic was that Russia lost more men just taking Berlin than the Allies did in all of the Normandy invasion. 250K to take Berlin VS 210K in Normandy.

No wonder they felt they were entitled to the city.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think the issue is that the American Republican system's checks and balances do not work quickly enough.  In a constitutional monarchy the response to a severe political problem is quick.  A snap election is called.  The Republican checks and balances seem to have a built-in 6 month delay from executive to congress for the most egregious acts.  I believe the tweaking should include some mechanism to allow for a maximum of a one week response from one branch to another that does not require a majority of Congress or Senate or entry into the creaking slowness of judiciary.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I remember back during Watergate an American friend living here responded to similar comments about how slow it was moving.

He said the American system was slow but it worked as intended.

I think he was right - my concern is that the public, through ignorance and disinterest, is now as much the problem as Trump and his gang.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 hours ago, Shootist Jeff said:

  Trump might be exactly the cautionary tale of our future that if we don't wake the fuck up soon, this is what we have to look forward to.

Think how bad it would be if Killlary won:lol:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 hours ago, Ed Lada said:

You are more optimistic than I am.  Look at the clamor for Oprah in 2020 for President after one speech at an entertainmet awards show.  The American LEFT seems to have developed a preference for celebrity over ability .....

FIFY

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Nice! said:

How about making a law requiring all presidential candidates to make public their tax returns going back 10 years. 

 

Then only career politicians who have spent 20 years sheltering investments through their family could run.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
15 minutes ago, Saorsa said:

Then only career politicians who have spent 20 years sheltering investments through their family could run.

You say that like it's a bad thing.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 14/01/2018 at 4:18 PM, cmilliken said:

 

Just as a historical sideline, the eastern front between Germany and Russia was the defining feature of the war for Europe.  More than 60% of the entire German Army was committed to fighting the Russians.  60% vs Russia, 40% vs EVERYWHERE else.  Stalin fought Hitler in a 2.5 year running battle to the death.  

http://www.axishistory.com/axis-nations/134-campaigns-a-operations/campaigns-a-operations/2085-number-of-german-divisions-by-front-in-world-war-ii

The battle of Stalingrad alone (https://historyofrussia.org/battle-of-stalingrad-facts/);

"By the time of the Soviet counter-offensive, the German military had committed 1,011,000 men, 10,250 artillery pieces, 675 tanks and 732 planes. The Soviet Union matched the Germans for manpower, but with shorter supply lines than the Germans, could bring more heavy firepower to bear. The Soviet forces number 1,103,000 men, 15,500 artillery pieces, 1,463 tanks and 1,115 aircraft."

"91,000 German troops were captured at the end of the Battle of Stalingrad. Of those 91,000, only 6,000 survived to return to Germany after the war."

Think about that - 1 MILLION men committed to a single siege,  6000 survived to return home.  That's at 99.4% death rate. not merely casualties.  The reality is that "the British/Americans"kept Hitler busy" and prevented him from turning even MORE resources to the eastern front.

I highly recommend reading this. 

 

https://www.amazon.co.uk/Stalingrad-Antony-Beevor/dp/0141032405

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12 hours ago, Shootist Jeff said:

The answer to the OP question is YES.  And its very much needed.  Once this bitch is burned down, there will be the need for lots of tweeks.

And trump might quite literally be THE BEST thing that's ever happened to America.  He's such an incompetent, uncouth asshat - that surely the voting public will finally wake the fuck up and start paying attention and holding their leaders and representatives accountable.  Because the majority of us need a good slap in the face and boot in the nutz to get us out of our near term only "ME ME ME" stupor we've been in for decades now.  Trump might be exactly the cautionary tale of our future that if we don't wake the fuck up soon, this is what we have to look forward to.

Is that starting to happen yet? It doesn’t really seem to be. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, SloopJonB said:

I think the most eye opening statistic was that Russia lost more men just taking Berlin than the Allies did in all of the Normandy invasion. 250K to take Berlin VS 210K in Normandy.

No wonder they felt they were entitled to the city.

That's why Stalin got what he wanted in Eastern Europe.  First and most importantly, he held the ground at the end of the war.  Second, Churchill and Roosevelt gave Eastern Europe him to him the Yalta Conference in 1945 because Stalin basically said he paid for that part of the world with Soviet blood, while the Allies dithered.  Third, Churchill basically gave the green light to Stalin to do that, much earlier in the war.   None of them thought to ask what the various countries in Eastern Europe, especially Poland who was promised they would regain their freedom after the war, thought about that plan.  It was one of the biggest ass fuckings ever administered except of course the British Empire was the acknowledged world expert when it came to ass fucking inferior (to them) countries.  Everybody was saying it then.

I could just hear Churchill explaining the situation to the Polish Government in exile, in London at the end of the war.  "Well sorry old chapski.  I know we started WWII over your country in 1939, but that was before nukes.  It's a different world now, you see, wot?  We really hate to do this to your country, but cheer up, it's happened so many times in the past, you're probably used to it, right boyo, wot?  Don't worry, Uncle Joe is a good friend of mine, wot?  Say, would you like some vodka, you are looking a little pale there old chapski.  Wot?"

I always wonder if Sikorski hadn't been killed in a plane crash, while taking off from Gibralter in 1943 if he would have taken that shit from the Brits.  He was a pretty tough mofo.  Sikorski was a WW I  vet, fought in the Polish Soviet war in 1919-1921, was one of the prime ministers of the new Polish Republic, CiC of the Polish military and Prime Minister of the Polish Government in Exile during WW II until his untimely death, possibly at the direction of the Brits.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
23 minutes ago, mad said:

Damn good book, Beevor is another of the rare objective British historians, almost as good as Davies in my opinion.  It took the death of those who served and or lived through the war before the British could even start to be truthful about their rather unremarkable performance during WW II.  

The best books about WW II in Europe are finally being written in the last 10-15 years.  It takes a long time for feelings to recede and objectivity starting to take precedence.

In a few more years, American authors might start right some accurate accounts of the Viet Nam war.  Few where will live long enough to hear any truth about the Persian Gulf Wars 1 and 2.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Ed, I take it you are not familiar with the term Realpolitik?

Do you think the Allies should have kept going to Moscow like Patton wanted?

Of course Poland got an ass fucking - so did Hungary and Czechoslovakia and East Germany. The reality is they were simply not worth the cost of their freedom.

It all worked out in the end anyway.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

thanks for your sensible suggestions to my question

( entirely predictable vituperation from the usual asshats aside of course)

I think that the world is a different place from the one envisioned by the founding fathers

a number of major changes

1/one button to start a massive war - within minutes

2/machine guns/Bump stocks

3/the speed of communication and the web/twitter/email/websites/video

4/perfect and cheap recording of official conversations is now possible.

I am not  saying in any way that the parliamentary system is better suited to the modern world - but it seems that the leaders are easier to dump when they go bonkers/become a political liability. We do not vote for the leader, we vote for a local representative who then has free reign to deal on my behalf. Before the election, they tell me where they stand  but are free to  change their mind subject to circumstances - but they are always aware that they might be standing for re-election within weeks should the government lose a simple vote of confidencce.

We also have the mechanism to call a snap election - one vote of confidence lost and it all changes.  This rapidity makes it hard for raw cash to have such an impact on our elections and makes it harder for the Ukrainian web experts to get into gear.

We also have Prime Ministers Question time - that makes sure that anyone who is to become a leader has to be able to understand and defend legislation - your own lovely President appears to have a fairly thin grasp of the complexities of government.

 

 

Still, on the bright side  you have Steven Miller to guide your man - so your democracy is safe(ish)

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
21 minutes ago, dylan winter said:

thanks for your sensible suggestions to my question

( entirely predictable vituperation from the usual asshats aside of course)

I think that the world is a different place from the one envisioned by the founding fathers

a number of major changes

1/one button to start a massive war - within minutes

2/machine guns/Bump stocks

3/the speed of communication and the web/twitter/email/websites/video

4/perfect and cheap recording of official conversations is now possible.

I am not  saying in any way that the parliamentary system is better suited to the modern world - but it seems that the leaders are easier to dump when they go bonkers/become a political liability. We do not vote for the leader, we vote for a local representative who then has free reign to deal on my behalf. Before the election, they tell me where they stand  but are free to  change their mind subject to circumstances - but they are always aware that they might be standing for re-election within weeks should the government lose a simple vote of confidencce.

We also have the mechanism to call a snap election - one vote of confidence lost and it all changes.  This rapidity makes it hard for raw cash to have such an impact on our elections and makes it harder for the Ukrainian web experts to get into gear.

We also have Prime Ministers Question time - that makes sure that anyone who is to become a leader has to be able to understand and defend legislation - your own lovely President appears to have a fairly thin grasp of the complexities of government.

 

 

Still, on the bright side  you have Steven Miller to guide your man - so your democracy is safe(ish)

 

PMQ's is just a bunch of children yelling and jeering at each trying to score points against each other, it is far removed from any form of political debate.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
13 hours ago, mad said:
On 1/15/2018 at 1:41 PM, Shootist Jeff said:

The answer to the OP question is YES.  And its very much needed.  Once this bitch is burned down, there will be the need for lots of tweeks.

And trump might quite literally be THE BEST thing that's ever happened to America.  He's such an incompetent, uncouth asshat - that surely the voting public will finally wake the fuck up and start paying attention and holding their leaders and representatives accountable.  Because the majority of us need a good slap in the face and boot in the nutz to get us out of our near term only "ME ME ME" stupor we've been in for decades now.  Trump might be exactly the cautionary tale of our future that if we don't wake the fuck up soon, this is what we have to look forward to.

Is that starting to happen yet? It doesn’t really seem to be. 

I think its slowly starting to happen.  It looks like the reaction to trump, save a couple of R senators with "flexible" memories, is mostly bipartisan.  Trump is the great uniter, by being so divisive and such a fuckwit, he's actually bringing natural enemies together.  It hasn't gotten bad enough yet for the general public to completely wake up.  There is more burning that needs to be done first before the awakening to how bad things can get happens.  Patience grasshopper......

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The fallacy I see in the 'burn it down" scenario is the unsupported belief that what comes up from the ashes is a phoenix rather than just a bad smell.  The number instances where this occurred is smaller, I think, than otherwise as the power vacuum created by the bonfire allows power players, regardless of their intent to do good, to move in.  French Revolution, Weimar-Chancellorship, Bolshevik-monarchy etc. all created governments arguably "worse" for the citizens and world.   We can all think of examples of "better" governments coming in but the potential of a bad actor to rise to power in the chaos is much greater than an incremental plan of improvement.  

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 minutes ago, learningJ24 said:

The fallacy I see in the 'burn it down" scenario is the unsupported belief that what comes up from the ashes is a phoenix rather than just a bad smell.  The number instances where this occurred is smaller, I think, than otherwise as the power vacuum created by the bonfire allows power players, regardless of their intent to do good, to move in.  French Revolution, Weimar-Chancellorship, Bolshevik-monarchy etc. all created governments arguably "worse" for the citizens and world.   We can all think of examples of "better" governments coming in but the potential of a bad actor to rise to power in the chaos is much greater than an incremental plan of improvement.  

very wise

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 hours ago, mad said:

PMQ's is just a bunch of children yelling and jeering at each trying to score points against each other, it is far removed from any form of political debate.

Exactly - Question Period is like daycare on a bad day.

It's an embarrassment.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, SloopJonB said:

Exactly - Question Period is like daycare on a bad day.

It's an embarrassment.

it is when the metal of a leader is under its most sincere test

if you listen and understand there are some really significant under currents

I think it is a splendid thing.

A british PM has to be able to think on his/her feet

 

D

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
26 minutes ago, dylan winter said:

it is when the metal of a leader is under its most sincere test

if you listen and understand there are some really significant under currents

I think it is a splendid thing.

A british PM has to be able to think on his/her feet

 

D

So is proper spelling Dylan.  It's mettle.  And you were a journo too!  Oh wait, you worked in television, spelling doesn't matter there.  That or you were thinking of one of your former PMs, the Iron Lady  ;)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, dylan winter said:

it is when the metal of a leader is under its most sincere test

if you listen and understand there are some really significant under currents

I think it is a splendid thing.

A british PM has to be able to think on his/her feet

 

D

It’s pantomime show!..... distinctly lacking in any form of diplomatic conversation. It only serves as a braying match and, at the times, a well deserved slap in the face to the PM. 

Have you ever been to a meeting or any other environment where all are being paid and seen that behaviour?  On a weekly basis?

 The UK system is in need of as much tweaking as the US at times. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Ed Lada said:

So is proper spelling Dylan.  It's mettle.  And you were a journo too!  Oh wait, you worked in television, spelling doesn't matter there.  That or you were thinking of one of your former PMs, the Iron Lady  ;)

The word used is spelled correctly. It is simply the wrong version of the word.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, jerseyguy said:

The word used is spelled correctly. It is simply the wrong version of the word.

And when the words have 2 very distinctive meanings, it means the sentence doesn’t make sense. 

Pedantic, yes.  But from a journalist........ :P

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 minutes ago, jerseyguy said:

The word used is spelled correctly. It is simply the wrong version of the word.

Yeah, he spelled mettle wrong.  

See I can be pedantic too!  We probably have enough people here for a pedant fest. I just hope people don't read that word to quickly and get the wrong idea. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, mad said:

And when the words have 2 very distinctive meanings, it means the sentence doesn’t make sense. 

Pedantic, yes.  But from a journalist........ :P

There is a lot of, IMO, seriously semi-illiteracy floating around here . If we attach expectations to professions, then a certain Down Under contributor is among the most egregious.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 minutes ago, Ed Lada said:

Yeah, he spelled mettle wrong.  

See I can be pedantic too!  We probably have enough people here for a pedant fest. I just hope people don't read that word to quickly and get the wrong idea. 

Using the Polish version of "to"?  :unsure:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, jerseyguy said:

There is a lot of, IMO, seriously semi-illiteracy floating around here . If we attach expectations to professions, then a certain Down Under contributor is among the most egregious.

I can only guess that he might be one I’ve utilised the ignore setting for. I’m not sure who you mean. 

But a self proclaimed journalist should be better than that, unless of course they work for Dacre and are one of his minions, in which case, it’s to be expected. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 1/15/2018 at 3:41 AM, Shootist Jeff said:

The answer to the OP question is YES.  And its very much needed.  Once this bitch is burned down, there will be the need for lots of tweeks.

And trump might quite literally be THE BEST thing that's ever happened to America.  He's such an incompetent, uncouth asshat - that surely the voting public will finally wake the fuck up and start paying attention and holding their leaders and representatives accountable.  Because the majority of us need a good slap in the face and boot in the nutz to get us out of our near term only "ME ME ME" stupor we've been in for decades now.  Trump might be exactly the cautionary tale of our future that if we don't wake the fuck up soon, this is what we have to look forward to.

I completely agree. That’s why I voted for the Dotard. Our country is strong enough to survive 4 years of stupidity. I disagreed with about 90% of what Sanders campaigned on, but believed he actually gave a shit about us and thought it was best. He got railroaded by his party. I apologize for the next few years, but hope both parties take a serious look At themselves before the next lap. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, Monkey said:

I completely agree. That’s why I voted for the Dotard. Our country is strong enough to survive 4 years of stupidity. I disagreed with about 90% of what Sanders campaigned on, but believed he actually gave a shit about us and thought it was best. He got railroaded by his party. I apologize for the next few years, but hope both parties take a serious look At themselves before the next lap. 

An interesting and honest admission. Thanks. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Sanders is too fucking old.  There needs to be a new requirement that a president can't be more than say 71, at the end of his term an d if he hits that limit in office then he can't run for reelection.  The job is too big and too much stress nowadays.  Didn't we learn anything from the Reagan debacle?  He was showing signs of dementia in i his first term, not just his second.  It's a younger persons job now.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, Ed Lada said:

Yeah, he spelled mettle wrong.  

See I can be pedantic too!  We probably have enough people here for a pedant fest. I just hope people don't read that word to two quickly and get the wrong idea. 

FIFY

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On ‎1‎/‎12‎/‎2018 at 6:47 PM, dylan winter said:

wrong word

 

half the American voters then

3 million more voted for Hillary than did for Trump.  Electora; College should be binned....

Share this post


Link to post
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

Sign in to follow this