The Republican Party: The Party of White Supremacy - Page 6 - Politics Forum.org | PoFo

Wandering the information superhighway, he came upon the last refuge of civilization, PoFo, the only forum on the internet ...

Political issues and parties in the USA and Canada.

Moderator: PoFo North America Mods

Forum rules: No one line posts please.
#15183487
late wrote:
Not whatever. This history of FDR recently won the Pulitzer. Remember me saying not many cover everything he did? This guy may have done it, but it took 2 generously sized books to do it.

[img]https://s3.amazonaws.com/orim-book-covers/9781504047708.jpg[img]

https://www.amazon.com/dp/B074QGDNF7?ots=1&slotNum=0&imprToken=7abd8181-6efd-c0da-5bb&tag=arcsite-20

You want to waltz in here and shovel crap, fine.

But don't try and put your ignorance on me. If history was easy, everyone would do it.



What "crap" have I been "shoveling" -- ?

You don't want to deal with the actual *history* around FDR's presidency, but here's some more of it:



The thirties and forties showed more clearly than before the dilemma of working people in the United States. The system responded to workers' rebellions by finding new forms of control-internal control by their own organizations as well as outside control by law and force. But along with the new controls came new concessions. These concessions didn't solve basic problems; for many people they solved nothing. But they helped enough people to create an atmosphere of progress and improvement, to restore some faith in the system.

The minimum wage of 1938, which established the forty-hour week and outlawed child labor, left many people out of its provisions and set very low minimum wages (twenty-five cents an hour the first year). But it was enough to dull the edge of resentment. Housing was built for only a small percentage of the people who needed it. "A modest, even parsimonious, beginning," Paul Conkin says (F.D.R. and the Origins of the Welfare State), but the sight of federally subsidized housing projects, playgrounds, vermin-free apartments, replacing dilapidated tenements, was refreshing. The TVA suggested exciting possibilities for regional planning to give jobs, improve areas, and provide cheap power, with local instead of national control. The Social Security Act gave retirement benefits and unemployment insurance, and matched state funds for mothers and dependent children-but it excluded farmers, domestic workers, and old people, and offered no health insurance. As Conkin says: "The meager benefits of Social Security were insignificant in comparison to the building of security for large, established businesses."



When the New Deal was over, capitalism remained intact. The rich still controlled the nation's wealth, as well as its laws, courts, police, newspapers, churches, colleges. Enough help had been given to enough people to make Roosevelt a hero to millions, but the same system that had brought depression and crisis-the system of waste, of inequality, of concern for profit over human need- remained.



https://www.historyisaweapon.com/defcon ... hel15.html
#15183490
JohnRawls wrote:No, they did not/do not work for the CATO institute. (Majority of the published works)


I guess some people will be hacks for free.

I really don't care about the alternate timelines speculated by historical fiction writers. I'm sure that not all of Roosevelt's economic were good, but that ignores the problem of the US Federal Government having to purposely save a boom/bust capitalist system just to restore the status quo.
#15183494
SpecialOlympian wrote:
I guess some people will be hacks for free.

I really don't care about the alternate timelines speculated by historical fiction writers. I'm sure that not all of Roosevelt's economic were good, but that ignores the problem of the US Federal Government having to purposely save a boom/bust capitalist system just to restore the status quo.



It was a run on the banks:



During the financial crisis of 1933 that culminated in the banking holiday in March 1933, large quantities of gold flowed out from the Federal Reserve. Some of this outflow went to individuals and firms in the United States. This domestic drain occurred because individuals and firms preferred holding metallic gold to bank deposits or paper currency. Some of the gold flowed to foreign nations. This external drain occurred because foreign investors feared a devaluation of the dollar. Together, the internal and external drains consumed the Federal Reserve’s free gold. In March 1933, when the Federal Reserve Bank of New York could no longer honor its commitment to convert currency to gold, President Franklin Roosevelt declared a national banking holiday.



https://www.federalreservehistory.org/e ... ld-program



(Thanks, wat0n.)
#15183497
ckaihatsu wrote:
That said, I think they got a bum deal from the Western Allies through the 20th century, even though both Russia and China overthrew their own monarchies, just as England, the U.S., and France did.

That abusive treatment, based on Cold War in-crowd, out-crowd groupthink, continues its legacy today which means that Western imperialism *cannot* be viewed in a wholly 'positive light', because of the human toll it has cost, including slavery.



Patrickov wrote:
Objectively your statement is true. What I said was more about a personal perspective.



Okay, well *this* part is no longer a 'personal perspective' -- it's just plain bullshit.


Patrickov wrote:
I never see FDR's presidency easy, especially as he took up the job during both the Great Depression and the rise of Totalitarianism elsewhere in the world.

Both FDR and Winston Churchill were regarded as great only because they fought and won a great war (not totally to their credit, I have to say), and they are still held in high regard today because the nations they saved have not gone awry like the Soviet Union did. In particular, I see Chiang Kai-Shek be an extremely unlucky guy compared with FDR / Churchill, as well as Charles de Gaulle and Joseph Stalin.



---



It was a war against an enemy of unspeakable evil. Hitler's Germany was extending totalitarianism, racism, militarism, and overt aggressive warfare beyond what an already cynical world had experienced. And yet, did the governments conducting this war-England, the United States, the Soviet Union-represent something significantly different, so that their victory would be a blow to imperialism, racism, totalitarianism, militarism, in the world?

Would the behavior of the United States during the war-in military action abroad, in treatment of minorities at home-be in keeping with a "people's war"? Would the country's wartime policies respect the rights of ordinary people everywhere to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness? And would postwar America, in its policies at home and overseas, exemplify the values for which the war was supposed to have been fought?

These questions deserve thought. At the time of World War II, the atmosphere was too dense with war fervor to permit them to be aired.

For the United States to step forward as a defender of helpless countries matched its image in American high school history textbooks, but not its record in world affairs. It had opposed the Haitian revolution for independence from France at the start of the nineteenth century. It had instigated a war with Mexico and taken half of that country. It had pretended to help Cuba win freedom from Spain, and then planted itself in Cuba with a military base, investments, and rights of intervention. It had seized Hawaii, Puerto Rico, Guam, and fought a brutal war to subjugate the Filipinos. It had "opened" Japan to its trade with gunboats and threats. It had declared an Open Door Policy in China as a means of assuring that the United States would have opportunities equal to other imperial powers in exploiting China. It had sent troops to Peking with other nations, to assert Western supremacy in China, and kept them there for over thirty years.

While demanding an Open Door in China, it had insisted (with the Monroe Doctrine and many military interventions) on a Closed Door in Latin America-that is, closed to everyone but the United States. It had engineered a revolution against Colombia and created the "independent" state of Panama in order to build and control the Canal. It sent five thousand marines to Nicaragua in 1926 to counter a revolution, and kept a force there for seven years. It intervened in the Dominican Republic for the fourth time in 1916 and kept troops there for eight years. It intervened for the second time in Haiti in 1915 and kept troops there for nineteen years. Between 1900 and 1933, the United States intervened in Cuba four times, in Nicaragua twice, in Panama six times, in Guatemala once, in Honduras seven times. By 1924 the finances of half of the twenty Latin American states were being directed to some extent by the United States. By 1935, over half of U.S. steel and cotton exports were being sold in Latin America.

Just before World War I ended, in 1918, an American force of seven thousand landed at Vladivostok as part of an Allied intervention in Russia, and remained until early 1920. Five thousand more troops were landed at Archangel, another Russian port, also as part of an Allied expeditionary force, and stayed for almost a year. The State Department told Congress: "All these operations were to offset effects of the Bolshevik revolution in Russia."

In short, if the entrance of the United States into World War II was (as so many Americans believed at the time, observing the Nazi invasions) to defend the principle of nonintervention in the affairs of other countries, the nation's record cast doubt on its ability to uphold that principle.

What seemed clear at the time was that the United States was a democracy with certain liberties, while Germany was a dictatorship persecuting its Jewish minority, imprisoning dissidents, whatever their religion, while proclaiming the supremacy of the Nordic "race." However, blacks, looking at anti-Semitism in Germany, might not see their own situation in the U.S. as much different. And the United States had done little about Hitler's policies of persecution. Indeed, it had joined England and France in appeasing Hitler throughout the thirties. Roosevelt and his Secretary of State, Cordell Hull, were hesitant to criticize publicly Hitler's anti-Semitic policies; when a resolution was introduced in the Senate in January 1934 asking the Senate and the President to express "surprise and pain" at what the Germans were doing to the Jews, and to ask restoration of Jewish rights, the State Department "caused this resolution to be buried in committee," according to Arnold Offner (American Appeasement).

When Mussolini's Italy invaded Ethiopia in 1935, the U.S. declared an embargo on munitions but let American businesses send oil to Italy in huge quantities, which was essential to Italy's carrying on the war. When a Fascist rebellion took place in Spain in 1936 against the elected socialist-liberal government, the Roosevelt administration sponsored a neutrality act that had the effect of shutting off help to the Spanish government while Hitler and Mussolini gave critical aid to Franco.



https://www.historyisaweapon.com/defcon ... eswar.html
#15183499
SpecialOlympian wrote:
This is also moronic, because it was Truman who defeated Japan with nukes by nuking all their gundams. Rendering Japan defenseless by turning all of their giant robots into ash with nuclear light.



F.y.i., it's well-known that the U.S. nuclear bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki weren't directed at *Japan*, but rather at *Russia*, beginning the Cold War:



The bombing of Japanese cities continued the strategy of saturation bombing to destroy civilian morale; one nighttime fire-bombing of Tokyo took 80,000 lives. And then, on August 6, 1945, came the lone American plane in the sky over Hiroshima, dropping the first atomic bomb, leaving perhaps 100,000 Japanese dead, and tens of thousands more slowly dying from radiation poisoning. Twelve U.S. navy fliers in the Hiroshima city jail were killed in the bombing, a fact that the U.S. government has never officially acknowledged, according to historian Martin Sherwin (A World Destroyed). Three days later, a second atomic bomb was dropped on the city of Nagasaki, with perhaps 50,000 killed.



https://www.historyisaweapon.com/defcon ... eswar.html




In the same way, the US government dropped its atom bombs on Hiroshima and Nagasaki in the last days of the war, despite previous signs that the Japanese government was ready to surrender. This ensured that the surrender took place before Russian troops, advancing rapidly across Japanese-occupied Manchuria, could give Russia any real say in what happened in post-war Japan. Hiroshima and Nagasaki also brought home in the most horrific manner the US’s capacity to exercise global dominance.



Harman, _People's History of the World_, p. 527
#15183501

There were powerful groups in all of them [the Allied Powers] which regarded Nazism as a positive ally in an international onslaught on working class organisations and the left. In so far as they saw themselves as having a foreign enemy it was Russia rather than Germany, Italy or Japan. This was shown clearly during the Spanish Civil War, when the rulers of the Western ‘democracies’ were content for Hitler and Mussolini to flout a ‘non-intervention’ pact, since Franco was no danger to their empires.



Harman, _People's History of the World_, p. 522
#15183511
@SpecialOlympian

You know what gets me SO. If one were to talk to members of the KKK, they say they aren't racist and that they aren't a hate group. They say they are a "love" group. That's how they describe themselves. They think they are not racist. So, when some of these republicans go around talking about how they are not racist but are supporters of laws that disenfranchise black voters, should we take them at their word or should we judge people by their actions? See I pay attention to action more than I pay attention to words and peoples actions tell you who they really are.

Always judge people more by their actions rather than what they tell you. If republicans don't want to be judged and regarded as a party of white supremacy then don't partake in actions that demonstrate they are the party of white supremacy. The actions a party takes matters more than their words. For republicans claims "we are not racist" to be credible they have to partake in actions and not just words to demonstrate their claims are true. Or at least refrain from actions like voter suppression of black votes that demonstrate they are the party of white supremacy.
#15183518
JohnRawls wrote:
Having good intentions and doing bad is not a good excuse.

As for "nobody" knew, well this is an excuse that everyone uses. There were economists who were saying it and explaining it. The leadership choice went the other way. For example, the EU countries also didn't want to extend the 2008 recession but they did. And Greek debt crysis and so on is the fault of that. Only Mario Draggie managed to fix the situation finally. The difference is felt not when the mistakes are made with good causes but when you are manage to fix your own mistakes.



This is "fixed" -- ?



The European Central Bank has made it clear that it will continue to pump money into the financial system through its deeply negative interest rate setting and its purchases of financial assets.

The meeting of the governing council in Frankfurt on Thursday demonstrated the continued support for the ultra-easy monetary policy favoured by its president Christine Lagarde against a pushback from some northern European members who want to see the rate of bond purchasing eased.



https://www.wsws.org/en/articles/2021/0 ... b-j24.html
#15183522
B0ycey wrote:
The truth is the New deal created growth in all but one year and it worked. Any other theory that could have been better is merely hearsay and most likely fucking wrong.



Keynes himself didn't believe in his own Keynesianism, and he was *right*:



Recession of 1937 and recovery

Main article: Recession of 1937

The Roosevelt administration was under assault during Roosevelt's second term, which presided over a new dip in the Great Depression in the fall of 1937 that continued through most of 1938. Production and profits declined sharply. Unemployment jumped from 14.3% in May 1937 to 19.0% in June 1938. The downturn was perhaps due to nothing more than the familiar rhythms of the business cycle, but until 1937 Roosevelt had claimed responsibility for the excellent economic performance. That backfired in the recession and the heated political atmosphere of 1937.[101]

Keynes did not think that The New Deal under Roosevelt ended the Great Depression: "It is, it seems, politically impossible for a capitalistic democracy to organize expenditure on the scale necessary to make the grand experiments which would prove my case — except in war conditions."[102]

World War II and full employment

The U.S. reached full employment after entering World War II in December 1941. Under the special circumstances of war mobilization, massive war spending doubled the gross national product (GNP).[103] Military Keynesianism brought full employment and federal contracts were cost-plus. Instead of competitive bidding to get lower prices, the government gave out contracts that promised to pay all the expenses plus a modest profit. Factories hired everyone they could find regardless of their lack of skills—they simplified work tasks and trained the workers, with the federal government paying all the costs. Millions of farmers left marginal operations, students quit school and housewives joined the labor force.[104]

The emphasis was for war supplies as soon as possible, regardless of cost and inefficiencies. Industry quickly absorbed the slack in the labor force and the tables turned such that employers needed to actively and aggressively recruit workers. As the military grew, new labor sources were needed to replace the 12 million men serving in the military. Propaganda campaigns started pleading for people to work in the war factories. The barriers for married women, the old, the unskilled—and (in the North and West) the barriers for racial minorities—were lowered.[105]

Federal budget soars

In 1929, federal expenditures accounted for only 3% of GNP. Between 1933 and 1939, federal expenditures tripled, but the national debt as a percent of GNP showed little change. Spending on the war effort quickly eclipsed spending on New Deal programs. In 1944, government spending on the war effort exceeded 40% of GNP. The U.S. economy experienced dramatic growth during the Second World War mostly due to the deemphasis of free enterprise in favor of the imposition of strict controls on prices and wages. These controls shared broad support among labor and business, resulting in cooperation between the two groups and the U.S. government. This cooperation resulted in the government subsidizing business and labor through both direct and indirect methods.[106]



https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_Deal# ... d_recovery
#15183523
ckaihatsu wrote:This is "fixed" -- ?


No, not really. Good old Mario did a lot of good things in this regard but the situation can't be fixed without federalisation. You are asking an entity with 1% of gdp to fix your economic problems, that is simply unrealistic. (EUs total budget is around 1% of gdp)
#15183524
JohnRawls wrote:
No, not really. Good old Mario did a lot of good things in this regard but the situation can't be fixed without federalisation. You are asking an entity with 1% of gdp to fix your economic problems, that is simply unrealistic. (EUs total budget is around 1% of gdp)



Okay -- you *wish* there could be federalization over the whole of the EU, but the countries of Europe have been fighting ever since the monarchies began their existence -- the Crusades.

Also:


JohnRawls wrote:
I really do not know any examples when price controls or creation of artificial monopolies and cartels ever were beneficial to anyone or to the economy at large. I mean I understand why it was done (To stem the bleeding) but long term this prevented the recovery and probably more things that I am not qualified to talk about since I am not an economist.




The Roosevelt reforms went far beyond previous legislation. They had to meet two pressing needs: to reorganize capitalism in such a way to overcome the crisis and stabilize the system; also, to head off the alarming growth of spontaneous rebellion in the early years of the Roosevelt administration- organization of tenants and the unemployed, movements of self-help, general strikes in several cities.

That first objective-to stabilize the system for its own protection- was most obvious in the major law of Roosevelt's first months in office, the National Recovery Act (NRA). It was designed to take control of the economy through a series of codes agreed on by management, labor, and the government, fixing prices and wages, limiting competition. From the first, the NRA was dominated by big businesses and served their interests. As Bernard Bellush says (The Failure of the N.R.A.), its Title I, it turned much of the nation's power over to highly organized, well-financed trade associations and industrial combines. The unorganized public, otherwise known as the consumer, along with the members of the fledgling trade-union movement, had virtually nothing to say about the initial organization of the National Recovery Administration, or the formulation of basic policy."

Where organized labor was strong, Roosevelt moved to make some concessions to working people. But: "Where organized labor was weak, Roosevelt was unprepared to withstand the pressures of industrial spokesmen to control the . . . NRA codes." Barton Bernstein (Towards a New Past) confirms this: "Despite the annoyance of some big businessmen with Section 7a, the NRA reaffirmed and consolidated their power. . . ." Bellush sums up his view of the NRA:

The White House permitted the National Association of Manufacturers, the Chamber of Commerce, and allied business and trade associations to assume overriding authority... . Indeed, private administration became public administration, and private government became public government, insuring the marriage of capitalism with statism.

When the Supreme Court in 1935 declared the NRA unconstitutional, it claimed it gave too much power to the President, but, according to Bellush, ". . . FDR surrendered an inordinate share of the power of government, through the NRA, to industrial spokesmen throughout the country."



https://www.historyisaweapon.com/defcon ... hel15.html
#15183527
Politics_Observer wrote:@SpecialOlympian

You know what gets me SO. If one were to talk to members of the KKK, they say they aren't racist and that they aren't a hate group. They say they are a "love" group. That's how they describe themselves. They think they are not racist. So, when some of these republicans go around talking about how they are not racist but are supporters of laws that disenfranchise black voters, should we take them at their word or should we judge people by their actions? See I pay attention to action more than I pay attention to words and peoples actions tell you who they really are.

Always judge people more by their actions rather than what they tell you. If republicans don't want to be judged and regarded as a party of white supremacy then don't partake in actions that demonstrate they are the party of white supremacy. The actions a party takes matters more than their words. For republicans claims "we are not racist" to be credible they have to partake in actions and not just words to demonstrate their claims are true. Or at least refrain from actions like voter suppression of black votes that demonstrate they are the party of white supremacy.


They're racist as fuck, it's just that they have the minimal level of self awareness to realize saying "Hello, I'm a proud racist" makes them look like the monsters they are. It's why when you call a white racist a racist they freak the fuck out and get pissed off. They know it's true but they create elaborate lies in their head to justify their beliefs and avoid the terrifying thought that, yes, their belief that ~races thrive on their own when segregated, so that they can reach their race's unique potential~ is just really smart forbidden knowledge few rare to embrace and not rank racism.

It's like how we have @juin, the pussy bitch coward who thinks he loves election integrity while simultaneously supporting a bill that makes it illegal to give voters waiting in line a bottle of water while they wait in line to vote. He is a fucking top tier moron who loves voting, and flashing his ID to bored old ladies who couldn't give less of a shit, but he can't reconcile his belief in ~eliminating election fraud~ with the criminalization of giving a voter water.

So, like the pussy bitch coward he is, he will ignore this post rather than talk about how his loser GOP voting ass can't reconcile his belief in good governance with an obvious voter suppression law.

Also he is a massive bitch made coward who can't explain why he supports this law. Because, again, he is weak. And be can not explain his convictions to others because he is afraid of us telling him that he is a monster, even though he doesn't see himself as one. But he knows it, which is why he doesn't respond.

You're a weak little bitch juin
#15183529
ckaihatsu wrote:Okay -- you *wish* there could be federalization over the whole of the EU, but the countries of Europe have been fighting ever since the monarchies began their existence -- the Crusades.

Also:


I don't wish it, it is the only solution out there. The reason why the problem can't be fully fixed is because monetary measures can get you only this far.

The biggest economic problem of the EU right now is that:
1) The Northern block are heavy exporters so it is in their best interest to keep the value of the Euro steady. They have no problem in competing on the global market so a slowly or a non-inflating Euro makes them more money.
2) The Southern block that is not that competitive as an exporter and lives in a heavily mountanous region requires more investment and inflating Euro to both pay the debts and make their exports feasible.
3) The newer member states that basically just need stable currency and investment. Most of them will eventually become the Northern states after 2 or 3 decades more. Some of them might join the south (Mostly Balkan region countries)

There is no easy way to satisfy the needs of both, currently the monetary policy is controlled by the Northern block. Ultimately the North has too much weight and the solution that is applied right now is good for the new members. The solution thus far is the asset purchasing program and basically cheap investment. This is a semi-solution because it doesn't solve the debt repayment problem for the South although it does provide investment.

Theoretically this can be addressed by a federalised structure that can shoulder all the debt and repayments on top of distribution of assets from the budget to the South to compensate for the stable currency that the North wants. Without federalisation this is not really possible because there is no real budget nor will the North agree to shoulder the debt of the South although the whole reason the South has so much debt and problems repaying it is because of the North.
#15183531
JohnRawls wrote:
I don't wish it, it is the only solution out there. The reason why the problem can't be fully fixed is because monetary measures can get you only this far.

The biggest economic problem of the EU right now is that:
1) The Northern block are heavy exporters so it is in their best interest to keep the value of the Euro steady. They have no problem in competing on the global market so a slowly or a non-inflating Euro makes them more money.
2) The Southern block that is not that competitive as an exporter and lives in a heavily mountanous region requires more investment and inflating Euro to both pay the debts and make their exports feasible.
3) The newer member states that basically just need stable currency and investment. Most of them will eventually become the Northern states after 2 or 3 decades more. Some of them might join the south (Mostly Balkan region countries)

There is no easy way to satisfy the needs of both, currently the monetary policy is controlled by the Northern block. Ultimately the North has too much weight and the solution that is applied right now is good for the new members. The solution thus far is the asset purchasing program and basically cheap investment. This is a semi-solution because it doesn't solve the debt repayment problem for the South although it does provide investment.

Theoretically this can be addressed by a federalised structure that can shoulder all the debt and repayments on top of distribution of assets from the budget to the South to compensate for the stable currency that the North wants. Without federalisation this is not really possible because there is no real budget nor will the North agree to shoulder the debt of the South although the whole reason the South has so much debt and problems repaying it is because of the North.



I hate to break it to ya -- I don't like seeing tears -- but the problem isn't one of federalization-vs.-non-federalization, it's about distinctly different nationalist interests for *opposite* monetary policies, as you're describing.

The EZ means that the member countries all have to coordinate their national economies to be more-or-less 'in-sync' with each other, so as to have the Euro currency in common.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Euro_convergence_criteria

Germany argues that it's done well and shouldn't be penalized (with a subsidized / devalued Euro), while Greece will say that it's impossible to compete with that, and it needs a subsidized currency so as to devalue its debts.

That's an economic *union*, somehow -- ?
#15183536
ckaihatsu wrote:I hate to break it to ya -- I don't like seeing tears -- but the problem isn't one of federalization-vs.-non-federalization, it's about distinctly different nationalist interests for *opposite* monetary policies, as you're describing.

The EZ means that the member countries all have to coordinate their national economies to be more-or-less 'in-sync' with each other, so as to have the Euro currency in common.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Euro_convergence_criteria

Germany argues that it's done well and shouldn't be penalized (with a subsidized / devalued Euro), while Greece will say that it's impossible to compete with that, and it needs a subsidized currency so as to devalue its debts.

That's an economic *union*, somehow -- ?


The same problems are inherent to US or China but they have federal budgets of sorts. They have no problem addressing them when needed if there is a will for that.

If you live in a large structure this is unavoidable.

We are talking about the downsides but there are tons of political, cultural, economical etc upsides also. Plus the EU is very popular in all European Union states so even if you want to remove it, it simply ain't going to happen due to those benefits and popular opinion.

Data from 2019:
Image

Image

As time goes on, the younger generations have way more favourable view of the EU so the tables will shift further in the EU favour also:

Image
#15183539
JohnRawls wrote:
The same problems are inherent to US or China but they have federal budgets of sorts. They have no problem addressing them when needed if there is a will for that.

If you live in a large structure this is unavoidable.

We are talking about the downsides but there are tons of political, cultural, economical etc upsides also. Plus the EU is very popular in all European Union states so even if you want to remove it, it simply ain't going to happen due to those benefits and popular opinion.

Data from 2019:
[img]https://www.pewresearch.org/global/wp-content/uploads/sites/2/2019/10/PG_10.15.19.europe.values-04-016.png[img]

[img]https://www.pewresearch.org/global/wp-content/uploads/sites/2/2019/10/PG_10.15.19.europe.values-04-011.png[img]

As time goes on, the younger generations have way more favourable view of the EU so the tables will shift further in the EU favour also:

[img]https://www.pewresearch.org/global/wp-content/uploads/sites/2/2019/10/PG_10.15.19.europe.values-04-014.png[img]



This isn't about *popularity* (it's not a 'popularity contest').

This is about rampant, runaway *deflation*, or a profound lingering stagnation *without* inflation that's now just *aching* to get something going, *anything* really -- hence the negative interest rates there that *penalize* savers and offer *subsidized* capital to anyone who can do something with it. And, yes, it's not just an EU thing -- this is the state of the whole *world* economy, more-or-less.
#15183547
Politics_Observer wrote:@SpecialOlympian

You know what gets me SO. If one were to talk to members of the KKK, they say they aren't racist and that they aren't a hate group. They say they are a "love" group. That's how they describe themselves. They think they are not racist. So, when some of these republicans go around talking about how they are not racist but are supporters of laws that disenfranchise black voters, should we take them at their word or should we judge people by their actions? See I pay attention to action more than I pay attention to words and peoples actions tell you who they really are.

Always judge people more by their actions rather than what they tell you. If republicans don't want to be judged and regarded as a party of white supremacy then don't partake in actions that demonstrate they are the party of white supremacy. The actions a party takes matters more than their words. For republicans claims "we are not racist" to be credible they have to partake in actions and not just words to demonstrate their claims are true. Or at least refrain from actions like voter suppression of black votes that demonstrate they are the party of white supremacy.





Glad to see in you the art of groveling is still alive. :) True mastery of the art of groveling is to prostrate before the most vile character available. Good for practice. After groveling at the feet of that thing it should be a piece of cake from there on.

You actually hang out with KKK members? How do you explain that? Your post above clearly indicates a familiarity with the KKK world. Makes you a fascinating subject of study. For one, I have never met anyone closely connected to the KKK: be they Democratic or Republican acquaintances of mine, and my acquaintances, to my regret, are heavily Democratic. All of them are alien to the world of KKK. That makes you truly unique. It is almost like a gift from Georgia: a real live figure from the world of KKK.

But the baffling thing is that there is nothing of the Nathan Bedford Forrest about you. No galloping at night. No adoration to ex KKK Cyclops Robert Byrd. No veneration of luminaries like Robert E Lee. So why that passion in you? The vehemence of your protestations leaves more questions than answers. Methinks thou doeth protesteth too much. Almost with the passion of an exorcism. It is almost like you are haunted by ghosts of Confederates past, and will find no rest until a stake is driven into the carcass of every last one of them.

Yet, dead and gone Confederates were all Democratics. Neo Confederates were, and are all Democrats. Why are you looking for them amongst Republicans?
#15183557
Juin wrote:Glad to see in you the art of groveling is still alive. :) True mastery of the art of groveling is to prostrate before the most vile character available. Good for practice. After groveling at the feet of that thing it should be a piece of cake from there on.

You actually hang out with KKK members? How do you explain that? Your post above clearly indicates a familiarity with the KKK world. Makes you a fascinating subject of study. For one, I have never met anyone closely connected to the KKK: be they Democratic or Republican acquaintances of mine, and my acquaintances, to my regret, are heavily Democratic. All of them are alien to the world of KKK. That makes you truly unique. It is almost like a gift from Georgia: a real live figure from the world of KKK.

But the baffling thing is that there is nothing of the Nathan Bedford Forrest about you. No galloping at night. No adoration to ex KKK Cyclops Robert Byrd. No veneration of luminaries like Robert E Lee. So why that passion in you? The vehemence of your protestations leaves more questions than answers. Methinks thou doeth protesteth too much. Almost with the passion of an exorcism. It is almost like you are haunted by ghosts of Confederates past, and will find no rest until a stake is driven into the carcass of every last one of them.

Yet, dead and gone Confederates were all Democratics. Neo Confederates were, and are all Democrats. Why are you looking for them amongst Republicans?


Shut the fuck up or tell me why you think it should be illegal to give people waiting in line to vote water. You weak little bitch.

We both know why you don't want to answer this question. The only difference is I'm not ashamed to share my opinions. You coward.
  • 1
  • 4
  • 5
  • 6
  • 7
  • 8
  • 9

Breaking down? Oh please, how many times have we […]

Universal Basic Income is a scam.

Feel free to show that I am wrong by providing ev[…]

The Wuhan virus—how are we doing?

You can do it Trump supporters. I believe in you.[…]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:2019_protes[…]