Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Does that mean that all the red states who are the largest recipients of Federal Dollars will be on their own? If it does than the Blue states can lower their collected taxes because its not going to the poor cousins...
...
How to split up the national debt would be a bit of a challenge, but after that things will be looking up for the blue states.
Have to get a better handle on immigration though. As it stands, lotta blue states are filled up with folks from red states "seeking services."
There has been a "civil war" going on since day 1 in the so-called "United" states. The cultures of the South, (and the Mid-West) are fundamentally different from the Northeast, California and Northwest, plus blessed New Mexico. The South is Anglo-Saxon protestant, the North is polyglot, and the Mid-West is Scandanavian Lutheran mixed with Anglo-Saxon and in some places, Balkan peoples. When people have different cultures, conflict exists. This so-called "nation," is only a federation of different groups for economic and defensive reasons, though one could say, "offensive" reasons. There has always been a Civil War, and nothing stops people from defending their cultures. The current level of strife is not going to diminish with a new federal administration, because the Constitution, which is now impossible to change, gives poor states with low populations too much political representation via the Electoral College and the Senate. So, places like Massachusetts and New York, with millions of people, cannot get their political way because they are trumped via the Senate and Electors by places like Idaho and Arkansas. Frankly, it might be better if the Northeast and Northwest seceded from the mythical "union," or conversely the South did (and take the Mid-West with it.) The money will win in the end though, so the oligarchs who benefit financially would not let the dissolution occur.
The racists lost an election and now they want a civil war. That’s how it happened last time.
ahem..the Republicans ended slavery OVER the Democrats objections. The Democrats were the ractists.
Democrats also voted for the civil rights law at a lower percent than the Republicans did.
MLK's family say that MLK was a Republican.
Trump did more to help the African American community than any other President say some Black leaders.
Democrats DESTROYED black communities in America's cities...not a Republican in sight for 50+ years.
The Dems days of using the Black community for their votes, & then ignoring them are over.
Trump increased his Back vote by a large percent in 2020 over 2016, sothe Pubs have momentum.
Biden is a racist who said "you aint black if you dont vote for me" and that outraged the black community.
Meanwhile Trump was posting the best stats for black employment and wages in decades, and helping the traditional black colleges. Setting upinner city enterprise zones, ect..
Why didn't Obama do any of that?
The true raceists have been unmasked, and they are Democrats.
There has been too many unjust events which has caused a great schism between us and it will continue and grow worse in time. This fraud election was just too much and no justice. Those who watched a fake impeachment, a 3 year long investigation brought on with no evidence to even start an investigation. It went on and on and spying went on illegally. The MSM was corrupt passing on fake information for three years.
This is unforgettable and cannot be forgiven because today it continues with this fraud election and everyone lying saying there is no fraud.
We have many people who have had enough of this. We saw no apologies for there corruption. They still run with the fake stories . The hate spewed from CNN and MSNBC is way over the top for Trump and also directed at Trump Supporters.
It will never heal. It will always be there. There is no remorse from the left. They loved every rotten thing said and done and still relish in their hate. We are a country divided .
I read where 4 Trump supporters were knifed by the Trump haters. This is not going to stop. We have seen enough of the violence and soon they will fight back or we will have to divide. The MSM created the hate . One cannot listen to their cries of hatred daily and not be affected. It is done .It will not get better.
Republicans and Democrats should instead come together, & run the federal gov't out of DC.
The fedral govt is the root cause for most of America's problems. They have centralized the power and wealth to just a small group of elite citizens, & left the crumbs for the rest fo us.
Time for a Dem-Pub re-union, whose sole purpose it is to rid us all of the Eliteist tyrants.
The oppsite of a civil war. A civil reunion.
Last edited by beach43ofus; 12-13-2020 at 04:31 PM..
Like I said, there is no sense trying to elevate peoples' levels of comprehension since they are not capable of accepting anything which contradicts their indoctrination. Every time I get re-interested in this forum a few people spoil it with their foolish remarks. When this descends to "Facebook" kind-of junk talk, I am out of here, again.
But before I go, see the term "eliteist" in the post above? As you may know, many psychologists, sociologists, historians, anthropologists and political scientists have been baffled by the uninformed masses who have accepted Trumpism. They all wring their hands because these folks chose to adhere to the opposite of their own best interests. How could it happen?
Of course a lot of them have postulated reasons why anyone would have drunk the Kool Aid, but one theory was intriguing: One psychologist said it was resentment by the less well-educated against the "elite" educated people. There has always been a level of anti-intellectualism in the USA. But now, the uneducated and under-educated people no longer have a solid foundation in the socio-economic life of the country. Most of their (non-trades) jobs were obliterated starting with the destruction of the unions under the Reagan administration, and continuing into the 1990's because Wall Street demanded "more efficiency," which translated, means, "Cut out labor and increase profits, because labor is too expensive." Next will be transport. Do you know how many teamsters will be eliminated by self-driving vehicles?
Technology made the blue collar world increasingly untenable. Every survey on the subject of education and economics indicates that college is a real benefit financially in the long run, and that also makes it difficult for the non-college educated to psychologically accept. It causes a lot of anxiety. Many of these people want to take the rest of society down with them in their rage and fear. So, I think there is some validity in the theory that anti-intellectualism, (currently coined as "elitism") is a root of the rage of the blue collar Trumpites. They are not mistaken, because their world has so shrunk by de-regulation, laissez faire political ideology and corruption, (e.g., political pacs, lobbying.)
The one thing they mis-understand though is that millions of educated people who used to be professionals and mid-managers up until the 1990's in pre-techno world and pre-global economy were also thrown under the bus. We seeth too. It is a real catastrophe that the two groups are thrown into conflict by the real "elites," the oligarchs who own the politicians. They control us all, and they use the uneducated and uninformed group to keep biting and snapping at the others while electing the worse of the choices in the elections, local, state and federal. True, the Dem's are at fault for the situation we are in, but the other party? Angels? Saviors? Friends of the "common man?" Uhh, get real. People do not vote for candidates, they vote against candidates they think will do them the most harm. The masses have been duped and are voting for all the wrong people. I see no way out of this mess. Perhaps the Physicists are correct and this is indeed a simulation in which we are all just characters in a play on a journey to? You say I am too pessimistic. I think I am a realist. Do you see the rage and ignorance in some of these posts, and on TV, and on Facebook, and the papers, etc...???
This is a plague much much worse than Covid 19. It is fundamentally destroying our republic, shaky as it has always been.
The money didn't want World War II but it happened anyways. Money doesn't matter as much as you believe it does. It wasn't money that handed China to the communists in the 1940's. It was bullets and anger.
The money didn't want WWII? Money loves war, but only certain types of war.
The biggest beneficiary of both WWI and WWII was the United States of America. Remember when Germany was forced to pay all the debt from WWI? Guess who they owed the money. It wasn't Britain and France, it was the United States. Britain and France may have spent the money, but they borrowed that money from US bankers, and they used the money to buy American manufacturing, food, munitions, etc. The United States supplied the war effort for years before we entered the war. And the Lusitania was absolutely carrying US munitions being transported to Britain.
Moreover, US entry into WWI had nothing to do with the sinking of the Lusitania, which happened two years earlier in 1915. The real reason America went to war with Germany was because if Britain and France had lost, we wouldn't have gotten paid back.
As for WWII, understand "the money" isn't a monolith. When I say money, I mean people with the ability to influence governments to further their interests. The money in America isn't the same as the money in China, and the money in China isn't the same as the money in India, or Germany, or Russia, etc. Moreover, even the money in the United States isn't a monolith. The money in Texas isn't the same as the money in California, or Kansas, or Florida.
In most cases, the money in the United States has a "co-dependent" relationship with each other and across the country. For instance, Wal-mart has no interest in secession. They have assets, infrastructure, supply lines, etc in every state in the country. This co-dependency is also a major US foreign-policy objective, because as you know, countries who trade with each other are far less likely to go to war.
So what was the cause of the American Civil War? Simple, the money in the south was primarily agricultural and did the vast majority of its trading with Europe, not the north. And the North had in-effect threatened to destroy the economy of the south, and possibly unleash a race-war, not directly but indirectly.
Although there wouldn't have been a Civil War without slavery, the most immediate cause of the Civil War was tariffs. And in fact a Civil War nearly occurred 30 years earlier also from tariffs. The problem with the tariff was, the vast majority of the south's income was from exports to Europe. If the United States raised our tariffs, Europe would raise theirs, making it much harder for the south to sell its goods in Europe. And if the south couldn't trade with Europe, it would have no income. Basically, without Europe to sell cotton to, there could be no slavery.
The tariff that ultimately led to the Civil War was the Morrill tariff. The money in the south had always opposed tariffs, but the early American tariffs were more about national security. Prior to the War of 1812, the United States had been dependent on European manufacturing for just about everything, including the manufacture of guns, clothes, etc. We began protecting and subsidizing American manufacturing because we realized we couldn't fight a war against the country that makes our guns.
But by the mid-1800's the United States felt less threatened by Europe. The North still pushed for protectionist tariffs to increase their profits, but it wasn't an imminent national-security issue.
In 1852 the democrats won control of the entire government, and their opposition, the Whig party, effectively disappeared. But as is always the case, the democrats couldn't hold onto power forever. In the 1858 elections, the Republicans took control of the House, but the Democrats still controlled the senate.
On May 10th, 1860, the Morrill tariff passed through the House of Representatives by the Republican party, but the senate was controlled by the democrats. This meant the issue couldn't be settled until after the 1860 election.
And in the 1860 election the Republican party won both Houses of Congress and the presidency, thus the Morrill tariff was inevitable. Not long after the election, and long before Republicans took control of the government, South Carolina seceded from the union.
Ironically, had the senate remained in Democratic control, the Civil War would have been averted, because Lincoln and the House would have been blocked by the senate. They may have been able to raise tariffs, but only in a bi-partisan way.
Moreover, the overarching goal of the United States for decades before the Civil War had been to integrate the country economically. The main way to do this was with the railroads, which allowed people and goods to flow across the country more easily. In fact, a major goal of Abraham Lincoln was what became the "Transcontinental railroad"(Pacific Railway Act), to build railroads from sea to shining sea.
But let me go back to WWII. There is this kind of presumption that the money in Germany was opposed to Hitler because Hitler was a "socialist". The reality is, the money loved Hitler. Understand, during WWI, Germany helped the Bolsheviks rise to power to end Russia's involvement in WWI. But after WWI, the Bolsheviks and their communist allies tried to start a revolution in Germany.
The moneyed interests wanted to stop the communists who were actually a major political party in Germany until Hitler's rise to power and the infamous "Enabling act".
While Hitler called himself a socialist, Nazi Germany was about as socialist as China is today. Hitler's main policy objectives were finance and infrastructure. Hitler created a new monetary system which he used to finance massive state-sponsored infrastructure and manufacturing programs. The autobahn was created by Hitler, as well as other national highways which would make travel more efficient. And Hitler also famously helped design the first Volkswagen(people's car in German), which would be affordable for the average German worker.
All of this spending and infrastructure led to an economic boom in Germany, and effectively eliminated unemployment, while the rest of the world was mired in the great depression. But most importantly, Germany spent a lot of money rearming itself. And while "The West" was happy that a strong Germany in central Europe was a wall against the spread of communism, Germany was becoming too strong.
And now that Germany was in a position of strength, Hitler aimed to unite all the Germans together, which was both emotional for Hitler, as well as economically-strategic. Hitler was born in Austria, and while Germany's economy continued to soar, Austria was lagging behind. If Germany and Austria united, not only would they be more powerful, but Austria would give new opportunities to the German system. The Austrians basically welcomed the Germans in the Anschluss. Although it was technically illegal based on the Treaty of Versailles and Treaty of Saint-Germain. But Neville Chamberlain accepted the Munich agreement anyway.
But then Hitler took aim at a region of what had been part of the Austrian empire prior to WWI, called the Sudetenland. It was located in the newly formed Czechoslovakia, and was a majority-German industrial area along the German border. Hitler annexed the Sudetenland in 1938, and then partitioned Czechoslovakia into what would later become the Czech Republic and Slovakia.
Now, part of this was purely economic, but part of it was a matter of National Security. Understand that Stalin and the Soviet Union controlled most of Eastern Europe at this time. And while the early years of Stalin were a disorganized and bloody mess, the Soviets, through their policy of "Socialism in one country", had stopped trying to ideologically export communism, and rather moved to become an industrial superpower, who would conquer the world and spread communism by force.
With its massive territory and resources, the Soviet Union would inevitably become a superpower, far in excess of little Germany. For reference, just think of how the balance of power has shifted in Asia in the last 20 years. Just a few decades ago China was nothing, and now all everyone talks about is the rise of China, and how China is pressing its claims in the South China sea and beyond. Imagine how you would feel if you were one of China's neighbors. Imagine how Hong Kong feels.
Understand too, Hitler never wanted World War II. Hitler saw himself as fundamentally western, the savior of Europe against Bolshevism, and practically begged Britain to be his ally on numerous occasions. Even writing about it in Mein Kampf. I think Hitler was shocked when Britain declared war on Germany, and didn't believe there would be a war until he saw hundreds of thousands of British troops land in France in preparation for an invasion of Germany.
If you have time, listen to this video, it is a good primer for understanding European foreign-policy, and makes it easier to understand why Britain and France felt like they had to go to war with Hitler.
TLDR: The moneyed interests in Germany loved Hitler's policies, and needed to make Germany strong to stop the spread of communism. And if war couldn't be prevented, to overthrow Bolshevism by force.
Regardless, if secession, revolution, or Civil War came to the United States, it wouldn't be because of silly internal Republican vs Democrat politics, it would be because of geopolitical circumstances. The south wouldn't have seceded if they didn't believe they would get aid from Britain and France(Cotton is King). And to some extent, it did. Though not enough obviously.
Texas talked a bit about secession in 2008, and for one reason only, oil. The Texas economy. But Texas quickly realized that Obama was no real threat to fracking or to the Texas economy. Fracking boomed, Texas made insane amounts of money refining and transporting the oil coming and going across the country. Pushed for the Keystone XL pipeline which would transport oil from Alberta, Canada all the way to Houston, Texas, and everyone forgot all about secession.
And as long as the Republicans hold the senate, and Joe Biden is basically Republican-lite, none of the moneyed interests in the United States feel threatened. There will be no Civil War. Just partisan jockeying to try to hold or retake power next election. Nothing is going to happen. Go put your guns back in the safe.
Last edited by Redshadowz; 12-15-2020 at 12:12 AM..
The Communists were fighting a Civil War with the Nationalists and losing badly. Mao had to retreat to northwest China in what was called "The long march".
Later, Mao allied with the Nationalists to fight the Japanese. And after WWII, Stalin gave Mao's communists all the weapons and equipment left behind by the Japanese after they surrendered in Manchuria/Korea. And it was these weapons, with Soviet aid, which enabled Mao to win the Chinese Civil War.
So yes, it was money. Although it was more resources/weapons/technology/etc. The CCP was never supported by a majority of the population. And Mao never would have come to power without Stalin's aid. And as I explained in the post above, the Bolsheviks came to power through aid from Germany as a war measure to overthrow the Tsar.
The same logic even applies to the United States. America NEVER would have won the Revolutionary War without French support. And the French only helped us to weaken their rival(actually, most of Europe helped us for the same reason).
But understand, not many people do the actual fighting in any war. Not everyone can be a soldier. Someone has to grow food and make and transport all the stuff for the soldiers.
Supposedly about 7% of Americans call themselves communists(more than that for young people). If you had someone to arm, train, organize, feed, and finance them, you could build quite an Army of communists in the United States right now. But who is going to lead them? And who is going to finance them?
The only people who would do that would be foreign governments trying to overthrow the US government. China and Russia might try to funnel in billions of dollars to support these groups, but actual US corporations aren't communist and they will use their money to prevent it from happening.
Also, even in the American Revolution, pretty much all of the founders were very rich. They only supported the Revolution because they stood to profit. And the American Revolution wasn't very revolutionary. It was really just a war for independence. The vast majority of the population wasn't allowed to vote, and of course we had slaves.
The Communists were fighting a Civil War with the Nationalists and losing badly. Mao had to retreat to northwest China in what was called "The long march".
Later, Mao allied with the Nationalists to fight the Japanese. And after WWII, Stalin gave Mao's communists all the weapons and equipment left behind by the Japanese after they surrendered in Manchuria/Korea. And it was these weapons, with Soviet aid, which enabled Mao to win the Chinese Civil War.
So yes, it was money. Although it was more resources/weapons/technology/etc. The CCP was never supported by a majority of the population. And Mao never would have come to power without Stalin's aid. And as I explained in the post above, the Bolsheviks came to power through aid from Germany as a war measure to overthrow the Tsar.
The same logic even applies to the United States. America NEVER would have won the Revolutionary War without French support. And the French only helped us to weaken their rival(actually, most of Europe helped us for the same reason).
But understand, not many people do the actual fighting in any war. Not everyone can be a soldier. Someone has to grow food and make and transport all the stuff for the soldiers.
Supposedly about 7% of Americans call themselves communists(more than that for young people). If you had someone to arm, train, organize, feed, and finance them, you could build quite an Army of communists in the United States right now. But who is going to lead them? And who is going to finance them?
The only people who would do that would be foreign governments trying to overthrow the US government. China and Russia might try to funnel in billions of dollars to support these groups, but actual US corporations aren't communist and they will use their money to prevent it from happening.
Also, even in the American Revolution, pretty much all of the founders were very rich. They only supported the Revolution because they stood to profit. And the American Revolution wasn't very revolutionary. It was really just a war for independence. The vast majority of the population wasn't allowed to vote, and of course we had slaves.
Stalin may have been the implementer, but Karl Marx was the root of communist hatred for anyone in power and the lust to take that power for themselves. In fact, Karl Marx was the inspiration for the Nazis as well
The Earth has rarely given birth to such an evil soul
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
