Trump wins

[Torpedo]

Your arguments are thoughtful and I am humbled to attract the attention of one of the moderators of this site for my posts. Your response was equally voluminous so I will attempt to address all your points in my rebuttal to your arguments.

My argument is to show how Republicans, though not perfect with all their flaws that they have (as do we all), but the Democrats tend to have more negatives for Blacks from my perspective looking historically being an outsider looking at your nation as a concerned Black male.

You appear to be proving my point with my comment about the Dred Scott decision as you stated, "The Democratic party was mostly a party of White Southerns who held the POV about Black American's being 1/5 of a man which was also incorporated into the US Constitution and served their purpose to keep Black American's without freedom, subjected to white rule and slavery on farms for free labor to enrich them and their progeny for centuries to come."

I do not consider all historic white Republicans to be perfect and consider all white Democrats to be evil. There are exceptions like Ralph Nader, while he was a Democrat, he did amazing things to fight against and reform the auto industry from manufacturing rolling death traps several decades ago, and though he did not live through his presidency I feel JFK would have many great things to improve America but from what I understand his only fault was that he made too many enemies of THEM. In the same fashion Lincoln was killed, president Garfield was killed, how I suspect McKinley was killed, and absolutely how THEY wanted Andrew Jackson dead, as Woodward and Bernstein were told by Deep Throat (aka, the late W. Mark Felt), follow the money, but I digress.

Historically before the big change in the ideals within the Democratic party where they became allies with Blacks in America, I do recognize the fact that at the outset the Constitution did make America a racist institution from it's inception. However, as my second point stated Republicans voted in full agreement to abolish slavery while the Democrats were not. Even though it could not be the catalyst to form the Civil Rights movement in those earlier years, it got the ball rolling. There were those who objected to slavery in those years like the Quakers, those who helped free Blacks through the Underground Railroad and to have a "better" life in Canada among other places.

Technologically speaking at the time, the cotton gin (at least in the deep south), was an invention that kept Blacks on the plantation picking cotton and ruined the Republicans attempt at ending slavery. Before Whitney’s gin entered into widespread use, the United States produced roughly 750,000 bales of cotton, in 1830. By 1850 that amount had exploded to 2.85 million bales. This production was concentrated almost exclusively in the South, because of the weather conditions needed for the plant to grow. Faster processing of cotton with the gin meant it was profitable for landowners to establish previously-unthinkably large cotton plantations across the south. But harvesting cotton remained a very labor-intensive undertaking. Thus, bigger cotton farms meant the need for more slaves. The slave population in the United States increased nearly five-fold in the first half of the 19th Century, and by 1860, the South provided about two-thirds of the world’s cotton supply. Southern wealth had become reliant on this one crop and thus was completely dependent on slave-labor.
(http://www.civilwar.org/resources/civil-war-history-how-the.html#)

With the video clip that you shared, various things might hinder a few individuals from their right to vote such as people moving to a new location and not solidifying their ability to vote in their new location or sick in hospital perhaps which would be unfortunate statistical outliers. The way of course to correct it is to vote en masse as Roland Martin said. Even if the 100 year old Black woman was refused her right to vote, which of course is a travesty of justice, it would be corrected if dozens (preferably hundreds or thousands) were influenced to vote for her party X to counter any possible gerrymandering. But I disagree with him how the RNC has little traction with Blacks in America. I shared this link on other threads here, but besides Dr. Ben Carson, who threw his full support behind President Elect Donald J.

My favorite bed partner is a petite little redheaded fireball. She also is well educated, she has a PhD is some type of of earth or environmental science. Post coitus one evening we were making small talk and I brought up saving the planet. She laughed and said the planet didn't need saving. I got a very informative interactive lecture about the major extinction events in the earth's history. How the climate has adapted to the steadily increasing solar output. Climatic changes due to the earth's precession, and variations in the planet's orbit. When she got done she said the question wasn't what we need to do to save the planets but rather what we need to do to save humanity. If we screw up we will likely go extinct and in a geological blink of an eye any evidence of our presence will disappear and the planet will go on its way

 

[Torpedo]

Where did you READ THAT, Alanm? What FACTS is that based upon? Any sources to that?

There are some improvements. The mayflies on the Mississippi are getting much more numerous. I am told they are very sensitive to the environment. The increased in the flies is a sign the river is getting healthier

 

[subhub174014]

All it did was supply a temporary solution, we needs jobs that grow the economy and generate tax revenue that will allow the national debt to be paid down. None of Obama's, Trump's or any predecessors plans did anything to reduce the national debt.

fact is it did work BOTH times before... as for the national debt... it was never really an issue until REAGAN!.... I remember as a kid seeing big billboards with a huge number just clicking away every second!.... those numbers were courtesy of your hero!
besides the deficit has never been an issue when we had a republican president... only when we have a democratic one!
it takes a working government to fix the deficit and we have not had one in several years ... your party took an oath to block/veto anything Obama tried to do before he was even sworn in!

 

[STIFFBBC]

My favorite bed partner is a petite little redheaded fireball. She also is well educated, she has a PhD is some type of of earth or environmental science. Post coitus one evening we were making small talk and I brought up saving the planet. She laughed and said the planet didn't need saving. I got a very informative interactive lecture about the major extinction events in the earth's history. How the climate has adapted to the steadily increasing solar output. Climatic changes due to the earth's precession, and variations in the planet's orbit. When she got done she said the question wasn't what we need to do to save the planets but rather what we need to do to save humanity. If we screw up we will likely go extinct and in a geological blink of an eye any evidence of our presence will disappear and the planet will go on its way

You might mean to be contacting someone else @Torpedo, as I didn't speak about the environment at all in my earlier post?

 

[MacNfries]

You might mean to be contacting someone else @Torpedo, as I didn't speak about the environment at all in my earlier post?

lol ... STIFF, conservatives are starving to debate with liberal minded individuals. When the liberal minds quit posting on the forum, the conservatives are some of the loneliest people walking around. They really don't want to talk to each other because they all have their own "personal agenda" ... they'd much prefer arguing with liberals, thus this whole section becomes quite as a church on Mondays within day. Of course, sometimes they simply can't stand the silence and go find an OLD liberal post and start commenting on it, hoping to draw out the attention of those "darn liberals".

 

[MacNfries]

Tell me where you have facts saying the environment is worse than it was 50 years ago.....BS.

....Would it make any difference to you, Alanm? Don't pretend it would, as your mind is made up. All you have to do is google either of our remarks ... would you like to bet on how many articles of research would be available that would support either of our positions? Tell you what, I'll post 5 articles to every ONE you post regarding the improving/dissentigration of the environment ... 5:1 now ... but then, you deny global warming after over 95% of the scientists agree with global warming ... but then what do they know. That would be 5 more articles you would simply disagree with ... agreeing with them would put you at odds with your support of fossil fuels. Besides, my whole point is that the world (US primarily right now) start departing from the use of fossil fuels ... not stop using them overnight. We'd start by switching our autos to other types of fuel ... then we could start with factories or recycling, etc ... might take 25-30 years, but we could START. Right now, your position is fossil fuel is cheap, why switch, and AGAIN I say to you, it isn't about cheap energy, its about saving our frik'n planet from early distinction. Sort of like a cigarette smoker of 30 years ... he's already damaged his body by smoking BUT if he'd quit smoking he might add another 10 years to his life. That's the same premise with the EARTH, Alanm ... you are here temporarily, the planet is here FOREVER.
....You have the time to argue with walls ... I don't, not in the 4th quarter of the year. That's when my "*******" is coming down, man ... I'll be busy through January.

 

[MacNfries]

Then there is the ash spill in Colton Montana that appears to have been caused by the EPA's ineptness

I think the conversation is regarding the damage of fossil fuels to our environment, Torp, not whether a department of the government made a mistake doing its job. All you're doing by posting that comment is being sarcastic. By the way, the EPAs done a lot of good for this country, and a lot of those who make habit of crapping in everyone else's nests have ceased or greatly reduced their crapping. Its no wonder big business hates the EPA. The likes of the Koch Brothers etc who make their profits out of finding backyard states to go bury their nuclear wastes are one of them, and they run right to the Republicans in Washington when they butt heads with the EPA.

 

[STIFFBBC]

lol ... STIFF, conservatives are starving to debate with liberal minded individuals. When the liberal minds quit posting on the forum, the conservatives are some of the loneliest people walking around. They really don't want to talk to each other because they all have their own "personal agenda" ... they'd much prefer arguing with liberals, thus this whole section becomes quite as a church on Mondays within day. Of course, sometimes they simply can't stand the silence and go find an OLD liberal post and start commenting on it, hoping to draw out the attention of those "darn liberals".

Not all churches are quiet on Mondays as I know some devout Roman Catholics that go to church every day up here. And if you allow for a mosque as being as a type of church too, you will never find those empty. Greatest example of all from the documentaries I watch up here is the Grand Mosque in Mecca, Saudi Arabia.
https://www.google.ca/search?q=al+aqsa+mecca+mosque+crowds&client=opera&hs=RLx&biw=1175&bih=841&tbm=isch&imgil=V4vndiYDZLjzRM%3A%3BnQfCT1u2dOlxFM%3Bhttp%253A%252F%252Fwww.alamy.com%252Fstock-photo%252Fmecca-mosque-crowd.html&source=iu&pf=m&fir=V4vndiYDZLjzRM%3A%2CnQfCT1u2dOlxFM%2C_&usg=__yJk-ST4qPrvoOq3ij7Wf6vLF_9g=&ved=0ahUKEwjk5PO8u8_QAhVl0oMKHfZBB7IQyjcIKw&ei=nD0-WOSmHeWkjwT2g52QCw#imgrc=V4vndiYDZLjzRM:
https://www.google.ca/search?q=al+aqsa+mecca+mosque+crowds&client=opera&hs=RLx&biw=1175&bih=841&tbm=isch&imgil=UlTiVWptT1qUNM%3A%3BEuGUHL5g0VboyM%3Bhttps%253A%252F%252Fwww.shutterstock.com%252Fsearch%252Fmasjid%25252Bal-haram&source=iu&pf=m&fir=UlTiVWptT1qUNM%3A%2CEuGUHL5g0VboyM%2C_&usg=__ONgIhC8AMnocL6VWly5NTY20r8w=&ved=0ahUKEwjk5PO8u8_QAhVl0oMKHfZBB7IQyjcIKw&ei=nD0-WOSmHeWkjwT2g52QCw#imgrc=UlTiVWptT1qUNM:
https://www.google.ca/search?q=al+a...T1qUNM:;BMvN9sxIjYmJ_M:&imgrc=UlTiVWptT1qUNM:

 

[Alanm]

....Would it make any difference to you, Alanm? Don't pretend it would, as your mind is made up. All you have to do is google either of our remarks ... would you like to bet on how many articles of research would be available that would support either of our positions? Tell you what, I'll post 5 articles to every ONE you post regarding the improving/dissentigration of the environment ... 5:1 now ... but then, you deny global warming after over 95% of the scientists agree with global warming ... but then what do they know. That would be 5 more articles you would simply disagree with ... agreeing with them would put you at odds with your support of fossil fuels. Besides, my whole point is that the world (US primarily right now) start departing from the use of fossil fuels ... not stop using them overnight. We'd start by switching our autos to other types of fuel ... then we could start with factories or recycling, etc ... might take 25-30 years, but we could START. Right now, your position is fossil fuel is cheap, why switch, and AGAIN I say to you, it isn't about cheap energy, its about saving our frik'n planet from early distinction. Sort of like a cigarette smoker of 30 years ... he's already damaged his body by smoking BUT if he'd quit smoking he might add another 10 years to his life. That's the same premise with the EARTH, Alanm ... you are here temporarily, the planet is here FOREVER.
....You have the time to argue with walls ... I don't, not in the 4th quarter of the year. That's when my "*******" is coming down, man ... I'll be busy through January.

Ok lets play your game.....lets start departing from fossil fuels....how?

You cant depart from something until you have another viable alternative and it doesnt EXIST right now. Wind, solar and hydroelectic wont do it. Nuclear maybe but that would require a lot more plants and we know how you feel about Nuclear.

What fuel should we start running our autos on?

95% of the scientists...really . There is no real evidence to prove that global warming exists....none! Other than the junk science they been spewing to try to convince everyone it exists. Its all cyclic activity that the planet has gone thru in its existance.

I am supposed to believe all these scientists when they try to predict the future environmental condition of the planet decades from now when they cant even predict if its going to rain 3 days from now.

 

[Torpedo]

fact is it did work BOTH times before... as for the national debt... it was never really an issue until REAGAN!.... I remember as a kid seeing big billboards with a huge number just clicking away every second!.... those numbers were courtesy of your hero!

You like to blame Reagan for everything, but nobody has done anything to reduce it. I was appalled at how the debt grew under Bush the second, then President Obama came along and the debt came very close to doubling under his watch. If you would like to see how it is currently doing. http://www.usdebtclock.org/

And the debt didn't matter until Reagan? Oh Please! The size of the debt is less important than than the debt ratio. The highest the national debt has ever been is in 1946 when the debt was 121.70% of the GDP. The debt was primarily the result of the expense of WWII. When the war ended the vast majority of those expenditures disappeared. It took until 1974 to get the debt ratio down to 31.70%. That was the lowest level post WWII. The national debt has averaged 61.94% of GDP from 1940 to 2015. I consider that average to be excessive even though it included the war years of WWII. Bearing the above facts in mind here is a chart of what has happened in the last few years.

 

[Torpedo]

fact is it did work BOTH times before... as for the national debt... it was never really an issue until REAGAN!.... I remember as a kid seeing big billboards with a huge number just clicking away every second!.... those numbers were courtesy of your hero!

I suppose you could say it worked if you weren't concerned about the overall health of the economy. The infrastructure work increased the national debt. Throwing money at things sounds nice but it rarely provides a real solution. The cost of paying for and managing a debt load can be debilitating for a individual, a company, or a government.Right now if the entire GDP output of this country was taxed 100% it wouldn't be enough to pay off the national debt and you think that more government spending is going to help the economy?

 

[Torpedo]

I think the conversation is regarding the damage of fossil fuels to our environment, Torp, not whether a department of the government made a mistake doing its job. All you're doing by posting that comment is being sarcastic. By the way, the EPAs done a lot of good for this country, and a lot of those who make habit of crapping in everyone else's nests have ceased or greatly reduced their crapping. Its no wonder big business hates the EPA. The likes of the Koch Brothers etc who make their profits out of finding backyard states to go bury their nuclear wastes are one of them, and they run right to the Republicans in Washington when they butt heads with the EPA.

The last word in my comment was "ineptness" One of the problems with government and its' agencies is that you have people making rules about things they don't understand. You constantly harp about the evils of big business and you lay at solely at the Republicans feet. Hillary didn't collect her 10 of millions from coin jars in convenience stores. The Clinton's made millions selling favor and greasing wheels for big companies and foreign governments. They were hardly alone, they are just better at it than anyone else. One of the big problems the government has is that has created an adversarial relationship with business rather than creating allies. Did you know that in the 8 years that President Obama has been President that over 230,000 pages of new regulations have been published in the Nation Registry? That isn't conducive to a warm, friendly relationship. Business's exist to make money, quite simply that is why they exist. If you want a particular action from a business give it a financial reason to do so. For instance we have lots of coal, if it was my call I would appropriate 50 or 100 million tax free dollars to anyone that can come up with a viable process to burn coal with a 95% or even 100% reduction in emissions. I wouldn't be handing out any money either. Just a nice prize for succeeding. I think it can be done, just because I don't know how doesn't mean it isn't possible.

 

[subhub174014]

I suppose you could say it worked if you weren't concerned about the overall health of the economy. The infrastructure work increased the national debt. Throwing money at things sounds nice but it rarely provides a real solution

I don't know where in the hell you come up with these ideas... or answers..... got any facts?

 

[subhub174014]

Right now if the entire GDP output of this country was taxed 100% it wouldn't be enough to pay off the national debt and you think that more government spending is going to help the economy?

It's a start.... what are they doing now?.... obstructionism... and that's all!
it puts people back to work and paying taxes.... after all it took Bush 8 years to hand us this mess it is not going to happen over night.... and besides what happened to the old biz adage that you have to spend money to make money!

 

[Torpedo]

It's a start.... what are they doing now?.... obstructionism... and that's all!
it puts people back to work and paying taxes.... after all it took Bush 8 years to hand us this mess it is not going to happen over night.... and besides what happened to the old biz adage that you have to spend money to make money!

Do you have any understanding of economics? Sure it puts people to work and pays taxes, but the taxes paid are less than the money spent. Granted as the money circulates in the economy it generates additional taxes but the effect is diluted every time those dollars are respent. A very simple rule of economics comes into play here. You cannot spend your way out of debt. That should be obvious to most people

 

[Torpedo]

I don't know where in the hell you come up with these ideas... or answers..... got any facts?

Well I have degree in Economics and an MBA and I don't think you do.

 

[subhub174014]

Do you have any understanding of economics

see my earlier [posts on FACTS.... just because you do numbers does not make you an economy expert and so far your opinions are far from the truth!

 

[subhub174014]

Well I have degree in Economics and an MBA and I don't think you do.

I get my info from the net... I trust people that are involved in that!.... and you won't even take the time to read any of the facts I post... just seem to think the world is wrong and only you have the answer.... torp YOU have a lot to learn yet!

 

[subhub174014]

Sure it puts people to work and pays taxes, but the taxes paid are less than the money spent

there have been several.... smarter than you to say that the way to fix the economy is good paid workers who spend that money!.... sure you are investing in workers to do a job... and they pay taxes... but they also buy merchandise from small biz... which means small biz will probably hire more people ... making that much more paying taxes... you only see it your way and NOT the big picture!


it worked 2 times in the past... but you don't want to look that up and see how the economy improved... that would go against your mindset!

 

[subhub174014]

A very simple rule of economics comes into play here. You cannot spend your way out of debt. That should be obvious to most people

true..... but you are not spending you are investing!

like I said go back and look it up... I would AGAIN and post it but you don't read it...