quote:To be fair, this counterexample isn't rioting. Idiotic, racist, and disheartening, sure. But it is not smashing in windows and setting fires to cars.
I suppose that's true. Red-staters reserve that sort of activity for sports victories.
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
Basically your entire argument Ron, that the Germans "were close to winning", you can just concede that this wasn't the case; but you keep seemingly doubling down on your "innocent" comment; it isn't an innocent comment if it is (a) Wrong and (b) You keep doubling down on insisting that you're actually right and evil liberal iconoclasts and my liberal professors are actually to blame for me trying to refute you.
If it was an innocent comment, admit it's wrong and move on.
But since you are incapable of this; I'll just point out, quite explicitly, that your argument; "That the Germans were close to winning" rests on the notion that they merely had to not make a single mistake from 1933 to 1942.
That is actually the substance of your argument that you are presenting to me.
1. That they should have won the Battle of Britain by throwing more resources at it longer (they still would have lost).
2. That they should have delayed Barbarossa for a year (disastrous for the Germans, they invaded at the best possible time, hence them being essentially "lucky" up until this point).
3. That the Japanese an entire different country and geopolitical situation, could have done something entirely different from what they did!
4. That they should have kept using the Paratroopers after their "one bad experience in crete" (They did, but they lost most of their transport planes in the effort, so Varsity style landings were out of the question for Barbarossa).
5. I'm not sure if you supposed not invading Yugoslavia or not; but the invasion of Yugoslavia was not with forces designated for Barbarossa and did not affect the timeline for Barbarossa at all. Additionally invading 6 months earlier would've meant that (a) the Germans would have been less prepared than they were, and would have been less effective and had less vehicles, and (b) the weather would have been far worse in actuality.
6. Winter uniforms. This actually is a myth; the main problem was that the supply demands for barbarossa were so great that it just wasn't possible to supply over 160 divisions with winter uniforms in a timely manner; notwithstanding the fact that OKW had went into the invasion with the intention not for reaching Moscow, but to destroy the Red Army in the opening phases of the war "One swift kick and the whole rotten structure would come tumbling down" and this affected ALL of German High Command's planning for Barbarossa, Hitler isn't to blame here, but rather German officer culture that deemphasized supply and logistics, and grand strategy.
Barbarossa had failed in nearly all of its strategic objectives and Operation Typhoon was an improvization to attempt to end the war in the strategic equivalent of "shifting the goalposts" to now "taking Moscow", when there's zero certainty that taking Moscow ends the war.
I don't recall off hand what other arguments you made for the Germans if ONLY they hadn't lost such and such or made such and such mistake THEY COULD HAVE WON; but I maintain I certainly would have addressed it in my previous prolific postings about this.
But basically every additional argument you made actually weakens your overall argument because your increasing the burden the Germans would have needed to overcome "to have won the war".
To basically going "Well if they had done this, and that, and that, and that, and won that, and didn't lose that, or that, or that..." ad infinitum. It converges to zero Ron.
But instead you basically highlight the fact that the German war effort was highly dysfunctional, made a huge number of strategic mistakes, on top of Hitler's own mistakes and meddling.
To repeat, you basically are saying that if the Germans had not made a single mistake, if they weren't dysfunctional and inefficient Nazi's, then they would have won the war? This is ridiculous.
And some of those mistakes weren't even mistakes really except in hindsight, they were probably still the best options they had available. In a sense they HAD to invade in 1941 if you think war was inevitable, and in Nazi ideology it certainly was.
An example of inefficiency, the competition for build the Tiger and the resulting mess that was the ferdinand actually resulted in over 1000 less Panzer IV's built. For 90 Ferdinand Tank destroyers to show for it; and this sort of TheWackyNazis.txt just keeps showing up and repeating itself at some other scale for some other military project.
One of those mistakes? The German army liquidity a Jewish ghetto that was making winter uniforms. In November 1941.
Yeah they shouldn't have done that too I guess is what you're going to say?
Posts: 12931 | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:To be fair, this counterexample isn't rioting. Idiotic, racist, and disheartening, sure. But it is not smashing in windows and setting fires to cars.
I suppose that's true. Red-staters reserve that sort of activity for sports victories.
True. I remember the riots in that conservative city Los Angeles in the red state of California when the Kings won the Stanley Cup in 2012.
Posts: 572 | Registered: Jun 2013
| IP: Logged |
posted
So what is the criticism about protests? Is there some massive riot going on destroying property or is it just some rando?
Posts: 12931 | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
There WERE riots that destroyed innocent people's property. That was wrong.
But they were a small part of otherwise peaceful protests.
And I'm not digging how some latch on to that and declare that all that liberals know how to do is riot.
Posts: 572 | Registered: Jun 2013
| IP: Logged |
posted
There isn't any excuse for rioting or violence in response to the election, to violence against Trump supporters. Full stop. I understand the anger but a line has to be drawn, and your example of an effigy is pretty laughable in that context, Tom.
Now having said that-if Trump had lost it's really just a theory that there would have been no violence on their side, Ron. And yes, later on you'll lie about it and say it never would have happened as though you could know. But Trump encouraged his supporters to violence and toyed with violent rhetoric during the campaign. It's not unreasonable to think had it happened? They would've been violent to some extent.
Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
At the risk of upsetting Ron who clearly objects to my crowd sourcing some of my evidence because Google seems entirely unable to get me good A grade sources, here's xthetenth's take on Operation Typhoon and the state the German's were in, he too is paraphrasing a book, but a different book:
quote: Seriously, if the Germans had the strength to contest Moscow then how the hell do the losses they took in winter happen? They were in worse shape than the Soviets and badly strung out and the losses they took especially in heavy equipment show it.
The Rostov salient didn't form because the Germans didn't want the ground around it, it took the Soviets pushing back against the flank on the Tuzlov. The 56th army didn't manage to cross the Don on 25-26th November because the Germans were strong. Von Rundstedt didn't get removed from command on 1 December over giving von Kliest permission to retreat to the Mius river because he didn't want that land anyway, and his replacement von Reichenau didn't allow von Kleist to bring Panzerarmee 1 back to the Mius because it was good for his career prospects. The 14.Panzer-Division from that formation had only thirteen tanks still operational when the retreat began.
Reinhardt in the Klin bulge was in even worse shape because he attacked until he was virtually out of ammunition and ground to a stop 20-40km from Moscow. By the first week of December, 6.Panzer-Division had effectively 2 percent (a whopping five (5!) tanks) and 25 percent of its infantry. He had 10-12,000 infantry for 100 km of front. This isn't a position for attacking, this isn't even a position for defending if you can consolidate. There's a reason the Soviets were able to counterattack on the south with two armies with only 36 medium howitzers and 50 BM-13s, and barely 100 tanks of which only a third were KV or T-34s but 60,000 men. Same goes for the northern side where Lelyushenko only had 50 tanks, (10 modern) for an attack he was spearheading with the 8th Tank Brigade. His exploitation force was 8,000 cavalry and 30,000 infantry. That tank brigade went on to break through at Zabolote and open a wedge behind Klin by advancing 8 km. The Germans quickly found themselves in a position where they barely got their forces out of a looming encirclement by leaving nearly all their heavy flak and artillery guns behind. They lost 2,500 men, most of the artillery and vehicles from their leg infantry, and all five motorized divisions were rendered combat ineffective, and retreated westward even when not pressed. This is a force retreating in disarray from a breakthrough achieved by a Tank Brigade and a huge number of leg infantry advancing over open terrain in the winter, the thought of how poorly they'd fare in an attack against the same huge number of infantry in a city is laughable.
Guderian's Panzerarmee 2 was smashed so badly that the opposing 10th army was able to advance 30 km in two days, and again had to leave artillery and vehicles behind.
Tikhvin wound up getting resupplied by air for a reason, and similarly it got abandoned and von Arnim retreated to the Volkhov for a reason.
By the end of 1941, the Wehrmacht had lost over 2,600 tanks and assault guns and had another 1,000 non-operational pending repairs. Every single panzer army was defeated in battle in the span of 25 November and 15 December.
You should get Schwerpunkt, it's really good for this sort of thing. I'm just pulling from Striking the Hydra's Head, 25 November-15 December in it.
Again, this isn't me posting someone else's argument, but the entire post for the sake of context; because the primary purpose is to provide (a) Dates and (b) Numbers for the amount of attrition the Germans took during Typhoon and its aftermath.
I know you have already implicitly conceded that Moscow was impossible for the Germans to take by switching to saying "The germans should have delayed Barbarossa by a year", or what if the IJN didn't strike Pearl Harbour when they did; but until I explicitly get that concession IN YOUR OWN WORDS I'mma keep hammering you on this.
You are consistently wrong with basic facts that are independently verifiable and refutable by pretty much any history book.
Posts: 12931 | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Elison, here are some comments you made that I will respond to.
quote:1. That they should have won the Battle of Britain by throwing more resources at it longer (they still would have lost).
No they wouldn't have. Britain was on the ropes, their air force was all but destroyed. And as I pointed out before, Germany had already conquered Poland and France and the only nation resisting Germany's total dominance of Europe was the British. Had Britain been eliminated as a staging place, American intervention would not even have been possible.
quote:2. That they should have delayed Barbarossa for a year (disastrous for the Germans, they invaded at the best possible time, hence them being essentially "lucky" up until this point).
The only advantage to the Germans for launching Barbarossa when they did was that the Soviet army was deployed in attack formations, and not in defensive formations. But since the Soviets thought the Nazi-Soviet Pact guaranteed that Germany would not attack them, they probably would have waited before doing anything to change their strategic deployment.
quote:3. That the Japanese an entire different country and geopolitical situation, could have done something entirely different from what they did!
You miss the point that the Japanese decision to attack Pearl Harbor enabled the USA to enter the war against Germany while Britain was still a viable protagonist. Records are that Hitler was not pleased by the Japanese attack, precisely because he knew it meant he would have to deal with the Americans now, with its immense resources and productivity.
quote:4. That they should have kept using the Paratroopers after their "one bad experience in crete" (They did, but they lost most of their transport planes in the effort, so Varsity style landings were out of the question for Barbarossa).
The planes could have been rebuilt and what they already had could have been used against Britain instead of Russia.
quote:5. I'm not sure if you supposed not invading Yugoslavia or not; but the invasion of Yugoslavia was not with forces designated for Barbarossa and did not affect the timeline for Barbarossa at all. Additionally invading 6 months earlier would've meant that (a) the Germans would have been less prepared than they were, and would have been less effective and had less vehicles, and (b) the weather would have been far worse in actuality.
Invading Yugoslavia was not a great challenge, since the German Nazis had many sympathizers in Yugoslavia. The Yugoslavian air force had recently been decimated by natural disasters, which Hitler took as indication of supernatural intervention on his side (Hitler dabbled in spiritualism).
quote:6. Winter uniforms. This actually is a myth; the main problem was that the supply demands for barbarossa were so great that it just wasn't possible to supply over 160 divisions with winter uniforms in a timely manner; notwithstanding the fact that OKW had went into the invasion with the intention not for reaching Moscow, but to destroy the Red Army in the opening phases of the war "One swift kick and the whole rotten structure would come tumbling down" and this affected ALL of German High Command's planning for Barbarossa, Hitler isn't to blame here, but rather German officer culture that deemphasized supply and logistics, and grand strategy.
This is just ignorant. Of course the German military's combat effectiveness was virtually halved in cold weather because the soldiers were suffering from frost bite and other cold weather attrition. And whether or not it was Hitler who was primarily responsible for launching Barbarossa, or whether it was partly the fault of the General staff, changes nothing. The basic point remains that the operation was launched without properly equipping the Wehrmacht for a sustained military effort.
You have not responded to the simple facts I pointed out that Germany swiftly and easily conquered Poland and France, and expelled the British Expeditionary Force from the continent, and thus had virtual hegemony over mainland Europe, making it necessary for the Allies to have to engage in an amphibious assault even to get back into the war (this is ignoring the Africa campaign, which took place on a different continent). At that point, Germany had already nearly attained victory in WWII. How can any sane person deny that?
Posts: 3742 | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
Here are a couple of articles by journalists that give a much clearer picture of the kind of person Donald Trump really is. The first one simply tells the truth many of us have known for a long time about Hillary Clinton. Nothing new there. But see especially the second one by Liz Crokin, that details the way Trump really treats minorities, women, etc.:
This makes me feel a little better now about Trump being our 45th president. He has picked some good conservatives for cabinet posts and top advisors so far (the fact that some liberals are enraged by his choices speaks in favor of those choices). I still am concerned to see whom he really nominates for Supreme Court Justice, since that will determine whether the Court will follow the Constitution and guarantee real justice and religious liberty according to the principles of amendments and properly voted upon laws; or freely interpret it to suit liberal agendas which amount to control-freak semi-socialist tyranny.
Posts: 3742 | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:He has picked some good conservatives for cabinet posts and top advisors so far (the fact that some liberals are enraged by his choices speaks in favor of those choices).
*laugh* Ron, don't ever change. Not that I imagine you ever could.
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
Trump could pick literally Satan and you would think it's a good pick if it enraged liberals.
quote: No they wouldn't have. Britain was on the ropes, their air force was all but destroyed. And as I pointed out before, Germany had already conquered Poland and France and the only nation resisting Germany's total dominance of Europe was the British. Had Britain been eliminated as a staging place, American intervention would not even have been possible.
The military campaign against England is decidedly *not* the military campaign against France or Poland. It's irrelevant that Germany rolled over Poland (barely 21 years old as an independent state) in a month; or rolled over France. There's zero relevance, you keep repeating this like it means something but you never explain why this is meaningful.
As for the military campaign against England, again, as I have repeated many times. The rate of attrition favoured the RAF. The RAF was producing more planes and pilots than they were losing.
Another thing you just seem to fundamentally do not understand is that had the strategic situation worsened for the RAF, they simply would have relocated to bases beyond the range of the BF-109's.
Now here's the question; the Germans STILL don't have undisputed air superiority; how do they knock England from the war? They still only have a couple of months with the RAF still effectively in the fight before they lose interest and invade the Soviet Union.
The logistical, doctrinal, operational, and tactical difficulties with amphibious landings are huge, it took years for the US to get good at them and even then the US military still had some colossal failures post WWII.
You have succumbed to the very same illness that the OKW and the German officer corps succumbed to, which is to assume that all difficulties can be overcome as a matter of 'will'; no matter what; you keep handwaving the impossibility of Operation Seelowe; you don't acknowledge that the Germans didn't have the experience, production capacity, or enough landing craft; not without severely delaying Barbarossa.
So again, the Germans did not have the RAF on the ropes, that is a complete myth.
Also, it is also completely untrue that the Americans could not have invaded Europe without England.
Operation Torch was staged from the American coast; if need be the Americans could have invaded from North Africa into Southern France and Italy like they had actually done, or simply shipped a few armies of GI's to the USSR to fight in Ukraine.
quote: The only advantage to the Germans for launching Barbarossa when they did was that the Soviet army was deployed in attack formations, and not in defensive formations. But since the Soviets thought the Nazi-Soviet Pact guaranteed that Germany would not attack them, they probably would have waited before doing anything to change their strategic deployment.
This is so incredibly and patently false that it would take thousands of words to really explain it, but I'll try to make do with less.
Here's a 45 minute video; the Soviets were massively unprepared for war in 1941 that simply would not have not likely in all probability been true in the summer of 1942.
You're talking about a whole additional year in which to decide to take the Germans more seriously, to spend more time mobilizing, to finish the Molotov Line, to move more supplies and munitions to the front line; to shake off more of the disorganization difficulties of the Purges.
Stalin's unwillingness to react or provoke the Germans in June 1941 we have no reason to believe would have still been the case in 1942 for instance. The Red Army was a logistical and organization mess in 1941; 1941 was the best time for the Soviet Union to be invaded for far more substantial and logistical reasons than whether the Red Army was on a forward deployment or not.
Like this just laughably explains so much, the way you're thinking of things in purely video gamey terms and not how wars are actually thought; again you keep ignoring logistics; such as the fact that many Soviet formations were not supplied with sufficient quantities of ammo or fuel AT ALL in June 1941.
Notwithstanding the surprise factor of June 1941 that may not have been true as of June 1942; you have no means of positing if the conditions would have held true two years in a row; in which case, the Red Army is better supplied, better organized, better led, and better supported logistically and operationally; and the Red Army Airforce isn't caught on the ground.
I've mentioned this multiple times now but you keep ignoring it.
quote: You miss the point that the Japanese decision to attack Pearl Harbor enabled the USA to enter the war against Germany while Britain was still a viable protagonist. Records are that Hitler was not pleased by the Japanese attack, precisely because he knew it meant he would have to deal with the Americans now, with its immense resources and productivity.
What does this have to do with anything? Did you actually understand my point that the US entering in December 1941 had no influence on the war in 1941 or early 1942? That lend-lease was already in effect for the USSR since July 1941? How are you not understanding basic concepts?
quote: The planes could have been rebuilt and what they already had could have been used against Britain instead of Russia.
The Wehrmacht needed literally every plane. Or are you again suggesting that the Germans delay Barbarossa to 1942? Which again, would have been a disaster.
quote: Invading Yugoslavia was not a great challenge, since the German Nazis had many sympathizers in Yugoslavia. The Yugoslavian air force had recently been decimated by natural disasters, which Hitler took as indication of supernatural intervention on his side (Hitler dabbled in spiritualism).
Non-sequitor.
quote: This is just ignorant. Of course the German military's combat effectiveness was virtually halved in cold weather because the soldiers were suffering from frost bite and other cold weather attrition.
1. Where do you get the idea that effectiveness was "halved" was this because a board game told you so?
2. The Germans did scavenge for winter uniforms, and made do as best they could.
3.
quote: And whether or not it was Hitler who was primarily responsible for launching Barbarossa, or whether it was partly the fault of the General staff, changes nothing. The basic point remains that the operation was launched without properly equipping the Wehrmacht for a sustained military effort.
Um yes it does, this is you shifting the goalposts now.
Because if it is primarily because of the High Command, who are a product of the Prussian officer corps, then it shows evidence that supports my argument, that the German war effort was inherently dysfunctional and handwaved away their problems through vast amounts of wishful thinking. These are systemic problems that cannot be handwaved away; it entirely discredits your argument that the Germans "could have come close to winning the war if only they had done X instead of Y" because it shows that they were institutionally incapable of that level of rational thought.
This is something explained in more recent history books that have had more time to delve into German archives and to better witness the dysfunctional of the Nazi regime through primary sources.
So good job refuting your own argument.
4.
quote: You have not responded to the simple facts I pointed out that Germany swiftly and easily conquered Poland and France, and expelled the British Expeditionary Force from the continent, and thus had virtual hegemony over mainland Europe,
All of this is not actually germane to the actual discussion at hand. No one is disputing that the Germans had certain advantages in terms of doctrine, training, and organization at a tactical and operational level; that the General Staff was an experienced and professional force; no one is disputing that the Germans made better initial use of Tanks than their enemies during the early stages of WWII.
The point though is that their enemies; the Allies, both the Western Entente and the Soviets, all watched and learned. When they had time to breath and reorganize, to react in depth to German moves with countermoves; after the Germans had lost much of the steam and momentum of their early successes due to their own foolish mistakes and overconfidence that was a persuasive and institutional problem for their entire military structure: They began to lose, and it was inevitable by that point.
And for there to have been any other result they would have needed to have not been the Nazi's, and possibly have lost the early war, or have avoided the war entirely.
You are just not understanding the argument I am making, and you are not comprehending basic logical reasoning.
5.
quote: making it necessary for the Allies to have to engage in an amphibious assault even to get back into the war (this is ignoring the Africa campaign, which took place on a different continent).
You're just going to keep conveniently ignoring that they invaded Russia and that by the time the Allies landed in Europe the war in Europe was already over?
6.
quote: At that point, Germany had already nearly attained victory in WWII. How can any sane person deny that?
Konstantin Rokossovsky would like a word; again, you're assuming the conclusion and working backwards, you're assuming that either the Germans don't invade the USSR (Impossible, because Nazi ideology was all about that sweet living space in the Ost), or pull an impossible victory.
Once the Germans invaded the Soviet Union they were doomed; with a little help from the hard working American workers from Detroit, the Soviets killed 80% of the total military casualties of the Wehrmacht and broke them before the Allies had made any serious gains in Europe.
Posts: 12931 | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Ron if you were in the whitehouse and these protests just kept happening what would you do to stop them
Posts: 15421 | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Heisenberg...I evaluate all input, w/ appropriate grains of salt...perhaps you should open up your self a bit and hear my opinion...
Your use of name calling in our interactions previously were, are, and continue to be, inappropriate and you lecturing others about "playing nice" is just as hypocritical as when I did it years before.
Also, Mr. Card has asked us to not cuss in his pool...show some respect for who pays to keep the lights on around here.
Posts: 6683 | Registered: Jun 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
And for the Gods' sake Elison, we are living in one of the most interesting time in politics since the hanging chad and you are talking about WWII w/ Ron! Get your own darn thread, you are cluttering this one up! Posts: 6683 | Registered: Jun 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Stone_Wolf_: Heisenberg...I evaluate all input, w/ appropriate grains of salt...perhaps you should open up your self a bit and hear my opinion...
Your use of name calling in our interactions previously were, are, and continue to be, inappropriate and you lecturing others about "playing nice" is just as hypocritical as when I did it years before.
Also, Mr. Card has asked us to not cuss in his pool...show some respect for who pays to keep the lights on around here.
quote:Originally posted by Stone_Wolf_: And for the Gods' sake Elison, we are living in one of the most interesting time in politics since the hanging chad and you are talking about WWII w/ Ron! Get your own darn thread, you are cluttering this one up!
Ver' are your papers? Vas ist dis? Ver are your papers!?
Posts: 12931 | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Stone_Wolf_: Ahhh, I do love the by play of a spirited debate!
Oh, you were serious?
Well here's a thing. When *I* tell people they're out of line, it's usually having to do with people attacking others because of who they are or what they've said in the past, and I respect free speech.
Whereas when you do it it's because someone's widdle feelings have been hurt, , most usually yours, and now people need to be quiet or they're meanies.
Also in reference to your request about my cursing because you felt defensive and were grasping for straws.
JanitorBlade has gone ahead and moderated things because Jesus figure OSC "wouldn't approve, unless we were talking to gay folks.
But okay. I said a bad word. It was in response to some idiot asking me to police my language because he got defensive. The exact words rhymed with "Luck Few."
posted
Or more to the point...you think you are part of the solution, but to me at least, you are part of the problem. But ef me right?
Posts: 6683 | Registered: Jun 2005
| IP: Logged |
People have tried for years to open your eyes beyond your oversensitive, absolutely autistic reactions. Like, literally years.
In important discussions, the absolute best that you ever contribute are one liners along the lines of "Yay black people," or "Boo, Trump!". And all in the hopes that we'll all reach out through the Internet and tell you what a great ****ing guy you are.
Don't get me wrong; I've said on this forum and others that liberals didn't pay enough attention to dumbasses and the working class, and we need to work to figure out how we can trick/convice them in order to do what we need to do to win the *next* election and hopefully get things done or repaired.
But you're just one guy out of 60 million dumbasses. I'm willing to take the risk of offending you.
Posts: 572 | Registered: Jun 2013
| IP: Logged |
posted
And I just want to point out that it was Rockdog that called me out like out of nowhere based upon shit I said months ago.
Posts: 572 | Registered: Jun 2013
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Stone_Wolf_: I guess "liberal" and "decent human being" aren't mutually exclusive.
Well of *course* they're not.
Whether I were a liberal or conservative, it's ultimately up to the people I respect, my family, and the goddamned universe/god, and also *me* to decide what I am and what I'm worth. It has nothing to do with my political beliefs.
Your stupid little passive aggressive put down says more about you then it does me.
Posts: 572 | Registered: Jun 2013
| IP: Logged |
posted
stone wolf have you noticed that every time you try to police other posters' behavior it goes really really badly, all around
Posts: 15421 | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Twas not I who meddled, twas Tiddles who called for people to change how they talked to Ron...I merely pointed out the towering hypocrisy...and included myself...
quote:Originally posted by Stone_Wolf_: Twas not I who meddled, twas Tiddles who called for people to change how they talked to Ron...I merely pointed out the towering hypocrisy...and included myself...
Also
Yo Captain Passive Aggressive, the name of my asshole former handle was "Tittles." Get it right.
Posts: 572 | Registered: Jun 2013
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Stone_Wolf_: Twas not I who meddled, twas Tiddles who called for people to change how they talked to Ron...I merely pointed out the towering hypocrisy...and included myself...
Also
stone wolf have you noticed that every time you try to police other posters' behavior it goes really really really really really badly, allllllllllll around
Posts: 15421 | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Apparently no one has bothered to check the link I gave to an article that shows some good things about the kind of person Donald Trump is, that directly contradicts the image liberals are and have been trying to paint of him. So here is an excerpt to make things easier:
quote:Trump Does the Unthinkable by Liz Crokin
As an entertainment journalist, I’ve had the opportunity to cover Trump for over a decade, and in all my years covering him I’ve never heard anything negative about the man until he announced he was running for president.
Keep in mind, I got paid a lot of money to dig up dirt on celebrities like Trump for a living so a scandalous story on the famous billionaire could’ve potentially sold a lot of magazines and would’ve been a “Huge” feather in my cap.
Instead, I found that he doesn’t drink alcohol or do drugs, he’s a hardworking businessman and totally devoted to his beloved wife and children. On top of that, he’s one of the most generous celebrities in the world with a heart filled with more gold than his $100 million New York penthouse.
In 2004, the first season of “The Apprentice” aired and at that time I worked as an entertainment columnist for the “Red Eye" Edition of the Chicago Tribune” and as a freelance for “Us Weekly”.
I had a gut feeling that Chicago contestant, Bill Rancic, was going to win the reality show. So, I contacted him and covered the hit show the entire season. I managed to score an invite to New York for the show’s grand finale and after-party.
This is where I first met Trump and got to ask him a few questions. That year, Rancic did win “The Apprentice”. I attended “The Apprentice” finale the next two years in a row.
Between that and the frequent visits Trump and his family made to Chicago during the construction of their Trump International Hotel & Tower, I got a chance to meet most of his family too and I’ve had nothing but positive experiences with them.
Since the media has failed so miserably at reporting the truth about Trump, I decided to put together some of the acts of kindness he’s committed over three decades which has gone virtually unnoticed or fallen on deaf ears.
In 1986, Trump prevented the foreclosure of Annabell Hill’s family farm after her husband committed suicide. Trump personally phoned down to the auction to stop the sale of her home and offered the widow money. Trump decided to take action after he saw Hill’s pleas for help in news reports.
In 1988, a commercial airline refused to fly Andrew Ten, a sick Orthodox Jewish child with a rare illness, across the country to get medical care because he had to travel with an elaborate life-support system. His grief-stricken parents contacted Trump for help and he didn’t hesitate to send his own plane to take the child from Los Angeles to New York so he could get his treatment.
In 1991, 200 Marines who served in Operation Desert Storm spent time at Camp Lejeune in North Carolina before they were scheduled to return home to their families. However, the Marines were told that a mistake had been made and an aircraft would not be able to take them home on their scheduled departure date. When Trump got wind of this, he sent his plane to make two trips from North Carolina to Miami to safely return the Gulf War Marines to their loved ones.
In 1995, a motorist stopped to help Trump after the limo he was traveling in got a flat tire. Trump asked the Good Samaritan how he could repay him for his help. All the man asked for was a bouquet of flowers for his wife. A few weeks later Trump sent the flowers with a note that read: “We’ve paid off your mortgage.”
In 1996, Trump filed a lawsuit against the city of Palm Beach, Florida accusing the town of discriminating against his Mar-a-Lago resort club because it allowed Jews and blacks. Abraham Foxman, who was the Anti-Defamation League Director at the time, said Trump “put the light on Palm Beach – not on the beauty and the glitter, but on its seamier side of discrimination.” Foxman also noted that Trump’s charge had a trickle-down effect because other clubs followed his lead and began admitting Jews and blacks.
In 2000, Maury Povich featured a little girl named Megan who struggled with Brittle Bone Disease on his show and Trump happened to be watching. Trump said the little girl’s story and positive attitude touched his heart. So, he contacted Maury and gifted the little girl and her family with a very generous check.
In 2008, after Jennifer Hudson’s family members were tragically murdered in Chicago, Trump put the Oscar-winning actress and her family up at his Windy City hotel for free. In addition to that, Trump’s security took extra measures to ensure Hudson and her family members were safe during such a difficult time.
In 2013, New York bus driver Darnell Barton spotted a woman close to the edge of a bridge staring at traffic below as he drove by. He stopped the bus, got out and put his arm around the woman and saved her life by convincing her to not jump. When Trump heard about this story, he sent the hero bus driver a check simply because he believed his good deed deserved to be rewarded.
In 2014, Trump gave $25,000 to Sgt. Andrew Tamoressi after he spent seven months in a Mexican jail for accidentally crossing the US-Mexico border. President Barack Obama couldn’t even be bothered to make one phone call to assist with the United States Marine’s release; however, Trump opened his pocketbook to help this serviceman get back on his feet.
In 2016, Melissa Consin Young attended a Trump rally and tearfully thanked Trump for changing her life. She said she proudly stood on stage with Trump as Miss Wisconsin USA in 2005. However, years later she found herself struggling with an incurable illness and during her darkest days she explained that she received a handwritten letter from Trump telling her she’s the “bravest woman, I know.” She said the opportunities that she got from Trump and his organizations ultimately provided her Mexican-American son with a full-ride to college.
Lynne Patton, a black female executive for the Trump Organization, released a statement in 2016 defending her boss against accusations that he’s a racist and a bigot. She tearfully revealed how she’s struggled with substance abuse and addiction for years. Instead of kicking her to the curb, she said the Trump Organization and his entire family loyally stood by her through “immensely difficult times.”
posted
I see that if trump lost ron would have stuck with the conclusions he had made about him that he was dishonest and immoral
but now that trump won, ron is frantically scrubbing his brain of previous Truth and deciding that because liberals hate him, he must actually be a Good and Decent Person
i think that's ultimately more pathetic than just thinking trump's a good guy from the beginning. that, at least, doesn't require a spat of personally reprogramming your own doublethink.
Posts: 15421 | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
I'm not an American citizen, I do not support Trump at all, my candidate would be Gary Johnson. Just to clarify at the beginning.
I strongly believe that Trump's election is a triumph of democracy. Majority (as far as the electoral system allows) has spoken. In my humble opinion protests are completely and entirely asinine and immature in a civic sense. It's like the UK citizens, who after voting pro-BREXIT, checked online what European Union is. Entire nation votes on something, everyone is allowed to do it, the elections weren't rigged, millions and millions of people went to the ballot. It's difficult to imagine a fairer, clearer and more transparent way (in a democracy) to settle an argument of any kind. You don't like the result, you swallow it and wait for the next election.
He is good enough, it's a fact. Only the Sovereign (the People) has the power to determine that, and deteremined it has. Had Trump been a adulturer, liar, mysoginist, racist, stupid (as long as it had been legal), it wouldn't have mattered.
If anything, it is the People themself that should be contested as a not-so-good Sovereign, not Trump as a not-so-good elected leader.
Of course I mean now, before he got sworn in.
Posts: 723 | Registered: Dec 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
Heisenberg: You don't get to swear at other posters here, and you are abusing the tolerance this board shows for profanity in general. Please edit at least the swearing at others.
Posts: 1194 | Registered: Jun 2010
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Szymon: I'm not an American citizen, I do not support Trump at all, my candidate would be Gary Johnson. Just to clarify at the beginning.
I strongly believe that Trump's election is a triumph of democracy. Majority (as far as the electoral system allows) has spoken. In my humble opinion protests are completely and entirely asinine and immature in a civic sense. It's like the UK citizens, who after voting pro-BREXIT, checked online what European Union is. Entire nation votes on something, everyone is allowed to do it, the elections weren't rigged, millions and millions of people went to the ballot. It's difficult to imagine a fairer, clearer and more transparent way (in a democracy) to settle an argument of any kind. You don't like the result, you swallow it and wait for the next election.
He is good enough, it's a fact. Only the Sovereign (the People) has the power to determine that, and deteremined it has. Had Trump been a adulturer, liar, mysoginist, racist, stupid (as long as it had been legal), it wouldn't have mattered.
If anything, it is the People themself that should be contested as a not-so-good Sovereign, not Trump as a not-so-good elected leader.
Of course I mean now, before he got sworn in.
Not being an American, are you aware of Comey, or various states voting laws?
Posts: 1757 | Registered: Oct 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Samprimary: I see that if trump lost ron would have stuck with the conclusions he had made about him that he was dishonest and immoral
but now that trump won, ron is frantically scrubbing his brain of previous Truth and deciding that because liberals hate him, he must actually be a Good and Decent Person
i think that's ultimately more pathetic than just thinking trump's a good guy from the beginning. that, at least, doesn't require a spat of personally reprogramming your own doublethink.
Literally Doublethink.
Also I see Ron has declared victory regarding the Germans and will no doubt pretend he was right the whole time.
Posts: 12931 | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by theamazeeaz: Not being an American, are you aware of Comey, or various states voting laws?
Yes. But still it is the system that can be contested, not the results of lawful elections, right? If so, then the protests should take place before the election, not after. Maybe the election should have been postponed or something, but what is the point of holding them if you are not going to recognize them as lawful afterwards?
"The voting system is bad, but if Hilary wins it's ok, and we don't protest. If not, well, THEN we start the rioting, because they were rigged in the first place".
quote: Originally posted by Samprimary: like, do you mean riots, or do you mean this about any assembly, peacable or non
I mean riots, mostly, they are almost always wrong. If someone was protesting before the elections and is protesting still afterwards, then I understand completely.
quote: Originally posted Elison R. Salazar: Syzmon doesn't understand that the United States was literally born because of a protest.
I'm not sure if I see a logical connection between what I wrote and your evaluation of my understanding of how US was born.
So what if it was? It makes all protesting reasonable? That one cannot oppose a protest, because protesting is a midwife of USA? I protest.
EDIT: I obviously do not think that protesting is wrong, not at all.
Posts: 723 | Registered: Dec 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote: "The voting system is bad, but if Hilary wins it's ok, and we don't protest. If not, well, THEN we start the rioting, because they were rigged in the first place".
Many were concerned about the effects of voter suppression (especially on the down ballet) even when assuming a Hillary victory was likely, and hoped that a Hillary Admin can do something to fix it. I'm not sure you understand the concerns.
People like CGP Grey were also consistent about their criticisms of the Electoral College way before this election.
quote: So what if it was? It makes all protesting for any reason viable? That one cannot oppose a protest, because protesting is a midwife of USA? I protest.
I think our criticism is that your viewing the Trump winning protests by people in states like California because of small fly over states as trivial in their reasoning when it's anything but.
Posts: 12931 | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Ok, I understand. If US had an equal vote system, without the Electoral College, then the whole federation idea would seem obsolete, with California and it's 1/8 of entire US population being having more power than probably twenty least populous stateous combined.
What do you think about Yescalifornia and the idea of CalExit?
Posts: 723 | Registered: Dec 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
Without the Electoral College close elections would trigger chaotic and contentious country wide recounts, something like it would need to remain to prevent that.
The real problem with the Electoral College is that it actually does not represent either the popular will, NOR the will of the states; it does not give the smaller sparsely populated states that much more of a say.
As an example, put the entire population into California and 1 person per other state, and according to the constitution California still ends up with 73% of the EC votes.
Posts: 12931 | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
The Canadian process is actually pretty complicated. First, everyone who wants to run the country is required to punch a moose. Then they have to apologize to the moose as sincerely and rapidly as possible. The winner is the first one who manages to get the moose to apologize to them.
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Samprimary: terrible idea 100%
It would be a pretty terrible idea for *us*, in the rest of the country. I'm not so sure it would be so bad for the people who live in California.
Posts: 572 | Registered: Jun 2013
| IP: Logged |
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[No No]](graemlins/nono.gif)
![[Frown]](frown.gif)
, most usually yours, and now people need to be quiet or they're meanies. ![[Dont Know]](graemlins/dontknow.gif)
But ef me right?
![[Wave]](graemlins/wave.gif)
bye bye
![[Roll Eyes]](rolleyes.gif)
