To impeach, or not to impeach

[Eric the Green]

(11-22-2019, 06:12 AM)Classic-Xer Wrote:

(11-21-2019, 12:45 PM)David Horn Wrote: There is no evidence, credible or other wise, that the IC has been a deep state power actor outside it's official duties as defined by the law of the land.  You assume that the majority see things as you see them.  Sorry, but that's simply not true.  There is no evidence that the intelligence community conspired against Trump, justified as that may have been.  To be honest about it, it's more of the reverse.  Yes, real experts get a bit miffed when no-knowledge laymen decide that 2+2=5, because they like it that way.  Spending decades honing your knowledge and your craft should stand for something, but not to DJT.  For him, it's all gut.  That doesn't mean they've conspired behind his back.

And Mitt?  He's a typical out-of-touch rich guy who punked himself.  I actually think Mitt's basically a good guy, but oblivious in the extreme.

How do you know that it isn't true? Are willing back up it up with your home? I hope you remember your own advice. Actually, there is pretty strong evidence which is why there is a REAL criminal investigation going on that involves high ranking officials affiliated with our intelligence agencies and legal justice system right now. You don't have to believe it, you can choose to ignore it or even pretend that there isn't one. I don't really care, it's a free country and all. I figure the majority will eventually see things my way. I still believe that the majority aren't liberals who see things the way the liberals do these days. 

Have you ever questioned a liberal who believes they're an expert? What I learned today is that one can't/shouldn't ever question a liberal expert or a liberal Democrat these days. Yes, I could see that the liberal expert got a bit miffed when questioned by someone that they view as being below them.

The latest polls give your side a boost. Liberals like me are confounded by this. But you may be right. The majority of Americans see things your way. They would gladly sacrifice the constitution and democracy so they can keep their guns and keep their taxes from going to black and brown people. 

I don't know how long that the current demographics shifts will fail to indicate a change in the majority, if it ever does. Your side is working feverishly to end immigration from non-white countries so you can keep the shift from happening.

[Eric the Green]

(11-21-2019, 01:00 PM)pbrower2a Wrote:

(11-21-2019, 10:38 AM)Classic-Xer Wrote: You may not be aware that there is credible evidence that our intelligence services were   used against Trump. Why didn't Mitt run again, that's an easy to answer. In our eyes, Mitt Romney already  lost to what we viewed as an inferior opponent that he should have been able to walk all over/defeat so to speak.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Historical...ted_States

Historians disagree with you, so far, in rating Barack Obama as a President. Incumbent Presidents can usually get re-elected by promising more of the same unless such is failure (Hoover, Carter), or the President shows himself an inept campaigner (Ford, the elder Bush). The historical ratings have the 44th President in the first or second quartile among Presidents. That is difficult to beat. 

Mitt Romney's wife has MS -- multiple sclerosis. That is a huge complication to being a First Lady, and it might be too much for her.Were it not for his wife's malady, Romney might instead be President. If Trump could win, Romney could also win. He would have won bigger than Trump.

The most recent rating by historians of the Presidents of the last century (this goes back to Woodrow Wilson) gives the following ratings:

Wilson 11
Harding 41
Coolidge 31
Hoover 36
FDR 2
Truman 9
Eisenhower 6
Kennedy 10
LBJ 16
Nixon 29
Ford 27
Carter 26
Reagan 13
GHWB 21
Clinton 15
Dubya 33
Obama 17
Trump 42

Cleveland is not counted twice. The top five are  Washington 1, Jefferson 5, Lincoln 3, TR 4, and  FDR 2. Placement of Washington, Lincoln, and FDR are matters of taste. Washington established what the Presidency is; Lincoln saved the Union; FDR (with his good buddy Churchill) saved Western Christian Civilization from demonic leaders of consummate resources and ruthlessness. Jefferson and TR are usually 4 and 5 in some order. 

The bottom? 

A. Johnson 44
Buchanan 43
Trump 42 
Harding 41
Pierce 40
W. H. Harrison 39
Fillmore 38

To be sure, academics are having a difficult time adjusting to Donald Trump, who breaks many of the rules that other Presidents have followed. He is as much a break with the past as was Andrew Jackson, who rates 19. The Trail of Tears and the expansion of slavery weren't big problems in Jackson's day, but they are now.  I would be more charitable with William Henry Harrison, who made the catastrophic mistake of delivering a long speech outside in a cold rain while an old man... resulting in the shortest Presidency ever.  His blunder hurt only himself. 

To be sure, the Presidency has changed greatly over the last century... and the United States is not the 'suburb of Europe' that it was in the early nineteenth century. America is a great power, and the federal government has far greater power and responsibility. 

It is possible to be overall a below-average President (Coolidge, Dubya) to get re-elected. Both of those two bad Presidents did their big damage in their second terms. Coolidge sponsored a speculative boom that could only go bust, and he enforced reparations against a shaky Weimar Republic that ensured that in the event of a worldwide economic meltdown that the Antichrist had a chance to take over Germany. Trump's first term the second term of the second Bush look good by contrast. 

I rate Trump 43rd or 44th of 44 different Presidents (not counting Cleveland twice). Buchanan blundered badly, trying to save the Union by appeasing the slave-masters. I doubt that someone else could have gotten different results.

Rating presidents is always a fun sport. Buchanan is always put last, but like you suggest, I wonder if another president could have done better and still please the Democratic Party of that time. I would rate Dubya worst, because he started an unnecessary war in Iraq that killed 400,000. His presidency was lethal and we are still fighting there to keep the results in bounds. His poor government regulation of the economy contributed to the great recession, and his poor response to Katrina was also lethal. The economy was weak during his term and the debt skyrocketed. He achieved very little of a positive nature. So far I would put Trump as next to last, but the way he's going he might overtake Bush for last place. The only reason I put Bush lower is because he was much more deadly, so far. Trump has avoided wars, while still contributing to possible wars later on with his neglect and militarism.

I agree with the top 3 but I would place FDR first. He saved both the economy and the free world. Lincoln and Washington can't match that. Reagan is of course vastly over-rated. His only virtue was that he was popular. His economics have ruined the economy for most people, and his administration was perhaps the most corrupt ever until Trump. He gets some credit for negotiating with Gorbachev when the chance came, but I give Gorby full credit for the changes in the Soviet Union, not Reagan's costly military spending which began the debt catastrophe.

Eisenhower is over-rated. He accomplished very little except keeping the nation on an even keel. My liberal views would shift a number of these rankings, no doubt. This recent list leans heavily toward the conservative view. Their placement of Jefferson so high reflects conservatives' current obsession with the free market and laissez faire, and they see in the classical liberal Jefferson a prophet of the philosophy carried out by Eisenhower, Reagan and the Bushs, which they rate far more highly than I and other liberals would rate them. Those with values that reflect the ability to lift up the poor and oppressed would create a different rating list, and for that reason alone Lincoln would be rated above Washington. I don't see that Jefferson accomplished all that much as president. He himself rated his other accomplishments more highly.

[pbrower2a]

Eisenhower got us out of the Korean War with South Korea intact, which was the legitimate end of American military policy. He promoted the Interstate Highway System as freeways where there was not already a toll expressway up to Interstate standards, which was best for getting people off the horrible Blood Alleys. The Interstate Highway has paid for itself in reduction of highway carnage alone. Ike stayed clear of the McCarthy bandwagon which eventually imploded. He may not have been in the vanguard in promoting civil rights for Southern blacks, but he went fully with the decisions of the US Supreme Court.

I have compared Eisenhower to Obama for temperament and overall integrity... and have suggested that 56 years later, the two seem to have had similar constituencies. The curricula vitae may have been as different as they could be, and the two are in opposite Parties. But the generational cycle suggests that both are mature Reactive leaders -- chilly rationalists who respect legal formalities, precedent, and protocol. Obama will fall short of Eisenhower for one thing: the difference between their successors. Donald Trump is no Jack Kennedy; Trump will be compared in history to three much-reviled Roman Emperors: Caligula, Nero, and Commodus. He can consider himself fortunate that we Americans simply do not have coups.

[Eric the Green]

Franklin D. Roosevelt saved the economy and the world, created the American middle class and senior security
Abraham Lincoln freed the slaves by passing the 13th amendment, promoted economic development in the west, oversaw civil war victory, most eloquent president
George Washington an example of integrity, set up first federal government, a pillar of stability and republican virtue
Theodore Roosevelt busted trusts and instituted reforms of capitalism, initiated conservation, thrust USA into world power status, too militaristic, but also a peace maker, got canal built
John F. Kennedy initiated most of the reforms and achievements of his successors, rallied nation and world to freedom and progress, first nuclear deal, peace corps, eloquent speaker
Woodrow Wilson won World War I, created league of nations and new self-determined nations, stubborn/repressive, many reforms hated by libertarians but good for the nation
Barack Obama passed health care reform and other reforms against greatest resistance possible, stimulated recovery from great recession, regulated pollution, eloquent unifier
Thomas Jefferson kept nation on the path to liberty, expanded territory, sent explorers into the north-west, kept the nation out of war for a while
Harry S. Truman created post-war alliances, led recovery of Europe, introduced fair deal legislation, advanced civil rights, dropped first atom bomb, declared cold war, Korean War
Bill Clinton created booming economy, balanced budget, fair taxes, kept peace with no American casualties, gun control and other reforms, free trade, repeal of regulations, scandal
Dwight D. Eisenhower kept the nation out of war at a dangerous time and reduced military spending, created interstate highway system, began space program, poor cabinet, US misdeeds led to war
James K. Polk conquered half of Mexico, and expanded northwest territory without war, encouraged industry during industrial revolution; achieved his aims
Andrew Jackson kept the south from secession and stopped bad tariff laws, resisted national bank, encouraged democracy, killed indians, introduced spoils system
Jimmy Carter made peace treaty with Egypt, introduced first renewable energy policies, kept the USA out of war with Iran during hostage crisis, restrained spending, could not cure inflation and recession
James Monroe protected Latin America with his enduring Doctrine, oversaw an era of good feelings and domestic physical progress
James Madison kept the nation on the path to liberty, but fought an unnecessary war badly, but still won it, initiating era of good feelings and progress
Chester A. Arthur restored the honor of our government by instituting civil service
John Quincy Adams smart in foreign policy, continued era of progress
William Howard Taft busted trusts and continued reform, but appointed conservative cabinet and resisted new reforms
Zachary Taylor kept the south from seceding with threats, pushed CA admission and thus helped craft 1850 compromise that delayed civil war, although he was stubborn and it only passed after he died
Lyndon B. Johnson passed civil rights bill and great society programs that lifted people out of poverty and discrimination, but mired the nation in deadly, expensive, unnecessary failed war
Rutherford B. Hayes oversaw end of reconstruction and restoration of Jim Crow and calmed the nation's divisions, and was honest
William McKinley victory in war established the new American Empire. Was honest and kept the economy strong with conservative policies
George H. W. Bush victory in war established the New World Order. Vetoed many more bills than he signed, moderating but keeping conservative era going and its pollution and poverty growing
Grover Cleveland made reforms for good government in first term, but repressed labor rebellion unfairly in second term and endured economic panic with no remedial action
Benjamin Harrison did not do much to address the grievances of workers and farmers
Gerald Ford restored confidence after scandal. Government by veto
John Adams kept conservative federalism going, made undeclared war on the French, Alien and Sedition Acts
Millard Fillmore signed 1850 compromise, but did little else to address increasing division of the country; last Whig president
Richard Nixon created detente with communists, and established environmental protection agency and consumer protection. Broke laws in his re-election campaign, abused power, kept failed war going
Ulysses S. Grant brought calm after civil war, betrayed the concerns of African-Americans during reconstruction, but defended it. Had corrupt associates
Martin Van Buren kept Jackson's policies of opposing national bank, but a recession resulted
Franklin Pierce compromised with pro-slavery factions and sought southern expansion. Kansas-Nebraska Act set up the civil war conflict
John Tyler a very ineffective leader, unable to compromise and betrayed his party, but stood up for what he believed in and caused little harm
Calvin Coolidge laissez-faire pro-business policies of lax regulation led to great depression, but economy boomed while in office
Ronald Reagan instituted neo-liberal policies that created 40 years of increasing inequality and national debt. Wasteful military spending, corruption, made peace deals, eloquent
Herbert Hoover allowed great depression to get worse, applied ineffective pro-business remedies and high tariffs
Warren G. Harding dominated by corrupt associates and allowed bribery, tried to ease post-war tensions
James Buchanan appeased pro-slavery factions with questionable dealings, failed to stop civil war
Andrew Johnson resisted reconstruction and unable to compromise, stirred up trouble with belligerent speeches, completely ineffective leader
Donald Trump shows no respect for law or proper authority, unleashes pollution, increases inequality and debt, trade wars, building military but betrays allies anyway, stokes racism
George W. Bush started a preventive war of choice without justification that killed 400,000 and unleashed Islamic State, failed to regulate bubble economy or respond to disaster

[Classic-Xer]

(11-22-2019, 05:22 PM)Eric the Green Wrote: The latest polls give your side a boost. Liberals like me are confounded by this. But you may be right. The majority of Americans see things your way. They would gladly sacrifice the constitution and democracy so they can keep their guns and keep their taxes from going to black and brown people. 

I don't know how long that the current demographics shifts will fail to indicate a change in the majority, if it ever does. Your side is working feverishly to end immigration from non-white countries so you can keep the shift from happening.

I'm not surprised that the liberals are confounded by what they're seeing as a result right now. There is one thing you should have seen and should be able to understand about us by now, THERE IS NO ONE ON THE OTHER SIDE WHO WILL GLADLY SACRIFICE THE CONSTITUTION, THEIR CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHTS AND PROTECTIONS OR THEIR VOTING RIGHTS OR ANYTHING OF VALUE THAT THEY LEGALLY OWN WITHOUT SOME SORT OF A MAJOR FIGHT AND YOU AREN'T GOING TO FIND A REPUBLICAN POLITICIAN WHO DOES NOT FULLY UNDERSTAND THIS ABOUT US.

[Classic-Xer]

(11-22-2019, 06:34 PM)pbrower2a Wrote: Eisenhower got us out of the Korean War with South Korea intact, which was the legitimate end of American military policy. He promoted the Interstate Highway System as freeways where there was not already a toll expressway up to Interstate standards, which was best for getting people off the horrible Blood Alleys. The Interstate Highway has paid for itself in reduction of highway carnage alone. Ike stayed clear of the McCarthy bandwagon which eventually imploded. He may not have been in the vanguard in promoting civil rights for Southern blacks, but he went fully with the decisions of the US Supreme Court.

I have compared Eisenhower to Obama for temperament and overall integrity... and have suggested that 56 years later, the two seem to have had similar constituencies. The curricula vitae may have been as different as they could be, and the two are in opposite Parties. But the generational cycle suggests that both are mature Reactive leaders -- chilly rationalists who respect legal formalities, precedent, and protocol. Obama will fall short of Eisenhower for one thing: the difference between their successors. Donald Trump is no Jack Kennedy; Trump will be compared in history to three much-reviled Roman Emperors: Caligula, Nero, and Commodus. He can consider himself fortunate that we Americans simply do not have coups.

I'm sorry but there is no direct comparison between Eisenhower and Obama. Say what you want but Obama was an idealist and governed as an idealist. You see, only an idealist/ partisan blue would be content with sitting in the oval office and accomplishing nothing for six years. Sorry, Obama falls way short of Eisenhower for obvious reasons and his successor had nothing to do with that either.

[Classic-Xer]

(11-21-2019, 01:00 PM)pbrower2a Wrote:

(11-21-2019, 10:38 AM)Classic-Xer Wrote: You may not be aware that there is credible evidence that our intelligence services were   used against Trump. Why didn't Mitt run again, that's an easy to answer. In our eyes, Mitt Romney already  lost to what we viewed as an inferior opponent that he should have been able to walk all over/defeat so to speak.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Historical...ted_States

Historians disagree with you, so far, in rating Barack Obama as a President. Incumbent Presidents can usually get re-elected by promising more of the same unless such is failure (Hoover, Carter), or the President shows himself an inept campaigner (Ford, the elder Bush). The historical ratings have the 44th President in the first or second quartile among Presidents. That is difficult to beat. 

Mitt Romney's wife has MS -- multiple sclerosis. That is a huge complication to being a First Lady, and it might be too much for her.Were it not for his wife's malady, Romney might instead be President. If Trump could win, Romney could also win. He would have won bigger than Trump.

The most recent rating by historians of the Presidents of the last century (this goes back to Woodrow Wilson) gives the following ratings:

Wilson 11
Harding 41
Coolidge 31
Hoover 36
FDR 2
Truman 9
Eisenhower 6
Kennedy 10
LBJ 16
Nixon 29
Ford 27
Carter 26
Reagan 13
GHWB 21
Clinton 15
Dubya 33
Obama 17
Trump 42

Cleveland is not counted twice. The top five are  Washington 1, Jefferson 5, Lincoln 3, TR 4, and  FDR 2. Placement of Washington, Lincoln, and FDR are matters of taste. Washington established what the Presidency is; Lincoln saved the Union; FDR (with his good buddy Churchill) saved Western Christian Civilization from demonic leaders of consummate resources and ruthlessness. Jefferson and TR are usually 4 and 5 in some order. 

The bottom? 

A. Johnson 44
Buchanan 43
Trump 42 
Harding 41
Pierce 40
W. H. Harrison 39
Fillmore 38

To be sure, academics are having a difficult time adjusting to Donald Trump, who breaks many of the rules that other Presidents have followed. He is as much a break with the past as was Andrew Jackson, who rates 19. The Trail of Tears and the expansion of slavery weren't big problems in Jackson's day, but they are now.  I would be more charitable with William Henry Harrison, who made the catastrophic mistake of delivering a long speech outside in a cold rain while an old man... resulting in the shortest Presidency ever.  His blunder hurt only himself. 

To be sure, the Presidency has changed greatly over the last century... and the United States is not the 'suburb of Europe' that it was in the early nineteenth century. America is a great power, and the federal government has far greater power and responsibility. 

It is possible to be overall a below-average President (Coolidge, Dubya) to get re-elected. Both of those two bad Presidents did their big damage in their second terms. Coolidge sponsored a speculative boom that could only go bust, and he enforced reparations against a shaky Weimar Republic that ensured that in the event of a worldwide economic meltdown that the Antichrist had a chance to take over Germany. Trump's first term the second term of the second Bush look good by contrast. 

I rate Trump 43rd or 44th of 44 different Presidents (not counting Cleveland twice). Buchanan blundered badly, trying to save the Union by appeasing the slave-masters. I doubt that someone else could have gotten different results.

That doesn't surprise me, Obama has always been overrated. Cherished Presidents like Obama are often overrated and given higher marks. He was the first black President of the United States which was a monumental achievement in and of itself. I even recognized it and took some pride in it myself despite having voted for John McCain and being completely irked about the entire election result.

Obama and Eisenhower. As far as temperament and character traits and leadership capabilities, the two of them aren't even close. Obama falls short of Ike substantially. Obama largely governed from behind the scenes and preferred to lead from behind. Obama was afraid to stick his neck out and afraid to place his reputation on the line. I'm sorry, Obama wasn't much of a leader or much of a President either. He never had broader appeal like Eisenhower which is why he only managed to accomplish the minimum that was required/deemed necessary in order to be reelected.

[Classic-Xer]

(11-22-2019, 09:53 AM)David Horn Wrote:

(11-22-2019, 06:12 AM)Classic-Xer Wrote:

(11-21-2019, 12:45 PM)David Horn Wrote: There is no evidence, credible or other wise, that the IC has been a deep state power actor outside it's official duties as defined by the law of the land.  You assume that the majority see things as you see them.  Sorry, but that's simply not true.  There is no evidence that the intelligence community conspired against Trump, justified as that may have been.  To be honest about it, it's more of the reverse.  Yes, real experts get a bit miffed when no-knowledge laymen decide that 2+2=5, because they like it that way.  Spending decades honing your knowledge and your craft should stand for something, but not to DJT.  For him, it's all gut.  That doesn't mean they've conspired behind his back.

And Mitt?  He's a typical out-of-touch rich guy who punked himself.  I actually think Mitt's basically a good guy, but oblivious in the extreme.

How do you know that it isn't true? Are willing back up it up with your home? I hope you remember your own advice. Actually, there is pretty strong evidence which is why there is a REAL criminal investigation going on that involves high ranking officials affiliated with our intelligence agencies and legal justice system right now. You don't have to believe it, you can choose to ignore it or even pretend that there isn't one. I don't really care, it's a free country and all. I figure the majority will eventually see things my way. I still believe that the majority aren't liberals who see things the way the liberals do these days. 

Have you ever questioned a liberal who believes they're an expert? What I learned today is that one can't/shouldn't ever question a liberal expert or a liberal Democrat these days. Yes, I could see that the liberal expert got a bit miffed when questioned by someone that they view as being below them.

Whoa!  Ease up on the Kool-Aid, please!  Stop for just one second and ask yourself: why is it that all 17 IC agencies and even members of Trump's own White House staff see this as Russian meddling, Trump enabling and extorting a small country for his benefit, while you, and a few diehards in the Forever Trump phalange, see it differently?  Who's investigating if all the career professionals are on the "other side"?  Why is it that you can ignore the obvious: Trump and his Chief of Staff both admitted this on television!  Are you  being played?  I think so.

And on the topic of experts, here's the score.  On the Trumpist side is the dairy farmer Devin Nunes, opposed by, among others, Fiona Hill who has made a career of studying the Russians since 1987.  Also note, she is anything but an elite.  And fwiw, you wouldn't tolerate a no-nothing telling you how HVAC is supposed to work and mandating that you have it installed wrong -- as you shouldn't.  Everyone has an area of expertise.  That should be respected.

I prefer Coca-Cola. The liberals seem to the only ones chugging down Kool-Aid these days. The Obama years pretty wiped out the Kool-Aid drinkers on the right. I see them hanging out with the left these days. See what as Russian meddling? The Biden/Ukrainian investigation thingy that Trump expressed an interest in having reopened by the Ukrainian President. Yep. He admitted it and he released the transcripts of the communications between them as well.
I'm an American citizen, I'd like to know more about it. After all, Biden is running for President. I know that you either don't or prefer not to think (view things) that way.

If I was Putin, I'd be upset that my American bro (Trump) screwed me by authorizing the release of American arms, American missile defense systems and further continuation of American military assistance for Ukraine. I'd also be upset that he's screwing with me economically with heavy sanctions and by cutting into my oil production profits. You want to know what I think, I think Putin may actually have way more influence with you than Trump these days.

[David Horn]

(11-23-2019, 05:45 AM)Classic-Xer Wrote: I'm sorry but there is no direct comparison between Eisenhower and Obama. Say what you want but Obama was an idealist and governed as an idealist. You see, only an idealist/ partisan blue would be content with sitting in the oval office and accomplishing nothing for six years. Sorry, Obama falls way short of Eisenhower for obvious reasons and his successor had nothing to do with that either.

Except for the part about doing nothing, of course. While he had a Democratic Congress (only 2 years for the Senate) he managed to get Obamacare passed -- then the GOP obstructionists took over and noting moved, period.

Remember, Presidents aren't kings, unless Congress gives them free reign. Trump's had free reign on appointments and nothing passes the Senate not approval stamped by the Orange One. Everything the House passes, and there has been a lot, goes to the Senate to die. If doing nothing is the plan, divided government gets you there, at least for now.

[Kinser79]

I find it amusing that PBR can in one breath say: " He [Trump] is as much a break with the past as was Andrew Jackson, who rates 19." And yet in the next deny my assessment that Trump is in fact the Gray Champion of the Jacksonian Type. I've long contended that there are essentially two types of actors in American politics. One faction is historically represented by Andrew Jackson, the other by Alexander Hamilton.

I'm also reluctant to rate serving US Presidents. Current poltics has a tendency to color perceptions for at least 25 years. Shit man its taken that long for most people to realize that LBJ was a shitty president and Nixon was relatively decent (apart from having criminals for underlings). And even still most Boomers, particularly Blue ones, hate Nixon with a burning passion and the man has been dead for over a quarter century now.

[pbrower2a]

(11-24-2019, 05:26 AM)Classic-Xer Wrote:

(11-22-2019, 09:53 AM)David Horn Wrote:

(11-22-2019, 06:12 AM)Classic-Xer Wrote:

(11-21-2019, 12:45 PM)David Horn Wrote: There is no evidence, credible or other wise, that the IC has been a deep state power actor outside it's official duties as defined by the law of the land.  You assume that the majority see things as you see them.  Sorry, but that's simply not true.  There is no evidence that the intelligence community conspired against Trump, justified as that may have been.  To be honest about it, it's more of the reverse.  Yes, real experts get a bit miffed when no-knowledge laymen decide that 2+2=5, because they like it that way.  Spending decades honing your knowledge and your craft should stand for something, but not to DJT.  For him, it's all gut.  That doesn't mean they've conspired behind his back.

And Mitt?  He's a typical out-of-touch rich guy who punked himself.  I actually think Mitt's basically a good guy, but oblivious in the extreme.

How do you know that it isn't true? Are willing back up it up with your home? I hope you remember your own advice. Actually, there is pretty strong evidence which is why there is a REAL criminal investigation going on that involves high ranking officials affiliated with our intelligence agencies and legal justice system right now. You don't have to believe it, you can choose to ignore it or even pretend that there isn't one. I don't really care, it's a free country and all. I figure the majority will eventually see things my way. I still believe that the majority aren't liberals who see things the way the liberals do these days. 

Have you ever questioned a liberal who believes they're an expert? What I learned today is that one can't/shouldn't ever question a liberal expert or a liberal Democrat these days. Yes, I could see that the liberal expert got a bit miffed when questioned by someone that they view as being below them.

Whoa!  Ease up on the Kool-Aid, please!  Stop for just one second and ask yourself: why is it that all 17 IC agencies and even members of Trump's own White House staff see this as Russian meddling, Trump enabling and extorting a small country for his benefit, while you, and a few diehards in the Forever Trump phalange, see it differently?  Who's investigating if all the career professionals are on the "other side"?  Why is it that you can ignore the obvious: Trump and his Chief of Staff both admitted this on television!  Are you  being played?  I think so.

And on the topic of experts, here's the score.  On the Trumpist side is the dairy farmer Devin Nunes, opposed by, among others, Fiona Hill who has made a career of studying the Russians since 1987.  Also note, she is anything but an elite.  And fwiw, you wouldn't tolerate a no-nothing telling you how HVAC is supposed to work and mandating that you have it installed wrong -- as you shouldn't.  Everyone has an area of expertise.  That should be respected.

I prefer Coca-Cola. The liberals seem to the only ones chugging down Kool-Aid these days. The Obama years pretty wiped out the Kool-Aid drinkers on the right. I see them hanging out with the left these days. See what as Russian meddling? The Biden/Ukrainian investigation thingy that Trump expressed an interest in having reopened by the Ukrainian President. Yep. He admitted it and he released the transcripts of the communications between them as well.
I'm an American citizen, I'd like to know more about it. After all, Biden is running for President. I know that you either don't or prefer not to  think (view things) that way.

If I was Putin, I'd be upset that my American bro (Trump) screwed me by authorizing the release of American arms, American missile defense systems and further continuation of American military assistance for Ukraine. I'd also be upset that he's screwing with me economically with heavy sanctions and by cutting into my oil production profits. You want to know what I think, I think Putin may actually have way more influence with you than Trump these days.

A functioning democracy depends upon two things: a significant center-left and a significant center-right. Without both, the political system polarizes into hostile camps,one of which eventually marginalizes the other if it does not outlaw the other. The absence of a center-left has made possible the rise of Orban in Hungary (Freedom House has recognized Hungary as going from "Free" to "Partly Free" and Erdogan in Turkey. The absence of a center-right in the Weimar Republic facilitated the rise of the Antichrist in Germany.

The center-left at its best promotes inclusion and incremental reforms, and the center-right offers tradition as a fall-back when social reforms do not quite work as promised. Let us contemplate Weimar Germany in its final years. Where there might have been a conservative, small-government Party was the (Catholic) Zentrum Party with a limited appeal...and the German National People's Party (DNVP) which could best be described largely as "fascism lite".
The DNVP disrupted the fledgling German democracy and established an authoritarian system in which Hitler could intrigue his way into power. The DNVP may not have been as antisemitic as the Nazis, but

(1) the DNVP gave antisemitism a veneer of respectability by offering ugly stereotypes that the Nazis took further
(2) the DNVP held democracy in contempt, supposedly in defense of Prussian militarism and latent despotism
(3) it pushed right-wing identity politics at the expense of democracy
(4) many members of the DNVP became outright Nazis
(5) the DNVP eventually brokered the rise of Hitler as Chancellor.
 
It is to my regret that I can compare the current GOP to the DNVP of ninety years ago.

...is there still a meaningful center-right in American politics? Maybe there are moderate factions in the Republican Party in some states with weak Democratic Parties, and perhaps such factions could take over their states' Democratic Parties. Who knows? Maybe the center-right will form anew this time in the Democratic Party. Unreason, fanaticism, and bigotry are all banes of democracy.

[pbrower2a]

(11-25-2019, 04:29 AM)Kinser79 Wrote: I find it amusing that PBR can in one breath say:  " He [Trump] is as much a break with the past as was Andrew Jackson, who rates 19." And yet in the next deny my assessment that Trump is in fact the Gray Champion of the Jacksonian Type.  I've long contended that there are essentially two types of actors in American politics.  One faction is historically represented by Andrew Jackson, the other by Alexander Hamilton.

I'm also reluctant to rate serving US Presidents.  Current politics has a tendency to color perceptions for at least 25 years.  Shit man its taken that long for most people to realize that LBJ was a shitty president and Nixon was relatively decent (apart from having criminals for underlings).  And even still most Boomers, particularly Blue ones, hate Nixon with a burning passion and the man has been dead for over a quarter century now.

Much of contemporary rating is on style at the expense of substance. Eisenhower often got the derision of top intellectuals because hedid not defer to them as did prior and subsequent Presidents. If something went right with Ike, then it was pure luck. LBJ had some wondrous legislation, but he was a disaster as a wartime leader. Nixon's political agenda was unobjectionable, but

(1) his dirty-tricks campaign, of which the Watergate break-in is simply the best known of misdeeds... trying to get the therapist's files on Daniel Ellsberg exemplifies a flagrant violation of medical ethics (physicians often post warnings to the effect that any unauthorized access to patient files is a crime, and

(2) Nixon pointlessly opened the spigots on the money supply and accelerated federal spending so that he could be re-elected by a huge margin -- and from that came the stagflation that led to the defeat of his two successors. Trump is doing much the same.

Note well: inflation is back.

I remember seeing praise for Calvin Coolidge from soon after his Presidency ended. Coolidge got credit for peace and prosperity. Only later would historians find the alleged prosperity of the 1920's superficial. Coolidge sponsored the speculative boom in real estate and securities that imploded a few months after Hoover succeeded him. Economic bubbles invariably end in financial panics; wholesome economic policy does not implode. Coolidge squeezed Germany with reparations that weakened German democracy and allowed the installation of... need I go further? Peace and prosperity? Those would collapse later because of Coolidge policies.

[David Horn]

(11-23-2019, 04:52 AM)Classic-Xer Wrote:

(11-22-2019, 05:22 PM)Eric the Green Wrote: The latest polls give your side a boost. Liberals like me are confounded by this. But you may be right. The majority of Americans see things your way. They would gladly sacrifice the constitution and democracy so they can keep their guns and keep their taxes from going to black and brown people. 

I don't know how long that the current demographics shifts will fail to indicate a change in the majority, if it ever does. Your side is working feverishly to end immigration from non-white countries so you can keep the shift from happening.

I'm not surprised that the liberals are confounded by what they're seeing as a result right now. There is one thing you should have seen and should be able to understand about us by now, THERE IS NO ONE ON THE OTHER SIDE WHO WILL GLADLY SACRIFICE THE CONSTITUTION, THEIR CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHTS AND PROTECTIONS OR THEIR VOTING RIGHTS OR ANYTHING OF VALUE THAT THEY LEGALLY OWN WITHOUT SOME SORT OF A MAJOR FIGHT AND YOU AREN'T GOING TO FIND A REPUBLICAN POLITICIAN WHO DOES NOT FULLY UNDERSTAND THIS ABOUT US.

If you shred the parts of the Constitution you don't like and demand absolute adherence to the parts you do, expect adherence to no parts and chaos to emerge at some point in the not too distant future.  Shouting won't change that.

[Kinser79]

(11-25-2019, 08:20 AM)pbrower2a Wrote:

(11-25-2019, 04:29 AM)Kinser79 Wrote: I find it amusing that PBR can in one breath say:  " He [Trump] is as much a break with the past as was Andrew Jackson, who rates 19." And yet in the next deny my assessment that Trump is in fact the Gray Champion of the Jacksonian Type.  I've long contended that there are essentially two types of actors in American politics.  One faction is historically represented by Andrew Jackson, the other by Alexander Hamilton.

I'm also reluctant to rate serving US Presidents.  Current politics has a tendency to color perceptions for at least 25 years.  Shit man its taken that long for most people to realize that LBJ was a shitty president and Nixon was relatively decent (apart from having criminals for underlings).  And even still most Boomers, particularly Blue ones, hate Nixon with a burning passion and the man has been dead for over a quarter century now.

Much of contemporary rating is on style at the expense of substance. Eisenhower often got the derision of top intellectuals because hedid not defer to them as did prior and subsequent Presidents. If something went right with Ike, then it was pure luck. LBJ had some wondrous legislation, but he was a disaster as a wartime leader. Nixon's political agenda was unobjectionable, but

(1) his dirty-tricks campaign, of which the Watergate break-in is simply the best known of misdeeds... trying to get the therapist's files on Daniel Ellsberg exemplifies a flagrant violation of medical ethics (physicians often post warnings to the effect that any unauthorized access to patient files is a crime, and

(2) Nixon pointlessly opened the spigots on the money supply and accelerated federal spending so that he could be re-elected by a huge margin -- and from that came the stagflation that led to the defeat of his two successors. Trump is doing much the same.

Note well: inflation is back.

I remember seeing praise for Calvin Coolidge from soon after his Presidency ended. Coolidge got credit for peace and prosperity. Only later would historians find the alleged prosperity of the 1920's superficial. Coolidge sponsored the speculative boom in real estate and securities that imploded a few months after Hoover succeeded him. Economic bubbles invariably end in financial panics; wholesome economic policy does not implode. Coolidge squeezed Germany with reparations that weakened German democracy and allowed the installation of... need I go further? Peace and prosperity? Those would collapse later because of Coolidge policies.

Everything comes down to Hitler with you doesn't it.  That isn't a question, that is a statement.

Now on to the Substance:

1.  LBJ's legislation was not wondrous.  Most of it was absolutely devastating.  It is amusing to me that prior to the so-called Great Society programs Black marrage rates were far higher than White rates, and crime rates far lower.  And yes largely this was by design.  Women, particularly single women, overwhelmingly support socialism and socialism-light while Men do not.

2.  Are you alleging that Richard M. Nixon personally stole this persons medical records?  Or did he simply tell his criminal underlings to get dirt on him and this is how they did it.  Intent matters in a court of law, and if the intent was simply to get dirt on an opponent Nixon can hardly be faulted.  Getting dirt on one's opponents is standard fare in politics, and has been since the time of Ancient Athens.

3.  Stagflation was largely the result of massive welfare payouts and attempting to run a war at the same time.  Both policies of LBJ and not Nixon.  With one the Democratic Majority in Congress wouldn't overturn something that was bringing home the bacon in their districts (a practice as old as the republic itself) on the other I think Nixon actually thought that our involvement in Vietnam was winnable.  GI Hubris?  Maybe.  But also something that LBJ was also guilty of.

4.  I know inflation is back.  Actually it never went away.  I'm half your age and I've noticed that the prices of everything have risen greatly over my lifetime.  Fed Target is 2% inflation per year.  Interestingly that same rate results in a halving of the value of the currency in just 50 years.  The only reason people even want USD right now is they can buy oil from the OPEC states for them.  How long will that last?

5.  The 1920s and its bubble were a result of largely a lack of policy from Coolidge.  Mind you had there been an equal lack of policy from Hoover the depression would have ended much much sooner.

As for reparations from Germany, the greater share was going to Britain and France.  The US was a major creditor to Germany but after the war as we were issuing them loans to back up the Mark.  I highly recommend that you watch the Youtube Series "Between the Wars".  Not that I think you'll actually learn anything--I don't think you've learned anything since you realized Hitler can be used as a universal boogey-man but for those others on the forum it is a good series.

[Classic-Xer]

(11-25-2019, 10:41 AM)David Horn Wrote: If you shred the parts of the Constitution you don't like and demand absolute adherence to the parts you do, expect adherence to no parts and chaos to emerge at some point in the not too distant future.  Shouting won't change that.

Yes. You're right about this and I hope you are able to remember this the next time you or a fellow blue or a group of blues completely ignore the Constitutional rights of others and trample on them or support the idea of liberal judges reinterpreting and eliminating some of them and making it possible/ clearing the obstacles for liberals to eventually control most of everything and understand why we don't support the liberals and view them as a threat.

[Eric the Green]

(11-25-2019, 01:20 PM)Classic-Xer Wrote:

(11-25-2019, 10:41 AM)David Horn Wrote:

(11-23-2019, 04:52 AM)Classic-Xer Wrote:

(11-22-2019, 05:22 PM)Eric the Green Wrote: The latest polls give your side a boost. Liberals like me are confounded by this. But you may be right. The majority of Americans see things your way. They would gladly sacrifice the constitution and democracy so they can keep their guns and keep their taxes from going to black and brown people. 

I don't know how long that the current demographics shifts will fail to indicate a change in the majority, if it ever does. Your side is working feverishly to end immigration from non-white countries so you can keep the shift from happening.

I'm not surprised that the liberals are confounded by what they're seeing as a result right now. There is one thing you should have seen and should be able to understand about us by now, THERE IS NO ONE ON THE OTHER SIDE WHO WILL GLADLY SACRIFICE THE CONSTITUTION, THEIR CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHTS AND PROTECTIONS OR THEIR VOTING RIGHTS OR ANYTHING OF VALUE THAT THEY LEGALLY OWN WITHOUT SOME SORT OF A MAJOR FIGHT AND YOU AREN'T GOING TO FIND A REPUBLICAN POLITICIAN WHO DOES NOT FULLY UNDERSTAND THIS ABOUT US.

If you shred the parts of the Constitution you don't like and demand absolute adherence to the parts you do, expect adherence to no parts and chaos to emerge at some point in the not too distant future.  Shouting won't change that.

Yes. You're right about this and I hope you are able to remember this the next time you or a group of blues completely ignore the Constitutional rights of others or attempt to take the one's they don't like away from people they don't like or view as a threat to them these days or the ones that they feel are in the way of liberal progress/liberal goals or the ones that they don't feel are necessary as far as their concerned and should no longer be viewed as needed/necessary by anyone these days and so forth. You're fortunate that the silent American majority that rarely see the existence of in the public opinion polls that you are and other blues are so fond of using for spreading blue propaganda and justifying blue coarse of action and so forth aren't all directly involved or engaging with you guys at this point. You want your liberal judges to do what for liberal people like you again? You want them to vote to outlaw our guns for what reason? So, you or some other blue or some group of blue law enforcement or some group of lawless blues don't/can't end up being/getting shot or ambushed or slaughtered by them down the road or feel relatively safe and secure as Communism that's being disguised and promoted as quasi Democratic socialism to college punks and liberal run school children these days these days are being imposed on everyone or something. I'm on to them dude and the entire other side are on to them these days and the Republican party seems to be waking up and focusing more on them too.

I hope we can take ALL your semi-auto guns away, or at least keep you guys from buying any more, and that we can take your tax money and in the name of socialism give it all to black people, and to the brown people crowding across the border. Future Democrats, you know! But we won't be satisfied until we take ALL your precious guns away, you know!    You'll just have to figure out better ways to express your manhood. I assure you, there are lot of better ways. Lots of better ways to stay safe too. What will it take till you learn, and to care about something else?

We'll try our best, and if we get control of the government, you will have no recourse but to take up arms and start shooting. I hope you don't, and that you'll finally see that our way works so much better than yours, that you'll give up the fight and go along and make the next 1T.

I have cosmic sources that tell me it will happen. We'll see, though. Your side has a way of confounding the people and the result is we get gangsters as our president and congress. Our country as we know it will not survive, though, if you get any more of them in office. Banana republics don't prosper.

[Eric the Green]

(11-23-2019, 05:45 AM)Classic-Xer Wrote:

(11-22-2019, 06:34 PM)pbrower2a Wrote: Eisenhower got us out of the Korean War with South Korea intact, which was the legitimate end of American military policy. He promoted the Interstate Highway System as freeways where there was not already a toll expressway up to Interstate standards, which was best for getting people off the horrible Blood Alleys. The Interstate Highway has paid for itself in reduction of highway carnage alone. Ike stayed clear of the McCarthy bandwagon which eventually imploded. He may not have been in the vanguard in promoting civil rights for Southern blacks, but he went fully with the decisions of the US Supreme Court.

I have compared Eisenhower to Obama for temperament and overall integrity... and have suggested that 56 years later, the two seem to have had similar constituencies. The curricula vitae may have been as different as they could be, and the two are in opposite Parties. But the generational cycle suggests that both are mature Reactive leaders -- chilly rationalists who respect legal formalities, precedent, and protocol. Obama will fall short of Eisenhower for one thing: the difference between their successors. Donald Trump is no Jack Kennedy; Trump will be compared in history to three much-reviled Roman Emperors: Caligula, Nero, and Commodus. He can consider himself fortunate that we Americans simply do not have coups.

I'm sorry but there is no direct comparison between Eisenhower and Obama. Say what you want but Obama was an idealist and governed as an idealist. You see, only an idealist/ partisan blue would be content with sitting in the oval office and accomplishing nothing for six years. Sorry, Obama falls way short of Eisenhower for obvious reasons and his successor had nothing to do with that either.

The only reason Obama accomplished so little is that he didn't get enough support in midterm elections. There is no way any president can accomplish anything when the current Republican Party has any power.

And I am amused and amazed at Republicans and others who say they are for Trump now because the congress is wasting time on impeachment instead of doing the nation's business. Since when has the Republican Party ever done any of the nation's business? All they have been doing for 40 years is blocking it. So why vote for them?

[David Horn]

(11-25-2019, 01:20 PM)Classic-Xer Wrote:

(11-25-2019, 10:41 AM)David Horn Wrote: If you shred the parts of the Constitution you don't like and demand absolute adherence to the parts you do, expect adherence to no parts and chaos to emerge at some point in the not too distant future.  Shouting won't change that.

Yes. You're right about this and I hope you are able to remember this the next time you or a fellow blue or a group of blues completely ignore the Constitutional rights of others and trample on them or support the idea of liberal judges reinterpreting and eliminating some of them and making it possible/ clearing the obstacles for liberals to eventually control most of everything and understand why we don't support the liberals and view them as a threat.

We live in an ever changing world, and one where change is occurring at a faster pace than ever.  Try to align that with the judicial temperament that "originalists" claim to follow.  You can't and neither can they.  Case in point: the 2nd Amendment  was written to assure the right of ordinary citizens to keep arms in support of militias.  Never mind that we no longer have them, originalist Scalia found a tortured interpretation that manufactured an individual right without any justification.  I assume you agree with Scalia, but that ruling is almost certain to fall at some point -- soon I hope.  Another bizarre ruling is Citizens United that gave constitutional rights to corporations.  Really?  Does anyone think that corporations have speech rights other than that small coterie of RW Justices.  There are many other similar issues that Blue America has with the RW SCOTUS of today.  Give a few examples of things you see wrong in the opposite direction.

[Classic-Xer]

(11-26-2019, 03:46 PM)David Horn Wrote: We live in an ever changing world, and one where change is occurring at a faster pace than ever.  Try to align that with the judicial temperament that "originalists" claim to follow.  You can't and neither can they.  Case in point: the 2nd Amendment  was written to assure the right of ordinary citizens to keep arms in support of militias.  Never mind that we no longer have them, originalist Scalia found a tortured interpretation that manufactured an individual right without any justification.  I assume you agree with Scalia, but that ruling is almost certain to fall at some point -- soon I hope.  Another bizarre ruling is Citizens United that gave constitutional rights to corporations.  Really?  Does anyone think that corporations have speech rights other than that small coterie of RW Justices.  There are many other similar issues that Blue America has with the RW SCOTUS of today.  Give a few examples of things you see wrong in the opposite direction.

Yes. You are right again. We don't have to rely on militia's when we basically have organized State militia's that we simply refer to as our national guard these days. How are we supposed to support them/back them up or defend ourselves in times of need if we don't have access to the type of firearms that the lawless still seem to have plenty of access to for themselves these days? Why is it that the liberals spend so much time and effort trying to convince pass laws that disarm law abiding citizens instead of focusing more on disarming the lawless factions and the folks with serious mental issues these days. Now, the liberal who doesn't think/ know that corporations are able to think, speak, vote or do anything else that a human is capable of doing, is not considering or seriously taking into account that corporations are owned by humans, operated by humans, controlled by humans, financially backed by humans, invested in by humans and supported by humans.

Yes, I've seen the stupid/ thoughtless liberal signs and liberal slogans in some customers homes. I've seen them speak to me like a human would normally speak to a human whom they know and respect without realizing that they were directly speaking with a person who represented an American corporation. Yes. Scalia was smart/wise enough to figure out/realize the human connection with corporations and understand the direct connection between corporations and the humans who own them. For some reason, the liberals don't seem able to figure that out themselves or don't seem willing to recognize our rights to keep/protect them the same way as we would any of our property and defend them the same way we would defend any other valuable thing that we own.

As far as our individual right to have firearms, all you need to do is be able to read a short sentence written in plain English and be able to accept what you read as an important law of the land that has existed since the country was established. I dunno, you may be able to convince people born else where that America would be a safer place if they where to support liberal attempts to disarm us. Oh, I'm not so sure a so called living document that could be changed on a whim for whatever reason would be good long term. I mean, the freedom to remove and reinstate or add for this group and take away from that group as times change and situations change could create feelings of instability, cause social instability and result in chaos and violence.

[Eric the Green]

(11-26-2019, 10:17 PM)Classic-Xer Wrote:

(11-26-2019, 03:46 PM)David Horn Wrote: We live in an ever changing world, and one where change is occurring at a faster pace than ever.  Try to align that with the judicial temperament that "originalists" claim to follow.  You can't and neither can they.  Case in point: the 2nd Amendment  was written to assure the right of ordinary citizens to keep arms in support of militias.  Never mind that we no longer have them, originalist Scalia found a tortured interpretation that manufactured an individual right without any justification.  I assume you agree with Scalia, but that ruling is almost certain to fall at some point -- soon I hope.  Another bizarre ruling is Citizens United that gave constitutional rights to corporations.  Really?  Does anyone think that corporations have speech rights other than that small coterie of RW Justices.  There are many other similar issues that Blue America has with the RW SCOTUS of today.  Give a few examples of things you see wrong in the opposite direction.

Yes. You are right again. We don't have to rely on militia's when we basically have organized State militia's that we simply refer to as our national guard these days. How are we supposed to support them/back them up or defend ourselves in times of need if we don't have access to the type of firearms that the lawless still seem to have plenty of access to for themselves these days? Why is it that the liberals spend so much time and effort trying to convince pass laws that disarm law abiding citizens instead of focusing more on disarming the lawless factions and the folks with serious mental issues these days. Now, the liberal who doesn't think/ know that corporations are able to think, speak, vote or do anything else that a human is capable of doing, is not considering or seriously taking into account that corporations are owned by humans, operated by humans, controlled by humans, financially backed by humans, invested in by humans and supported by humans.

Yes, I've seen the stupid/ thoughtless liberal signs and liberal slogans in some customers homes. I've seen them speak to me like a human would normally speak to a human whom they know and respect without realizing that they were directly speaking with a person who represented an  American corporation. Yes. Scalia was smart/wise enough to figure out/realize the human connection with corporations and understand the direct connection between corporations and the humans who own them. For some reason, the liberals don't seem able to figure that out themselves or don't seem willing to recognize our rights to keep/protect them the same way as we would any of our property and defend them the same way we would defend any other valuable thing that we own.

As far as our individual right to have firearms, all you need to do is be able to read a short sentence written in plain English and be able to accept what you read as an important law of the land that has existed since the country was established. I dunno, you may be able to convince people born else where that America would be a safer place if they where to support liberal attempts to disarm us. Oh, I'm not so sure a so called living document that could be changed on a whim for whatever reason would be good long term. I mean, the freedom to remove and reinstate or add for this group and take away from that group as times change and situations change could create feelings of instability, cause social instability and result in chaos and violence.

You and your conservative buddies keep requiring us liberals to legally treat a corporation as a person with personal rights. A corporation is made up of humans who have rights. But those rights belong to them individually. A corporation is not a person and should not have rights conferred upon individuals. A corporation has a charter which requires certain things, and is registered with a state which requires certain things.

If we have a national guard, then that national guard is empowered to protect the nation. It needs no assistance from citizens, and citizens do not need to possess weapons that are made for armies. If you want to help protect the nation with arms, join the National Guard if you can. All semi-automatic weapons should not be allowed in the hands of citizens. This does not violate the constitution, which does not prohibit laws against particular kinds of military weapons being owned and used by civilians. If you want to assemble a militia for your civil war, you red folks would be well-advised to form your own state with its own rules. Otherwise you are sure to lose, and will probably lose anyway as your predecessors did 160 years ago.

Wow, I think of the civil war as being 100 years ago. It is now 160 years ago. Time flies when you're not having fun.