An inescapable conclusion: they really are deplorable

b.c.

Worshipped Member
Verified
Gold
Joined
Nov 7, 2005
Posts
20,540
Media
0
Likes
21,779
Points
468
Location
at home
Verification
View
Gender
Male
"An Inescapable Conclusion: They Really ARE Deplorable"

POST NO. 14,000
Back when Hillary Clinton called half of Trump's supporters a "basket of deplorables," many of them, in spite of the evidence that follows, had the audacity to be insulted, and no doubt, some feigned insult for political expediency.

But, in spite of the fact that she was foolish enough to apologize for making her quite valid observation, the truth of the matter was, she was absolutely correct.

In fact an NBC opinion piece that ran in September 2016 took it one step further. In it the author made an argument similar to one I offered, back then, soon after the election. The argument being that a vote for Trump BECAUSE of his hate based bigoted divisive campaign was just as deplorable as a vote for Trump in SPITE of it.
https://www.nbcnews.com/news/latino...0-percent-trump-voters-are-deplorable-n646156
Opinion: Hillary is Wrong. 100 Percent of Trump Voters are Deplorable

Truth is, Trump's campaign was geared to appeal to the worst instincts and the most malevolent of motives among his constituency from the get. It was a deliberate appeal to the white victim hood narrative, whereby, accordingly, hoards of immigrants, Muslims, black people, gays, and anyone else not considered by him and his following to be "real" Americans, were the cause of their woes, taking their jobs, living on "the dole", and changing America into something foreign, and presumably abhorrent to all that they knew and believed in.

In Trump's and their "reality," Latino immigrants were criminals and rapists, a judge of Mexican heritage, not capable of fair and impartial judgment, Muslims, not to be trusted, his predecessor not American, and blacks (according to him) so woefully bad off as to have "nothing to lose" by the election of a hate mongering bigot who'd coddle white supremacists, racists, and neo-Nazis.

With regard to open endorsements by racists like David Duke, he offered only vague and lukewarm responses, like once claiming he didn't know who Duke was.

With regard to women, politicians and others, he responded with misogynistic references and mischaracterizations... calling one a nasty woman, mocking the Muslim mother of an American Iraq War veteran, saying of one, "...bleeding from the whatever," and ridiculing still another with mocking references to a Native American historical figure.

He roused his rabble with approvals of acts of violence, of how he'd like to punch someone in the mouth, and how he could shoot someone, and how his followers would riot.

In those and other ways, he fanned the flames of HATE and they LOVED HIM FOR IT.

It cannot be argued that they had none other to pick from. In fact they had a DOZEN, all more palatable, all LESS arrogantly hateful and divisive, and THEY deliberately and WILLINGLY chose THE WORST OF THE LOT.

Now, if one were to, for a moment, dismiss all of that, if one were given to playing "devil's advocate" (no pun intended) on MIGHT argue that PERHAPS of those who voted for this con man, not BECAUSE of the above but in SPITE of IT, they MAY have bought into the lies and deception of how he was one of THEM (he NEVER was), of how he was an outsider not of D.C. politics and their moneyed interests (though he'd always USED the system and the courts to shirk his obligations and get away with that which most of US would never get away with).

They MAY have bought into his promise to "drain the swamp" and "reduce their taxes" and "bring them jobs" and "repeal Obamacare" and all the other shit he promised them.

But in the wake of his two year occupancy of the Oval Office, he has replaced the so-called swamp with a cesspool of yes men, cronies, and wholly unqualified individuals whose jobs have been to undermine the agencies they've been put in charge of.

His cesspool of an administration, a continuous coming and going of administrators and appointees whose main failure was to do the complete and absolute bidding of the would be dictator in the WH.

Granted the jobs picture isn't a dismal as it might have been. There have been gains and losses. And yes, he's signed into law the bipartisan criminal justice reform initiative. Give credit where it's due.

But they haven't reduced taxes for anyone but the VERY rich, and they've successfully KILLED coverage for Medicaid subsidies and pre-existing conditions (because newsflash, Obamacare HAS been ruled unconstitutional), and Trump & Co. haven't replaced it with SQUAT.
 
Last edited:

b.c.

Worshipped Member
Verified
Gold
Joined
Nov 7, 2005
Posts
20,540
Media
0
Likes
21,779
Points
468
Location
at home
Verification
View
Gender
Male
(CONTINUED):

Nor have they lowered the cost of prescription drugs, nor protected Medicare nor Social Security. In fact, they are working toward the CONTRARY.

And in foreign affairs he's embarrassed the nation on the world stage, alienating American allies while kowtowing to dictators and despots, choosing to believe the heads of our adversaries over his own intelligence agency and armed forces commanders.

He, or at least those around him, have been shown to have collaborated and colluded with a foreign adversary, via a web of secret meetings, correspondence, and cover-ups, for the purposes of throwing the election in Trump's favor.

And after acquiring the office via electoral vote only, he tried to create a board of "election integrity" for the primary purpose of disqualifying the vote of the 3 MILLION MORE popular votes that Hillary Clinton got over his.

That is until it became obvious that not only was there NOT significant enough proof of widespread voter fraud AGAINST him, but that further investigation MIGHT'VE revealed significant absentee voter fraud in FAVOR of him.

Further, he's doubled down on the demonization of immigrants, shutting down government and holding Americans hostage for the purpose of extorting money from America's citizenry, in payment for his campaign slogan wall that Mexico would supposedly "pay for."

He's violated laws re. those seeking asylum by cruelly separating families and throwing young ones into detention centers where they have suffered abandonment, and in some cases, even abuse and death.

And he's used the influence of the office to profit, PERSONALLY, from his hotels, resorts, and golf courses, and other business interests. Further, he's giving family members security clearance and or placed them in positions to further assist him in that regard.

And then there's the HATE.

The racism, the bigotry, the continued divisive rhetoric. His deliberate demonization of those seeking asylum, of transgendered people in the military, of black athletes and celebrities protesting racial disparity in policing, of those of the Metoo Movement.

The statistically proven and documented RISE in hate crimes and speech, including recent acts of hate and attempted DOMESTIC TERRORISM, inspired by and/or related to his litany of hate, about which Trump has said NOTHING.

In fact, of the time he once half heartedly condemned the march of Klansmen, neo-Nazis, and supremacists in Charlottesville, he later called it the worst mistake he's ever made.

So that, time and time again, Trump has had the opportunity to show himself to be what he CLAIMED he wanted to be, a president for ALL the people, by DENOUNCING, unequivocally and in NO uncertain terms, the open expression of racists sentiments, ideologies, and acts of HATE.

But he HASN'T. Certainly not convincingly ENOUGH.

The point of THIS thread being... NEITHER HAS HIS CONSTITUENCY.

THEY, for all practical purposes, have failed to condemn acts and expressions of hate inspired by Trump and the right's venomous litany of hate. THEY (except for a very few) have failed to speak out against Trump inspired domestic terrorists who plotted to kill Trump's political opponents and members of the news media, in the hopes of starting a civil war.

Even if one COULD argue that half of trump's supporters DIDN'T vote for him because of his hateful, divisive campaign of demagoguery and the demonization of others, even if they COULD claim to have been DUPED by him, they CERTAINLY, by NOW, MUST see for themselves exactly who, and worse still, WHAT they legitimized by putting him in the White House.

But no... they SUPPORT HIM STILL. They support him, they defend the ideology, the hate, the divisive rhetoric, and if they don't openly defend it, they IGNORE it, to, for all practical purposes, the same effect.

In spite of ALL THE ABOVE, Trump's loss of support among them is virtually NIL.

My inescapable conclusion being, they really ARE deplorable.
 
Last edited:

b.c.

Worshipped Member
Verified
Gold
Joined
Nov 7, 2005
Posts
20,540
Media
0
Likes
21,779
Points
468
Location
at home
Verification
View
Gender
Male
I try not to think in absolutes but...

...I haven't found an exemption to this hypothesis.

And one would be hard pressed to DO so, I think.

Here are two more pieces that examine the topic of this thread. The first a 2017 Newsweek op-ed that examined the deliberately racist appeal of Trump's candidacy:

Hillary Was Right All Along. Trump Supporters Are Deplorable

"What was Clinton thinking when she described people at Trump's rallies as "a basket of deplorables"?

The answer is that a lot of Trump's voters really do hold deplorable views, and they have made no secret of that fact. Remember the rallies in which people defiantly displayed Confederate flags with Trump's name written on them?

The rallies where Trump encouraged people to commit violent acts against black protesters?

The speeches and rallies where Trump trafficked in shameless and unrestrained race-baiting?

If a person who finds Trump's racism, his misogyny, and his channeling of white supremacist views (including his hiring of more than one white nationalist leader) learns that a friend or a person sitting across from her supports Trump, I would think that she would have good reason to be flustered, at the very least.

Prior to Trump's reversion to form at his August 15 press conference, when the conversation was focused on Trump's insincere prepared statement condemning the KKK and others, the never-Trump conservative columnist Jennifer Rubin recently put it this way:

One might conclude from Trump’s foot-dragging and obsession with stoking racial tensions (e.g. his vote fraud commission, his crusade against legal and illegal immigrants, etc.) that, despite his apologists’ protestations, his campaign message was aimed at white resentment.

Trump continues to tell those who want to 'take back their country' that 'their' country is being overrun by foreigners, non-Christians, non-whites."


And the second, a pre-election Washington Post article that accurately measured the sentiment among Trump's supporters and provided the statistics to back it up:

Yes, half of Trump supporters are racist - The Washington Post

"Hillary Clinton may have been unwise to say half of Donald Trump’s supporters are racists and other “deplorables.” But she wasn’t wrong.

If anything, when it comes to Trump’s racist support, she might have low-balled the number.

Trump, speaking to the National Guard Association of the United States’ annual conference here Monday afternoon, proclaimed himself “deeply shocked and alarmed” about Clinton putting half of his supporters in the “basket of deplorables”— as if anybody, especially Trump, could be shocked by anything this late in the campaign. How dare she, Trump said, “attack, slander, smear, demean these wonderful, amazing people.”

But this isn’t a matter of gratuitous name-calling. This election has proved that there is much more racism in America than many believed. It came out of hiding in opposition to the first African American president, and it has been welcomed into the open by Trump.

The American National Election Studies, the long-running, extensive poll of American voters, asked voters in 2012 a basic test of prejudice: to rank black and white people on a scale from hardworking to lazy and from intelligent to unintelligent. The researchers found that 62 percent of white people gave black people a lower score in at least one of the attributes. This was a jump in prejudicial attitudes from 2008, when 45 percent of white people expressed negative stereotypes."
 

tripod

Legendary Member
Joined
Jan 17, 2006
Posts
6,666
Media
14
Likes
1,832
Points
333
Location
USA
Sexuality
100% Straight, 0% Gay
Gender
Male
Shaming others doesn't ever work to convince them to accept your point of view.

This kind of communication I suppose is useful to be circulated among partisan Democratic political operatives as far as campaign strategies is concerned... but as public discourse? It's horribly counter-productive.

She actually fucked the political left running by saying that. It sounded rehearsed... why would they think this would attract independents to the Democratic side? Surely they would realize that they wouldn't swing any votes with divisive language such as this.

I've still yet to realize the political usefulness of declaring Trump supporters as a "basket of deplorables"... maybe it was the running theme of the "Oven-Mitt-Fashionista" where she would talk about baskets to seem more like a Grandma type? I'm reaching here...

Likewise as puzzling is the doubling down by loyal partisan Democrats such as the OP.

Yeah, the mistake was horrible... how does repeating it make it somehow work in your favor?
 

b.c.

Worshipped Member
Verified
Gold
Joined
Nov 7, 2005
Posts
20,540
Media
0
Likes
21,779
Points
468
Location
at home
Verification
View
Gender
Male
First one would have to believe it was a mistake. I think I clearly indicated from my first comments that I don't believe this. Secondly, one would have to believe Hillary's stating this obvious FACT made any difference in their vote, or that my concluding that she was CORRECT would EVER make a difference. It WILL NOT.

No more of a difference than what Trump and the GOP has said and done SINCE makes any difference to THEM. That is precisely my POINT.

Contrary to YOUR contentions, the mainstream media, for all of what Trump has said and done, for all of his thousands of lies, has treated Trump with kid gloves.

He calls them the "enemy of the people" when in fact the media has MADE him, and continues to enable him. How many times have they called Trump's LIES everything BUT outright lies??

Acquiescing to Trump's constituency, soft peddling what they support and defend, trying to "understand" them, justify them, meet them half way, has resulted in virtually NO reciprocal moves from THEM to the left, NO reciprocal attempts to see things our way, NO attempts at "understanding" ... NOTHING of the sort.

Democratic politicians who've alienated their own base in an attempt to appeal to that sort have gotten not a fkng thing in return, nor garnered any significant number of their votes.

Bottom line, they WON'T BE ACCEPTING MY POINT OF VIEW, REGARDLESS. So NO, that is NOT the goal here.

The GOAL is to inform and awaken those (who may be sleeping STILL) to the NATURE of the BEAST. To WHO and WHAT we are facing and WHY we need to RECOGNIZE THAT.
 
Last edited:

b.c.

Worshipped Member
Verified
Gold
Joined
Nov 7, 2005
Posts
20,540
Media
0
Likes
21,779
Points
468
Location
at home
Verification
View
Gender
Male
This from the guy that must have an insult generator in his basement for all the posters he disagrees with. Pot meet kettle.
Well hey, I've learned to take him with a grain of salt (as long as he doesn't get disrespectful) because as I indicated in the Smollett thread, I've come to certain "conclusions."

re. the topic, here's yet another indication of the tin-foil MENTALITY of MANY, if not most, of Trump's "basket":

QAnon Book Is Now Among the Top 15 Titles Sold on Amazon

"A book pushing the pro-Trump conspiracy theory QAnon is now among the top 15 books sold on Amazon, NBC News reports.

The book, which is listed at $17, makes a series of bizarre claims, including that prominent Democrats murder and eat children and that the U.S. government served as a catalyst behind several natural disasters.

The anonymous person behind the clues is known as “Q,” while “Anon” refers to both Q itself and Q’s nameless supporters, the “anons.”


In other words, a significant enough number of Trump's constituency runs around calling vetted and established news sources "fake news" and denying legitimate news, while snapping up a book full of bat-shit crazy conspiracy theories authored by some UNKNOWN source or sources.

... Could be D. DUCK for all they know... Donald OR Daffy... makes no difference.

You can't MAKE this kind of shit up. Er..... CORRECTION. Seems THEY can.
 

tripod

Legendary Member
Joined
Jan 17, 2006
Posts
6,666
Media
14
Likes
1,832
Points
333
Location
USA
Sexuality
100% Straight, 0% Gay
Gender
Male
This from the guy that must have an insult generator in his basement for all the posters he disagrees with. Pot meet kettle.

In my defense, I'm not running for president of a diverse country.

Just sayin'.

Well hey, I've learned to take him with a grain of salt (as long as he doesn't get disrespectful) because as I indicated in the Smollett thread, I've come to certain "conclusions."

Dude, I'm a nice guy, why must you always demonize me and talk shit?

here's yet another indication of the tin-foil MENTALITY of MANY, if not most, of Trump's "basket":

QAnon Book Is Now Among the Top 15 Titles Sold on Amazon

In other words, a significant enough number of Trump's constituency runs around calling vetted and established news sources "fake news" and denying legitimate news, while snapping up a book full of bat-shit crazy conspiracy theories authored by some UNKNOWN source or sources.​


Qanon is NUTZ... 100% fictional. It appeals to the demented side of the right wing.

It's really rather sad because those people are getting wound up over complete nonsense.

It also undermines bonafide media critics with crazy people shouting "Fake News!".

I can't even use the term anymore... they have hijacked it and I want no association with them.​
 
  • Like
Reactions: Elmer Gantry

b.c.

Worshipped Member
Verified
Gold
Joined
Nov 7, 2005
Posts
20,540
Media
0
Likes
21,779
Points
468
Location
at home
Verification
View
Gender
Male
Dude, I'm a nice guy, why must you always demonize me and talk shit?

I don't think I'm demonizing you by saying that my response to your replies is based upon conclusions I've reached, which in turn are based upon what you've said, defended, and ignored.

ONE example, when people here have cited news sources critical of Putin, you've challenged their veracity and demanded proof of it. Yet in the Smollett thread, you opined, with no proof whatsoever, that his treacherous FRAUD, and the subsequent reporting of it, was some liberal msm conspiracy against the right.

I found that, CURIOUS.
 
  • Like
Reactions: keenobserver
1

185248

Guest
When was the last time huge sums of money from either side did not go into electing a US President?

Probably around the same time the media became powerful and in control, it became out of control?
 
  • Like
Reactions: 6inchcock

tripod

Legendary Member
Joined
Jan 17, 2006
Posts
6,666
Media
14
Likes
1,832
Points
333
Location
USA
Sexuality
100% Straight, 0% Gay
Gender
Male
I don't think I'm demonizing you by saying that my response to your replies is based upon conclusions I've reached, which in turn are based upon what you've said, defended, and ignored.

ONE example, when people here have cited news sources critical of Putin, you've challenged their veracity and demanded proof of it. Yet in the Smollett thread, you opined, with no proof whatsoever, that his treacherous FRAUD, and the subsequent reporting of it, was some liberal msm conspiracy against the right.

I found that, CURIOUS.

You make assumptions and allegations that you can't possibly know. It's waaaay beyond what you could possibly glean from my posts.

A constant fucking refrain that I am somehow ideologically to the right of you which is pure unadulterated bullshit.

It's not a fucking conspiracy... the mainstream media was foaming at the mouth about the attack at the EXACT same time that the MSM was pushing a narrative that the MAGA hat is the "new KKK hood".

I didn't find the simultaneous MAGA hat wearing "attackers" curious... I found it highly suspicious.

But to you it's just a fucking coincidence that the MSM would roll out an ill advised campaign of claiming that the MAGA hat is the new KKK hood and a fairly high profile LGBT black entertainer just happens to be attacked by two MAGA hat wearing thugs at the exact same time.

It flat out stinks to high hell... the coincidence doesn't seem like a coincidence at all but a coordinated effort.

IT'S WHAT IT APPEARS TO ME... YOU KNOW APPEARANCES... I'M GODDAMN FUCKING ALLOWED TO SAY HOW SOMETHING APPEARS TO ME WITHOUT TESTIFYING TO IT'S UTMOST AUTHENTICITY AS SUCH.

It looks like shit, but i guess when I see a turd, you see a fucking unicorn.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Elmer Gantry

Industrialsize

Mythical Member
Gold
Platinum Gold
Joined
Dec 23, 2006
Posts
22,237
Media
213
Likes
31,757
Points
618
Location
Kathmandu (Bagmati Province, Nepal)
Sexuality
100% Gay, 0% Straight
Gender
Male
You make assumptions and allegations that you can't possibly know. It's waaaay beyond what you could possibly glean from my posts.

A constant fucking refrain that I am somehow ideologically to the right of you which is pure unadulterated bullshit.

It's not a fucking conspiracy... the mainstream media was foaming at the mouth about the attack at the EXACT same time that the MSM was pushing a narrative that the MAGA hat is the "new KKK hood".

I didn't find the simultaneous MAGA hat wearing "attackers" curious... I found it highly suspicious.

But to you it's just a fucking coincidence that the MSM would roll out an ill advised campaign of claiming that the MAGA hat is the new KKK hood and a fairly high profile LGBT black entertainer just happens to be attacked by two MAGA hat wearing thugs at the exact same time.

It flat out stinks to high hell... the coincidence doesn't seem like a coincidence at all but a coordinated effort.

IT'S WHAT IT APPEARS TO ME... YOU KNOW APPEARANCES... I'M GODDAMN FUCKING ALLOWED TO SAY HOW SOMETHING APPEARS TO ME WITHOUT TESTIFYING TO IT'S UTMOST AUTHENTICITY AS SUCH.

It looks like shit, but i guess when I see a turd, you see a fucking unicorn.
Notice, he did not attempt to justify his dismissal of any reports that are critical of Putin.
 

tripod

Legendary Member
Joined
Jan 17, 2006
Posts
6,666
Media
14
Likes
1,832
Points
333
Location
USA
Sexuality
100% Straight, 0% Gay
Gender
Male
Notice, he did not attempt to justify his dismissal of any reports that are critical of Putin.

Really? That's weird, because I am critical of Russia's homophobia. I think Russia's resistance to Western LGBT right expansion is stupid and counter-productive.

But why should I be critical when you have that covered? I don't have to follow what you do... you do you and I'll go another way.

I'm not your follower. I don't have to toe your line or act in your manner. Surely you can realize that agreeing with the "tribe" here means absolutely nothing to me... I don't want your approval... I don't want b.c.'s approval or Sargon.

I don't give two shits about "falling in line" and bashing Putin like a good Russophobic Cold Warrior. Putin has earned my respect and that's all that matters... YOU on the other hand, have not done the same.
 
  • Like
Reactions: malakos

Industrialsize

Mythical Member
Gold
Platinum Gold
Joined
Dec 23, 2006
Posts
22,237
Media
213
Likes
31,757
Points
618
Location
Kathmandu (Bagmati Province, Nepal)
Sexuality
100% Gay, 0% Straight
Gender
Male
Really? That's weird, because I am critical of Russia's homophobia. I think Russia's resistance to Western LGBT right expansion is stupid and counter-productive.

But why should I be critical when you have that covered? I don't have to follow what you do... you do you and I'll go another way.

I'm not your follower. I don't have to toe your line or act in your manner. Surely you can realize that agreeing with the "tribe" here means absolutely nothing to me... I don't want your approval... I don't want b.c.'s approval or Sargon.

I don't give two shits about "falling in line" and bashing Putin like a good Russophobic Cold Warrior. Putin has earned my respect and that's all that matters... YOU on the other hand, have not done the same.
And there we have it:"Putin has earned my respect."
 
D

deleted15807

Guest
I don't want b.c.'s approval or Sargon.

Not to worry nothing is in the pipeline.

Putin has earned my respect and that's all that matters... YOU on the other hand, have not done the same.

So either you are on Putin's payroll and/or you have an unhealthy fixation/fetish with Russia. I bet Putin could shoot someone in Red Square and not lose your respect.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Freddie53 and b.c.

tripod

Legendary Member
Joined
Jan 17, 2006
Posts
6,666
Media
14
Likes
1,832
Points
333
Location
USA
Sexuality
100% Straight, 0% Gay
Gender
Male
And there we have it:"Putin has earned my respect."

That's always been the case. He's done a lot for Russian people.

Russia's government debt was 99% of it's GDP before Putin took office. It's now hovering around 13%.

The U.S.'s government debt to GDP ratio is a whopping 105 %. Putin's achievement is extraordinary... not ONE U.S. president has managed to lower our U.S. government debt in any significant or lasting manner by comparison.

He won the Chechnyan war for crying out loud.

When was the last time an American president "won a war"? FDR/Truman?

How about winning a war singlehandedly without the aid of powerful allies? FDR/Truman had MAD international help (mostly from Russia). Even Lincoln had serious international help... help from Russia.

U.S. Civil War: The US-Russian Alliance that Saved the Union

Confederate President Jefferson Davis sent envoys to London and Paris, but never bothered to even send a representative to St. Petersburg.

The two great interlocutors of Union foreign policy were Great Britain and Russia, and the geopolitical vicissitudes of the twentieth century tended to distort perceptions of both, minimizing the importance of both British threat and Russian friendship.


In the first two years of the war, when its outcome was still highly uncertain, the attitude of Russia was a potent factor in preventing Great Britain and France from adopting a policy of aggressive intervention. The proposed British-French interference promoted by Lord Russell, the Foreign Secretary, in October 1862 was deterred at this time mainly by the Russian attitude

On September 22, 1862, Lincoln used the Confederate repulse at Antietam to issue a warning that slavery would be abolished in areas still engaged in rebellion against the United States on January 1, 1863. The Russian Tsar Alexander II had liberated the 23 million serfs of the Russian Empire in 1861, so this underlined the nature of the US-Russian convergence as a force for human freedom.

extremes-meet.jpg


Seward thought that if the Anglo-French were to assail the Union, they would soon find themselves at war with Russia as well.

On September 24, the Russian Baltic fleet began to arrive in New York harbor. On October 12, the Russian Far East fleet began to arrive in San Francisco. The Russian admirals had been told that, if the US and Russia were to find themselves at war with Britain and France, the Russian ships should place themselves under Lincoln’s command and operate in synergy with the US Navy against the common enemies.

Coming on the heels of the bloody Union reverse at Chickamauga, the news of the Russian fleet unleashed an immense wave of euphoria in the North. It was this moment that inspired the later verses of Oliver Wendell Holmes, one of the most popular writers in America, for the 1871 friendship visit of the Russian Grand Duke Alexis:


Bleak are our shores with the blasts of December, Fettered and chill is the rivulet’s flow; Thrilling and warm are the hearts that remember Who was our friend when the world was our foe. Fires of the North in eternal communion, Blend your broad flashes with evening’s bright star; God bless the Empire that loves the Great Union Strength to her people! Long life to the Czar!

The British government and aristocracy wanted to split the Union; as long as the Confederates were winning successes on the battlefield, they felt they could bide their time as the US further weakened, thus facilitating intervention if required. The twin Confederate disasters of Gettysburg and Vicksburg on July 3-4, 1863 came as a rapid and stunning reverse, and the arrival of the Russian fleets that same summer on both US coasts radically escalated the costs of Anglo-French military meddling.
 
  • Like
Reactions: malakos
D

deleted15807

Guest
That's always been the case. He's done a lot for Russian people.

Russia's government debt was 99% of it's GDP before Putin took office. It's now hovering around 13%.

The U.S.'s government debt to GDP ratio is a whopping 105 %. Putin's achievement is extraordinary... not ONE U.S. president has managed to lower our U.S. government debt in any significant or lasting manner by comparison.

He won the Chechnyan war for crying out loud.

When was the last time an American president "won a war"? FDR/Truman?

How about winning a war singlehandedly without the aid of powerful allies? FDR/Truman had MAD international help (mostly from Russia). Even Lincoln had serious international help... help from Russia.

U.S. Civil War: The US-Russian Alliance that Saved the Union

Confederate President Jefferson Davis sent envoys to London and Paris, but never bothered to even send a representative to St. Petersburg.

The two great interlocutors of Union foreign policy were Great Britain and Russia, and the geopolitical vicissitudes of the twentieth century tended to distort perceptions of both, minimizing the importance of both British threat and Russian friendship.


In the first two years of the war, when its outcome was still highly uncertain, the attitude of Russia was a potent factor in preventing Great Britain and France from adopting a policy of aggressive intervention. The proposed British-French interference promoted by Lord Russell, the Foreign Secretary, in October 1862 was deterred at this time mainly by the Russian attitude

On September 22, 1862, Lincoln used the Confederate repulse at Antietam to issue a warning that slavery would be abolished in areas still engaged in rebellion against the United States on January 1, 1863. The Russian Tsar Alexander II had liberated the 23 million serfs of the Russian Empire in 1861, so this underlined the nature of the US-Russian convergence as a force for human freedom.

extremes-meet.jpg


Seward thought that if the Anglo-French were to assail the Union, they would soon find themselves at war with Russia as well.

On September 24, the Russian Baltic fleet began to arrive in New York harbor. On October 12, the Russian Far East fleet began to arrive in San Francisco. The Russian admirals had been told that, if the US and Russia were to find themselves at war with Britain and France, the Russian ships should place themselves under Lincoln’s command and operate in synergy with the US Navy against the common enemies.

Coming on the heels of the bloody Union reverse at Chickamauga, the news of the Russian fleet unleashed an immense wave of euphoria in the North. It was this moment that inspired the later verses of Oliver Wendell Holmes, one of the most popular writers in America, for the 1871 friendship visit of the Russian Grand Duke Alexis:


Bleak are our shores with the blasts of December, Fettered and chill is the rivulet’s flow; Thrilling and warm are the hearts that remember Who was our friend when the world was our foe. Fires of the North in eternal communion, Blend your broad flashes with evening’s bright star; God bless the Empire that loves the Great Union Strength to her people! Long life to the Czar!

The British government and aristocracy wanted to split the Union; as long as the Confederates were winning successes on the battlefield, they felt they could bide their time as the US further weakened, thus facilitating intervention if required. The twin Confederate disasters of Gettysburg and Vicksburg on July 3-4, 1863 came as a rapid and stunning reverse, and the arrival of the Russian fleets that same summer on both US coasts radically escalated the costs of Anglo-French military meddling.

Another love letter to Russia? I think we could do a thread on apple pie and end up on Russia.
 

StormfrontFL

Superior Member
Joined
Sep 30, 2008
Posts
8,903
Media
4
Likes
6,850
Points
358
Location
United States
Sexuality
100% Gay, 0% Straight
Gender
Male
Another love letter to Russia? I think we could do a thread on apple pie and end up on Russia.
Gosh, if the U.S. has so many faults and Russia is perfect why is he still here? One would think he'd be on the first plane out.

If he goes he can wave to the Palins.
 

malakos

Superior Member
Joined
Oct 29, 2012
Posts
8,358
Media
30
Likes
6,518
Points
223
Location
Cumming, GA, USA
Sexuality
No Response
Gender
Male
If this sort of sheer doubling down is what the Democrats are going to be bringing to the table for next year's election season, I will definitely be looking forward to it. It could be even more entertaining than 2016! :laughing: