Can anyone please help me understand the Republican Party?

Brian?

gobsh!te wrote: »

IMO he was one of the worst....The New Deal was one of the first times government got involved...It prolonged the Depression to the max.

To the max eh? That sounds terrible. Except it's simply not true, it's revisionist nonsense peddled by Friedman acolytes.

On from this came other government success stories such as The War on Drugs and The War on Poverty....If we had no FDR, maybe we could have missed on out these programs.


FDR more than doubled the US debt and also got the US involved in WW2.

He also signed executive order number 6102 which stole the gold from US citizens.

Also he brought in the minimum wage and ever since the black community has been punished for it.

More BS with zero substance.

gobsh!te

Thargor wrote: »

Im sorry are you arguing it was a mistake or something? What would you like to have happened?

I'm sure economically something could have been done...That's just my view. I don't see the positives in the extra millions of deaths.

The US could have focused solely on defending against the Japanese and ended the War in the Pacific a lot quicker.

Brian? wrote: »

To the max eh? That sounds terrible. Except it's simply not true, it's revisionist nonsense peddled by Friedman acolytes.

A depression also took place in 1920-21...the slow response by the government allowed the market is re-balance quickly and the recession ended very quickly.

FDR did not make the same mistake and his intervention allowed the recession to go on right into WW2.....these same actions have been followed by Obama and the Fed today.....that's why the US can't get out of the mess it's in

More BS with zero substance.

I have provided the information....

Your initial response
"That sounds terrible", "it's simply not true", "More BS"

I think I make a better argument than you in this instance

Brian?

gobsh!te wrote: »

I'm sure economically something could have been done...That's just my view. I don't see the positives in the extra millions of deaths.

The US could have focused solely on defending against the Japanese and ended the War in the Pacific a lot quicker.




A depression also took place in 1920-21...the slow response by the government allowed the market is re-balance quickly and the recession ended very quickly.

FDR did not make the same mistake and his intervention allowed the recession to go on right into WW2.....these same actions have been followed by Obama and the Fed today.....that's why the US can't get out of the mess it's in




I have provided the information....

Your initial response
"That sounds terrible", "it's simply not true", "More BS"

I think I make a better argument than you in this instance

You haven't provided a single fact to support your argument, hence my response was dismissive. You make a better structured argument, I'll give you that. It's still nonsense though, dig out some statistics.

InTheTrees

gobsh!te wrote: »

I'm sure economically something could have been done...That's just my view.

So the Japanese fleet surprise attacks US soil and destroys the US fleet.

And you're sure that the US could have responded economically instead of defending against the Japanese?

Thargor

gobsh!te wrote: »

I'm sure economically something could have been done...That's just my view. I don't see the positives in the extra millions of deaths.

The US could have focused solely on defending against the Japanese and ended the War in the Pacific a lot quicker.

And then gone on to be BFFs with Nazi Europe?

Overheal

gobsh!te wrote: »

I'm sure economically something could have been done...That's just my view. I don't see the positives in the extra millions of deaths.

The US could have focused solely on defending against the Japanese and ended the War in the Pacific a lot quicker.

Uhm. No.

Have a read over of the key events of the Pacific War https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pacific_War

And then if you still feel that way, personally I'd love to hear what strategy you think would have worked in that conflict that involves fewer deaths and a faster resolution.

However I relish pointing out that economic sanctions were the spark that ignited the whole thing:

In an effort to discourage Japanese militarism, Western powers including Australia, the United States, Britain, and the Dutch government in exile, which controlled the petroleum-rich Dutch East Indies, stopped selling oil, iron ore, and steel to Japan, denying it the raw materials needed to continue its activities in China and French Indochina. In Japan, the government and nationalists viewed these embargos as acts of aggression; imported oil made up about 80% of domestic consumption, without which Japan's economy, let alone its military, would grind to a halt. The Japanese media, influenced by military propagandists,[nb 9] began to refer to the embargoes as the "ABCD ("American-British-Chinese-Dutch") encirclement" or "ABCD line".
Faced with a choice between economic collapse and withdrawal from its recent conquests (with its attendant loss of face), the Japanese Imperial General Headquarters began planning for a war with the western powers in April or May 1941.

So, good luck.

gobsh!te

InTheTrees wrote: »

So the Japanese fleet surprise attacks US soil and destroys the US fleet.

And you're sure that the US could have responded economically instead of defending against the Japanese?

I didn't say that. I think they could have ended the war against the Japanese quicker if they did not send troops to Europe.

Thargor wrote: »

And then gone on to be BFFs with Nazi Europe?

They never attacked the USSR or China and things seem to have sorted themselves out there ok.....Or would you have preferred the US started a war with the USSR and China...I mean China invaded Tibet...the USSR set up lots of proxy governments....Would you have preferred a direct conflict like WW2?

America could have defeated the Japanese and then sanctioned the Nazis, yes I believe this....There was no direct threat to the US from Germany.

Just another policy blunder by FDR in my opinion

Brian?

gobsh!te wrote: »

I didn't say that. I think they could have ended the war against the Japanese quicker if they did not send troops to Europe.



They never attacked the USSR or China and things seem to have sorted themselves out there ok.....Or would you have preferred the US started a war with the USSR and China...I mean China invaded Tibet...the USSR set up lots of proxy governments....Would you have preferred a direct conflict like WW2?

America could have defeated the Japanese and then sanctioned the Nazis, yes I believe this....There was no direct threat to the US from Germany.

Just another policy blunder by FDR in my opinion

You think saving Europe from facism was a mistake????

gobsh!te

Brian? wrote: »

You think saving Europe from facism was a mistake????

Who knows? We'll never know for sure if it was. China was supposedly communist but is not becoming freer. Perhaps this would have happened in Europe minus the bloodshed. Spain is a good example of a country moving from Fascism to a democratic government.

We'll never know. I tend to think it was unnecessary and that economically something could have been done.

Skylinehead

gobsh!te wrote: »

I didn't say that. I think they could have ended the war against the Japanese quicker if they did not send troops to Europe.

This isn't true at all.

The USA didn't land troops in North Africa (not Europe, but I won't differentiate) until November 1942 - at this point in the Pacific War, Japan had been checked in its advances at Coral Sea/Midway, and was actually being pushed back at Guadelcanal. The USA only turned its attention to Europe once they were winning the Pacific War.

And I'm not sure if extra resources in the Pacific would have helped much, anyway. They were short in the first few months, yes (but as I've said, not due to Europe), but once they got into it, I don't think it could have gone much faster. Island-hopping was the only viable strategy due to the vast geographic distances, and the Japanese fought to the last man on every island they occupied. More men wouldn't have changed much.

Brian?

gobsh!te wrote: »

Who knows? We'll never know for sure if it was. China was supposedly communist but is not becoming freer. Perhaps this would have happened in Europe minus the bloodshed. Spain is a good example of a country moving from Fascism to a democratic government.

We'll never know. I tend to think it was unnecessary and that economically something could have been done.

You think what could have been dobe economically?

gobsh!te

Skylinehead wrote: »

This isn't true at all.

The USA didn't land troops in North Africa (not Europe, but I won't differentiate) until November 1942 - at this point in the Pacific War, Japan had been checked in its advances at Coral Sea/Midway, and was actually being pushed back at Guadelcanal. The USA only turned its attention to Europe once they were winning the Pacific War.

And I'm not sure if extra resources in the Pacific would have helped much, anyway. They were short in the first few months, yes (but as I've said, not due to Europe), but once they got into it, I don't think it could have gone much faster. Island-hopping was the only viable strategy due to the vast geographic distances, and the Japanese fought to the last man on every island they occupied. More men wouldn't have changed much.

The US was putting in large efforts in supporting the war effort in Europe before Nov 1942.

Brian? wrote: »

You think what could have been dobe economically?

Sanctions perhaps? Who knows...Spain went from Fascism to Democracy in a far better manner than Germany did....just my opinion.

Skylinehead

gobsh!te wrote: »

The US was putting in large efforts in supporting the war effort in Europe before Nov 1942.

Yes, they supplied the UK and USSR with war materiel, but not troops, which is what you were talking about.

You didn't even bother debating my other points?

gobsh!te

Skylinehead wrote: »

Yes, they supplied the UK and USSR with war materiel, but not troops, which is what you were talking about.

You didn't even bother debating my other points?

What I am talking about is the US declaring war on Germany in 1941.

They could have remained neutral rather than doing so. The investments (all types) made in helping the British and USSR could have been used to defeat Japan.

The USSR did not declare war on Japan until the war was nearly over. This would have been a better way for the US in Germany in my opinion.

Skylinehead

gobsh!te wrote: »

What I am talking about is the US declaring war on Germany in 1941.

They could have remained neutral rather than doing so. The investments (all types) made in helping the British and USSR could have been used to defeat Japan.

The USSR did not declare war on Japan until the war was nearly over. This would have been a better way for the US in Germany in my opinion.

You need to show how it would have helped the effort in the Pacific, I don't think it would have made much difference.

In any case, it's a moot point - the US could not have remained neutral, as Germany declared war on them first.

gobsh!te

Skylinehead wrote: »

You need to show how it would have helped the effort in the Pacific, I don't think it would have made much difference.

In any case, it's a moot point - the US could not have remained neutral, as Germany declared war on them first.

Germany did declare war on them this is true, however I think they could have taken an approach more similar to how the USSR dealt with Japan.

Ok, let me see how I can show how it would have helped.............

Do you think the USSR would have been able to defeat in the same amount of time (or at all)the Germans if it also had to deal with fighting the Japanese on another front?

If you think so, then maybe you have a point on the US. I disagree on this.

Overheal

America could have defeated the Japanese and then sanctioned the Nazis, yes I believe this....There was no direct threat to the US from Germany.

Really? Tell me more. If the war had played out differently there is every possibility and indication that Hitler ultimately would have planned to nuke the entire non-Aryan world.

gobsh!te

Overheal wrote: »

Really? Tell me more. If the war had played out differently there is every possibility and indication that Hitler ultimately would have planned to nuke the entire non-Aryan world.

"there is every possibility and indication"...just look at that statement....I mean it is just a nothing statement.

I think football managers use lines like that when they are looking back on a match that didn't go their way.

Hitler, Mao and Stalin were all big killers.
All were looking to develop destructive weapons...as where the US and the UK and later the French.

Ok, I'll try it..there is every possibility and indication that Hitler would have defeated the USSR and saved millions of lives.....see it's pure speculation.

I find it rather silly to only assume that the current path of history of WW2 was the best one in relation to having saved the maximum number of lives.

Ok and on the plan to "nuke" the non-Aryan world...Here's a Hitler quote:

Pride in one's own race – and that does not imply contempt for other races – is also a normal and healthy sentiment. I have never regarded the Chinese or the Japanese as being inferior to ourselves. They belong to ancient civilizations, and I admit freely that their past history is superior to our own. They have the right to be proud of their past, just as we have the right to be proud of the civilization to which we belong. Indeed, I believe the more steadfast the Chinese and the Japanese remain in their pride of race, the easier I shall find it to get on with them.

Overheal

gobsh!te wrote: »

"there is every possibility and indication"...just look at that statement....I mean it is just a nothing statement.



I think football managers use lines like that when they are looking back on a match that didn't go their way.



Hitler, Mao and Stalin were all big killers.

All were looking to develop destructive weapons...as where the US and the UK and later the French.



Ok, I'll try it..there is every possibility and indication that Hitler would have defeated the USSR and saved millions of lives.....see it's pure speculation.



I find it rather silly to only assume that the current path of history of WW2 was the best one in relation to having saved the maximum number of lives.



Ok and on the plan to "nuke" the non-Aryan world...Here's a Hitler quote:



Pride in one's own race – and that does not imply contempt for other races – is also a normal and healthy sentiment. I have never regarded the Chinese or the Japanese as being inferior to ourselves. They belong to ancient civilizations, and I admit freely that their past history is superior to our own. They have the right to be proud of their past, just as we have the right to be proud of the civilization to which we belong. Indeed, I believe the more steadfast the Chinese and the Japanese remain in their pride of race, the easier I shall find it to get on with them.

By your own argument, you've defeated your own previous argument. So, I've accomplished what I set out to do with my last post

Skylinehead

gobsh!te wrote: »

Germany did declare war on them this is true, however I think they could have taken an approach more similar to how the USSR dealt with Japan.

The USSR and Japan were neutral towards each other until August 1945, so it's not really comparable when Nazi Germany declares war on you...

Ok, let me see how I can show how it would have helped.............

Do you think the USSR would have been able to defeat in the same amount of time (or at all)the Germans if it also had to deal with fighting the Japanese on another front?

If you think so, then maybe you have a point on the US. I disagree on this.

No, I don't think it would have been as easy, but they would have done it. It's not as if Japan was a massive threat to the USSR, they had their hands full with the Chinese and the US Navy. And I believe the USSR stationed tens of thousands of men in the east even as they were neutral, and they still won against Germany.

I don't think the scenarios are comparable though. The USSR has a land border with Manchuria, whereas the US and Japan are separated by the Pacific Ocean. More troops wouldn't have made much difference at all, the USA always had the edge there.

Amerika

Skylinehead wrote: »

The USSR and Japan were neutral towards each other until August 1945, so it's not really comparable when Nazi Germany declares war on you...

Not quite correct. At the Tehran Conference in November 1943, Stalin agreed that the Soviet Union would enter the war against Japan once Nazi Germany was defeated. And then later, at the Yalta Conference in February 1945, Stalin modified his agreement and committed to enter the Pacific Theater within three months of the end of the war in Europe.

Manic Moran

The debate on the matter did indeed happen in 1941/42, with the two camps being "Europe First" and "Japan First"

There were several advantages to "Europe First". Firstly, for all the annoyance that the Japanese had caused, with the possible exception of Australia, there weren't very many close friends of the US at risk. However, some major powers and friends in Europe were not doing so hot. It may have been fine for the US to sit on the European sidelines, but would hardly have been politically beneficial. Plus, if the Germans did end up getting an upper hand in Europe (Yes, they'd hit some reversals, but weren't obviously on the way out at that point), then the liberation of Europe would have been even harder.

As it was, however, Europe First became a bit of a misnomer, with much of the many early actions taking place in the Pacific, albeit simply because the US Navy and Marine Corps were quite capable of conducting action immediately. The US Army and Army Air Force may have been second-rate powers behind Romania in the rankings in 1940, but the Navy was always funded and well equipped and could take the fight to Japan right off the bat.

gobsh!te

Overheal wrote: »

By your own argument, you've defeated your own previous argument. So, I've accomplished what I set out to do with my last post

I see you ignored my Hitler quote in relation to your claim about him NUKING ALL NON ARYANS.......:eek:

gobsh!te

Skylinehead wrote: »

The USSR and Japan were neutral towards each other until August 1945, so it's not really comparable when Nazi Germany declares war on you...

I disagree. Perhaps if the USSR and Japan were never at work maybe you would have a point.

No, I don't think it would have been as easy, but they would have done it. It's not as if Japan was a massive threat to the USSR, they had their hands full with the Chinese and the US Navy. And I believe the USSR stationed tens of thousands of men in the east even as they were neutral, and they still won against Germany.

Nah, I mean who was the last country to defeat the USSR/Russia in a war at that time? Japan....? It would have made a huge difference if the USSR and Japan were at war in Europe and Asia.

I don't think the scenarios are comparable though. The USSR has a land border with Manchuria, whereas the US and Japan are separated by the Pacific Ocean. More troops wouldn't have made much difference at all, the USA always had the edge there.

More troops would not have made much difference? Really? So if they doubled or for exampled halved the number of troops in Asia....no difference.....Really?

Skylinehead

gobsh!te wrote: »

I disagree. Perhaps if the USSR and Japan were never at work maybe you would have a point.

So you're saying that being neutral with a country, and having war declared on you is the same thing? That doesn't make sense.

More troops would not have made much difference? Really? So if they doubled or for exampled halved the number of troops in Asia....no difference.....Really?

Have a look at the battles. How do you think that double the troops would have changed anything at all? For one, you can only fit so many people on tiny islands. Second, having extra troops wasn't going to convince the Japanese to surrender. They were fanatical. The only way to win those battles was to comb the island and root out every soldier in every cave. You haven't demonstrated in any way how more ground troops would change that.

I'm not going to respond to the "half" bit, because nobody said anything about that. I think we're done here if you're including fallacies like that and the USSR/Japan war line.

BlitzKrieg

Japan and Russia were at war prior to 1942 (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Soviet%E2%80%93Japanese_border_conflicts)

The Soviet victory in 1939 is actually considered an often overlooked key point in how world war 2 played out as it lead to the soviet/japanese neutrality pact

For the Japanese it shifted their focus away from pushing further west into soviet territory and instead into south east asia which put them down the path leading to conflict with the British and Americans and ultimately pearl harbour

for the soviets it was these battles that dictated the design and future of tank warfare which would lead to the T34 which is for the Russians the tank that won the war for them. It also kept Japan out of the Eastern Front for the entirety of the second world war.


As for USA in the pacific and in Europe. The most important part of the american involvement in the European conflict was working in the factories back in the USA. Not saying their involvement in Europe meant little but weighing up which had the greatest influence, American workers producing bombers, ships, tanks and guns was the greatest influence the US had in the european conflict. The impact of actual US troops on the ground and the daylight bombing campaigns are still debated as it's complicated, going by sheer numbers their impact is a lot smaller as the British/Canadian forces bore much more of the brunt of for example the entire Normandy invasion compared to the Americans, but numbers is a terrible way to judge history alone, I'd personnally say after the sheer production support the biggest impact the US had was with individuals, men like Eisenhower and Patton and individual units like the decoy divisions would have had much critical impact in how the war went.

Removing elements like that and transfering them to the pacific is worthless, Eisenhower and Patton were not suited to the Pacific campaign where it was naval focus and a power struggle with Nimitz would not be benefitial. As for individual units the Pacific conflict had it's own similar examples of individual heroism and clever positioning, it's the whole basis of the battle of midway going the way it did because of code breakers.


Also in relation to the pacific you need to remember while it's glossed over the British were active in the pacific quite a bit and american support in Europe freed up much of the British fleet to move to supporting the Americans in the pacific fleet. They didnt need carriers and battleships in the atlantic where the german surface fleet was mostly broken by 1942, they needed destroyers, while the pacific needed carriers in bulk (remember Enterprise was originally an atlantic carrier that was moved to the pacific) both the Burma and Borneo campaigns involved Primarily british and australian forces.

Overheal

gobsh!te wrote: »

I see you ignored my Hitler quote in relation to your claim about him NUKING ALL NON ARYANS.......

Yeah - how long were China and Japan going to play along with Nazi Germany? I'd say if things worked different (Hitler focused on Jet engine tech first, V2 and nukes second) he would have began throwing nukes into places like Russia and Britain, and eventually places that fought back like China Or as you say, Japan:

It would have made a huge difference if the USSR and Japan were at war in Europe and Asia.

Just as valid a theory as yours, and equally as pointless to modern politics. I'm done with the WW2 tangent and back to Black Swan's original point am happy to look at our national policies beginning post WWII/in the cold war era.

gobsh!te

Overheal wrote: »

Yeah - how long were China and Japan going to play along with Nazi Germany? I'd say if things worked different (Hitler focused on Jet engine tech first, V2 and nukes second) he would have began throwing nukes into places like Russia and Britain, and eventually places that fought back like China Or as you say, Japan:

Wow, that was a quick response.....lol

I'd say....
He would have....

Good arguments you make there hahaha.....You'd be laughed out of a debate

Overheal

Remind me why theorizing what might have happened during WWII has any impact on the Republican part or a modern understanding of it?

ancapailldorcha

Back on topic please.

NI24

Overheal wrote: »

I do. See my thread mentioning the influence of Larry Wilmore on the political climate.

Fair enough. You didn't go into it because this is a Republican debate. But it's a little disheartening, to say the least, to see how polarized Americans have become over the political parties, mostly because of crass generalizations and finger pointing. And maybe the political party system itself is to blame. I've always wondered if a (mainly) two-party political system is the best fit for the US. Perhaps a country of 300 million inhabitants needs more than two parties to best represent its needs.

Overheal wrote: »

There are doubtless going to papers out there detailing the historical politics leading up to the civil war (or in lieu of one, newspaper archives, which were a great resource when I had to research the Pony bloody Express) I'm wagering that just as now, there were some of those shared feelings also, but I would argue that the richer, plantation running slaveowners of the south would have additionally saw to sow their own influence in the political climate ie. get people riled up in a manner conducive to their agenda.

We'll have to agree to disagree. While I don't doubt that slavery was a key issue, I sincerely doubt many laid down their lives for it. It's like soldiers in the Iraq War who claim they joined in order to spread democracy. Sure, some were naive enough to think that was the reason, but for most (and some of whom I knew personally) it was simply a way to make a solid living. Spreading democracy had little or nothing to do with it.

The Black Oil

I caught the end of end interview with John Boehner on CNN. It seemed to be a wind down interview. He said Obama had 'poisoned the well' on immigration. Grand. He was then asked about becoming a civilian again and the fact that he does yoga. I'm sure Hillary had similar treatment when she stepped down as SoS. Obama'll get the same come late 2016. Great job, corporate media.

Manic Moran

The Black Oil wrote: »

I caught the end of end interview with John Boehner on CNN. It seemed to be a wind down interview. He said Obama had 'poisoned the well' on immigration. Grand. He was then asked about becoming a civilian again and the fact that he does yoga. I'm sure Hillary had similar treatment when she stepped down as SoS. Obama'll get the same come late 2016. Great job, corporate media.

They actually asked about him becoming a 'civilian' and not 'private citizen'? I'm already pissed at the American trend of calling police etc non-civilians, now this is being expanded to congresscritters?

The Black Oil

Apologies for the delay. Yes, the term civilian was used by the journalist. See 3.25.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=i6rt4PaJEfY

DarkyHughes

It's just a gang of some of the most bloody thirtsy right-wing radicals in America. They remind a lot of the DUP & the older Irish Unionist parties.

MajorMax

gobsh!te wrote: »

What I am talking about is the US declaring war on Germany in 1941.

They could have remained neutral rather than doing so. The investments (all types) made in helping the British and USSR could have been used to defeat Japan.

The USSR did not declare war on Japan until the war was nearly over. This would have been a better way for the US in Germany in my opinion.

he US didn't declare war on Germany, Hitler declared war on the US, much to the delight of the beleagured British as theu knew it would seal his doom.