Oh there you are. He thought he was gonna squeak by changing the subject before we mentioned his inglorious contribution to the Revolution.
For you see, the Germans did exactly that which Washington’s quote warned us not to do; apparently it was common back then. The German states got involved on Britain’s side, maybe because King George III was German, and many of them just volunteered in the British Army to help out, Americans were very surprised at large number of German-speaking soldiers on our land, when this had nothing at all to do with German interests, just helping their buddies is all.
He was only president for a month, there’s not much to opine on. He would have reinstated a 3rd national bank after Jefferson and Jackson dissolved the 1st and 2nd, so luckily that didn’t happen …until the creation of the Fed in 1914, which is our 3rd national bank.
Garfield was a pretty good president for economy. I also wish McKinley or Kennedy hadn’t been assassinated, they would have made America more prosperous than they already had. McKinley demonstrates what I think is great Macroeconomics despite some bad microeconomics with protective tariffs, but still worked. I don’t know if Trump will follow a similar line.
Ha, I didn’t say Washington’s policies were anachronous…not at all, they are still valid. I said Winston’s application of his advice to modern day conflicts was anachronous. You just continue to miss the boat on rhetoric, ha.
Washington had something specific in mind when speaking those things, America’s preoccupation with European affairs and an inclination to be similarly polarized by them, just as European nations were polarized by our Revolution in reaction to Britain, e.g., France against, Germany for. This was still the thing back then, royalty concerns was trumping national concerns. Washington wanted to warn us against this European ignominy and build America as a true modern nation-state whose interests are unconnected with exactly those of another.
This situation has not been a problem in modern America. We read Washington’s words every year, and apparently, it has sunk in. We’re not guilty of partisan foreign action on behalf of another country when it doesn’t further our own interests. But then again, it is anachronous because we don’t have royalty today negating nation-state distinctions. There isn’t anything bigger trying to efface distinctions based on nation-states.
Well we do, globalism. Washington’s words CAN be applied to globalism. We shouldn’t subject American interests to that of the holy will of the combined nations, like global warming, the most obvious, or deference to the UN, etc… So Washington’s speech isn’t anachronous after all. And we should listen intently. The UN today is synonymous to Europe forging alliances with royalty, aristocrats, and elites then.
Oh, you’re talking about Benjamin Harrison, not William Harrison, you have to specify, since we were talking about Washington, I thought you were talking about presidents closer to Washington. But I really don’t know what you’re getting at. No, I don’t think Harrison’s actions went contrary to Washington’s advice either.
CNN is comedy-comedy. But I know what you’re trying to ask. Unfortunately, liberals have had a lock on comedy for years. Progressives’ control of the entertainment industry is one of their main sources of power.
But I’m sure plenty of Trump supporters would find the good stuff funny, unless it’s mocking Trump in a particularly mean-spirited way (Trump himself, on the other hand…). The way you ask the question makes it seem like you assume Trump supporters are a monolithic group, which they most definitely are not. And all that fake news seems to have created some strange association in your mind between Trump and alt-something-or-other.
There are also plenty of comedians whose material is politically neutral (Jim Gaffigan, etc.), and a good number who are non-PC and more libertarian-leaning…George Carlin would be a classic example.
[quote=“Dr_Milker, post:296, topic:157785, full:true”]The way you ask the question makes it seem like you assume Trump supporters are a monolithic group, which they most definitely are not. And all that fake news seems to have created some strange association in your mind between Trump and alt-something-or-other.
[/quote]
I kind of doubt I would have linked to the Frum interview where he explains his theory of the spectrum of Trump supporters, without a negative comment, if I believed that.
Incidentally, I found the Black interview fascinating, despite my obvious mockery of the baron’s optimism.
America is getting closer to impeach Trump.
Humpty Trumpty sat on a Mexican wall.
Humpty Trumpty had a great fall.
And all the Kings soldiers and the kings men,
couldn’t put Humpty Trumpty together again.
What did he say in his own words? The elections are rigged.
He’ll investigate. This is called projection, right?
Trump will have a great opportunity to shape the judicial in four years and clean out or dilute some of the influence of Democrat “so-called” judges who are nothing more than partisan political hacks merely toeing the line for their party.
But Mr. Trump could soon find himself responsible for appointing a greater share of federal court judges than any first-term president in 40 years, in large part because of a growing number of older judges and a stack of vacancies on the federal courts…
“Mr. Trump has been given quite the opportunity,” Mr. Malcolm said, noting that there were about twice the number of vacancies on the federal bench as there were when Mr. Obama took office — “roughly an eighth of the judiciary.”
