The Official "Making America Great Again" Thread

[BDKJMU]

Spicer tries to say Nazis never gassed anyone.


Rough few months for Spicey.

I saw that. Even though he was trying to say Hitler never released sarin gas, Spicer is so wrong on this one. He needs to be cut loose.

Hitler refused to use sarin during WWII. The mystery is why.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/ret ... eab45498db

Spicer was not wrong on this one (what he was trying to refer to that the Germans didn't use chemical weapons on the enemy during combat) , but his articulation was terrible...

[Skjellyfetti]

Hitler refused to use sarin during WWII. The mystery is why.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/ret ... eab45498db

Spicer was not wrong on this one (what he was trying to refer to that the Germans didn't use chemical weapons on the enemy during combat) , but his articulation was terrible...

No shit, BDK.

It was a dumb gaffe. We don't need to parse out what he meant. It was a terrible point, even if he could have successfully articulated it.

[Ibanez]

I saw that. Even though he was trying to say Hitler never released sarin gas, Spicer is so wrong on this one. He needs to be cut loose.

Hitler refused to use sarin during WWII. The mystery is why.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/ret ... eab45498db

Spicer was not wrong on this one (what he was trying to refer to that the Germans didn't use chemical weapons on the enemy during combat) , but his articulation was terrible...

No shit. The use of Hitler as a comparison is wrong.

[GannonFan]

Hitler refused to use sarin during WWII. The mystery is why.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/ret ... eab45498db

Spicer was not wrong on this one (what he was trying to refer to that the Germans didn't use chemical weapons on the enemy during combat) , but his articulation was terrible...

No ****. The use of Hitler as a comparison is wrong.

Almost always is. History education has failed many.

[JohnStOnge]

I hate to be potentially perceived as defending Spicer but what I think is wrong is this thing of "don't compare anything to Hitler." Hitler was not the greatest mass murderer of all time. Stalin was.

Also, you can compare one thing to another without saying that one thing is exactly the same as the other.

Germany's WWII forces did not use chemical weapons in battle. The gas chambers were horrible. But they weren't using chemical weapons in battle.

[Ibanez]

I hate to be potentially perceived as defending Spicer but what I think is wrong is this thing of "don't compare anything to Hitler." Hitler was not the greatest mass murderer of all time. Stalin was.

Also, you can compare one thing to another without saying that one thing is exactly the same as the other.

Germany's WWII forces did not use chemical weapons in battle. The gas chambers were horrible. But they weren't using chemical weapons in battle.

You can compare if there are similarities but saying Reagan/Bush/Clinton/Bush/Obama/Trump are Hitler is a stretch. It's bad history. The similarities aren't even close.

Hitler used gas on millions...but not on a battlefield.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[∞∞∞]

I hate to be potentially perceived as defending Spicer but what I think is wrong is this thing of "don't compare anything to Hitler." Hitler was not the greatest mass murderer of all time. Stalin was.

Also, you can compare one thing to another without saying that one thing is exactly the same as the other.

Germany's WWII forces did not use chemical weapons in battle. The gas chambers were horrible. But they weren't using chemical weapons in battle.

You can compare if there are similarities but saying Reagan/Bush/Clinton/Bush/Obama/Trump are Hitler is a stretch. It's bad history. The similarities aren't even close.

Hitler used gas on millions...but not on a battlefield.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

I used to be obsessed with WWII when I was a teenager (thank History Channel...when you used to be good!), so I read a ton about it. I'm digging back into my memory banks, but I'm almost 100% sure I read that the Nazis used chemical warfare against the Russians at some point during the war.

I know they never used it extensively, but it was more 'cause they weren't technically advanced enough to do so and feared they'd kill their own troops/populations in the process. Otherwise, there's no doubt Hitler would've employed chemical warfare on a wider scale if the Nazis had the ability.

Regardless, Spicer is an idiot along with Trump and co.

[ALPHAGRIZ1]

I hate to be potentially perceived as defending Spicer but what I think is wrong is this thing of "don't compare anything to Hitler." Hitler was not the greatest mass murderer of all time. Stalin was.

https://www.quora.com/How-did-Mao-manag ... ion-people

http://www.independent.co.uk/arts-enter ... 81630.html

http://www.popten.net/2010/05/top-ten-m ... ill-count/

[Jjoey52]

Hitler was on the receiving end of gas on the battlefield.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

[Ibanez]

You can compare if there are similarities but saying Reagan/Bush/Clinton/Bush/Obama/Trump are Hitler is a stretch. It's bad history. The similarities aren't even close.

Hitler used gas on millions...but not on a battlefield.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

I used to be obsessed with WWII when I was a teenager (thank History Channel...when you used to be good!), so I read a ton about it. I'm digging back into my memory banks, but I'm almost 100% sure I read that the Nazis used chemical warfare against the Russians at some point during the war.

I know they never used it extensively, but it was more 'cause they weren't technically advanced enough to do so and feared they'd kill their own troops/populations in the process. Otherwise, there's no doubt Hitler would've employed chemical warfare on a wider scale if the Nazis had the ability.

Regardless, Spicer is an idiot along with Trump and co.

His use of gas chambers qualifies HOWEVER there's no evidence of Hitler (someone that suffered from mustard gas during WW1) used it in battle. They had them to be sure. In fact, Goering was asked about it at Nuremburg (why didn't they use gas at Normandy) and the answer was more tactical: Lack of gas masks.

[Skjellyfetti]

South Korea’s government wants to know whether Chinese President Xi Jinping gave alternative facts on the nation’s history to Donald Trump.

In an interview with the Wall Street Journal last week, Trump said Xi told him during a recent summit that “Korea actually used to be a part of China.” The comments sparked outrage in Seoul and became an issue in South Korea’s presidential race, prompting the foreign ministry to seek to verify what Xi actually said.

“It’s a clear fact acknowledged by the international community that, for thousands of years in history, Korea has never been part of China,” foreign ministry spokesman Cho June-hyuck said at a briefing in Seoul on Thursday.

Trump has sought to get China -- North Korea’s main ally and benefactor -- to do more to persuade dictator Kim Jong Un to stop conducting nuclear and missile tests. Xi’s explanation of the historical relationship made Trump realize that it’s “not so easy” for China to influence North Korea to give up its nuclear program, the newspaper quoted the U.S. president as saying.

Candidates for South Korea’s May 9 presidential election weighed in on the issue, which comes as the nation’s relations with China are already strained over moves to deploy a U.S. missile defense system on its soil.

“This is clearly a distortion of history and an invasion of the Republic of Korea’s sovereignty," conservative Liberty Korea Party candidate Hong Joon-pyo said through a spokesman.

A representative for Democratic Party of Korea candidate Moon Jae-in demanded to find out the full context of Xi’s comment. Ahn Cheol-soo’s People’s Party said that, if true, it would be regrettable for China to distort history in an international diplomacy setting.

https://www.bloomberg.com/politics/arti ... t-of-china

[BDKJMU]

"Number of people collecting unemployment checks hits 17-year low, jobless claims show

WASHINGTON (MarketWatch) — The number of out-of-work people collecting unemployment checks fell to a 17-year low in April, underscoring the strongest U.S. labor market in years....."
http://www.marketwatch.com/story/number ... 2017-04-20

[Ibanez]

"Number of people collecting unemployment checks hits 17-year low, jobless claims show

WASHINGTON (MarketWatch) — The number of out-of-work people collecting unemployment checks fell to a 17-year low in April, underscoring the strongest U.S. labor market in years....."
http://www.marketwatch.com/story/number ... 2017-04-20

Well that is certainly good news


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Skjellyfetti]

"Number of people collecting unemployment checks hits 17-year low, jobless claims show

WASHINGTON (MarketWatch) — The number of out-of-work people collecting unemployment checks fell to a 17-year low in April, underscoring the strongest U.S. labor market in years....."
http://www.marketwatch.com/story/number ... 2017-04-20

[kalm]

"Number of people collecting unemployment checks hits 17-year low, jobless claims show

WASHINGTON (MarketWatch) — The number of out-of-work people collecting unemployment checks fell to a 17-year low in April, underscoring the strongest U.S. labor market in years....."
http://www.marketwatch.com/story/number ... 2017-04-20

Well that is certainly good news


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Yes it is! And he was able to turn it around in the first 100 days!

[Ibanez]

Well that is certainly good news


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Yes it is! And he was able to turn it around in the first 100 days!

I doubt they dropped suddenly, starting on Jan 20, 2017.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Skjellyfetti]

Yes it is! And he was able to turn it around in the first 100 days!

I doubt they dropped suddenly, starting on Jan 20, 2017.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

See chart above from the article. It's been dropping precipitously since mid 2009.

[kalm]

I doubt they dropped suddenly, starting on Jan 20, 2017.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

See chart above from the article. It's been dropping precipitously since mid 2009.

Why they haven't been this low since right after Clinton left office!

[Ibanez]

I doubt they dropped suddenly, starting on Jan 20, 2017.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

See chart above from the article. It's been dropping precipitously since mid 2009.

I saw that. I'd like to see the data behind it. Something tells me it's not just Obama's election. You know as well as I do that policies can take time to have an effect. What did Bush or Clinton do that contributed? Certainly all those people didn't stop collecting unemployment in mid 2009 b/c Obama as elected (just like they didn't do that now b/c of CorrupTrump's election).

[Ibanez]

See chart above from the article. It's been dropping precipitously since mid 2009.

Why they haven't been this low since right after Clinton left office!

Appears they were slightly lower during Reagan's administration. But not significantly.

[kalm]

Why they haven't been this low since right after Clinton left office!

Appears they were slightly lower during Reagan's administration. But not significantly.

And lowest, right after he left office in 89. Must have been all that spending induced growth from the Dem controlled congress and the greatest birth year group entering the workforce. I call it the "71 affect".

Amirite, fellas?

[JohnStOnge]

Appears they were slightly lower during Reagan's administration. But not significantly.

And lowest, right after he left office in 89. Must have been all that spending induced growth from the Dem controlled congress and the greatest birth year group entering the workforce. I call it the "71 affect".

Amirite, fellas?

That's too complicated for my current state of mind.

[BDKJMU]

Long read from Politico (fair I think) on how "...Buchanan’s boldest achievement—and perhaps the most lasting aspect of his legacy—was being Trump before Trump was Trump..."

and it might be too late..
http://www.politico.com/magazine/story/ ... ile-215042

[CID1990]

Long read from Politico (fair I think) on how "...Buchanan’s boldest achievement—and perhaps the most lasting aspect of his legacy—was being Trump before Trump was Trump..."

and it might be too late..
http://www.politico.com/magazine/story/ ... ile-215042

I've always liked Buchanan. Of course it is hard to publicly take his positions in today's climate. Trump did so by dumbing them WAY down.

There are definitely parallels between him and Trump but I think Trump arrives at them by accident. Buchanan is much smarter and better educated than Trump. It's no mystery that the populists liked Buchanan but at the end of the day the base couldn't follow him because they couldn't understand what the hell he was saying.

[kalm]

Long read from Politico (fair I think) on how "...Buchanan’s boldest achievement—and perhaps the most lasting aspect of his legacy—was being Trump before Trump was Trump..."

and it might be too late..
http://www.politico.com/magazine/story/ ... ile-215042

I've always liked Buchanan. Of course it is hard to publicly take his positions in today's climate. Trump did so by dumbing them WAY down.

There are definitely parallels between him and Trump but I think Trump arrives at them by accident. Buchanan is much smarter and better educated than Trump. It's no mystery that the populists liked Buchanan but at the end of the day the base couldn't follow him because they couldn't understand what the hell he was saying.

Kinsley recalls his old colleague renting a vacation home on Maryland’s Eastern Shore that had an extra bedroom, where Buchanan could store boxes of books he would read while there. “Pat might be a nut, but he’s not a con man. Trump is both a nut and a con man,” Kinsley tells me. “You have to give Pat a certain amount of credit for intellect. He really thought through policy problems, and that’s where he’s not like Trump at all.”

Wow! What a tremendous read! I used to listen to the Pat Buchanan radio show, co-hosted by the Reverend Barry Lynn (of Americans United for the Separation of Church and State fame). I often disagreed with but admired Pat back then and have continued to do so ever since. The Nixon administration with Buchanan and Ben Stein as speech writers always intrigued me. I think there may have been more brain power in that White House than perhaps any since.

Pat is hard right, but when one of your go-to news sources is antiwar.com and you count Hunter S. Thompson, Bill Press, Michael Kinsley, and Barry Lynn among your admirers, you deserve some serious credit and to be listened to.

I also found this paragraph very JSOesque:

Trump or no Trump, Buchanan has only become more alarmed about America’s political trajectory. The Republican Party is “running out of white folks,” he says, and historically immigrant groups have voted overwhelmingly Democratic. “If you bring in 100 million people and they vote 60 percent Democratic and 40 percent Republican, you’re buried,” Buchanan tells me. “What I’m saying is the America we knew and grew up with, it’s gone. And it’s not coming back. Demographically, culturally, socially, in every way, it’s a different country. And I think it’s come to resemble more of an empire than a nation and a people.”