Trump wants 'Patriotic Education'.

Satinavian

Elite Member
Legacy
Apr 5, 2020
173
55
33
But the amount of people that do great in the USA does not seem an accident.
They don't tend to do so by accident elsewhere either.

At least nowadays research suggests that social mobility in the US is actually lower than in most other western countries.
 
  • Like
Reactions: lil devils x

lil devils x

🐐More Lego Goats Please!🐐
Legacy
May 1, 2020
3,005
939
118
Country
🐐USA🐐
Gender
♀
It comes across as dismissive that some 80% of girls and women using illegal services to come to the USA get raped. That there is sex trafficking that can at least be slowed by real border enforcement. I really don't think he should have written it and asked him to stop it.
There is more to it than that. Many of the children coming into the US, are coming in for a better life, they are not victims until AFTER the government decides to put them into the US foster care system and detention centers. US putting the kids into the foster care system is actually contributing to the trafficking, not reducing it.

Most people don't know about our nation's foster care to sex trafficking pipeline, but the facts are sobering. The National Center for Missing and Exploited Children (NCMEC) found that "of the more than 18,500 endangered runaways reported to NCMEC in 2016, one in six were likely victims of child sex trafficking. Of those, 86 percent were in the care of social services when they went missing."
.

Trump forcing them to wait in Mexico makes this WORSE not better btw:

Many of those we interviewed said they or their family members have experienced rape, sexual abuse, kidnapping, robbery, and other actual or threatened violence after U.S. immigration officials sent them to Mexico.


Trumps family separation policies have also increased the abuse, not just by other immigrants but the guards and staff as well.
 
Last edited:

Silvanus

Elite Member
Legacy
Apr 26, 2020
649
354
68
Country
United Kingdom
My comment is in regards to humanity throughout history.
OK, but we're talking about the US living up to high ideals. Managing to outperform various shitty Medieval kingdoms or brutal ancient Empires is not particularly impressive. It's supposed to be at least matching its contemporaries.

At its inception, it was outperforming its contemporaries in some respects, and sinking lower than them in other respects (see the Trail of Tears, or the treatment of Native Americans in general). Nowadays, it's falling behind its contemporaries in plenty of quality-of-life indicators, as well as in involvement in conflict, nuclear proliferation, climate impact etc.
 

gorfias

Unrealistic but happy
Legacy
Apr 6, 2020
709
189
48
Country
USA
They don't tend to do so by accident elsewhere either.

At least nowadays research suggests that social mobility in the US is actually lower than in most other western countries.
I am sure it is a stat that can be messed with a lot. I will write that the US has growing problems. India is not Western but it is developing a lot and very quickly.
There is more to it than that. Many of the children coming into the US, are coming in for a better life, they are not victims until AFTER the government decides to put them into the US foster care system and detention centers. US putting the kids into the foster care system is actually contributing to the trafficking, not reducing it.

Most people don't know about our nation's foster care to sex trafficking pipeline, but the facts are sobering. The National Center for Missing and Exploited Children (NCMEC) found that "of the more than 18,500 endangered runaways reported to NCMEC in 2016, one in six were likely victims of child sex trafficking. Of those, 86 percent were in the care of social services when they went missing."
.

Trump forcing them to wait in Mexico makes this WORSE not better btw:

Many of those we interviewed said they or their family members have experienced rape, sexual abuse, kidnapping, robbery, and other actual or threatened violence after U.S. immigration officials sent them to Mexico.


Trumps family separation policies have also increased the abuse, not just by other immigrants but the guards and staff as well.
Assuming what you link is not fake news, the issue remains: truly make illegal border crossing something that will not happen would reduce the number that try, reducing the number of people being sexually abused. That would be something I think we can all get behind.
EDIT: BTW: This issue, by far, predates Trump. Example https://www.huffpost.com/entry/central-america-migrants-rape_n_5806972
 
Last edited:

Thaluikhain

Elite Member
Legacy
Apr 4, 2020
605
220
48
Eeeeehhhh, questionable. The German war machine was probably ready to beat the French for some time. A longer period of the British Empire vs the Axis period may have allowed for an invasion of Britain to become more feasible, and the Germans always would’ve been able to sweep through Western Poland. The extra time before the start of the war was probably most beneficial to the USSR, not the Nazis.
Disagree there. The Germans got pretty lucky in France, it was by no means a sure thing. Germany did not have the resources to invade Britain, flat out could not happen. Western Poland I'm not sure about.
 

Terminal Blue

Elite Member
Legacy
Apr 20, 2020
228
193
48
Country
United Kingdom
One can argue that WWII could have been a lot less bad had the bullet been bitten earlier and a lack of "patriotism" or will to fight ended up leading to an even worse situation. (Honestly this was just the first excuse I've had to post this gif because I find it funny)
I mean, you could argue as much, but the whole idea that Chamberlain''s appeasement policy was some kind of personal cowardice and that had he just been more hawkish everything could have been avoided is a myth created by Churchill and a small number of British politicians who opposed appeasement.

Realistically, going to war in 1938 over Czechoslovakia, before rearmament had even started, would have been disastrous. Britain actually came very close to losing the war in 1940. Had the war begun a year earlier and the same events occurred, it would have been a massacre.

Chamberlain was very conservative. His failures were not down to a lack of patriotism or is un-British left wing values. If anytihng, it was due to a (correct) understanding that fighting another war would destroy the British empire and weaken Britain's position globally.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: Gethsemani

Thaluikhain

Elite Member
Legacy
Apr 4, 2020
605
220
48
Realistically, going to war in 1938 over Czechoslovakia, before rearmament had even started,
The part about rearmament bears repeating, people keep overlooking the rearmament the UK did in the 30s, especially just before the war actually started.
 

Specter Von Baren

Annoying Green Gadfly
Legacy
May 4, 2020
1,399
433
88
I don't know, send help!
Country
USA
Gender
Cuttlefish
I mean, you could argue as much, but the whole idea that Chamberlain''s appeasement policy was some kind of personal cowardice and that had he just been more hawkish everything could have been avoided is a myth created by Churchill and a small number of British politicians who opposed appeasement.

Realistically, going to war in 1938 over Czechoslovakia, before rearmament had even started, would have been disastrous. Britain actually came very close to losing the war in 1940. Had the war begun a year earlier and the same events occurred, it would have been a massacre.

Chamberlain was very conservative. His failures were not down to a lack of patriotism or is un-British left wing values. If anytihng, it was due to a (correct) understanding that fighting another war would destroy the British empire and weaken Britain's position globally.
You do realize that the signs of what Hitler was doing were there long before that and it was an unwillingness to step up earlier that led to them not being ready then?
 

lil devils x

🐐More Lego Goats Please!🐐
Legacy
May 1, 2020
3,005
939
118
Country
🐐USA🐐
Gender
♀
I am sure it is a stat that can be messed with a lot. I will write that the US has growing problems. India is not Western but it is developing a lot and very quickly.

Assuming what you link is not fake news, the issue remains: truly make illegal border crossing something that will not happen would reduce the number that try, reducing the number of people being sexually abused. That would be something I think we can all get behind.
EDIT: BTW: This issue, by far, predates Trump. Example https://www.huffpost.com/entry/central-america-migrants-rape_n_5806972
I 100% disagree about trying to make it more difficult for asylum seekers. They are fleeing for their lives, they should be able to enter by any means possible, as is currently legal under US asylum Laws. Trumps executive orders do not change laws, the power to write and modify laws lies solely with congress, thus Trumps BS policies are in fact illegal. The asylum seekers are not the criminals here, Trump is breaking actual US asylum law. We reduce the number of people who can be trafficked and/or abused by getting them the help they need as quickly as possible and making it as easy and fast as possible for them to be granted asylum , not by mistreating them in detainment camps. They are not criminals for fleeing for their lives. It is criminal however, to treat them as such.

The US foster care system did not get this way under Trump, we have generations of people who grew up in this horrific system that are telling us exactly what is wrong here. It is this bad due to it being controlled by corrupt religious organizations, that we need to essentially redesign the entire system from the ground up and remove the tentacles of these organizations that are abusing the system and viewing these children as slave labor and are exploiting and human trafficking them. We have to completely disconnect the religious organizations grip on the foster system as they are the very ones responsible for this, we have to replace most of those who work on the government side as they are actually party to this according to the victims, and we have to actually do real inspections, no one gets a pass, and LISTEN to what the kids are telling us here. We have these foster networks that are using these kids as slave labor all the while excluding LGBTQ and singles, and unmarried couples from adopting at all. The entire system is ridiculously corrupt. We have to redesign a new system, train people for replacements and them just make it go live and do away with the old system entirely, THEN we need to actually prosecute those working for the government, the people in these religious organizations, and these abusive trafficking networks once and for all once we get the kids away from them so they can no longer harm them.
 
  • Like
Reactions: gorfias

Gethsemani

Hardcore Feminazi
Legacy
Apr 5, 2020
427
321
68
Country
Sweden
You do realize that the signs of what Hitler was doing were there long before that and it was an unwillingness to step up earlier that led to them not being ready then?
It wasn't just unwillingness, it was the dire economic situation caused by the great depression. It was clear that Germany was re-arming as early as 1935 and while that was a breach of the Treaty of Versailles, it was not considered problematic in itself. A lot of people at the time felt that the treaty was unduly harsh on Germany and the rise of the USSR meant that Germany re-arming was accepted or overlooked on the justification that they needed something in case the USSR did the Commie thing and went for world conquest. More pertinently, the French and UK economies were in shambles and with a very shrunk tax base the first priority was not to throw money on defense expenditure, especially not when your economy was leaking like a sieve and you needed stimulation efforts in other areas.

The other problem was the sheer extent of the German re-arming effort. Tooze in Wages of Destruction estimates that as much as one third of the German GDP in the late-30's went towards military expenditures, this created massive deficits in the German economy that were initially solved by Schacht's financial black magic (MeFo bills being among the more notable ways of keeping the economy floating) and after 1938 by liquidating the gold reserves of Austria and the Czech republic after their annexations. In essence, the German economy was artificially inflated by the massive demand for military equipment but it was never sustainable. The only way for the German economy to remain afloat and not implode under the massive national debt was to go to war in 1940 at the latest. Germany went to war in part to postpone its imminent bankruptcy and had they actually won they would have faced a debt crisis that makes the UK's post war debt situation look like a minor IOU. A side note here is that this is part of the reason why the NSDAP was so eager to promise lands, labor and equipment from defeated foes to their domestic industry, as it was a way to pay off the debt without having any money. The Nazi economy was from the very outset an economy that could only be sustained by plunder in anything but the short term.

Why was this a problem for the UK and France? Because they obviously couldn't match Germany's military expenditure. They couldn't do the Hitler Play and gamble everything on winning a war to seize the national assets of their enemies to pay off debt. They could only shake out re-armament funds from the meager, battered economies they had and that meant that the earliest re-armament efforts, as early as 1935-1936, were pretty sad affairs due to economic reality. Keep in mind that when the war got going and the UK went into war economy, it did not care for minimizing debt accumulation and the end result of that was billions of pound sterling in debt both to domestic industry and to the US for all the Lend-Lease equipment the UK had bought. That debt was the driving force behind the dismantling of the Empire and had it not been for the Marshall Plan the UK would have been fiscally boned for decades afterwards. There was simply no way either France or the UK could have re-armed faster while still retaining their economies. If they had and Hitler had backed down, they would have consigned themselves into yet another disastrous recession before they had recovered from the Great Depression.

It was simply not a realistic possibility to spend more money on the military. The way the UK set up its re-armament, with the Shadow Scheme and similar contingencies for rapidly expanding their armaments industry in case of war, was probably as good as they could get with the economic restraints of the time as it allowed for a small upfront investment but the possibility to go full hog should there be a sudden demand for advanced military equipment.

Sorry for the long post, this is just a topic that fascinates me.
 

TheMysteriousGX

Elite Member
Legacy
Apr 12, 2020
296
216
48
Country
United States
It wasn't just unwillingness, it was the dire economic situation caused by the great depression. It was clear that Germany was re-arming as early as 1935 and while that was a breach of the Treaty of Versailles, it was not considered problematic in itself. A lot of people at the time felt that the treaty was unduly harsh on Germany and the rise of the USSR meant that Germany re-arming was accepted or overlooked on the justification that they needed something in case the USSR did the Commie thing and went for world conquest. More pertinently, the French and UK economies were in shambles and with a very shrunk tax base the first priority was not to throw money on defense expenditure, especially not when your economy was leaking like a sieve and you needed stimulation efforts in other areas.

The other problem was the sheer extent of the German re-arming effort. Tooze in Wages of Destruction estimates that as much as one third of the German GDP in the late-30's went towards military expenditures, this created massive deficits in the German economy that were initially solved by Schacht's financial black magic (MeFo bills being among the more notable ways of keeping the economy floating) and after 1938 by liquidating the gold reserves of Austria and the Czech republic after their annexations. In essence, the German economy was artificially inflated by the massive demand for military equipment but it was never sustainable. The only way for the German economy to remain afloat and not implode under the massive national debt was to go to war in 1940 at the latest. Germany went to war in part to postpone its imminent bankruptcy and had they actually won they would have faced a debt crisis that makes the UK's post war debt situation look like a minor IOU. A side note here is that this is part of the reason why the NSDAP was so eager to promise lands, labor and equipment from defeated foes to their domestic industry, as it was a way to pay off the debt without having any money. The Nazi economy was from the very outset an economy that could only be sustained by plunder in anything but the short term.

Why was this a problem for the UK and France? Because they obviously couldn't match Germany's military expenditure. They couldn't do the Hitler Play and gamble everything on winning a war to seize the national assets of their enemies to pay off debt. They could only shake out re-armament funds from the meager, battered economies they had and that meant that the earliest re-armament efforts, as early as 1935-1936, were pretty sad affairs due to economic reality. Keep in mind that when the war got going and the UK went into war economy, it did not care for minimizing debt accumulation and the end result of that was billions of pound sterling in debt both to domestic industry and to the US for all the Lend-Lease equipment the UK had bought. That debt was the driving force behind the dismantling of the Empire and had it not been for the Marshall Plan the UK would have been fiscally boned for decades afterwards. There was simply no way either France or the UK could have re-armed faster while still retaining their economies. If they had and Hitler had backed down, they would have consigned themselves into yet another disastrous recession before they had recovered from the Great Depression.

It was simply not a realistic possibility to spend more money on the military. The way the UK set up its re-armament, with the Shadow Scheme and similar contingencies for rapidly expanding their armaments industry in case of war, was probably as good as they could get with the economic restraints of the time as it allowed for a small upfront investment but the possibility to go full hog should there be a sudden demand for advanced military equipment.

Sorry for the long post, this is just a topic that fascinates me.
Meanwhile, US papers were "well, he might be an asshole, but look at his economy!". And a wording not bet of them weren't even "well, he might be an asshole".
Acknowledging that the Nazi economy was doomed to failure structurally is a relatively recent phenomenon, and it hasn't quite migrated over to the "intellectual dark web"
 
  • Like
Reactions: MrCalavera

Gethsemani

Hardcore Feminazi
Legacy
Apr 5, 2020
427
321
68
Country
Sweden
Meanwhile, US papers were "well, he might be an asshole, but look at his economy!". And a wording not bet of them weren't even "well, he might be an asshole".
Acknowledging that the Nazi economy was doomed to failure structurally is a relatively recent phenomenon, and it hasn't quite migrated over to the "intellectual dark web"
Papers all over the world did. Part of the problem was that superficially the Nazi economic program looked like the New Deal. Heavy investments in infrastructure and housing, creation of public jobs and stimulus packages to get the industry rolling again. Unlike the New Deal, a lot of the Nazi programs were abject disasters in which unqualified workers were sent to perform advanced construction projects or being sent to building sites before construction had been approved. There are reports of work groups being sent to dig holes one day and fill them the next, just so that they could be said to be working.

As the cherry on top, the US public opinion was deeply in favor of normalizing Germany's status and abolishing the treaty of Versailles. This is why US banks and companies offered good loans and trade deals to the US and why the US was the driving force in postponing or abolishing the war reparations Germany was supposed to pay. From a US perspective, right up until 1938, Hitler was the underdog fighting against the oppressive colonial Empires to try and save his country from economic disaster.
 
  • Like
Reactions: MrCalavera

Shadyside

Bad Hombre
Legacy
Aug 20, 2020
1,002
217
68
Country
Republic of Texas
Gender
Male
We already have patriotic education. They're called military schools.