What about the mess with breaching the capitol? Isn’t main problem about T that he is a fascist?
@Silvaire I take it you only watch Fox News.
What you describe Biden to be is exactly as I see DT. Only Trump is 10 times worse and acts like a petulant 2 year old. What is he 3years younger than Biden? Fat and smells because he constantly sxxts himself. Plus every speech is rambling nonsense.
On top of that you have MTG, Lauren Boebart, Ted Cruz, etc etc… all screaming about how the DOJ is against them.
Sorry, Silvaire, if being a GA pilot in the USA means having to get on with people who support that lot, forget it.
Snoopy wrote:
What about the mess with breaching the capitol? Isn’t main problem about T that he is a fascist?
Most Americans don’t know what a fascist is. Or a communist. Or a socialist. All we are taught from childhood is “commie – bad!” “socialist – same as commie!”
We’re also brainwashed to think anything that America does is good. “God bless America!” “I pledge allegiance to the flag!” “Love it or leave it!”
Americans are also generally very religious, and many would equate atheists and agnostics with “devil-worshiping baby-eaters”.
If you combine this indoctrination with the goodwill, generosity, and level of trust that most Americans have, you can see how it’s easy for politicians to exploit the masses.
gallois wrote:
if being a GA pilot in the USA means having to get on with people who support that lot, forget it.
When I visit Oshkosh, I avoid talking about sex, religion, and politics with anyone. Only airplanes and flying. If someone brings up one of these topics, I either change the topic or excuse myself from the discussion. I honestly don’t want to know what anyone does in the privacy of their bedroom, or the privacy of their voting booth.
I avoid talking about sex, religion, and politics with anyone
Good policy anywhere 
Well, avoiding the first one makes for a sad life 
Be grateful for the US help in the 20th century though; without that there would be no GA in Europe. And for the Marshall Plan. And for the nuclear umbrella which enabled Europe to save trillions on military expenditure. And for so many technological achievements… it’s a very long list.
Please can we have more study of modern European history, and less of the champagne socialism.
Peter wrote:
the champagne socialism.
That’s an expression you use a lot and I finally had to look it up. (Although I certainly understand that it’s intended to be derogatory.) According to Wikipedia, it is predominately used in the UK which may explain why I was not familiar with it.
Anyway, the Wikipedia article mentions this criticism of the term: “it assumes that only those who are poor can express an opinion about social inequality.” Which is of course a correct observation but also kind of interesting because that would amount to an identity politics view by those using the term – something that the right is frequently accusing liberals of!
Yes Europe should be grateful for the Marshall Plan but I believe most money given under it was actually paid back to the USA even though it took the likes of Britain and France up until the 1970’s.
Also it was not a one way street. The USA set up the Marshall Plan because they could see the benefits they could gain from it and gain from it they did, which is why NATO was formed.
As for nuclear umbrellas; Ukraine had a nuclear umbrella, it was countries like the USA and Britain who persuaded them to give it up by signing an agreement that they would protect the country from a nuclear attack.
Ukraine never had launch capability.
They could have developed their own, obviously, eventually, but I don’t think anybody (East or West) wanted that capability in the hands of a country which obviously didn’t have the tight controls and security. It is for good reasons there has never been a nuclear accident (and before someone jumps in, no, that wasn’t a nuclear accident).
Sure the MP was good for US national security, but so is anything which prevents Hitler Mk 2 rising up in Europe and dragging the US back over here to sort out the mess for the 3rd time And supporting Ukraine is thus also great for US (not to mention everybody else’s) national security.
gallois wrote:
Also it was not a one way street. The USA set up the Marshall Plan because they could see the benefits they could gain from it and gain from it they did, which is why NATO was formed.
Of course Europe should be grateful for the Marshall plan, but certainly the USA did not launch it out of goodness, but because it believed that a rapid rebuild of war-torn Europe was in its own best interests. Partly to secure it’s poltical and economic interests in Europe, to limit Soviet influence, to help its own industry (by giving European countries improved economic means to import goods from the USA) and to avoid another major war in Europe (one reason for the nazi rise to power was the economic effect on Germany by the Versailles treaty after WWI).
Also, it seems that economists are debating how much the Marshall plan actually helped the economical recovery. According to Wikipedia there was no correlation between the amount of aid a particular country got and its speed of recovery. E.g. West Germany got less than half the aid that the UK got but recovered faster even though its infrastructure was more badly damaged after the war.
Airborne_Again wrote:
Anyway, the Wikipedia article mentions this criticism of the term: “it assumes that only those who are poor can express an opinion about social inequality.” Which is of course a correct observation
I don’t believe that’s a correct observation at all, and I’ve never taken the term to suggest criticism of the champagne socialists’ right to an opinion on social inequality.
They way I’ve always understood it is:
1. The champagne socialist espouses views of social equality which, if implemented, would make them personally much poorer than they are now
2. There is nothing to stop you giving away your wealth until you reach that point, if that’s how you think the world should be
3. Yet here you are swilling champagne
It’s about hypocrisy, not the right to an opinion.
Airborne_Again wrote:
Also, it seems that economists are debating how much the Marshall plan actually helped the economical recovery. According to Wikipedia there was no correlation between the amount of aid a particular country got and its speed of recovery. E.g. West Germany got less than haft the aid that the UK got but recovered faster even though its infrastructure was more badly damaged after the war.
If you read more deeply on the subject you’ll see that the UK recovered basic production etc (as much as it was likely to) fairly quickly in the immediate aftermath of the war, whereas West Germany was still a total mess by the time of the Marshall Plan. Thus there was much more opportunity for the Marshall aid to West Germany to go towards things that would really make a difference, like basic infrastructure. The Marshall aid to the UK was just likely tipped into the various public spending black holes that continue as a feature of the UK economy today.
