arkrud wrote:- we have not a "race" problem but African American nation problem. We just overlooked that new nation of people get created with specific culture which has no place yet to safe-realize and even cannot yet identifie itself. Racism is also there but this is not the major issue.

I'm really not sure what you are saying and want you to elaborate on these points.

nixluva wrote:

arkrud wrote:- we have not a "race" problem but African American nation problem. We just overlooked that new nation of people get created with specific culture which has no place yet to safe-realize and even cannot yet identifie itself. Racism is also there but this is not the major issue.

I'm sorry but you're going to have to more clearly explain this statement. I can't understand what you're trying to say here. What do you mean by "African American nation problem"? What do you mean by "new nation of people created with specific culture which has no place"?

I'm really not sure what you are saying and want you to elaborate on these points.

Every nation need place to realize it suverenity. It may be independent country or cultural enclave inside multi-national country.
It can be territorial or just cultural identity.
I believe that Afro-Americans are a new nation in the process of self-realization.
There are clearly many people of African race who are not African Americans while leaving in USA. They are representing other nations - like Iruba, Nigerians, etc.
All of then can be a subject of racism. But for African Americans it is obviously more to it.
American nation is a mix of emigrants from all over the world who came here at their own will and many with no intentions to maintain their national identity but rather became American nationals politically and culturally. It is not true however for many people who are there not by their will or were there before colonization like Native Americans and Northers People. They want to maintain their national identity separate from US Americans. And they have all rights to do so.
Same true for African Americans. But I think they just start to realize this national identity.
I think the whole American society will need to realize and embrace it. But this process is complicated and just starting.
It is definitely bigger that this Trump-no-Trump distractions.

U.S. Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell said on Monday the Senate will move to repeal President Barack Obama's healthcare law shortly after Jan. 1, but declined to give a timeline for a plan to replace it.

McConnell said the Senate would vote as soon as it returns from its year-end recess to repeal Obamacare. "And then we will work expeditiously to come up with a better program than current law, because current law is simply unacceptable and not sustainable," he said.

Asked repeatedly, McConnell did not give any timeline for when the Republicans would offer their own plan. He said they would be consulting with different "stakeholders."

Donald Trump's election as U.S. president last month means Republicans will control the White House, Senate and House of Representatives in 2017. The new Congress goes to work on Jan. 3; Trump will be sworn in on Jan. 20.

Republicans in both the Senate and House of Representatives say they want to repeal Obamacare early in 2017.

But Republicans have not agreed on how quickly the Obamacare repeal should go into effect. A delay would give them time to work on a replacement, instead of throwing millions of Americans out of their health insurance with no substitute.

nixluva wrote:This Bernie Sanders Forum on MSNBC is awesome! Talking to Trump voters explaining why they voted for Trump even tho they didn't believe he was really gonna do everything he said. They pretty much just liked his attitude and manner of speaking as a non politician. A lot were Anti Hillary. Most actually like Obama but hated Hillary! It's sad that many of them have no clue of what they've done.

Bernie is doing a great job of trying to help them see where their thinking is off from what they say they want and need. You guys gotta watch this.

the trump supporters spoke in emotions but absolutely zero on facts.

holfresh wrote:Mitch McConnell today said they will repeal Obamacare shortly after the new year but they don't have a replacement and not sure when they will...A new study estimates are that as many as 30 million people will probably go without healthcare if the repeal occurs...They have been talking about a replacement for 6 years and still nothing..Can it be that hard, maybe it can...

http://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-healthcare-congress-idUSKBN1411WL

U.S. Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell said on Monday the Senate will move to repeal President Barack Obama's healthcare law shortly after Jan. 1, but declined to give a timeline for a plan to replace it.

McConnell said the Senate would vote as soon as it returns from its year-end recess to repeal Obamacare. "And then we will work expeditiously to come up with a better program than current law, because current law is simply unacceptable and not sustainable," he said.

Asked repeatedly, McConnell did not give any timeline for when the Republicans would offer their own plan. He said they would be consulting with different "stakeholders."

Donald Trump's election as U.S. president last month means Republicans will control the White House, Senate and House of Representatives in 2017. The new Congress goes to work on Jan. 3; Trump will be sworn in on Jan. 20.

Republicans in both the Senate and House of Representatives say they want to repeal Obamacare early in 2017.

But Republicans have not agreed on how quickly the Obamacare repeal should go into effect. A delay would give them time to work on a replacement, instead of throwing millions of Americans out of their health insurance with no substitute.

i have to assume that if/when they repeal, it won't happen immediately. i have to assume it won't take into effect for at least a year, right? right?

djsunyc wrote:

holfresh wrote:Mitch McConnell today said they will repeal Obamacare shortly after the new year but they don't have a replacement and not sure when they will...A new study estimates are that as many as 30 million people will probably go without healthcare if the repeal occurs...They have been talking about a replacement for 6 years and still nothing..Can it be that hard, maybe it can...

http://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-healthcare-congress-idUSKBN1411WL

U.S. Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell said on Monday the Senate will move to repeal President Barack Obama's healthcare law shortly after Jan. 1, but declined to give a timeline for a plan to replace it.

McConnell said the Senate would vote as soon as it returns from its year-end recess to repeal Obamacare. "And then we will work expeditiously to come up with a better program than current law, because current law is simply unacceptable and not sustainable," he said.

Asked repeatedly, McConnell did not give any timeline for when the Republicans would offer their own plan. He said they would be consulting with different "stakeholders."

Donald Trump's election as U.S. president last month means Republicans will control the White House, Senate and House of Representatives in 2017. The new Congress goes to work on Jan. 3; Trump will be sworn in on Jan. 20.

Republicans in both the Senate and House of Representatives say they want to repeal Obamacare early in 2017.

But Republicans have not agreed on how quickly the Obamacare repeal should go into effect. A delay would give them time to work on a replacement, instead of throwing millions of Americans out of their health insurance with no substitute.

i have to assume that if/when they repeal, it won't happen immediately. i have to assume yit won't take into effect for at least a year, right? right?

Seems like they want to start by defunding the bill which takes a simple majority instead of 60 votes to do a full repeal..This also isn't immediate and will gradually drop people off healthcare over one or two years..They seem to be afraid of a public reprisal if it's done suddenly..It also gives them a few years to come up with something..

One thing about republicans when they get power..They always overreach..

The voters are not enthusiastic about zero charisma picks and they are too lazy, intellectually dishonest, apathetic or brainwashed to care about Non mainstream candidates.

time to buy exxon stock lol.

https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2016/12/the-conservative-split-on-russia/510317/

Through his public statements and presidential appointments, Donald Trump is remaking Republican foreign policy in two fundamental ways. The first concerns Russia. Previous GOP leaders like Mitt Romney and John McCain described Moscow as an adversary. Trump describes it as a partner. The second concerns Islam. Previous GOP leaders—most notably George W. Bush—insisted that the U.S. had no beef with Islam, or with the vast majority of Muslims worldwide. Trump and his top advisors disagree. They often describe Islam itself as a hostile force, and view ordinary Muslims as guilty of jihadist sympathies until proven innocent.

On the surface, these two shifts seem unrelated. But they’re deeply intertwined. Before Trump, Republican leaders generally described the United States as fighting an ideological struggle against the enemies of freedom. Now, Trump and his advisors describe America as fighting a civilizational struggle against the enemies of the West. Seen through that very different lens, Muslims look more nefarious and Vladimir Putin looks more benign.

To understand this shift, it’s worth distinguishing two different strains of conservative foreign-policy thinking during the cold war. Civilizational conservatives like Jerry Falwell and Pat Buchanan saw the cold war as a struggle between two countries defined primarily by their view of God: The Judeo-Christian United States versus the atheistic Soviet Union. Ideological conservatives like Paul Wolfowitz and Elliot Abrams, by contrast, saw the cold war as a conflict between two countries defined primarily by their view of government: the liberty-loving United States versus the totalitarian USSR. (A third group, composed of realists like Henry Kissinger and George Kennan, saw the cold war as a traditional great power conflict between two countries defined primarily by their geopolitical heft.)

In the 1990s, after the Soviet Union collapsed, ideological conservatives and civilizational conservatives parted ways. The clearest example was the former Yugoslavia. In the 1990s, Serbs brutalized the largely Muslim breakaway republic of Bosnia. Ideological conservatives like Robert Kagan urged NATO to intervene in the name of human rights. Cultural conservatives like Buchanan wondered why the U.S. was going to war to defend Muslims against Christians. Ideological conservatives saw Russia, Serbia’s traditional ally, as defending tyranny and ethnic cleansing. Cultural conservatives saw Russia as defending Christendom.

For a while, 9/11 papered over these divisions. Bush largely justified the “war on terror” in ideological terms: as a struggle against a new totalitarian foe that had “hijacked” Islam. In this depiction, ordinary Muslims living in places like Afghanistan and Iraq were not the equivalent of Nazis or communists; they were the equivalent of the people who those previous totalitarian foes had held in bondage. Civilizational conservatives considered Bush naïve. Franklin Graham, who delivered the prayer at Bush’s first inauguration, repeatedly described Islam itself as wicked. But while their justifications for the “war on terror” differed, both ideological and civilizational conservatives backed Bush’s military adventures in Afghanistan and Iraq.

Bush left behind a GOP establishment dominated by ideological conservatives. In 2008 and 2012, McCain and Romney both resisted describing Islam itself as a threat. Romney described authoritarian Russia as America’s greatest geopolitical foe. But during both election cycles, more populist, civilizationally-oriented, conservatives—Michelle Bachmann, Herman Cain, Sarah Palin, Mike Huckabee, Ben Carson—kept attacking Islam itself.

When he ran for president, Trump realized that on Islam, as on trade, Republican elites were out of step with the Republican base. Trump distinguished himself from his rivals not by proposing a different strategy against ISIS. He distinguished himself by suggesting that the problem was not merely ISIS, or even “radical Islam,” but Muslims in general. Republican leaders reacted to Trump’s call for banning Muslim immigration to the U.S. with revulsion. But, according to surveys, more than seven in 10 GOP voters supported it.

Trump also broke with his establishment rivals by taking a softer line on Russia. Maybe financial interests motivated him. Maybe he just likes authoritarian tough-guys. Whatever the reason, the deviation seemed politically dangerous given the overwhelming hostility to Putin among GOP foreign-policy elites. But Trump’s pro-Putin line hasn’t hurt him. In fact, Republicans as a whole have grown markedly less anti-Russian since 2014.

Partly, they’re aping Trump. But there’s something deeper at work. Ideological conservatives loathe Putin because he represents an authoritarian challenge to the American-backed order in Europe and the Middle East. But many civilizational conservatives, who once opposed the Soviet Union because of its atheism, now view Putin’s Russia as Christianity’s front line against the new civilizational enemy: Islam. Among the alt-right, Putin is a very popular man. He’s popular because he resists the liberal, cosmopolitan values that Muslims supposedly exploit to undermine the West. Richard Spencer, who was until recently married to a pro-Putin Russian writer, has called Russia the “sole white power in the world.” Matthew Heimbach, another prominent figure in the alt-right, recently told Business Insider that “Russia is the leader of the free world.” In 2013, Pat Buchanan penned a column entitled, “Is Vladimir Putin a paleoconservative? In the culture war for mankind’s future, is he one of us?”

Trump is building on this shift to recast GOP foreign policy. He’s moving it away from an ideological confrontation with authoritarian Russia and toward a civilizational conflict with Islam. Trump’s choice for National Security Advisor, General Michael Flynn, has tweeted that “fear of Muslims is rational” and that Islam is “like cancer” When asked in August about Putin, he explained that America “beat Hitler because of our relationship with the Russians” and we should renew that partnership in the new world war against “radical Islamism.” Trump’s chief strategist, Steve Bannon, likes to talk about the “long history of the Judeo-Christian West struggle against Islam … a war of immense proportions” that continues to this day. And in that struggle, he’s argued, “we the Judeo-Christian West really have to look at what he’s [Putin] talking about as far as traditionalism goes—particularly the sense of where it supports the underpinnings of nationalism.” Unlike the globalists of the European Union, Bannon argues, Putin believes in “sovereignty,” which makes him a valuable ally in America’s civilizational fight.

This is the backdrop to the looming conflict between Donald Trump and congressional Republicans like John McCain and Lindsey Graham who want to investigate Russia’s efforts to elect him. Will the GOP define Americanism as the defense of a set of universal principles or as the defense of a racial and religious heritage? The answer won’t only help determine how well liberal democracy fares overseas. It will help determine how well it fares at home.

nixluva wrote:

arkrud wrote:

nixluva wrote:

arkrud wrote:- we have not a "race" problem but African American nation problem. We just overlooked that new nation of people get created with specific culture which has no place yet to safe-realize and even cannot yet identifie itself. Racism is also there but this is not the major issue.

I'm sorry but you're going to have to more clearly explain this statement. I can't understand what you're trying to say here. What do you mean by "African American nation problem"? What do you mean by "new nation of people created with specific culture which has no place"?

I'm really not sure what you are saying and want you to elaborate on these points.

Every nation need place to realize it suverenity. It may be independent country or cultural enclave inside multi-national country.
It can be territorial or just cultural identity.
I believe that Afro-Americans are a new nation in the process of self-realization.
There are clearly many people of African race who are not African Americans while leaving in USA. They are representing other nations - like Iruba, Nigerians, etc.
All of then can be a subject of racism. But for African Americans it is obviously more to it.
American nation is a mix of emigrants from all over the world who came here at their own will and many with no intentions to maintain their national identity but rather became American nationals politically and culturally. It is not true however for many people who are there not by their will or were there before colonization like Native Americans and Northers People. They want to maintain their national identity separate from US Americans. And they have all rights to do so.
Same true for African Americans. But I think they just start to realize this national identity.
I think the whole American society will need to realize and embrace it. But this process is complicated and just starting.
It is definitely bigger that this Trump-no-Trump distractions.

WOW! You have a lot of concepts in your post. To simplify things from my perspective I won't try to address all of your points. Let me just say this, African Americans have ALWAYS been part of the fabric of this country! Even when we weren't considered to be so.

AA's have fought in every war this country ever fought. After gaining freedom AA's could've taken violent revenge on a massive scale but in fact that was relatively rare! All AA's ever wanted was to be treated fairly and with respect and to pursue the American Dream!

There was NEVER any justification for violence and oppression inflicted upon AA's. The restraint under the circumstances is a badge of honor and a rebuke to this nation that they were treated so poorly for so long. For what reason were AA's denied their rights or mistreated??? There is no reason other than pure evil and greed.

To this very day this country has never fully lived up to the debt they owe AA's. There would be no America as we know it without AA's. Our story is inextricably intertwined with the history of this country. We are America just as much if not more than most since we gave all for this country and received so little of the spoils of success we helped create. If you don't know what I'm talking about then go look up the many resources on how much AA's contributed to the fortunes of this country.

This is all fair and true.
My question is how you identify yourself and AA people inside America - as a unique nation which need to be treated as such or you want to dissolve into American nation which has no concept or race, nationality, and cultural identity other that American? You cannot have it both ways - it is the choice to be made.
As far as someone owe something to somebody I do not believe in this.
I owe nothing to any nation and no nation owe anything to me.
I rely only on myself and owe only what I managed to achieve.
And I give same right to every other human being to do same.
If you look at the history of the world no nation that was enslaved, murdered, tortured, and displaced get their debt paid off by anybody.
There is no fairness in history. Until oppressed get on right side of the gun they get nothing back.

arkrud wrote:

nixluva wrote:

arkrud wrote:

nixluva wrote:

arkrud wrote:- we have not a "race" problem but African American nation problem. We just overlooked that new nation of people get created with specific culture which has no place yet to safe-realize and even cannot yet identifie itself. Racism is also there but this is not the major issue.

I'm sorry but you're going to have to more clearly explain this statement. I can't understand what you're trying to say here. What do you mean by "African American nation problem"? What do you mean by "new nation of people created with specific culture which has no place"?

I'm really not sure what you are saying and want you to elaborate on these points.

Every nation need place to realize it suverenity. It may be independent country or cultural enclave inside multi-national country.
It can be territorial or just cultural identity.
I believe that Afro-Americans are a new nation in the process of self-realization.
There are clearly many people of African race who are not African Americans while leaving in USA. They are representing other nations - like Iruba, Nigerians, etc.
All of then can be a subject of racism. But for African Americans it is obviously more to it.
American nation is a mix of emigrants from all over the world who came here at their own will and many with no intentions to maintain their national identity but rather became American nationals politically and culturally. It is not true however for many people who are there not by their will or were there before colonization like Native Americans and Northers People. They want to maintain their national identity separate from US Americans. And they have all rights to do so.
Same true for African Americans. But I think they just start to realize this national identity.
I think the whole American society will need to realize and embrace it. But this process is complicated and just starting.
It is definitely bigger that this Trump-no-Trump distractions.

WOW! You have a lot of concepts in your post. To simplify things from my perspective I won't try to address all of your points. Let me just say this, African Americans have ALWAYS been part of the fabric of this country! Even when we weren't considered to be so.

AA's have fought in every war this country ever fought. After gaining freedom AA's could've taken violent revenge on a massive scale but in fact that was relatively rare! All AA's ever wanted was to be treated fairly and with respect and to pursue the American Dream!

There was NEVER any justification for violence and oppression inflicted upon AA's. The restraint under the circumstances is a badge of honor and a rebuke to this nation that they were treated so poorly for so long. For what reason were AA's denied their rights or mistreated??? There is no reason other than pure evil and greed.

To this very day this country has never fully lived up to the debt they owe AA's. There would be no America as we know it without AA's. Our story is inextricably intertwined with the history of this country. We are America just as much if not more than most since we gave all for this country and received so little of the spoils of success we helped create. If you don't know what I'm talking about then go look up the many resources on how much AA's contributed to the fortunes of this country.

This is all fair and true.
My question is how you identify yourself and AA people inside America - as a unique nation which need to be treated as such or you want to dissolve into American nation which has no concept or race, nationality, and cultural identity other that American? You cannot have it both ways - it is the choice to be made.
As far as someone owe something to somebody I do not believe in this.
I owe nothing to any nation and no nation owe anything to me.
I rely only on myself and owe only what I managed to achieve.
And I give same right to every other human being to do same.
If you look at the history of the world no nation that was enslaved, murdered, tortured, and displaced get their debt paid off by anybody.
There is no fairness in history. Until oppressed get on right side of the gun they get nothing back.

African Americans didn't choose to be set apart! That was imposed upon them and to a large degree still goes on. AA's wanted to live in a colorblind society but it was the White majority that did not want it. You really don't know or understand the dynamics of race in this country. There is much I could teach you about the TRUTH of this country but you have to want to know the truth.

Natives were mistreated but did receive some recompense and land of their own! Japanese Americans that were wrongfully held in concentration camps received recompense. This country became great largely off the backs of African Slaves and all they did was kick us in the teeth!

Just so we're clear AA's are a large part of the identity and culture of America you can't separate us out of history and have the same country. There's no facet of what made America what it is that doesn't have a connection to the African slaves. That includes the Revolution and the Constitution. Everything was based off of the system of slavery and how that allowed this country to become great.