Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie
2016 US Presidential Race - Mod Warning in OP
Options
Comments
-
:rolleyes:
Nobody bothers to read the issues do they. Mt. McKinley in Denali, Alaska, was named after an Ohioan president that spent 6 months in office before being assassinated. The mountain was so named by the gentleman that named it only because he had just heard the news about McKinley's nomination for president, pre-assassination, and thought the name sounded cool. The Ohio state govt cried about the Denali change saying among other things it honored McKinley's "Countless Years" to this country. Uhm.
Denali is actually the name preferred by the Alaskan State Government as far as I am aware. But an act of congress named the mountain and so an act of congress would normally have to name the mountain again - the Ohio representatives have continued to block the motion to name the mountain back since it was first raised back in the 70s/80s.
Therefore, Obama is stepping in to rename an Alaskan thing what the Alaskan's want, despite the desires of Ohioans that live almost 4,000 miles away.
But the Mt. Democrat jabs. That's more of what we need. Useless gobshyte soundbytes that do nothing to further political discourse.
Can't get mad about Trump's remarks though, he's just a troll for show.
I did read about it. That it was named for President McKinley. Also that he's the one that brought Alaska into the Union and that there's protests in Ohio due to the name change.
I also read that the Inuit people have always hated the name change and have always referred to it as Denali. Personally, I think it's a good idea to change it back. In Ireland they are changing the name of Barna village back to Bearna. Right on, I say. Keep the historic names. F*ck to the 100-200 year old names.0 -
:rolleyes:
Nobody bothers to read the issues do they. Mt. McKinley in Denali, Alaska, was named after an Ohioan president that spent 6 months in office before being assassinated. The mountain was so named by the gentleman that named it only because he had just heard the news about McKinley's nomination for president, pre-assassination, and thought the name sounded cool. The Ohio state govt cried about the Denali change saying among other things it honored McKinley's "Countless Years" to this country. Uhm.
Denali is actually the name preferred by the Alaskan State Government as far as I am aware. But an act of congress named the mountain and so an act of congress would normally have to name the mountain again - the Ohio representatives have continued to block the motion to name the mountain back since it was first raised back in the 70s/80s.
Therefore, Obama is stepping in to rename an Alaskan thing what the Alaskan's want, despite the desires of Ohioans that live almost 4,000 miles away.
But the Mt. Democrat jabs. That's more of what we need. Useless gobshyte soundbytes that do nothing to further political discourse.
Would you be in favor then of destroying the four president’s faces carved on Mount Rushmore? It is located in the Black Hills, which the Sioux tribes consider to be sacred, and have territorial claims to it based on an 1868 treaty. Even the UN have designated it on the list of 'sacred lands,' and say it must be returned to Native Americans. Or should we just allow any President at the current time decide unilaterally what should and shouldn’t be done regarding these things? Which is my point, that if one president can do this type of thing on a whim, then another can change it back or do likewise for others, like Mount Democrat.
:rolleyes: Or we can always just carve over it and display four Democratic presidents… Obama, Carter, A Johnson and Wilson.0 -
-
-
-
Advertisement
-
-
-
-
Would you be in favor then of destroying the four president’s faces carved on Mount Rushmore? It is located in the Black Hills, which the Sioux tribes consider to be sacred, and have territorial claims to it based on an 1868 treaty. Even the UN have designated it on the list of 'sacred lands,' and say it must be returned to Native Americans. Or should we just allow any President at the current time decide unilaterally what should and shouldn’t be done regarding these things? Which is my point, that if one president can do this type of thing on a whim, then another can change it back or do likewise for others, like Mount Democrat.
:rolleyes: Or we can always just carve over it and display four Democratic presidents… Obama, Carter, A Johnson and Wilson.
"Apples and Oranges," only when it suits you right? :rolleyes:
Re-sculpting a mountain and re-naming a mountain. Hmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm.0 -
-
Advertisement
-
-
-
-
-
-
Yeah we have a two party system in the end, but there are factions in each party that exert influence, and it takes a lot to get to the final two. So in essence you could say we have over a dozen sub parties within the two party system. On the Republican side we have the Moderates, Libertarians, Fiscal Conservatives, Social Conservatives, Traditional Conservatives, Paleoconservatives, Neoconservatives, Liberal Conservatives, Progressive Conservatives and (okay
) the Tea Party. On the Democratic side you have the Progressive Wing, Liberal Wing, Centrist Wing, Moderate Wing, Blue Dog Wing, Conservative Wing, Libertarian Wing, Socialist Wing, Labor Wing and Christian Left Wing.
And I find it rather funny when some here condemn the American two party system. Yet those same people often post over and over again about the evils of the Republican Party, and essentially claim we would be better off without it... which would make us then a one party system. So a one party system is better than a two party system I ask? And if we hear grumbling of a potential independent run from a candidate those same posters here obsess over how it will either hurt (or help) one party and give an election to another. You’d think they would rejoice over any additional party that would put a dent into the two party system stranglehold here, but no.
IMO Adams was wrong and our two party system works just fine here. And when a party falters it's replaced by others... examples of US President's party affiliation in the Whigs, Federalists, National Republicans, National Union, and Democratic-Republicans.
But what do I know.
0 -
-
-
Yeah we have a two party system in the end, but there are factions in each party that exert influence, and it takes a lot to get to the final two. So in essence you could say we have over a dozen sub parties within the two party system. On the Republican side we have the Moderates, Libertarians, Fiscal Conservatives, Social Conservatives, Traditional Conservatives, Paleoconservatives, Neoconservatives, Liberal Conservatives, Progressive Conservatives and (okay) the Tea Party. On the Democratic side you have the Progressive Wing, Liberal Wing, Centrist Wing, Moderate Wing, Blue Dog Wing, Conservative Wing, Libertarian Wing, Socialist Wing, Labor Wing and Christian Left Wing.
And I find it rather funny when some here condemn the American two party system. Yet those same people often post over and over again about the evils of the Republican Party, and essentially claim we would be better off without it... which would make us then a one party system. So a one party system is better than a two party system I ask? And if we hear grumbling of a potential independent run from a candidate those same posters here obsess over how it will either hurt (or help) one party and give an election to another. You’d think they would rejoice over any additional party that would put a dent into the two party system stranglehold here, but no.
IMO Adams was wrong and our two party system works just fine here. And when a party falters it's replaced by others... examples of US President's party affiliation in the Whigs, Federalists, National Republicans, National Union, and Democratic-Republicans.
But what do I know.
You can try and coat it any way you want. But neither in essence nor in the real world is there anything then a very tightly controlled 2 party monopoly on power in Washington. As for a post saying the Republican party should go away I know I have never said such and while I could easily have missed a post indicating such I certainly do not recall ever seeing one such suggestion.
Apperently what you know is that despite the fact that most of congress are now bought and paid for lackeys of major corporations and or rich individuals there to do their bidding rather then represent their actual consituents your ok with that. Never mind the fact that all over the US congressional districts are so badly gerrymandered that there essentially are situations where seats cannot change party hands no matter what. There are rules and laws deliberately designed to strangle any challenging voices or the abilities of any other parties to really emerge as challengers. I thought the US was supposed to be about freedom of choice. But apperently that does not apply to having a level playing field for all political parties in the US only 2.0 -
-
Advertisement
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
Advertisement
-
This discussion has been closed.
Advertisement