I don't know how it worked in the 1700s. I do know that in the 1970s when my parents and siblings came over as refugees, it had nothing to do with money. They had to stay in a camp in Italy for 2 years, learn basic English and find a company to sponsor my father for work before they were allowed to immigrate to Canada. And they had nothing but the clothes on their backs (literally) when they left. Fortunately, the Catholic Church at the time was have clothing drives for newcomers and they were able to get in on that. Then my father had to work for a forestry company at a reduced rate to pay back the government for the cost of the the tip and to pay his employer for rent (the employer owned the accommodations). It was practically indentured labour.
I'm sure people with money had a much easier time coming over though.
How did he get to the refugee camp? My dad used up all his gold to get on the boat to get to the refugee camp. I'm sure all cases are different but if anyone could go there would be no one left.
__________________
Watching the Oilers defend is like watching fire engines frantically rushing to the wrong fire
How did he get to the refugee camp? My dad used up all his gold to get on the boat to get to the refugee camp. I'm sure all cases are different but if anyone could go there would be no one left.
They walked for 17 days through the bush eating wild cherries and hitched the occasional ride to the border. Then they plead with the Italian army to bring them to Trieste.
__________________
"A pessimist thinks things can't get any worse. An optimist knows they can."
The Following 4 Users Say Thank You to FlamesAddiction For This Useful Post:
well, unless you are a Trump supporter, its pretty obvious that Hillary won the popular vote by a wide margin (in terms of the history of US elections).
I blame the Hillary campaign for an error is strategy by not focusing on primary Democratic states like Michigan, Wisconsin and Pennsylvania.
I would say equally, that Hillary would have easily won if it weren't for Comey 'reopening the investigation' of emails 10 days before the election... something never done in the history of US politics.
I don't think that many voters were turned off by the ##### grab statement... just look at the numbers...
Exactly, if they ran a candidate who wasn't recently under investigation nothing would have popped up 10 days before the election. Popular vote means nothing, I agree it's stupid but everyone knew the rules going in.
Most of them could have beaten her. She just turned out to be that disliked by so many, that they thought that a con man was a better option. When you look back at the polls at the end of the cycle, a lot of Trump voters didn't think very much of him, but they hated Hillary so much it didn't matter. The problem for the Dems is they still aren't actually offering anything other than Trump. That might still be enough given what a disaster he's been, but if they really wanna make an impact they need to rally behind either Bernie side or, I guess now, the Obama/Biden side since I really hope Hillary isn't considering this again.
__________________
"Think I'm gonna be the scapegoat for the whole damn machine? Sheeee......."
I can only speak for myself but she always came across as what I normally think of in the most negative terms as the "typical politician". She seems totally disingenuous and gives off the impression of a political weather-vane. But in reality I think she is very skilled, experienced, hard-working and capable. She's a total policy wonk. But as far as politicians go she's just terrible at being phony. A bad actress if you will, in a land of convincing liars.
Quote:
And why was her campaign terrible?
I think it's clear that her campaign made quite a few serious missteps. For instance, she allowed the email thing to hang around and as a result it never went away and did her in. Instead of defending herself ferociously against the stupid email argument she was meek and ultimately apologetic.
She also made bad calls like the "deplorables" comment. Instead of reaching out to, what was at one point the Democratic base, she insulted them and drove them to Trump. She never spoke directly to the issues of the uneducated whites and instead she got into rambling policy speaking points. This was punctuated be the mistake of not compaigning enough in the rust belt.
The whole thing with the superdelegates and Bernie, and then later the debate questions, didn't help the growing impression that she was corrupt or "crooked". At the very least, she grew an aura of entitlement.
I think she would have been a decent President although with a GOP Senate and Congress I'm sure the only thing being discussed for 4 or 8 years would be idiotic, partisan (i.e. Illuminaughty) talking points like emails, pizza parlours, Goldman Sachs and Seth Rich. So she probably wouldn't have been much more effective than Trump but at least the US President wouldn't be an international embarrassment.
The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to Red Slinger For This Useful Post:
she always came across as what I normally think of in the most negative terms as the "typical politician". She seems totally disingenuous and gives off the impression of a political weather-vane. She's a total policy wonk. But as far as politicians go she's just terrible at being phony. A bad actress if you will, in a land of convincing liars.
Not sure why you'd think she is disingenuous, she quietly helped millions of people fight disease etc. Isn't that what a politician should be about? Or claiming multiple bankruptcies and stiffing contractors is better?
But, otherwise she can't lie good enough for you?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Red Slinger
I think it's clear that her campaign made quite a few serious missteps. For instance, she allowed the email thing to hang around and as a result it never went away and did her in. Instead of defending herself ferociously against the stupid email argument she was meek and ultimately apologetic.
She also made bad calls like the "deplorables" comment. Instead of reaching out to, what was at one point the Democratic base, she insulted them and drove them to Trump. She never spoke directly to the issues of the uneducated whites and instead she got into rambling policy speaking points. This was punctuated be the mistake of not compaigning enough in the rust belt.
The whole thing with the superdelegates and Bernie, and then later the debate questions, didn't help the growing impression that she was corrupt or "crooked". At the very least, she grew an aura of entitlement.
.
This is so Trump voter logic.
What could she have done? The republicans were hammering the email to their lowIQ, gullible base and it worked.
deplorables comment was her downfall? Really? Grabbing ##### ring a bell?
The 1 question at the debate swung the election? Really?
The debate question she got was that she'd be asked about what she'd do to help the people of Flint. The debate was in Flint. She was shocked to learn that the question would be asked
(Not saying it was right or wrong, it's just amusing)
__________________ Uncertainty is an uncomfortable position.
But certainty is an absurd one.
The Dems chose an establishment candidate in a non-establishment election environment. Nevertheless, Hillary could/should have won, but the question now is whether the Dems have learned and evolved as a result.
The fact they evolved their slogan from 'Better together' all the way to 'A Better Deal' makes me pessimistic that they have got the organizational intelligence to figure this kind of thing out.
__________________
"WHAT HAVE WE EVER DONE TO DESERVE THIS??? WHAT IS WRONG WITH US????" -Oiler Fan
"It was a debacle of monumental proportions." -MacT
A number of things to drill down here... bear with me...
Quote:
Originally Posted by dino7c
A few of them could have beat her...she was an extremely unlikable candidate who ran a terrible campaign.
Trump basically got the normal republican vote out...nothing special at all. It was two terrible candidates,likely the worst in history.
While it is clear that Hillary wasn't in the vein of an Obama or a Bill Clinton in terms of popularity, its been factually shown that she was popular enough to have won the election...
She lost the electoral college by 114 K votes, while gathering almost the same number of votes as Obama did.
I can only speak for myself but she always came across as what I normally think of in the most negative terms as the "typical politician". She seems totally disingenuous and gives off the impression of a political weather-vane. But in reality I think she is very skilled, experienced, hard-working and capable. She's a total policy wonk. But as far as politicians go she's just terrible at being phony. A bad actress if you will, in a land of convincing liars.
I think it's clear that her campaign made quite a few serious missteps. For instance, she allowed the email thing to hang around and as a result it never went away and did her in. Instead of defending herself ferociously against the stupid email argument she was meek and ultimately apologetic.
She also made bad calls like the "deplorables" comment. Instead of reaching out to, what was at one point the Democratic base, she insulted them and drove them to Trump. She never spoke directly to the issues of the uneducated whites and instead she got into rambling policy speaking points. This was punctuated be the mistake of not compaigning enough in the rust belt.
The whole thing with the superdelegates and Bernie, and then later the debate questions, didn't help the growing impression that she was corrupt or "crooked". At the very least, she grew an aura of entitlement.
I think she would have been a decent President although with a GOP Senate and Congress I'm sure the only thing being discussed for 4 or 8 years would be idiotic, partisan (i.e. Illuminaughty) talking points like emails, pizza parlours, Goldman Sachs and Seth Rich. So she probably wouldn't have been much more effective than Trump but at least the US President wouldn't be an international embarrassment.
1) She definitely wasn't folksy and wasn't able to show her 'non-politician' personality to enough voters on the fence... but again she had almost the same number of votes as Obama... it was their distribution that lost the election
2) The use of the private email account was a dumb one... I don't know what the benefit was to it? But the negatives would be a optics of a lack of transparency and lack of security.
For all the GOP wailing however, its not the first time that a Secretary of State has used a private email server. Rice and Powell both Secretary of State in the W Bush administration ALSO used private email servers for their work...
The emails were investigated multiple times and determined not to have violated any criminal laws.
3) Deplorable was a misstep, but its pretty ironic don't you think that Trump could say the most outrageous and vulgar things to and about women, and flat out lie about political opponents (GOP and Democratics) not to mention policy... but people go back and point out 'deplorables'?!
Hell, the term is as wonkish as you'd expect from Hillary..."You sir, are a deplorable miscreant, and I challenge you to a duel."
25% of that base probably had to go to dictionary.com to figure out what it meant and relied on Fox outrage govern their reaction.
4) Yeah... dumb Hillary talking wonkish policy talking points...I mean who on earth wants to know if you are capable of running the world's biggest economy and the only remaining superpower?!
This isn't an attack on you per se, but the idea that talking policy, in answering debate questions, was bad for her campaign, seems rather cynical and, frankly, odd.
This was a 'change' campaign... its easy to push for change, just as its easy to criticize policy from the peanut gallery... Hillary could NOT run on a change campaign since she was following Obama... she had to run on a competence campaign.
It was like watching Ray Patterson debating Homer Simpson come to life...One candidate was actually intelligent and had a grasp on governance and the other was adept at sloganeering.
5) The campaign screwed up by not campaigning harder in Michigan, Wisconsin and Pennsylvania... Hindsight is 20/20... but that should have been a scenario covered by her staff... the Polls actually emboldened her and were probably a negative for her campaign, because some democrats, thinking it was going to be landslide for Hillary like the polls suggested, stayed home.
6) I agree, the government gridlock would have been the same with her as president, because the GOP would not want to work with her either... at the same time, I think the policy decisions she would have sought would be more reasonable and she might have gotten some moderate GOP onto her side if it helped GOP constituents.
I said before I liked Obama, but his biggest failure was not putting forward campaign finance reform... Super pacs are ruining government and ending any potential for reasonable debate in the US.
I mean who wants to listen to wonkish policy discussion and boring facts when catchy lies are so much more exciting?
Ladies and Gentlemen, i give you the Decline of the American Empire.
.
Last edited by oldschoolcalgary; 08-05-2017 at 10:17 AM.
The Following 6 Users Say Thank You to oldschoolcalgary For This Useful Post:
It was never ok. It's always about the class of people. Those guys in 1828 weren't commoners. They were usually sons of wealthy merchants getting on that boat. Or be an unmarried women going to make babies.
This is a puzzling statement at best. Coming to the New World was not a vacation or an Old Boys' Club. It was hard. It was a huge sacrifice. It was a dream of something better - hope. It was (primarily) for those that wanted a new life.
Immigration has never been about the privileged. The privileged don't NEED to pack up and start a new life half way around the world. It has always been about seeking a better life.
This was true in the 1700s, the 1800s, the 1900s, and it is true today.
The reason all the immigrants were white in the 17 and 1800s is because the only boats coming over were coming from European countries (other than the ones from Africa, which is another story altogether).
(This is not meant as some kind of proof, just an anecdotal story, but...) my mother saved for a year, and gave up her life, her family and her friends, for the privilege of coming to Canada with absolutely nothing. The VAST majority of all of those that have come to NA from everywhere, in every century, came with nothing or very little. Including whites.
The Following 11 Users Say Thank You to Enoch Root For This Useful Post:
This is a puzzling statement at best. Coming to the New World was not a vacation or an Old Boys' Club. It was hard. It was a huge sacrifice. It was a dream of something better - hope. It was (primarily) for those that wanted a new life.
Immigration has never been about the privileged. The privileged don't NEED to pack up and start a new life half way around the world. It has always been about seeking a better life.
This was true in the 1700s, the 1800s, the 1900s, and it is true today.
The reason all the immigrants were white in the 17 and 1800s is because the only boats coming over were coming from European countries (other than the ones from Africa, which is another story altogether).
(This is not meant as some kind of proof, just an anecdotal story, but...) my mother saved for a year, and gave up her life, her family and her friends, for the privilege of coming to Canada with absolutely nothing. The VAST majority of all of those that have come to NA from everywhere, in every century, came with nothing or very little. Including whites.
Well stated. But I think we have to differentiate between immigrants and refugees. In the past it was the persecuted who had to leave but I still believe it was the middle class of that persecuted group who escaped. The peasant on the street wasn't going anywhere.If 10000 people get to the boat dock and the boat holds 1000, the boat is going to take the 1000 who can pay. Even in the refugee category, those with money get ahead. I heard something like $1000 US dollars for a Syrian to get on that boat to Italy. Or else they can go to Jordan and wait it out.
Now on the immigrant side today with the investment category of immigration, the rich with assets can come. In the merit and skills category, who are they? People who could afford an education back home..
Stemming back to Colbert's joke I don't get it. If his ancestors were refugees or immigrants it's no different from now.
------
On the Hillary topic, she just didn't attack Trump's lies enough in the debates. When Trump goes and says thing like, NAFTA is the worse deal ever.. no it's not. Or Mexico has the biggest plant in the world. No we do.
Agreed the GOP would not work with Hilary. Hell they just tried to pass a bill (skinny repeal) they know sucks just to tear down Obama. Then hope the bills fails in the house or something. Last week was bizarre.
__________________
Watching the Oilers defend is like watching fire engines frantically rushing to the wrong fire
Last edited by GirlySports; 08-05-2017 at 11:53 AM.
The Following User Says Thank You to GirlySports For This Useful Post:
What made her extremely unlikeable? And why was her campaign terrible?
The problem with Clinton was that she was connected to Bill and the stuff the Republican establishment created to discredit him. She was also one of the most vanilla people you would ever meet. She had no unique position on anything and was as centrist as you could get. That was a negative because it made her appear as someone with out their own individual moral compass, and untrustworthy as a result. There was not a single issue she didn't have a capitualtive position on. I hated her because of that. She stood for noting. I want someone to stand for something, even if it is unpopular. Clinton sucked, and sucked hard. If the Dems had run anyone with some morals and something that make them unique, they would have pounded the Republicans, and pounded them hard. Dems need to own this, or nothing changes. It's all about messaging at this point.
Last edited by Lanny_McDonald; 08-05-2017 at 01:58 PM.
