When was it, again, that the United States stopped being "Great"?

[Dante]

When was it, again, that the United States stopped being "Great"?​

January 2017 and again in January 2025?​

 

[BrokeLoser]

all the people who came to America in the beginning were illegal aliens
and some were slaves

That is how America began "Ellis Island"

Negative.
The natives had no land rights…there was no such thing.
WHITE European immigrants were likeminded, they spoke the same language and worshiped the same God, they were all westerners and they all came with the same ambitions, there was no welfare or free shit. They were invited and desired…they were needed to help build a nation.
Western Euros have NOTHING in common with your brown leeches of today.

Unkotare

 

[Kilroy2]

Negative.
The natives had no land rights…there was no such thing.
WHITE European immigrants were likeminded, they spoke the same language and worshiped the same God, they were all westerners and they all came with the same ambitions, there was no welfare or free shit. They were invited and desired…they were needed to help build a nation.
Western Euros have NOTHING in common with your brown leeches of today.

Unkotare

white European immigrants did not all speak the same language so your wrong.

How the origins of America’s immigrants have changed since 1850

In 2022, the number of immigrants living in the U.S. reached a high of 46.1 million, accounting for 13.8% of the population.

www.pewresearch.org

Germany, Ireland and the United Kingdom alone accounted for 70% of the new arrivals.

Don't let the united kingdom fool you

 

[blackhawk]

For most people it starts the moment the person they didn’t vote for is elected president and ends the moment someone they did is.

 

[ThisIsMe]

A conspicuous distinction between advanced democracies and authoritarian regimes is the citizen’s right to criticize their political leaders without fear of being targeted for petty vendettas or worse. Rather, in democratic nations, those political leaders are subject to the law, although they may throw their tantrums at being convicted by juries of their peers when they cannot evade trial, as they vilify any judicial system that does not kowtow to their whims. They also contrive methods to intimidate and subjugate the legislative branch.

Authoritarian regimes are often characterized by submissive personality cults who venerate a “Dear Leader’ who exploits their sense of grievance by demonizing the “other,” and conjuring up a paradise lost, a mythical golden age when their ilk was supreme, a time to which their El Supremo promises retrogression.

View attachment 1117476​

Bullying is the customary means of wielding power, blatant lies in copious abundance, and, of course, the targeting of academia, science, and medicine wherever empirical data contradicts their self-serving ideological dogma. Some may champion a sham meritocracy, one in which pretexts to severely restrict the talent pool are concocted and intellectual potential suppressed.

View attachment 1117489
View attachment 1117477​

Was the United States “Great” when one gender and one race enjoyed dominion over all others? Before efforts to redress the inherent, enduring, inflicted inequalities were undertaken?

The usual suspects need to cling to the illusion of superiority that years and years of their de facto and de iure discrimination conferred upon them.

The racial and gender profile that wields dominion in wealth and power in America bleats that it is being persecuted.

Shouldn't White males find that embarrassing?

Whenever america wasn't so f'ing crazy, when people felt safe walking down the street, when the family was the focal point and a family of 4 could live well on a single income, when kids went outside to play instead of being locked in their rooms on the Xbox, did their chores, respected their elders, when taxes were low, a car and a house didnt cost 10x what they do now. People dressed modestly, they would smile, the family would sit down to a meal together, at home, parents actually talked to their kids and were invested in how they day was.

Probably whenever all that stopped, is when america stopped being great.

 

[frigidweirdo]

The simple answer is that it's NEVER stopped being great. It's still the greatest country in the world.

Is it?

How do you define "great" in terms of a country?

Because the US doesn't really hit the top on most of them.

 

[schmidlap]

Whenever america wasn't so f'ing crazy, when people felt safe walking down the street, when the family was the focal point and a family of 4 could live well on a single income, when kids went outside to play instead of being locked in their rooms on the Xbox, did their chores, respected their elders, when taxes were low, a car and a house didnt cost 10x what they do now. People dressed modestly, they would smile, the family would sit down to a meal together, at home, parents actually talked to their kids and were invested in how they day was.

Probably whenever all that stopped, is when america stopped being great.

The myth of a paradise lost is a perennial allure.

 

[initforme]

Each successive generation has been better than the previous one.

 

[konradv]

America stopped being great when Americans were labeled "racist" for disagreeing with a Black President.

You were against a black president before that. Why was Colin Powell never president? He was a no-brainer in ‘96, but the “MAGA née Tea Party née Contract with America” people couldn’t be trusted not to go rogue with a black candidate.

 

[initforme]

I've never understood the concept of the "american dream". As if working for 40 years is somehow something great. Perhaps we need to rethink and rephrase this?

 

[Correll]

The myth of a paradise lost is a perennial allure.

You think the idea of a society built on the family, one where people are safe, and sit down to a meal together, is a myth?

LOL.


Not only was it real, MAGA will make it real again.

 

[initforme]

You think the idea of a society built on the family, one where people are safe, and sit down to a meal together, is a myth?

LOL.


Not only was it real, MAGA will make it real again.

Thankfully, so thankful thev50s are never coming back.

 

[Correll]

You were against a black president before that. Why was Colin Powell never president? He was a no-brainer in ‘96, but the “MAGA née Tea Party née Contract with America” people couldn’t be trusted not to go rogue with a black candidate.

He was not President because he didn't want to run.


The gop, the country as a whole, was completely ready for him.

YOur claim is simply race baiting...nonsense.

 

[Correll]

Thankfully, so thankful thev50s are never coming back.

Why are you against the idea of a single income family being viable?

 

[initforme]

Why are you against the idea of a single income family being viable?

Because those days have sailed on. Its a different world now. And that would mean every ladt factory job coming back would have to be unionized in order to quickly severely increase wages. Do you think the wealthy corporatists are going to allow that? They'd throw such a sissy fit over unions. They're not pro worker.

 

[Correll]

Because those days have sailed on. Its a different world now.

It's a different world because of policy choices. Those policies did not deliver the promised results.

Why should we NOT change those policies BACK?

And that would mean every ladt factory job coming back would have to be unionized in order to quickly severely increase wages.

Interesting. I said nothing about doing it "quickly" or "severely". So why did you add that?

The only reason I could think that you would add those qualifiers would be to raise the bar so that the idea of success could be harder to reach.

So, you are against seeing wages rise for American workers, but you... clearly don't want to be honest about your reason for that.

Do you think the wealthy corporatists are going to allow that? They'd throw such a sissy fit over unions. They're not pro worker.

Here your words seem to indicate that you are against rising wages for American workers, because you are on the side of "wealthy corporatists".

To be clear, I fully support the rights of "Wealthy corporatists" to have interests and even to advance and advocate for their interests.

BUT, on this and several other issues, I am against their interests, and imo, it is time for their interests to take a back seat to the interests of the WORKERS.


And for quite a while. Wages have been stagnating for a long time and to be fair, imo, we should set up policy to encourage wage growth for the workers, and let that simmer for... at least as long as wages have been stagnate, ie 50 years.

IE the wealthy corporatists, can take it like bitchs, for at least 50 years. In 50 years, we can discuss them having another turn.

And if I am still alive, my answer is likely to be no. FYI.

 

[initforme]

It's a different world because of policy choices. Those policies did not deliver the promised results.

Why should we NOT change those policies BACK?




Interesting. I said nothing about doing it "quickly" or "severely". So why did you add that?

The only reason I could think that you would add those qualifiers would be to raise the bar so that the idea of success could be harder to reach.

So, you are against seeing wages rise for American workers, but you... clearly don't want to be honest about your reason for that.








Here your words seem to indicate that you are against rising wages for American workers, because you are on the side of "wealthy corporatists".

To be clear, I fully support the rights of "Wealthy corporatists" to have interests and even to advance and advocate for their interests.

BUT, on this and several other issues, I am against their interests, and imo, it is time for their interests to take a back seat to the interests of the WORKERS.


And for quite a while. Wages have been stagnating for a long time and to be fair, imo, we should set up policy to encourage wage growth for the workers, and let that simmer for... at least as long as wages have been stagnate, ie 50 years.

IE the wealthy corporatists, can take it like bitchs, for at least 50 years. In 50 years, we can discuss them having another turn.

And if I am still alive, my answer is likely to be no. FYI.

I agree with much of what you have stated. Im pro worker and in any conflict between worker and employer, I will always side against the employer. My point is there's going to be slot of pushback by big money corporatists when it comes to wages and unionization.

 

[Correll]

I agree with much of what you have stated. Im pro worker and in any conflict between worker and employer, I will always side against the employer. My point is there's going to be slot of pushback by big money corporatists when it comes to wages and unionization.

IF Trump's policies lead to some of the jobs "coming back" and a slow but steady (as opposed to "quickly" ) rise in wages for American workers, leading to more and more ability of American men to be providers for and thus having families and especially more single income families witth stay at home moms,

will you celebrate that as a success and give Trump and MAGA credit for it?


Especially moving forward in future policy discussions?

 

[initforme]

IF Trump's policies lead to some of the jobs "coming back" and a slow but steady (as opposed to "quickly" ) rise in wages for American workers, leading to more and more ability of American men to be providers for and thus having families and especially more single income families witth stay at home moms,

will you celebrate that as a success and give Trump and MAGA credit for it?


Especially moving forward in future policy discussions?

If wages are pushed up bigly and very quickly then yes I will give credit. A slow rise then not really, no.

 

[Correll]

If wages are pushed up bigly and very quickly then yes I will give credit. A slow rise then not really, no.

Wages stagnating for 50 years is what has led to a lot of the issues in America today.

You have rising wages for 50 years, and this county will look fucking fabulous in 50 years.


Yet, that is not good enough for you.


That being said, it thus looks like you are not really "pro-worker" and it seems that the "Rich corporatists" and you are on the same side of the issues.


Would you be willing to explain that contradition?