Can someone recommended a general purpose US news site?
Fox is obviously crap, CNN and MSNBC are both basically clickbait sites now, as far as I can tell.
Really CNN? Some announcer at the Miss Universe pageant screwing up is a more important news story than all the news that did NOT make your front page so you could have space for that drivel?
So what is out there as a general purpose, US centric news site? Does any such thing actually exist at all anymore?
I think you have to go international.
http://www.bbc.com/news/world/us_and_canada
Quote from: Berkut on December 22, 2015, 11:13:46 AM
Can someone recommended a general purpose US news site?
Fox is obviously crap, CNN and MSNBC are both basically clickbait sites now, as far as I can tell.
Really CNN? Some announcer at the Miss Universe pageant screwing up is a more important news story than all the news that did NOT make your front page so you could have space for that drivel?
So what is out there as a general purpose, US centric news site? Does any such thing actually exist at all anymore?
What about the US edition of Reuters, I'm using the site more than the BBC nowadays:
http://www.reuters.com/ (http://www.reuters.com/)
I do like the BBC, but want a US centric site if I can find one.
Heh, for better or worse, I use Languish as my internet news filter. :lol:
I get my US news from nytimes, although you have to pay to subscribe.
Reddit & gawker media group.
Quote from: Malthus on December 22, 2015, 11:20:25 AM
Heh, for better or worse, I use Languish as my internet news filter. :lol:
:yes:
The Timmay News Corp isn't so bad.
What worries me, mostly as a reader, is that so much is just clickbait.
Quote from: Berkut on December 22, 2015, 11:13:46 AM
Can someone recommended a general purpose US news site?
Fox is obviously crap, CNN and MSNBC are both basically clickbait sites now, as far as I can tell.
Really CNN? Some announcer at the Miss Universe pageant screwing up is a more important news story than all the news that did NOT make your front page so you could have space for that drivel?
So what is out there as a general purpose, US centric news site? Does any such thing actually exist at all anymore?
This goes back to the discussion we were having about news as entertainment.
For a good news site I think you need to look to the newspapers.
Quote from: Berkut on December 22, 2015, 11:13:46 AM
Can someone recommended a general purpose US news site?
So what is out there as a general purpose, US centric news site? Does any such thing actually exist at all anymore?
I read the New York Times most of the time. LA Times and Boston Globe tend to be more local, wich is ok when there's news over there.
Quote from: celedhring on December 22, 2015, 11:21:31 AM
I get my US news from nytimes, although you have to pay to subscribe.
Yeah, I am the problem with the news in America.
I want good news reporting, but I don't want to pay for it... :(
Quote from: Berkut on December 22, 2015, 11:13:46 AM
Can someone recommended a general purpose US news site?
Fox is obviously crap, CNN and MSNBC are both basically clickbait sites now, as far as I can tell.
Really CNN? Some announcer at the Miss Universe pageant screwing up is a more important news story than all the news that did NOT make your front page so you could have space for that drivel?
So what is out there as a general purpose, US centric news site? Does any such thing actually exist at all anymore?
Like a wise man said: beat the change you want to see into the world.
Quote from: Berkut on December 22, 2015, 12:26:21 PM
Quote from: celedhring on December 22, 2015, 11:21:31 AM
I get my US news from nytimes, although you have to pay to subscribe.
Yeah, I am the problem with the news in America.
I want good news reporting, but I don't want to pay for it... :(
So we can blame you for all the click bait.
I just visit Yahoo News and Google News. Did you know why Hillary took so long on her bathroom break? I most definitely do. :smarty:
https://www.rt.com/usa/ :P
WSJ and the Washington Post. Subscription based, of course.
I read the Guardian online often, though mainly because of their soccer site.
Quote from: Berkut on December 22, 2015, 11:19:25 AM
I do like the BBC, but want a US centric site if I can find one.
BBC is pretty crap, actually - full of lots of editorializing and bogus reporting. It used to be good, but has become another British news source. The Economist has a pretty good US section, but it's not "breaking news" oriented and its US section is pretty small.
listen to FunkMonk. He is wise.
Quote from: grumbler on December 22, 2015, 01:39:36 PM
Quote from: Berkut on December 22, 2015, 11:19:25 AM
I do like the BBC, but want a US centric site if I can find one.
BBC is pretty crap, actually - full of lots of editorializing and bogus reporting. It used to be good, but has become another British news source. The Economist has a pretty good US section, but it's not "breaking news" oriented and its US section is pretty small.
listen to FunkMonk. He is wise.
I actually have a dead-tree subscription to the Economist ... but I rarely look at their online site.
Quote from: Malthus on December 22, 2015, 11:20:25 AM
Heh, for better or worse, I use Languish as my internet news filter. :lol:
This.
Languish is pretty good for breaking news, but that begs the question of where Languishites who post breaking news are getting their stories from.
I imagine it's any one of the crap news sites Throbby mentioned.
I just broke wind.
That's not news. :x
Quote from: Admiral Yi on December 22, 2015, 04:02:06 PM
Languish is pretty good for breaking news, but that begs the question of where Languishites who post breaking news are getting their stories from.
I imagine it's any one of the crap news sites Throbby mentioned.
Often Reuters for me, from their website.
I've AFP in my twitter feed, so see a lot of breaking new via that agency and medium. Also they seem faster on breaking news than AP et al.
Quote from: Peter Wiggin on December 22, 2015, 04:06:50 PM
That's not news. :x
Indeed, it's weather. But lacks having some HOTT babe pointing at his ass.
For US-centric sites NPR (http://www.npr.org/) and Bloomberg (http://www.bloomberg.com/) are both decent; or at least better than CNN/FOXNEWS/MSNBC. Al Jazeera's US edition (http://america.aljazeera.com/?utm_source=aje&utm_medium=redirect) is worthwhile, but its editorial board is a little biased...
I just tend to use aggregators. Newsmap is still out there and like all the others you can choose which categories you see and don't see (locations too).
It also allows you to easily see which stories "everyone" is writing about, along with those they don't care to write about. So for example, Trump said something stupid about Hillary Clinton and her stupid bathroom break and it's huge "news" with 3059 related articles. Then at the other end of the spectrum, a woman was dragged out of the hospital by the cops after she refused to leave, collapsed, and then later died. No one cares. 54 articles. There is also a single article noting that the governor of Montana is doing a thing that will allow bison to roam outside of Yellowstone: http://www.csmonitor.com/USA/Society/2015/1222/Montana-governor-allows-bison-to-roam-outside-Yellowstone
News should be free. :mad:
Quote from: Monoriu on December 22, 2015, 11:24:31 PM
News should be free. :mad:
Someone somewhere has to get paid somehow, otherwise we end up with just bloggers. :(
Quote from: MadBurgerMaker on December 22, 2015, 11:29:35 PM
Quote from: Monoriu on December 22, 2015, 11:24:31 PM
News should be free. :mad:
Someone somewhere has to get paid somehow, otherwise we end up with just bloggers. :(
Advertisements.
Quote from: Monoriu on December 22, 2015, 11:32:46 PM
Advertisements.
Someone still has to pay. I wonder how much of that revenue Adblock really wipes out overall.
Quote from: MadBurgerMaker on December 22, 2015, 11:43:11 PM
Quote from: Monoriu on December 22, 2015, 11:32:46 PM
Advertisements.
Someone still has to pay. I wonder how much of that revenue Adblock really wipes out overall.
As long as it is "somebody else" who is doing the paying, rather than me, I'm fine :contract:
Quote from: MadBurgerMaker on December 22, 2015, 11:20:29 PM
So for example, Trump said something stupid about Hillary Clinton and her stupid bathroom break and it's huge "news" with 3059 related articles.
:bleeding:
Sometimes I wonder if it would not have been better if the British had won.
Quote from: Valmy on December 23, 2015, 01:11:04 AM
Quote from: MadBurgerMaker on December 22, 2015, 11:20:29 PM
So for example, Trump said something stupid about Hillary Clinton and her stupid bathroom break and it's huge "news" with 3059 related articles.
:bleeding:
Sometimes I wonder if it would not have been better if the British had won.
:console:
You don't need to wonder - it would have been.
Quote from: Valmy on December 23, 2015, 01:11:04 AM
Quote from: MadBurgerMaker on December 22, 2015, 11:20:29 PM
So for example, Trump said something stupid about Hillary Clinton and her stupid bathroom break and it's huge "news" with 3059 related articles.
:bleeding:
Sometimes I wonder if it would not have been better if the British had won.
May end up with tough gun control laws, universal health care, and a parliamentary system. The Queen may visit from time to time :secret:
Well if the Americans had lost, there's no way the French would have relinquished Louisana without a fight. My guess is that we would would have ended up with a Super Canada (Canada plus Eastern USA) with a Super Mexico (Mexico plus Western USA), a Super Alaska (Russian Alaska) and possibly a Florida. All independent of course, but the first two inside the Commonwealth.
Quote from: Monoriu on December 23, 2015, 01:13:31 AM
The Queen may visit from time to time :secret:
[Viper]Not worth it.[/Viper]
Quote from: Valmy on December 23, 2015, 01:11:04 AM
Quote from: MadBurgerMaker on December 22, 2015, 11:20:29 PM
So for example, Trump said something stupid about Hillary Clinton and her stupid bathroom break and it's huge "news" with 3059 related articles.
:bleeding:
Sometimes I wonder if it would not have been better if the British had won.
Noted.
Quote from: Monoriu on December 23, 2015, 01:13:31 AM
Quote from: Valmy on December 23, 2015, 01:11:04 AM
Quote from: MadBurgerMaker on December 22, 2015, 11:20:29 PM
So for example, Trump said something stupid about Hillary Clinton and her stupid bathroom break and it's huge "news" with 3059 related articles.
:bleeding:
Sometimes I wonder if it would not have been better if the British had won.
May end up with tough gun control laws, universal health care, and a parliamentary system. The Queen may visit from time to time :secret:
By the sound of it Mono, you only had one of those, though at least you did get the occasional Liz visit. :bowler:
From this list http://www.queenconcerts.com/concert-venues.html (http://www.queenconcerts.com/concert-venues.html), it doesn't appear Queen has ever toured in Hong Kong.
Quote from: PJL on December 23, 2015, 04:16:36 PM
Well if the Americans had lost, there's no way the French would have relinquished Louisana without a fight. My guess is that we would would have ended up with a Super Canada (Canada plus Eastern USA) with a Super Mexico (Mexico plus Western USA), a Super Alaska (Russian Alaska) and possibly a Florida. All independent of course, but the first two inside the Commonwealth.
I may not have been completely serious there.
Quote from: PJL on December 23, 2015, 04:16:36 PM
Well if the Americans had lost, there's no way the French would have relinquished Louisana without a fight. My guess is that we would would have ended up with a Super Canada (Canada plus Eastern USA) with a Super Mexico (Mexico plus Western USA), a Super Alaska (Russian Alaska) and possibly a Florida. All independent of course, but the first two inside the Commonwealth.
There would be far fewer people in North America. Not nearly as many people would want to immigrate from Europe to be under Britain's thumb.
Quote from: Razgovory on December 23, 2015, 05:38:49 PM
Quote from: PJL on December 23, 2015, 04:16:36 PM
Well if the Americans had lost, there's no way the French would have relinquished Louisana without a fight. My guess is that we would would have ended up with a Super Canada (Canada plus Eastern USA) with a Super Mexico (Mexico plus Western USA), a Super Alaska (Russian Alaska) and possibly a Florida. All independent of course, but the first two inside the Commonwealth.
There would be far fewer people in North America. Not nearly as many people would want to immigrate from Europe to be under Britain's thumb.
Well to be fair they were flooding over in pretty overwhelming numbers to do that before the revolution.
Quote from: Valmy on December 23, 2015, 05:40:36 PM
Quote from: Razgovory on December 23, 2015, 05:38:49 PM
Quote from: PJL on December 23, 2015, 04:16:36 PM
Well if the Americans had lost, there's no way the French would have relinquished Louisana without a fight. My guess is that we would would have ended up with a Super Canada (Canada plus Eastern USA) with a Super Mexico (Mexico plus Western USA), a Super Alaska (Russian Alaska) and possibly a Florida. All independent of course, but the first two inside the Commonwealth.
There would be far fewer people in North America. Not nearly as many people would want to immigrate from Europe to be under Britain's thumb.
Well to be fair they were flooding over in pretty overwhelming numbers to do that before the revolution.
When was universal manhood suffrage enacted in Canada?
Quote from: Razgovory on December 23, 2015, 05:45:16 PM
When was universal manhood suffrage enacted in Canada?
Not sure but nobody got to vote for President in South Carolina until 1868 :P
Quote from: mongers on December 23, 2015, 05:13:10 PM
Quote from: Monoriu on December 23, 2015, 01:13:31 AM
Quote from: Valmy on December 23, 2015, 01:11:04 AM
Quote from: MadBurgerMaker on December 22, 2015, 11:20:29 PM
So for example, Trump said something stupid about Hillary Clinton and her stupid bathroom break and it's huge "news" with 3059 related articles.
:bleeding:
Sometimes I wonder if it would not have been better if the British had won.
May end up with tough gun control laws, universal health care, and a parliamentary system. The Queen may visit from time to time :secret:
By the sound of it Mono, you only had one of those, though at least you did get the occasional Liz visit. :bowler:
Hong Kong has tough gun controls and universal healthcare.
If Internet news is so terrible, I am sure Hansmeister's blog's updated with real news for real people.
Quote from: Valmy on December 23, 2015, 06:00:49 PM
Quote from: Razgovory on December 23, 2015, 05:45:16 PM
When was universal manhood suffrage enacted in Canada?
Not sure but nobody got to vote for President in South Carolina until 1868 :P
You sure about that?
Quote from: Razgovory on December 23, 2015, 05:38:49 PM
Quote from: PJL on December 23, 2015, 04:16:36 PM
Well if the Americans had lost, there's no way the French would have relinquished Louisana without a fight. My guess is that we would would have ended up with a Super Canada (Canada plus Eastern USA) with a Super Mexico (Mexico plus Western USA), a Super Alaska (Russian Alaska) and possibly a Florida. All independent of course, but the first two inside the Commonwealth.
There would be far fewer people in North America. Not nearly as many people would want to immigrate from Europe to be under Britain's thumb.
Why would you think that?
Canada had tremendous amounts of immigration - greater per capita than the US - in the 19th and early 20th century.
Quote from: Barrister on December 24, 2015, 01:36:05 AM
Why would you think that?
Canada had tremendous amounts of immigration - greater per capita than the US - in the 19th and early 20th century.
Not that impressive. You had three Scotsmen and 12 Frenchies living there when it started.
Quote from: Barrister on December 24, 2015, 01:36:05 AM
Quote from: Razgovory on December 23, 2015, 05:38:49 PM
Quote from: PJL on December 23, 2015, 04:16:36 PM
Well if the Americans had lost, there's no way the French would have relinquished Louisana without a fight. My guess is that we would would have ended up with a Super Canada (Canada plus Eastern USA) with a Super Mexico (Mexico plus Western USA), a Super Alaska (Russian Alaska) and possibly a Florida. All independent of course, but the first two inside the Commonwealth.
There would be far fewer people in North America. Not nearly as many people would want to immigrate from Europe to be under Britain's thumb.
Why would you think that?
Canada had tremendous amounts of immigration - greater per capita than the US - in the 19th and early 20th century.
Rights came slower to Canada. Inability of elected officials dictate foreign policy. Ability to expand westward curtailed. There was substantial immigration
from Britain to the US. My ancestors were trying to get away from Monarchy some in particular were trying to get away from
British Monarchy. I don't think they would have been so keen to set up shop in British territory. On the plus side, without that safety valve British politics would likely have been much different. They may not have fared so well in 1848.
Quote from: Valmy on December 23, 2015, 01:11:04 AM
Quote from: MadBurgerMaker on December 22, 2015, 11:20:29 PM
So for example, Trump said something stupid about Hillary Clinton and her stupid bathroom break and it's huge "news" with 3059 related articles.
:bleeding:
Sometimes I wonder if it would not have been better if the British had won.
The American British did win :D
It is a shame that the UK didn't come up with the Dominion wheeze a few decades earlier though. I presume, though, that George III would have regarded such a plan as an intolerable incursion on his prerogative.
I largely find myself using Google news
Quote from: PJL on December 23, 2015, 04:16:36 PM
Well if the Americans had lost, there's no way the French would have relinquished Louisana without a fight. My guess is that we would would have ended up with a Super Canada (Canada plus Eastern USA) with a Super Mexico (Mexico plus Western USA), a Super Alaska (Russian Alaska) and possibly a Florida. All independent of course, but the first two inside the Commonwealth.
What's too stop the colonists from sucking in Britain into a war over Louisiana, just like they did over Ohio? Repeat for Texas and California.
The most reputable sites that I use are Google News, NBCnews.com, and the Guardian.
Quote from: Richard Hakluyt on December 24, 2015, 02:33:58 AM
Quote from: Valmy on December 23, 2015, 01:11:04 AM
Quote from: MadBurgerMaker on December 22, 2015, 11:20:29 PM
So for example, Trump said something stupid about Hillary Clinton and her stupid bathroom break and it's huge "news" with 3059 related articles.
:bleeding:
Sometimes I wonder if it would not have been better if the British had won.
The American British did win :D
It is a shame that the UK didn't come up with the Dominion wheeze a few decades earlier though. I presume, though, that George III would have regarded such a plan as an intolerable incursion on his prerogative.
It's really all Fredrick's fault for getting himself killed playing cricket. If he had succeeded George II, the whigs would have stayed in power and Pitt would have kept everything together.
Quote from: Razgovory on December 24, 2015, 12:56:58 AM
You sure about that?
Pretty sure there was no popular vote for President prior to 1868. Given that is what their State Constitution said and all.
I saw a news site called Agence France Presse. Never heard of it. WTF is it?
Quote from: Valmy on December 24, 2015, 12:59:48 PM
Quote from: Razgovory on December 24, 2015, 12:56:58 AM
You sure about that?
Pretty sure there was no popular vote for President prior to 1868. Given that is what their State Constitution said and all.
Technically nobody does. I thought the S.C thing was worked out in practice in the 1840's.
It's a different way of making coffee. Some people swear by them.
News that will wake you up.
Quote from: Razgovory on December 23, 2015, 05:45:16 PM
Quote from: Valmy on December 23, 2015, 05:40:36 PM
Quote from: Razgovory on December 23, 2015, 05:38:49 PM
Quote from: PJL on December 23, 2015, 04:16:36 PM
Well if the Americans had lost, there's no way the French would have relinquished Louisana without a fight. My guess is that we would would have ended up with a Super Canada (Canada plus Eastern USA) with a Super Mexico (Mexico plus Western USA), a Super Alaska (Russian Alaska) and possibly a Florida. All independent of course, but the first two inside the Commonwealth.
There would be far fewer people in North America. Not nearly as many people would want to immigrate from Europe to be under Britain's thumb.
Well to be fair they were flooding over in pretty overwhelming numbers to do that before the revolution.
When was universal manhood suffrage enacted in Canada?
1960. Unless you don't count indians as people, then it would be 1920 for everyone, male and female.
Quote from: Razgovory on December 24, 2015, 02:33:27 AM
Quote from: Barrister on December 24, 2015, 01:36:05 AM
Quote from: Razgovory on December 23, 2015, 05:38:49 PM
Quote from: PJL on December 23, 2015, 04:16:36 PM
Well if the Americans had lost, there's no way the French would have relinquished Louisana without a fight. My guess is that we would would have ended up with a Super Canada (Canada plus Eastern USA) with a Super Mexico (Mexico plus Western USA), a Super Alaska (Russian Alaska) and possibly a Florida. All independent of course, but the first two inside the Commonwealth.
There would be far fewer people in North America. Not nearly as many people would want to immigrate from Europe to be under Britain's thumb.
Why would you think that?
Canada had tremendous amounts of immigration - greater per capita than the US - in the 19th and early 20th century.
Rights came slower to Canada. Inability of elected officials dictate foreign policy. Ability to expand westward curtailed. There was substantial immigration from Britain to the US. My ancestors were trying to get away from Monarchy some in particular were trying to get away from British Monarchy. I don't think they would have been so keen to set up shop in British territory. On the plus side, without that safety valve British politics would likely have been much different. They may not have fared so well in 1848.
Then why did so many fleeing europe go to the uk itself?
Most migrants to the Americas really didnt care much about politics. It's rather the American myth that they came over for rights and democracy and all that jazz. For 99% it was all about free land and other economic benefits.
Choosing America was mostly about getting to kill Indians. IIRC every immigrant got a license for 40 Indians and a chief.
Quote from: Tyr on December 25, 2015, 06:12:56 AM
Most migrants to the Americas really didnt care much about politics. It's rather the American myth that they came over for rights and democracy and all that jazz. For 99% it was all about free land and other economic benefits.
I can't speak for everyone's ancestors, but almost all of mine were religious dissenters... Mennonites and Lutherans on my father's side, and Quakers on my mother's side.
Quote from: Tyr on December 25, 2015, 06:12:56 AM
Then why did so many fleeing europe go to the uk itself?
Most migrants to the Americas really didnt care much about politics. It's rather the American myth that they came over for rights and democracy and all that jazz. For 99% it was all about free land and other economic benefits.
Cause they didn't have the money to go all the way the US. :lol: Very few people settled out west for free land. Most of them weren't even immigrants. Not so many immigrants came to Britain (though you guys begrudged the ones that came). 2 million Russian Jews fled their homes by 1914. 120,000 came to the UK. Guess were the rest went. Seven million Germans immigrated to the US between 1820 and 1870. How many came to Britain? A million Swedes came to the US between 1820-1900. 800,000 Norwegians. 300,000 Danes. 280,000 Fins. Are there similar number of Scandinavians who immigrated to the UK? 5.5 million Italians showed up the US.
Between 1820 and 1930 3.5 million British (non-Irish), and 4.5 million Irish came to the US. The numbers of people who came to the US is just staggering. I'd say that a lot of them cared about politics, since a very large number of immigrants came because the politics back home prevented them from having certain rights, practicing their religions or you know, eating.
My high school history teacher would vigorously object. He always used to say that no one uproots their life and moves to another continent just so that they can speak freely. They do that because of relative economic opportunities.
Quote from: derspiess on December 24, 2015, 01:29:04 PM
I saw a news site called Agence France Presse. Never heard of it. WTF is it?
You need to get out more. It's a major news agency, founded in France after the liberation of Paris. It is nowadays the 3rd largest international news agency, after AP and Reuters.
Quote from: DGuller on December 25, 2015, 07:14:48 PM
My high school history teacher would vigorously object. He always used to say that no one uproots their life and moves to another continent just so that they can speak freely. They do that because of relative economic opportunities.
They are fairly closely intertwined. The my ancestors who fled in 1848 had their say, and there was far greater opportunity in not being spit on Prussian bayonet then there was dying as a traitor. The economic situation for the Irish was pretty bleak during the famine, a famine that was caused by certain polices of the UK that the Irish didn't have much of a say in. Likewise a Jew who flees the Pogrom probably see better economic pastures in a place where the government won't burn down his home.
Quote from: Razgovory on December 25, 2015, 05:11:50 PM
Quote from: Tyr on December 25, 2015, 06:12:56 AM
Then why did so many fleeing europe go to the uk itself?
Most migrants to the Americas really didnt care much about politics. It's rather the American myth that they came over for rights and democracy and all that jazz. For 99% it was all about free land and other economic benefits.
Cause they didn't have the money to go all the way the US. :lol: Very few people settled out west for free land. Most of
Not particularly true.
There were some who planned to stay in the uk for just a little while and then move onto the us but who got bogged down, however these weren't the majority rule. And it tended not to be because they were too poor that this happened; generally the opposite I'd say.
Also most of the wealthier migrants chose the uk rather than the Americas.
I don't think anyone is going to argue more people went to the US than the UK. But then the US was this big empty landed shrouded in myth and the promise of vast riches for all. Also they were actively encouraging migrants to come, unlike the UK.
Going off family history is also not such a great way to try and prove they went to the us to enjoy the freedom. Of course people will SAY it was all about freedom, particularly once they've bitten into the apple of US nationalism.
If you're a 19th century pauper though then getting food on the table is all you care about. That theoretically you could be executed for insulting the emperor isn't really something you consider in your every day life; indeed most of the poor tended towards being supportive of absolute monarchies.
Quote from: Razgovory on December 24, 2015, 02:02:59 PM
Quote from: Valmy on December 24, 2015, 12:59:48 PM
Quote from: Razgovory on December 24, 2015, 12:56:58 AM
You sure about that?
Pretty sure there was no popular vote for President prior to 1868. Given that is what their State Constitution said and all.
Technically nobody does. I thought the S.C thing was worked out in practice in the 1840's.
Technically nobody has a popular vote for President? Ok fine. There was no popular vote for the electors for President. In what sense was it worked out in practice?
Quote from: Tyr on December 27, 2015, 05:18:30 AM
Not particularly true.
There were some who planned to stay in the uk for just a little while and then move onto the us but who got bogged down, however these weren't the majority rule. And it tended not to be because they were too poor that this happened; generally the opposite I'd say.
Also most of the wealthier migrants chose the uk rather than the Americas.
I don't think anyone is going to argue more people went to the US than the UK. But then the US was this big empty landed shrouded in myth and the promise of vast riches for all. Also they were actively encouraging migrants to come, unlike the UK.
Going off family history is also not such a great way to try and prove they went to the us to enjoy the freedom. Of course people will SAY it was all about freedom, particularly once they've bitten into the apple of US nationalism.
If you're a 19th century pauper though then getting food on the table is all you care about. That theoretically you could be executed for insulting the emperor isn't really something you consider in your every day life; indeed most of the poor tended towards being supportive of absolute monarchies.
Very particularly true. I'm not using family history as an proof I'm merely using it as an example. They
had to leave. After the failure of Democracy in Europe millions fled to the US. It wasn't a hypothetical, "insulting an emperor", they lost a war. A very large number of people came here as refugees. The Irish
had to leave because for some reason the richest, most powerful country in the world was wracked by famines. Most immigrants did not settle out west. Western settlement tended by done by a small class of frontiersmen who would acquire land from the government (it wasn't always free), cultivate it for a while then sell and move further west. Most immigrants settled in cities (or quickly built cities).
But let me ask you, what proof do you have that, "most of the wealthier migrants chose the uk rather than the Americas. "?
Quote from: Valmy on December 28, 2015, 12:20:11 PM
Quote from: Razgovory on December 24, 2015, 02:02:59 PM
Quote from: Valmy on December 24, 2015, 12:59:48 PM
Quote from: Razgovory on December 24, 2015, 12:56:58 AM
You sure about that?
Pretty sure there was no popular vote for President prior to 1868. Given that is what their State Constitution said and all.
Technically nobody does. I thought the S.C thing was worked out in practice in the 1840's.
Technically nobody has a popular vote for President? Ok fine. There was no popular vote for the electors for President. In what sense was it worked out in practice?
I thought the land restrictions on voting in South Carolina had ended in the 1840's.
Quote from: Razgovory on December 28, 2015, 12:43:35 PM
I thought the land restrictions on voting in South Carolina had ended in the 1840's.
Ah. Yes that is true. But there was no voting for President. All the Electors were appointed by the legislature.
Okay. I didn't know about that.
Quote from: Razgovory on December 28, 2015, 12:41:47 PM
Quote from: Tyr on December 27, 2015, 05:18:30 AM
Not particularly true.
There were some who planned to stay in the uk for just a little while and then move onto the us but who got bogged down, however these weren't the majority rule. And it tended not to be because they were too poor that this happened; generally the opposite I'd say.
Also most of the wealthier migrants chose the uk rather than the Americas.
I don't think anyone is going to argue more people went to the US than the UK. But then the US was this big empty landed shrouded in myth and the promise of vast riches for all. Also they were actively encouraging migrants to come, unlike the UK.
Going off family history is also not such a great way to try and prove they went to the us to enjoy the freedom. Of course people will SAY it was all about freedom, particularly once they've bitten into the apple of US nationalism.
If you're a 19th century pauper though then getting food on the table is all you care about. That theoretically you could be executed for insulting the emperor isn't really something you consider in your every day life; indeed most of the poor tended towards being supportive of absolute monarchies.
Very particularly true. I'm not using family history as an proof I'm merely using it as an example. They had to leave. After the failure of Democracy in Europe millions fled to the US. It wasn't a hypothetical, "insulting an emperor", they lost a war. A very large number of people came here as refugees. The Irish had to leave because for some reason the richest, most powerful country in the world was wracked by famines. Most immigrants did not settle out west. Western settlement tended by done by a small class of frontiersmen who would acquire land from the government (it wasn't always free), cultivate it for a while then sell and move further west. Most immigrants settled in cities (or quickly built cities).
But let me ask you, what proof do you have that, "most of the wealthier migrants chose the uk rather than the Americas. "?
Not sure it is worth debating really. How many "wealthy" migrants actually came to North American? Anecdotally, my paternal Great grandfather was a substantial land owner in the old country but when he uprooted to bring his family to North America he lost most of his wealth which was tied to the land. He had enough to start over and build up a farm so that put him ahead of my maternal great grandparents who started in sod huts on land granted to them by the government of the day.
Interestingly my paternal great grandfather landed in New York but preferred settling in Canada.
Eh, for breaking news news.google.com works well enough. Yes, as an aggregator it'll gobble up stories from Fox, MSNBC etc--but if you spend half a second paying attention to their news articles you can see that before hand. Any "story" on google news, you can expand it to show all the news stories reporting on that, you don't have to just click that top link to Fox News.
Quote from: crazy canuck on December 29, 2015, 05:00:01 PM
Not sure it is worth debating really. How many "wealthy" migrants actually came to North American? Anecdotally, my paternal Great grandfather was a substantial land owner in the old country but when he uprooted to bring his family to North America he lost most of his wealth which was tied to the land. He had enough to start over and build up a farm so that put him ahead of my maternal great grandparents who started in sod huts on land granted to them by the government of the day.
Interestingly my paternal great grandfather landed in New York but preferred settling in Canada.
Quite a few middle class fled Europe after 1848. You see these guys who come to the US and become not only prosperous, but rising high in politics (and the military during the civil war).
Quote from: Razgovory on December 29, 2015, 06:06:23 PM
Quote from: crazy canuck on December 29, 2015, 05:00:01 PM
Not sure it is worth debating really. How many "wealthy" migrants actually came to North American? Anecdotally, my paternal Great grandfather was a substantial land owner in the old country but when he uprooted to bring his family to North America he lost most of his wealth which was tied to the land. He had enough to start over and build up a farm so that put him ahead of my maternal great grandparents who started in sod huts on land granted to them by the government of the day.
Interestingly my paternal great grandfather landed in New York but preferred settling in Canada.
Quite a few middle class fled Europe after 1848. You see these guys who come to the US and become not only prosperous, but rising high in politics (and the military during the civil war).
Ok, but now you are changing the goal posts. The discussion was about "wealthy" immigrants. Now you are using the term "middle class". In the 19th century I am not sure what that term means.
Quote from: crazy canuck on December 30, 2015, 11:15:01 AM
Quote from: Razgovory on December 29, 2015, 06:06:23 PM
Quote from: crazy canuck on December 29, 2015, 05:00:01 PM
Not sure it is worth debating really. How many "wealthy" migrants actually came to North American? Anecdotally, my paternal Great grandfather was a substantial land owner in the old country but when he uprooted to bring his family to North America he lost most of his wealth which was tied to the land. He had enough to start over and build up a farm so that put him ahead of my maternal great grandparents who started in sod huts on land granted to them by the government of the day.
Interestingly my paternal great grandfather landed in New York but preferred settling in Canada.
Quite a few middle class fled Europe after 1848. You see these guys who come to the US and become not only prosperous, but rising high in politics (and the military during the civil war).
Ok, but now you are changing the goal posts. The discussion was about "wealthy" immigrants. Now you are using the term "middle class". In the 19th century I am not sure what that term means.
I agree you aren't sure what it means. You were the one to introduce the word "wealthy" not I. Tyr used "wealthier". I said that people who immigrated to the UK rather then the US did so because they didn't have as much money. That seems logical since America was further away. I used the term middle class to describe the liberal revolutionaries this is in line with history books I've read who argue that this social class made up the leadership and driving force of the revolution, at least in central Europe. What ever goal posts you had in mine when you said "Wealthy" are yours alone.