Politics 2017 part V

[Meshugger]

From what i've seen in the news, the general picture is that France is on it's way to civil war as upt to 40% of the youth are leaning Le Pen for the very reason that they don't think that they have a place in their own country any more.

 

A youth growing up being completely displaced is a very negative trend indeed.

[BruceVC]

From what i've seen in the news, the general picture is that France is on it's way to civil war as upt to 40% of the youth are leaning Le Pen for the very reason that they don't think that they have a place in their own country any more.

 

A youth growing up being completely displaced is a very negative trend indeed.

Maybe some  young people living in first world countries should stop feeling so entitled and realize their governments can only do so much for them ?

 

Le Penn will be decisively beaten in the next round as primarily only the supporters of Melenchon will vote for France to leave the EU, the other candidates have endorsed Macron now the initial phase of the election is over

 

So dont worry about a French civil war....thats a ludicrous suggestion

[redneckdevil]

It's not about doing so much, it's being opposite in what is expected in treating people. When u give exceptions and benefits and don't hold the law to the same standard to someone because of someone's religion or citizen status but don't do the same positives to your own citizens, of course people gonna complain and get riled up.

The problem is that people aren't being treated EQUALLY. Treat the Muslims and the refugees and immigrants yeh same as your other citizens, this will die the **** down.

This is why "bleeding heart liberal" is a bad thing, when u go the extra mile for someone else than yeh ones u supposed to take care of, it causes friction and separation because the ones u supposed to take care of will feel slighted and lesser and the ones u going the extra mile will feel elevated and also get used to and think that is how it will always happen.

[BruceVC]

 

 

From what i've seen in the news, the general picture is that France is on it's way to civil war as upt to 40% of the youth are leaning Le Pen for the very reason that they don't think that they have a place in their own country any more.

 

A youth growing up being completely displaced is a very negative trend indeed.

Maybe some  young people living in first world countries should stop feeling so entitled and realize their governments can only do so much for them ?

 

You told the same to black pepole during Apartheid, didn't you?

 

There is a difference between doing something for you and doing nothing for you and everything for another group of people and using you as a milking cow.

 

No, I was too young to be part of the Apartheid laws as Apartheid was implemented in 1947 and I wasn't involved in commentary during Apartheid. Also we lived under a state of emergency so you were limited by what you could or couldn't say about politics until Apartheid ended in 1991 or so 

 

Although you do fit the profile of exactly the  person I was referring to, you complain a lot and expect your government to do everything for you 

Edited April 24, 2017 by BruceVC

[redneckdevil]

 

 

 

From what i've seen in the news, the general picture is that France is on it's way to civil war as upt to 40% of the youth are leaning Le Pen for the very reason that they don't think that they have a place in their own country any more.

 

A youth growing up being completely displaced is a very negative trend indeed.

Maybe some young people living in first world countries should stop feeling so entitled and realize their governments can only do so much for them ?

You told the same to black pepole during Apartheid, didn't you?

 

There is a difference between doing something for you and doing nothing for you and everything for another group of people and using you as a milking cow.

No, I was too young to be part of the Apartheid laws as Apartheid was implemented in 1947 and I wasn't involved in commentary during Apartheid. Also we lived under a state of emergency so you were limited by what you could or couldn't say about politics until Apartheid ended in 1991 or so

 

Although you do fit the profile of exactly the person I was referring to, you complain a lot and expect your government to do everything for you

Edit-

 

Not joking, hope things are still well and not bad down there for ya and your family. Is there still an upheaval of "hate whitey" going on?

 

If govt isn't involve, don't complain to it. If it is involved, u complain to it or else nothing will get done or u have extremes results like Brexit/Trump/Australia/maybe France now that make it harder for opposition to compromise and fix the problem. Granted sometimes these extremes are what's needed, right now to soon to tell. I know right now race issues aren't as ugly (except in Cali where they grooming the new "liberals" who've they've drugged since childbirth and giving awards for trying and haven't taught them about failure), BLM is quiet because public opinion all time low across the board. Notice how the extreme has damper certain issues and seem to be alot more quiet now that used to set people against each other. We shall see how well it goes and see if yeh future holds better or at worse for us. With last election, I'm a bit worried about the circus tht will follow and the extremes.

Edited April 24, 2017 by redneckdevil

[Zoraptor]

From what i've seen in the news, the general picture is that France is on it's way to civil war as upt to 40% of the youth are leaning Le Pen for the very reason that they don't think that they have a place in their own country any more.

 

A youth growing up being completely displaced is a very negative trend indeed.

 

And it's perfectly understandable too, Macron is an abysmal prospect for completely different reasons to Le Pen and there are excellent reasons for not voting for a manufactured candidate whose sole reason for existence is preservation of the status quo and who has the unrestricted support of a supine press and panicking elite.

 

Macron stands for mealy mouthed bon mots, feel good phrases and 99% of what has been tried and failed beforehand. I don't agree with Le Pen on much at all, but at least she gives the impression that she hasn't been extruded from plastic, downloaded a personality from a press kit and been set up with the sole purpose of not offending anyone while the establishment shoves them down the people's throat like so many pre foie gras geese.

Edited April 24, 2017 by Zoraptor

[BruceVC]

 

Although you do fit the profile of exactly the  person I was referring to, you complain a lot and expect your government to do everything for you

When did I expect government to do anything for me? You're projecting as you are the fan of nazi oppressive systems and you cry because Apartheid ended.

 

I only expect government to uphold the laws, protect borders and don't steal my hard earned money.

 

This post reflects that Soviet programming we have often discussed you grapple with ? We can talk about it now with no fear of criticism

 

Whats bothering you  the most about your quality of life?

[Malcador]

It's not about doing so much, it's being opposite in what is expected in treating people. When u give exceptions and benefits and don't hold the law to the same standard to someone because of someone's religion or citizen status but don't do the same positives to your own citizens, of course people gonna complain and get riled up.

The problem is that people aren't being treated EQUALLY. Treat the Muslims and the refugees and immigrants yeh same as your other citizens, this will die the **** down.

This is why "bleeding heart liberal" is a bad thing, when u go the extra mile for someone else than yeh ones u supposed to take care of, it causes friction and separation because the ones u supposed to take care of will feel slighted and lesser and the ones u going the extra mile will feel elevated and also get used to and think that is how it will always happen.

So Muslims and refugees are being treated better than citizens? Also how are Muslim citizens fitting in your thinking?

[Volourn]

"... the pope himself says we put them in concentration camps"

 

The pope is a moron. Perhaps, he should havevstayed in a concentration camp. Remember, btw, people were forced to be in 'cocnentration camps' and were subsequently sent to be murdered. The 'concentration camps' now are for people who chose to leave their countries because they are **** shows. They can alwasy go back. Theya lso  - by law - not being mass murdered - esxcept by each other largely and immorals cumbags. Not by the gov't. The refugee centers do not have the same puirpose as a concentration camp. It is intellectual dishonesty to comapre the two. EVIL.

Edited April 24, 2017 by Volourn

[Hurlshort]

 

It's not about doing so much, it's being opposite in what is expected in treating people. When u give exceptions and benefits and don't hold the law to the same standard to someone because of someone's religion or citizen status but don't do the same positives to your own citizens, of course people gonna complain and get riled up.

The problem is that people aren't being treated EQUALLY. Treat the Muslims and the refugees and immigrants yeh same as your other citizens, this will die the **** down.

This is why "bleeding heart liberal" is a bad thing, when u go the extra mile for someone else than yeh ones u supposed to take care of, it causes friction and separation because the ones u supposed to take care of will feel slighted and lesser and the ones u going the extra mile will feel elevated and also get used to and think that is how it will always happen.

So Muslims and refugees are being treated better than citizens? Also how are Muslim citizens fitting in your thinking?

 

 

This reminded me of this Louis CK bit. Language warning, but yeah, I can't imagine trading places with a Muslim American. 

 

 

redneckdevil, I'm not trying to make light of your claim though, can you give some examples where Muslims and refugees are being treated better than the average US citizen?

[redneckdevil]

Alright I'll look some up for evidence. Most was what remembered going on thru the Obama era.

Off the top of my head a few and I will look up actual links when I get home.

 

Cities having a separate EBT type program specifically for illegal immigrants paid for by the state, while also giving access to Federal EBT.

Religion wise for media, much better to be Muslim than any other religion. Remember a case won for some truck drivers that got fired for stopping OUTSIDE of their alotted breaks/lunches to pray. Also head garbs. Wear a head garbs and say its part of your religion, it's ok. Also where I work at, my friend doesn't have to work certain areas because of pork, funny because my Jewish friends usually has to work it instead lol. My friend tried the same thing and was told to suck it up. Dunno what else was said when he pressed, but dropped it completely. Under impression he would lose job.

Sanctuary cities totally against Federal law, but still around with support from media.

Overall vibe is to leave them be or else suffer the wrath of being labeled racist.

Is it okay for the media to go into someone's records and change what someone's religion is after they shot up a campus simply because at the time tensions were high about refugees?

Forcing states to accept refugees and pay for their housing, food, and bills for set amount of time?

Not stopping a Muslim gang rape ring that is known for years because otherwise they will be labeled racists?

When the USA Federal govt deletes the word "Islamic" from records of past terrorist attacks but leaves Catholic and Christian for past NRA bombings and church attacks and etc.

 

For most Muslims I know, they reg people. They just people. It's a religion like any other and has good and bad apples. Don't put it up as something to tread lightly around, treat it like everything else.

Also may seem like I have a thing against them personally which I don't. What I do have a problem with is giving special attention and ways and not giving access to others. I want everyone treated equally with all the good and bad that everyone else has. Otherwise we get this "victim" mentality that means we have to treat them different and better. **** that. Treat everyone just as good and just as bad all together.

 

Things are getting better though, maybe. Time will tell if it really is or just the eye of the storm.

[Wrath of Dagon]

Pencil neck geek scientist wedgie coming up.

[Wrath of Dagon]

 

From what i've seen in the news, the general picture is that France is on it's way to civil war as upt to 40% of the youth are leaning Le Pen for the very reason that they don't think that they have a place in their own country any more.

 

A youth growing up being completely displaced is a very negative trend indeed.

Maybe some  young people living in first world countries should stop feeling so entitled and realize their governments can only do so much for them ?

 

Yeah, they should quit feeling entitled to their government giving preference to their own citizens over everyone else.

[HoonDing]

"From what i've seen in the news, the general picture is that France is on it's way to civil war as upt to 40% of the youth are leaning Le Pen for the very reason that they don't think that they have a place in their own country any more.

"

 

guess they'll lose then

[Guard Dog]

Wow. The Supreme Court did two good things in to weeks. I'm surprised. Especially since the majority opinion in one of those was written by Ruth Bader Ginsburg who I usually have nothing good to say about.

 

In Nelson v Colorado they decided 7-1 (WTF Thomas?) that the state was not entitled to assets seized as proceeds of a crime where the conviction had been overturned. You see there is one thing and one thing only that government loves. Any government. All of them. Money. They love money. Governments are far more venal than these "big corporations" so many of you seem to be terrified of. Only the governments have police powers and can just take things from you. As I've said a miilion times the biggest company in the world could not take a single penny from my checking account without my approval. The smallest level of government right here in my home state can take all of it including my home, my dogs and my freedom. Ugh. There I go ranting again. Anyway. In Nelson v Colorado defendant Shannon Nelson was convicted of four counts of child abuse and sentenced to 20 years in prison. After a witness recanted she got a new trial and was acquitted. But the state kept all the money it seized even though technically no crime was ever committed.  http://reason.com/blog/2017/04/21/scotus-says-states-have-no-right-to-mone

 

The other good thing they did was decline to take up Illinois Transportation Trade Association v. City of Chicago. It seems the cab companies in Chicago don't like competition from Uber and Lyft and were trying to shut them down. http://reason.com/blog/2017/04/24/supreme-court-lets-stand-7th-circuit-vic

[Elerond]

Wow. The Supreme Court did two good things in to weeks. I'm surprised. Especially since the majority opinion in one of those was written by Ruth Bader Ginsburg who I usually have nothing good to say about.

 

In Nelson v Colorado they decided 7-1 (WTF Thomas?) that the state was not entitled to assets seized as proceeds of a crime where the conviction had been overturned. You see there is one thing and one thing only that government loves. Any government. All of them. Money. They love money. Governments are far more venal than these "big corporations" so many of you seem to be terrified of. Only the governments have police powers and can just take things from you. As I've said a miilion times the biggest company in the world could not take a single penny from my checking account without my approval. The smallest level of government right here in my home state can take all of it including my home, my dogs and my freedom. Ugh. There I go ranting again. Anyway. In Nelson v Colorado defendant Shannon Nelson was convicted of four counts of child abuse and sentenced to 20 years in prison. After a witness recanted she got a new trial and was acquitted. But the state kept all the money it seized even though technically no crime was ever committed.  http://reason.com/blog/2017/04/21/scotus-says-states-have-no-right-to-mone

 

The other good thing they did was decline to take up Illinois Transportation Trade Association v. City of Chicago. It seems the cab companies in Chicago don't like competition from Uber and Lyft and were trying to shut them down. http://reason.com/blog/2017/04/24/supreme-court-lets-stand-7th-circuit-vic

 

I would point out that bank where your checking account is could absolutely keep all you money if they want.  And it isn't even hypothetical scenario but thing that has happened many times in history. Meaning that it is absolutely possible for biggest company in world can buy the bank where your account is and seize your money. 

[Wrath of Dagon]

Never heard of that happening in the US, sounds ridiculous.

 

https://www.nytimes.com/2017/04/22/us/politics/james-comey-election.html?_r=0

During Russia’s hacking campaign against the United States, intelligence agencies could peer, at times, into Russian networks and see what had been taken. Early last year, F.B.I. agents received a batch of hacked documents, and one caught their attention.

 

The document, which has been described as both a memo and an email, was written by a Democratic operative who expressed confidence that Ms. Lynch would keep the Clinton investigation from going too far, according to several former officials familiar with the document.

Just wow. The Russians - keeping American government honest for a century.

 

Edit:

But John O. Brennan, the C.I.A. director, was so concerned about the Russian threat that he gave an unusual private briefing in the late summer to Harry Reid, then the Senate Democratic leader.

Yes, I'm sure that's why.

Even with his notoriety, this would have had little impact on national politics but for one coincidence. Mr. Weiner’s wife, Huma Abedin, was one of Mrs. Clinton’s closest confidantes, and had used an email account on her server.

Yes, pure coincidence.

 

Edit2: Liberals never learn:

“Turkey is changing in surprising and encouraging ways,” wrote the New York Times that year,

 

"setting a constructive example for the entire Muslim Middle East. Under the leadership of Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdogan, an Islamic politician who favors democratic pluralism, it has enacted far-reaching reforms that are intended to meet the exacting admissions criteria of the European Union."

https://www.the-american-interest.com/2017/04/24/guilty-men/

I hear Muslim Brotherhood is also mostly secular.

Edited April 25, 2017 by Wrath of Dagon

[Guard Dog]

 

Wow. The Supreme Court did two good things in to weeks. I'm surprised. Especially since the majority opinion in one of those was written by Ruth Bader Ginsburg who I usually have nothing good to say about.

 

In Nelson v Colorado they decided 7-1 (WTF Thomas?) that the state was not entitled to assets seized as proceeds of a crime where the conviction had been overturned. You see there is one thing and one thing only that government loves. Any government. All of them. Money. They love money. Governments are far more venal than these "big corporations" so many of you seem to be terrified of. Only the governments have police powers and can just take things from you. As I've said a miilion times the biggest company in the world could not take a single penny from my checking account without my approval. The smallest level of government right here in my home state can take all of it including my home, my dogs and my freedom. Ugh. There I go ranting again. Anyway. In Nelson v Colorado defendant Shannon Nelson was convicted of four counts of child abuse and sentenced to 20 years in prison. After a witness recanted she got a new trial and was acquitted. But the state kept all the money it seized even though technically no crime was ever committed.  http://reason.com/blog/2017/04/21/scotus-says-states-have-no-right-to-mone

 

The other good thing they did was decline to take up Illinois Transportation Trade Association v. City of Chicago. It seems the cab companies in Chicago don't like competition from Uber and Lyft and were trying to shut them down. http://reason.com/blog/2017/04/24/supreme-court-lets-stand-7th-circuit-vic

 

I would point out that bank where your checking account is could absolutely keep all you money if they want.  And it isn't even hypothetical scenario but thing that has happened many times in history. Meaning that it is absolutely possible for biggest company in world can buy the bank where your account is and seize your money. 

 

I don't know where the heck you got that idea but in the US at least, no they cannot. And even if the bank failed the accounts are insured (up to a point). They may withdraw fess and other expenses and these are all things you agree too when opening the account. And that is the key, that account is an agreement, a contract between them and the account holder. They have to live up to their end and vice versa. So if I overdraft my checking account and they hit me with a $20 overdraft fee (or however much it is) I agreed to the rules when I opened the account so that is not taking money without my permission either.

[Raithe]

This one might be good for the politics thread..

 

Politico - The Media Bubble is Real, and Worse than you Think

[Elerond]

 

 

Wow. The Supreme Court did two good things in to weeks. I'm surprised. Especially since the majority opinion in one of those was written by Ruth Bader Ginsburg who I usually have nothing good to say about.

 

In Nelson v Colorado they decided 7-1 (WTF Thomas?) that the state was not entitled to assets seized as proceeds of a crime where the conviction had been overturned. You see there is one thing and one thing only that government loves. Any government. All of them. Money. They love money. Governments are far more venal than these "big corporations" so many of you seem to be terrified of. Only the governments have police powers and can just take things from you. As I've said a miilion times the biggest company in the world could not take a single penny from my checking account without my approval. The smallest level of government right here in my home state can take all of it including my home, my dogs and my freedom. Ugh. There I go ranting again. Anyway. In Nelson v Colorado defendant Shannon Nelson was convicted of four counts of child abuse and sentenced to 20 years in prison. After a witness recanted she got a new trial and was acquitted. But the state kept all the money it seized even though technically no crime was ever committed.  http://reason.com/blog/2017/04/21/scotus-says-states-have-no-right-to-mone

 

The other good thing they did was decline to take up Illinois Transportation Trade Association v. City of Chicago. It seems the cab companies in Chicago don't like competition from Uber and Lyft and were trying to shut them down. http://reason.com/blog/2017/04/24/supreme-court-lets-stand-7th-circuit-vic

 

I would point out that bank where your checking account is could absolutely keep all you money if they want.  And it isn't even hypothetical scenario but thing that has happened many times in history. Meaning that it is absolutely possible for biggest company in world can buy the bank where your account is and seize your money. 

 

I don't know where the heck you got that idea but in the US at least, no they cannot. And even if the bank failed the accounts are insured (up to a point). They may withdraw fess and other expenses and these are all things you agree too when opening the account. And that is the key, that account is an agreement, a contract between them and the account holder. They have to live up to their end and vice versa. So if I overdraft my checking account and they hit me with a $20 overdraft fee (or however much it is) I agreed to the rules when I opened the account so that is not taking money without my permission either.

 

 

When you give them you money they are in control over it. It is government that gives you assurance that bank can't arbitrarily without consequences to do so, at least not without permission from the government (usually meaning that they have court order that gives them right to seize your money to pay your debts, or something similar).

 

Meaning that even though you have agreement with bank about them holding your money with certain term it does not mean that they can't break those terms and just keep your money. 

 

And I would say that in case of bank failure bank has already mishandled money that you and others gave them and insurance exists because such mishandling can happen, even on level that threatens worlds economy. 

 

I would point out that governments have power that people give them, where big companies power is restricted by governments (world where there is no governments, who would be there to assure that big companies follow through agreements that they have made with you? You can just look how many big companies work in countries that have weak governments).

[Zoraptor]

Never heard of that happening in the US, sounds ridiculous.

I have to idea whether it's legal in the US, but depositor 'haircuts' have been widely suggested in the Euro Zone, especially Cyprus where they stole ~50% of deposits (mostly Russian) to bail out that failed garbage tier Euro, again. Kind of ironic, you get people who seem to genuinely wonder why Russia hates the EU as if there's no reason when they've outright stolen billions to prop up their failed economic model.

 

(I'd also bet that if a bank outright failed you'd not get your money back except via insurance, though that's a somewhat different situation. Seizing depositor money is obviously a last resort- or done to people you don't like to avoid your deserved political repercussions from your funny money joke currency experiment- since it utterly destroys confidence in those banks every bit as much as them actually bankrupting)

 

 

“Turkey is changing in surprising and encouraging ways,” wrote the New York Times that year,

 

"setting a constructive example for the entire Muslim Middle East. Under the leadership of Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdogan, an Islamic politician who favors democratic pluralism, it has enacted far-reaching reforms that are intended to meet the exacting admissions criteria of the European Union."

 

Lol. There's not a single correct thing there. Couldn't pick their nose.

 

Strangely enough the Turks bombed the Yezidis last night, on Armenian Genocide Remembrance Day no less. Obviously ISIS didn't quite do a good enough job for the Turks or their Barzani stooges who stole all the Yezidis weapons then ran off to Irbil three years ago, so they need bombing until they let Barzani's goons back in for a wash and repeat.

Edited April 25, 2017 by Zoraptor

[Guard Dog]

 

 

 

Wow. The Supreme Court did two good things in to weeks. I'm surprised. Especially since the majority opinion in one of those was written by Ruth Bader Ginsburg who I usually have nothing good to say about.

 

In Nelson v Colorado they decided 7-1 (WTF Thomas?) that the state was not entitled to assets seized as proceeds of a crime where the conviction had been overturned. You see there is one thing and one thing only that government loves. Any government. All of them. Money. They love money. Governments are far more venal than these "big corporations" so many of you seem to be terrified of. Only the governments have police powers and can just take things from you. As I've said a miilion times the biggest company in the world could not take a single penny from my checking account without my approval. The smallest level of government right here in my home state can take all of it including my home, my dogs and my freedom. Ugh. There I go ranting again. Anyway. In Nelson v Colorado defendant Shannon Nelson was convicted of four counts of child abuse and sentenced to 20 years in prison. After a witness recanted she got a new trial and was acquitted. But the state kept all the money it seized even though technically no crime was ever committed.  http://reason.com/blog/2017/04/21/scotus-says-states-have-no-right-to-mone

 

The other good thing they did was decline to take up Illinois Transportation Trade Association v. City of Chicago. It seems the cab companies in Chicago don't like competition from Uber and Lyft and were trying to shut them down. http://reason.com/blog/2017/04/24/supreme-court-lets-stand-7th-circuit-vic

 

I would point out that bank where your checking account is could absolutely keep all you money if they want.  And it isn't even hypothetical scenario but thing that has happened many times in history. Meaning that it is absolutely possible for biggest company in world can buy the bank where your account is and seize your money. 

 

I don't know where the heck you got that idea but in the US at least, no they cannot. And even if the bank failed the accounts are insured (up to a point). They may withdraw fess and other expenses and these are all things you agree too when opening the account. And that is the key, that account is an agreement, a contract between them and the account holder. They have to live up to their end and vice versa. So if I overdraft my checking account and they hit me with a $20 overdraft fee (or however much it is) I agreed to the rules when I opened the account so that is not taking money without my permission either.

 

 

When you give them you money they are in control over it. It is government that gives you assurance that bank can't arbitrarily without consequences to do so, at least not without permission from the government (usually meaning that they have court order that gives them right to seize your money to pay your debts, or something similar).

 

Meaning that even though you have agreement with bank about them holding your money with certain term it does not mean that they can't break those terms and just keep your money. 

 

And I would say that in case of bank failure bank has already mishandled money that you and others gave them and insurance exists because such mishandling can happen, even on level that threatens worlds economy. 

 

I would point out that governments have power that people give them, where big companies power is restricted by governments (world where there is no governments, who would be there to assure that big companies follow through agreements that they have made with you? You can just look how many big companies work in countries that have weak governments).

 

[Wrath of Dagon]

 

Never heard of that happening in the US, sounds ridiculous.

I have to idea whether it's legal in the US, but depositor 'haircuts' have been widely suggested in the Euro Zone, especially Cyprus where they stole ~50% of deposits (mostly Russian) to bail out that failed garbage tier Euro, again. Kind of ironic, you get people who seem to genuinely wonder why Russia hates the EU as if there's no reason when they've outright stolen billions to prop up their failed economic model.

 

But they were authorized by government to do it, which is what GD was saying, not stealing your money on their own as Elerond was claiming.

 

(I'd also bet that if a bank outright failed you'd not get your money back except via insurance, though that's a somewhat different situation. Seizing depositor money is obviously a last resort- or done to people you don't like to avoid your deserved political repercussions from your funny money joke currency experiment- since it utterly destroys confidence in those banks every bit as much as them actually bankrupting)

In US deposits are insured by the government up to $250000 per bank per account ownership type (except for accrued but unpaid interest), but in practice no one's ever lost money in a bank as the government takes them over when they fail.

[Chilloutman]

there never been devaluation in US history?

[Wrath of Dagon]

Not a formal one, of course the dollar is always losing value through inflation.

Edited April 26, 2017 by Wrath of Dagon