Donald Trump Presidency discussion thread II

Christy42

Rjd2 wrote: »

She is very popular yes. Some of the things she has said about Jews has been very well documented and are horrible. Its absurd to slander the whole left for one wacko obviously, but its depressing how popular she is and how protective the left in America are off her. She pretty much called Jake Tapper alt right for calling her out a few weeks ago.

Having Googled her, her anti Jewish statements are either not that well documented or are being completely overblown. The most frequently cited one is that you can't be a feminist and pro Israel occupation which is something I don't believe but I am hardly going to call her anti semitic over it.

Rjd2

Christy42 wrote: »

Having Googled her, her anti Jewish statements are either not that well documented or are being completely overblown. The most frequently cited one is that you can't be a feminist and pro Israel occupation which is something I don't believe but I am hardly going to call her anti semitic over it.

http://www.nationalreview.com/article/449393/democrats-revere-linda-sarsour-terrorist-apologist-trump-hatred-unites

http://jewishjournal.com/opinion/ben-shapiro/221518/dems-can-lose-2018/

EA women who has called for Jihad against Trump, flaunts her friendships with Hamas people,calls everyone zionists who criticise he and has spoken about how Sharia Law is fine, she is trash.

Obviously worse on the other side, but depressing how she is held in such high esteem.

wes

Rjd2 wrote: »

http://www.nationalreview.com/article/449393/democrats-revere-linda-sarsour-terrorist-apologist-trump-hatred-unites

http://jewishjournal.com/opinion/ben-shapiro/221518/dems-can-lose-2018/

She is being taken shamelessly out of context in those articles (2nd is an opinion piece btw, written by a former Breitbart writer):

Linda Sarsour Is Being Taken Out Of Context By Opportunistic Right-Wing Critics


Also, on the receiving end of death threats as per usual from the right:
NYC: Linda Sarsour Faces Death Threats Ahead of Her CUNY Commencement Speech

Christy42

Rjd2 wrote: »

http://www.nationalreview.com/article/449393/democrats-revere-linda-sarsour-terrorist-apologist-trump-hatred-unites

http://jewishjournal.com/opinion/ben-shapiro/221518/dems-can-lose-2018/

EA women who has called for Jihad against Trump, flaunts her friendships with Hamas people,calls everyone zionists who criticise he and has spoken about how Sharia Law is fine, she is trash.

Obviously worse on the other side, but depressing how she is held in such high esteem.

I saw her less than palatable views. Don't mistake my posts as a defense of the woman.

I was simply surprised at how forceful the anti semitic label was pushed and that has not been addressed (though your points about her other beliefs are mostly valid). I can't see how anyone can be a feminist and support sharia law anywhere for instance and she seems full of those contradictions.

StudentDad

What a fascinating way of obliterating history. By removing statues, plaques etc from the public square, we also remove discussion. These figures are a part of history and as much as we may loath or dislike these icons. They represent a part of us. If we whitewash the bits we don't like, what then? Do we pretend these individuals didn't exist? There was a time when these people were celebrated, hence the statue or plaque etc. To my mind these icons need to be remembered for good or ill, lest we forget!

SD

Rjd2

wes wrote: »

She is being taken shamelessly out of context in those articles (2nd is an opinion piece btw, written by a former Breitbart writer):

Linda Sarsour Is Being Taken Out Of Context By Opportunistic Right-Wing Critics


Also, on the receiving end of death threats as per usual from the right:
NYC: Linda Sarsour Faces Death Threats Ahead of Her CUNY Commencement Speech

That HP article is not bad to be fair. It does avoid all the other criticism and I am doubtful how naive she is with the use of the word but going away around in circles.

Shapiro has a lot of views that are pretty unappealing to many (he is a conservative!:D), but he is miles ahead of the current Breitbart brigade who are glorified Trump fanboys and little else.

Christy42 wrote: »

I saw her less than palatable views. Don't mistake my posts as a defense of the woman.

I was simply surprised at how forceful the anti semitic label was pushed and that has not been addressed (though your points about her other beliefs are mostly valid). I can't see how anyone can be a feminist and support sharia law anywhere for instance and she seems full of those contradictions.

That's pretty fair to be honest.

Anyway probably best to move away from Linda, not as if Trump does not provide enough to keep the thread going.


Peaceful debates on the politics forum, what a time to be alive:)

wes

StudentDad wrote: »

What a fascinating way of obliterating history. By removing statues, plaques etc from the public square, also remove discussion. These figures are a part of history and as much as we may loath or dislike these icons. They represent a part of us. If we whitewash the bits we don't like, what then? Do we pretend these individuals didn't exist? There was a time when these people were celebrated, hence the statue or plaque etc. To my mind these icons need to be remembered for good or ill, lest we forget!

SD

Removing statues doesn't remove history. The history books (the ones that the US far right haven't rewritten to remove slavery from them) are still there. No erasure is being done, also quite a few will be moved to museums.

Also, they were put up rather quickly during the civil right era in the US, as a message to African Americans.

Also, Why put up statues celebrating traitors to the US? It make no sense at all.

Should there be a statue of World War 2 Japanese emperor put up in Pearl Harbour? That make as about as much sense as statues celebrating the confederacy.

wes

Rjd2 wrote: »

That HP article is not bad to be fair. It does avoid all the other criticism and I am doubtful how naive she is with the use of the word but going away around in circles.

I don't know about the other stuff she said, one war or the other. Only know about the "Jihad" comment. Its a perfectly normal word for her to use, and yes it was ultimately foolish, the fact remains she was widely taken out of context in that regard.

Rjd2 wrote: »

Shapiro has a lot of views that are pretty unappealing to many (he is a conservative!:D), but he is miles ahead of the current Breitbart brigade who are glorified Trump fanboys and little else.

He found them palatable for a very long time himself, otherwise he wouldn't have worked for them for so long. Still, he has himself been on the receiving end of alt right death threats from his former ideological friends. Normally, I would have more sympathy, but its been clear that Breitbart, were not "conservative", but rather far right for a very long time. Its hard for me to believe he didn't know what Breitbart was, while he was there.

InTheTrees

wes wrote: »

Also, they were put up rather quickly during the civil right era in the US, as a message to African Americans.

Exactly. As I keep on posting over and over....it goes far beyond the civil war.

Blacks in the south were still being lynched into the 1960's.

Blacks in the south didnt achieve equal rights until the mid 1960's and the statues and flags were used as a way of reminding them of their place.

StudentDad

wes wrote: »

Removing statues doesn't remove history. The history books (the ones that the US far right haven't rewritten to remove slavery from them) are still there. No erasure is being done, also quite a few will be moved to museums.

Also, they were put up rather quickly during the civil right era in the US, as a message to African Americans.

Also, Why put up statues celebrating traitors to the US? It make no sense at all.

Should there be a statue of World War 2 Japanese emperor put up in Pearl Harbour? That make as about as much sense as statues celebrating the confederacy.

Okay moving these things to museums is could be seen as reasonable. However, they do serve a purpose in that they are a stark reminder of where we were so to speak. When a kid asks their parent about a given icon, it raises further questions etc etc. My fear with this is that it feels like a form of historical censorship
or revisionism. When we start censoring what happens in the public square, that to my mind may form a slippery slope to a world where awkward questions are not asked and more importantly, not answered.

SD

Nody

StudentDad wrote: »

Okay moving these things to museums is could be seen as reasonable. However, they do serve a purpose in that they are a stark reminder of where we were so to speak. When a kid asks their parent about a given icon, it raises further questions etc etc. My fear with this is that it feels like a form of historical censorship
or revisionism. When we start censoring what happens in the public square, that to my mind may form a slippery slope to a world where awkward questions are not asked and more importantly, not answered.

SD

Then I'd suggest with replacing them instead with marching German soldiers doing sieg heils and nice big commemorate shows of the gas ovens in action since US appears to have forgotten what the Nazis were about as well inc. the president appears to need a reminder on the topic.

wes

StudentDad wrote: »

Okay moving these things to museums is could be seen as reasonable. However, they do serve a purpose in that they are a stark reminder of where we were so to speak. When a kid asks their parent about a given icon, it raises further questions etc etc. My fear with this is that it feels like a form of historical censorship
or revisionism. When we start censoring what happens in the public square, that to my mind may form a slippery slope to a world where awkward questions are not asked and more importantly, not answered.

SD

The statues were 1960s revision in the first place and there intent was a threat to African Americans. They have nothing to do with remembering history in the first place. They can easily be replaced by monuments to those who suffered or fought against slavery instead.

The real danger to history is the history book changes to minimize slavery that is being done to US school books.

Rjd2

wes wrote: »

He found them palatable for a very long time himself, otherwise he wouldn't have worked for them for so long. Still, he has himself been on the receiving end of alt right death threats from his former ideological friends. Normally, I would have more sympathy, but its been clear that Breitbart, were not "conservative", but rather far right for a very long time. Its hard for me to believe he didn't know what Breitbart was, while he was there.

I don't recall enough about them tbh, but they were nowhere as crap when Andrew Breitbart was there and before Bannon had really taken control. Breitbart were somewhat less mental back in the day.:eek:

He has been pretty brutal on Trump to be fair anyhow and bailed once it became little more than a Trump fansite.

StudentDad

Nody wrote: »

Then I'd suggest with replacing them instead with marching German soldiers doing sieg heils and nice big commemorate shows of the gas ovens in action since US appears to have forgotten what the Nazis were about as well inc. the president appears to need a reminder on the topic.

That I fear would only glorify the nazis and the evil they represent. There are places in Europe, not just Belsen and other camps that are left as a reminder. There are other sites, like train yards that are left undeveloped as a constant reminder of what was done. Sometimes we have to look at evil straight in the eye and say never again.

SD

Rjd2

InTheTrees wrote: »

Exactly. As I keep on posting over and over....it goes far beyond the civil war.

Blacks in the south were still being lynched into the 1960's.

Blacks in the south didnt achieve equal rights until the mid 1960's and the statues and flags were used as a way of reminding them of their place.

Yeah I can understand how people get fed up with left wingers calling pretty much everything racist and the term "white privilege" has been overused so much that the term has nearly lost all meaning, but I genuinely don't think the right wing POV really holds up when it comes to these statues.

I mean surely people can understand how upsetting these would be for black people in America who as has been pointed out are from families that suffered horrific abuse only a few decades ago?

That's not been politically correct etc, just common sense ffs

StudentDad

wes wrote: »

The statues were 1960s revision in the first place and there intent was a threat to African Americans. They have nothing to do with remembering history in the first place. They can easily be replaced by monuments to those who suffered or fought against slavery instead.

The real danger to history is the history book changes to minimize slavery that is being done to US school books.

I can't comment on US school books but I do agree on the importance of history. It's kinda scary when you ask someone about a particular historical figure and you get a blank stare in response. That's why I get what you are saying in relation to these statues as a kind of reminder. That said my fear is that if we whitewash everything we'll forget.

SD

Samaris

StudentDad wrote: »

What a fascinating way of obliterating history. By removing statues, plaques etc from the public square, we also remove discussion. These figures are a part of history and as much as we may loath or dislike these icons. They represent a part of us. If we whitewash the bits we don't like, what then? Do we pretend these individuals didn't exist? There was a time when these people were celebrated, hence the statue or plaque etc. To my mind these icons need to be remembered for good or ill, lest we forget!

SD

Or could stick them into a museum as was planned and let people go learn about them there. How often do people really talk about statues in cities anyway?

The other upside to that is that they're not left looking over the roads of people whose parents or grandparents were pushed out of the posh area and said statue erected to 'subtly' reinforce their place. These were only going up in the 1920s (I don't know how late the last with that intention was placed, but that specific statue was placed in 1924 for that reason).

It's not commemorating history. It was placed as a threat and right now, it symbolises that again. Why is it more important for whites to have an aide de memoire than blacks to not have that message in their city? It's not even as if the white nationalists, who are the ones doing most of the protesting, even acknowledge that. They are attempting to make it about "conserving history", which is a laudable thing and appeals to people across the spectrum, but they are not telling the whole truth.

Ironically, Robert E Lee himself might well have agreed with the removal. He considered statues and monuments divisive. http://time.com/4903671/charlottesville-robert-lee-confederate-monuments-history/

Phonehead

StudentDad wrote: »

What a fascinating way of obliterating history. By removing statues, plaques etc from the public square, we also remove discussion. These figures are a part of history and as much as we may loath or dislike these icons. They represent a part of us. If we whitewash the bits we don't like, what then? Do we pretend these individuals didn't exist? There was a time when these people were celebrated, hence the statue or plaque etc. To my mind these icons need to be remembered for good or ill, lest we forget!

SD

They are not obliterating history, unlike this stupid "Pyramids" comparison these were not built before/during or even immediately after the Civil War. These were built 100 years later as a means to intimidate and scare African Americans, do not for one minute believe that these were built with the intention of educating school kids. Imagine in 2039 if monuments to Hitler and Nazi's was constructed in Poland to mark the invasion of Poland?

Itssoeasy

When you feel sympathy for Mitch McConnell you know Donald trump is bad.

Also why is he doing campaign rallies in 2017 ?

Itssoeasy

Also how long can trump bash the press and make them out to be akin to the devil and un American before someone attacks a member of the press and something bad happens ?

Phonehead

Itssoeasy wrote: »

When you feel sympathy for Mitch McConnell you know Donald trump is bad.

Also why is he doing campaign rallies in 2017 ?

It makes perfect sense!!! everything that seems ludicrous makes perfect sense at the moment. I think if he actually did something even remotely in the Presidential job description it would be more shocking.

Autochange

The Nazi party was socialist. ie Left aligned
Remember that

Really Interested

Autochange wrote: »

The Nazi party was socialist. ie Left aligned
Remember that

God you are as thick as ****e https://www.google.ie/amp/www.indy100.com/article/nazi-socialist-right-wing-white-supremacists-history-twitter-mikestuchbery-7900001%3famp

Phonehead

Autochange wrote: »

The Nazi party was socialist. ie Left aligned
Remember that

Ugh! They are as much Socialist as the Democratic Peoples Republic of Korea is Democratic. No point in explaining the history of why they choose "Socialist" in their name, you should google it.

Sonics2k

Autochange wrote: »

The Nazi party was socialist. ie Left aligned
Remember that

For God's sake, read a book and learn.

Autochange

Sonics2k wrote: »

For God's sake, read a book and learn.

https://www.spectator.co.uk/2009/02/liberals-are-the-true-heirs-of-the-nazi-spirit/

Like this one?

Really Interested

Autochange wrote: »

https://www.spectator.co.uk/2009/02/liberals-are-the-true-heirs-of-the-nazi-spirit/

Like this one?

http://www.constantinereport.com/scholarly-flaws-in-jonah-goldbergs-liberal-fascism/

"Robert Paxton is emeritus professor of history at Columbia University. "

"Having headlined the violent history of “liberalism,” Goldberg soft-pedals that of fascists, especially Mussolini. There are the ritual references to Auschwitz, but he denies that racial extermination is integral to Nazism by noting how many Progressive reformers fell for Eugenics in the early twentieth century. "

Autochange

Really Interested wrote: »

http://www.constantinereport.com/scholarly-flaws-in-jonah-goldbergs-liberal-fascism/

"Robert Paxton is emeritus professor of history at Columbia University. "

"Having headlined the violent history of “liberalism,” Goldberg soft-pedals that of fascists, especially Mussolini. There are the ritual references to Auschwitz, but he denies that racial extermination is integral to Nazism by noting how many Progressive reformers fell for Eugenics in the early twentieth century. "

It was mentioned i should read a book. I gave an example of a book. Whats wrong now?

Really Interested

Autochange wrote: »

It was mentioned i should read a book. I gave an example of a book. Whats wrong now?

You read the whole book you linked to? not just the article but the book? Stupid is not fixed by reading badly researched and presented crap.

Autochange

Really Interested wrote: »

You read the whole book you linked to? not just the article but the book? Stupid is not fixed by reading badly researched and presented crap.

I posted a link to a book. That is all. There is no need for the 'stupid' remark.

Really Interested

Autochange wrote: »

I posted a link to a book. That is all. There is no need for the 'stupid' remark.

So you are still not reading a book. The comment made by another poster was you should read a book, which is good advice, your response was to post a link to a review of a book. God you are top of the class. You dont need to be stupid to be a conseratard but you prove it helps.

If a person posts stupid dont be surprised if called out. Or are you a PC snowflake?

Autochange

Really Interested wrote: »

So you are still not reading a book. The comment made by another poster was you should read a book, which is good advice, your response was to post a link to a review of a book. God you are top of the class. You dont need to be stupid to be a conseratard but you prove it helps.

If a person posts stupid dont be surprised if called out. Or are you a PC snowflake?

Again there is no need to be abusive because i dont agree with you or anyone elses opinion or view. is this how you operate in life? Jumping on those who have a different opinion than your own? if i choose to read a book it will be of my own chopsing. Thanks

Really Interested

Autochange wrote: »

Again there is no need to be abusive because i dont agree with you or anyone elses opinion or view. is this how you operate in life? Jumping on those who have a different opinion than your own? if i choose to read a book it will be of my own chopsing. Thanks

I have no issue with a person with a different opinion but if you post a stupid comment dont be surprised if you are told it is stupid. If you are such a snowflake maybe debate of topics you show no knowledge about is not a really good idea. If I offending you how very PC liberal of you.

Autochange

Really Interested wrote: »

I have no issue with a person with a different opinion but if you post a stupid comment dont be surprised if you are told it is stupid. If you are such a snowflake maybe debate of topics you show no knowledge about is not a really good idea. If I offending you how very PC liberal of you.

What exactly is the debate?

Really Interested

Autochange wrote: »

What exactly is the debate?

You made a claim that the Nazi's were socialist, so you advocated a point of view, it has been pointed out that there may be errors in your view, that is debate. If you want to just make claims and ignore any other view then posting those views or opinions on the internet is not a great idea.

Water John

Might be better phrased as ignorance rather than stupidity.

Autochange

I copied and pasted this

It is now becoming possible to believe that Auschwitz was socialist-inspired. The Marxist theory of history required and demanded genocide for reasons implicit in its claim that feudalism was already giving place to capitalism, which must in its turn be superseded by socialism.

Really Interested

Autochange wrote: »

I copied and pasted this

It is now becoming possible to believe that Auschwitz was socialist-inspired. The Marxist theory of history required and demanded genocide for reasons implicit in its claim that feudalism was already giving place to capitalism, which must in its turn be superseded by socialism.

And who said it what was their thesis what was their opinion. Without context how can anyone engage in discussion.

I would disageee with the statement and post a link

http://crookedtimber.org/2015/05/03/were-the-nazis-right-wing-or-weimar-culture-the-insider-as-outsider/

Which includes the passage you quoted and who wrote it and then knocks it down

"Let’s start with the Independent piece by George Watson. Did Marx really advocate ethnic genocide, as Watson implies? Well … sort of. You can read the Engels piece in question here. The concluding line: “The next world war will result in the disappearance from the face of the earth not only of reactionary classes and dynasties, but also of entire reactionary peoples. And that, too, is a step forward.” Harsh stuff. No denying it.

But does that mean the following makes sense? Engels was willing to stomach ethnic cleansing as a side-effect of class warfare; Hitler was a Marx-reader who placed an emphasis on ethnic cleansing. Ergo, probably Hitler sort of got his ethnic cleansing ideas via Marx?

No, that really does not make sense, if you stop to think about it. Even if you believe Hitler studied Marx (which honestly I doubt, although I don’t doubt he said it) it really isn’t very likely that Hitler derived his racial eliminationism from what is basically a long op-ed about the Hungarian Revolution of 1848. It is certainly not the case that the best way to understand Marxism, generally, is to rotate the whole philosophy around the noble figure of Lajos Kossuth. Even though, as Engels writes in the linked piece:"

Do some real research on both sides of the argument see what is the agenda of each writer and then make up your mind.

Autochange

Perhaps or perhaps not. Either way what is happening in the us is nothing to do with Nazism. The Us is a broken place. Its just a word the left like to throw around when someone disagrees with them. If that dosnt work then the Antifa thugs move in.


We shouldn't live our lives focusing on the goings on in the Us. We should instead have large threads debating why our own country has both a housing and health service crisis.

Really Interested

Autochange wrote: »

Perhaps or perhaps not. Either way what is happening in the us is nothing to do with Nazism. The Us is a broken place. Its just a word the left like to throw around when someone disagrees with them. If that dosnt work then the Antifa thugs move in.


We shouldn't live our lives focusing on the goings on in the Us. We should instead have large threads debating why our own country has both a housing and health service crisis.

Then follow your own advice! By all means don't post in US threads and go and fix Irish housing and health.

BTW a self described white suprematist killed a unarmed women from Antifa yet you call her group thugs. You sir are not just stupid you are evil.

oscarBravo

Autochange wrote: »

...what is happening in the us is nothing to do with Nazism.

Really?

Quin_Dub

All,

Up the standard of posting please.

Many recent posts are guilty of play the man and not the ball..

Autochange

Really Interested wrote: »

Then follow your own advice! By all means don't post in US threads and go and fix Irish housing and health.

BTW a self described white suprematist killed a unarmed women from Antifa yet you call her group thugs. You sir are not just stupid you are evil.

Woah i never condoned what happened. Im saying its nothing to do with Nazism.
Its just a bunch of hill billy American racists who think the us president is on their side, The common points among them is they think Obama ruined the country and its their duty to overturn anything and everything he tried to accomplish. They are the dumb rednecks who have now been given a voice.

Still nothing to do with Nazism.

Autochange

oscarBravo wrote: »

Really?

What are the other flags?

Really Interested

Autochange wrote: »

Woah i never condoned what happened. Im saying its nothing to do with Nazism.
Its just a bunch of hill billy American racists who think the us president is on their side, The common points among them is they think Obama ruined the country and its their duty to overturn anything and everything he tried to accomplish. They are the dumb rednecks who have now been given a voice.

Still nothing to do with Nazism.

So the people carrying Nazi flags are just simply hill billy racistist yet the Antifa are thugs. You have also posted links to claims that the left or liberals are really nazis.

So the only people calling for Jews to be run off the streets the people carrying Nazi flags and wearing t shirts with Hitler quotes and shouting SS slogans are not nazis but the people who demonstrate against nazis are. Well that has me learned then.

Itssoeasy

Autochange wrote: »

What are the other flags?

I see at least two confederate flags(the blue X on a red backround) and the others I'm not sure but I'm going to assume they are some flag associated to the confederacy.

Autochange

Really Interested wrote: »

So the people carrying Nazi flags are just simply hill billy racistist yet the Antifa are thugs. You have also posted links to claims that the left or liberals are really nazis.

So the only people calling for Jews to be run off the streets the people carrying Nazi flags and wearing t shirts with Hitler quotes and shouting SS slogans are not nazis but the people who demonstrate against nazis are. Well that has me learned then.

No. I said originally that the Nazis were a socialist party. I said nothing about what is happening in the states having anything to do with nazis. Quite the opposite. I also did say Antifa are thugs which they are and that those on the right who are causing problems are hill billies and red necks. You are clearly left leaning and dont want me to paint Antifa in a bad light. Anyone who turned up to cause violence on either side are wrong and are a sign of what the Us has turned into.

I said earlier how people can get so much in a twist about the goings on in the us but dont have an issue with the thousands living on our streets or the over 12 month hospital waiting lists here. Its like many of you are seeing the goings on in the Us as a soap opera which is keeping you enthralled

Autochange

Itssoeasy wrote: »

I see at least two confederate flags(the blue X on a red backround) and the others I'm not sure but I'm going to assume they are some flag associated to the confederacy.

What exactly do they want to achieve?

Quin_Dub

All,

This is a thread about Donald Trump and his Presidency.

There is another thread discussing the issues arising from Charlottesville and also several threads talking about the Irish economy and local issues.

If you want to discuss Trump , this is the place.. For any of the other items above , take your pick from the available threads or start another one.

Really Interested

Autochange wrote: »

No. I said originally that the Nazis were a socialist party. I said nothing about what is happening in the states having anything to do with nazis. Quite the opposite. I also did say Antifa are thugs which they are and that those on the right who are causing problems are hill billies and red necks. You are clearly left leaning and dont want me to paint Antifa in a bad light. Anyone who turned up to cause violence on either side are wrong and are a sign of what the Us has turned into.

I said earlier how people can get so much in a twist about the goings on in the us but dont have an issue with the thousands living on our streets or the over 12 month hospital waiting lists here. Its like many of you are seeing the goings on in the Us as a soap opera which is keeping you enthralled

Then why are you still posting here?

I believe in a working national health system that gives a good service to all patients and I believe in a functioning public and private housing system that does not allow homelessness so if that makes me left I'm guilty as charged. I also believe anyone who uses violence to promote political opinion should be prosecuted under the law again if that makes me left I'm guilty.