Donald Trump is the President Mark IV (Read Mod Warning in OP)

batgoat

Eric Cartman wrote: »

they were placed as memorials although the locations chosen for racist reasons in the south but erected in a post civil war early 1900s US much before the civil rights movement or anything like that. Relating to my original post that yet again gives credence that its removing history and you can't just erase history because its 'bad'

nobody is going to knock down auschwitz or fill in the bullet holes on the GPO etc...

I think they should have been left as a reminder of that period (early 1900's) and a cautionary tale of what not to repeat.

The other poster postured that most of them were from the 60s civil rights era, that article I posted said no, that most of them were built by veterans groups much earlier. These are hundred year old statues we're on about.

You'll actually find there was a period of DeNazification in Germany... Statues and monuments were removed, idolisation of Nazi Germany is something that the Germans have constantly prevented. Concentration camps are a reminder of the horrors, treating individuals Nazis like heroes or leaving up Swastikas is of zero benefit.

https://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2017/08/20/why-there-are-no-nazi-statues-in-germany-215510

A response to Jim Crowe era laws to put black people in their place is not a reminder of how bad things can happen. It created idols for white supremacists more than anything. Charlottesville is proof enough of that.

Eric Cartman

batgoat wrote: »

You'll actually find there was a period of DeNazification in Germany... Statues and monuments were removed, idolisation of Nazi Germany is something that the Germans have constantly prevented. Concentration camps are a reminder of the horrors, treating individuals Nazis like heroes or leaving up Swastikas is of zero benefit.

https://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2017/08/20/why-there-are-no-nazi-statues-in-germany-215510

A response to Jim Crowe era laws to put black people in their place is not a reminder of how bad things can happen. It created idols for white supremacists more than anything. Charlottesville is proof enough of that.

understandible , but its not like the germans waited 100 years, why did it take so long for these statues to become a problem ?

batgoat

Eric Cartman wrote: »

understandible , but its not like the germans waited 100 years, why did it take so long for these statues to become a problem ?

They've been viewed as controversial for decades.... You literally used the Germans as your example, they're a great example according to yourself. Are they no longer a great example of why you shouldn't keep monuments to white supremacy?

everlast75

Eric Cartman wrote: »

both remnants of a period of history that should never be forgotten but not for positive reasons.

Stick them in museums then.

Anyone who wants to go see them, can.

Eric Cartman

everlast75 wrote: »

Stick them in museums then.

Anyone who wants to go see them, can.

that would actually be a compromise I would accept.

StringerBell

Eric Cartman wrote: »

that would actually be a compromise I would accept.

And that to me is the rational thing to do with them.

Eric Cartman

StringerBell wrote: »

And that to me is the rational thing to do with them.

perhaps announcing that they were to be donated to the Virginia civil war museum would have even stopped the protests. With no talk of their future upon removal I think there was a fear they would be destroyed.

batgoat

Eric Cartman wrote: »

perhaps announcing that they were to be donated to the Virginia civil war museum would have even stopped the protests. With no talk of their future upon removal I think there was a fear they would be destroyed.

You think that would have put neo Nazis and white supremacists rioting? I'm grand with sending them to a museum and most have no issue with that. Those who march on Charlottesville specifically want them to be located where they are for their original intent.

Water John

Remember seeing a docu on this. The relevant statue was erected, not facing his benefactors but facing the black part of town. Clear message being delivered.

VonZan

dr.fuzzenstein wrote: »

I sometimes wonder whether Trump found an entirely new way of arguing.
I'm still trying to figure it out. My theory is, his followers will be behind him no matter what he says or does. So he throws out several answers to the same question, all contradicting each other. To his followers it won't matter, because, just like Mr. R here, they can just pick wherever answer suits their argument at the time.
Fox News is doing that anyway and they don't care about the contradictions, they just want to bathe their glorious leader in golden light.
And someone like CNN, well, they would chose whatever is unflattering about him anyway, but that straight up doesn't matter, because of the confused ramblings of the man.

Well sort of. I don't think Trump really has much of a strategy outside of his promises to donors and lobbyists. I don't think his supporters really care about what is said about him or what he says. They already perceive the government as having failed them and see America failing so Trump can do very little wrong in their eyes; he can do no right in his opposition's eyes either.

Water John

Disagree, GOP and Trump supporters see the Presidency as succeeding it putting two judges in the Supreme Court.

aloyisious

Rjd2 wrote: »

He did not say Lee was on right side of history, just admitted he was a formidable opponent which many would agree that he was. Similar to Rommel you can appreciate how tough he was to defeat while loathing his politics.

When talking about playing to the crowd, yes he was to an extent. He was in Grant territory and he was praising him for what many consider his finest ever moment and arguably one of the most seminal moments in American history.

It'd also be in keeping with republican party tradition to praise Grant as the republican party was founded in the early 1850's and it's first elected president was Abe Lincoln. Don is the latest successor and heir to Abe.

looksee

"You know what?" Trump added when told it appeared he had accused Ford of lying in his speech. "I'm not going to get into it, because we won. It doesn't matter. We won."

Which pretty much sums up his attitude to life, to politics and to people who are not on 'his side'.

RIGOLO

VonZan wrote: »

Well sort of. I don't think Trump really has much of a strategy outside of his promises to donors and lobbyists. I don't think his supporters really care about what is said about him or what he says. They already perceive the government as having failed them and see America failing so Trump can do very little wrong in their eyes; he can do no right in his opposition's eyes either.

Au contraire.
Donald Trump and the Trump administration has been very vocal about its strategy.

In fact his strategy is what got him elected.

Instead of clicking on a soundbite and sensationalist healdline from one of his pre-election rallys, the left would have been better served to watch one of them and learn.

You dont get to keep 10,000 people in an auditorium unless you have a strong and strategic message to impart.
Trump outlined all his policies on opioid crisis, trade, manufacturing, immigration, the UN, NATO, China, Iran, NK he used to cover all the bases during his pre-election rallys, and thats one of the things what got him elected.
You can google them, and I dont mean the main stream media 30 sec soundbite, I mean google and watch the whole rally early 2016, you would be suprised the topics he covered pre-election when speaking in rural mid-west states.

If you just follow the main stream media and base all your opinion on his strategy from that, then you probably think his only message was build a wall. But in the field and on the campaign trail his message was far broader , thats why he won the Presidential election.
As a vox pop, can anyone name a HRC Clinton 2016 Presidential Election policy (without having to google one), exactly, no one knew what she stood for, Trump was very clear on his policies and strategy.

And whats even more of an achievement is the Trump Administration has successfully implemented many of their strategys to resounding success. .

Christy42

looksee wrote: »

"You know what?" Trump added when told it appeared he had accused Ford of lying in his speech. "I'm not going to get into it, because we won. It doesn't matter. We won."

Which pretty much sums up his attitude to life, to politics and to people who are not on 'his side'.

Indeed. The common complaint is that Democrats forgot a portion of the US but they cheer when the libs are triggered or not considered. At least Obama spoke to all of the US. Trump only ever deals with his supporters and f the rest.

RIGOLO

Christy42 wrote: »

Indeed. The common complaint is that Democrats forgot a portion of the US but they cheer when the libs are triggered or not considered. At least Obama spoke to all of the US. Trump only ever deals with his supporters and f the rest.

So how does that explain the Democrats lost over 1,000 State and National legislative seats while Obama was 'speaking to all of the US ' .

The liberals have made their own bed, their totalitarian attitude , virtue signaling, taking the high moral ground, applauding the denigration of Trump supporters (aka the Deplorables) , main stream media, popular TV and Hollywood vilification of conservatives , the talkshow hosts and SNL lampooing of Trump Administration , the shutdown of free speech and anyone with an opposing view, the public comment attacks on the police force and law and order, ....the list goes on.

If the liberals want in on the future, they need to sort out their own house, figure out what they stand for, and then maybe come back to the table and have more to say than , your all racists and what about the 1930's.

looksee

Just because I am not arguing with someone does not mean that I agree with them. Some arguments are just do not have enough basis to be worth having.

Christy42

RIGOLO wrote: »

Christy42 wrote: »

Indeed. The common complaint is that Democrats forgot a portion of the US but they cheer when the libs are triggered or not considered. At least Obama spoke to all of the US. Trump only ever deals with his supporters and f the rest.

So how does that explain the Democrats lost over 1,000 State and National legislative seats while Obama was 'speaking to all of the US ' .

The liberals have made their own bed, their totalitarian attitude , virtue signaling, taking the high moral ground, applauding the denigration of Trump supporters (aka the Deplorables) , main stream media, popular TV and Hollywood vilification of conservatives , the talkshow hosts and SNL lampooing of Trump Administration , the shutdown of free speech and anyone with an opposing view, the public comment attacks on the police force and law and order, ....the list goes on.

If the liberals want in on the future, they need to sort out their own house, figure out what they stand for, and then maybe come back to the table and have more to say than , your all racists and what about the 1930's.

Right so you are happy to admit you want to ignore them. Good start.

Not sure complaining about police brutality is "attacking" but whatever. As for the satirists you complain about, look up spitting image. It may shock you.

Look at the Obama era recovery. Look at Obamacare which became popular when Trump tried to get rid of it without a plan.

You complain about people shutting down free speech and yet complain about Hollywood stars voicing their opinion. I don't always agree but they have a right to it. Some stars are a bit weird with their conspiracy theories it is true (see birther conspiracy). I am also less sure that the majority of liberals are stars.

RIGOLO

Christy42 wrote: »

Right so you are happy to admit you want to ignore them. Good start.

Not sure complaining about police brutality is "attacking" but whatever. As for the satirists you complain about, look up spitting image. It may shock you.

Look at the Obama era recovery. Look at Obamacare which became popular when Trump tried to get rid of it without a plan.

You complain about people shutting down free speech and yet complain about Hollywood stars voicing their opinion. I don't always agree but they have a right to it. Some stars are a bit weird with their conspiracy theories it is true (see birther conspiracy). I am also less sure that the majority of liberals are stars.

Thats sort of a typical Liberal stance, put words into someones mouth so the Liberaly can start the arguement on the high moral ground. I didnt say anything of the sort about being happy to ignore them . I think they need to change their approach, but if you think the liberals have a winning approach , by all means argue that case .


The American Electorate gave it a long hard look, in fact they were looking at it for 8 years.
And thats why they flippped over 1,000 State and National seats red during Obamas term , and thats also why they rejected HRC who was part of the failures throughout Obamas 8 years.

looksee

The only thing that the Trump/Clinton debacle proves is that the US has a totally ridiculous political system. When a population of 327m people can be reduced to a two-horse race of that calibre then there is a lot wrong with it. And when the winner of the two horse race can be dismissed by the judges saying 'ah sure, we don't think people really wanted this one to win, lets have that one' then you know there is no point trying to make sense of it all. Comparing bad with worse to work out which should have the prize is futile.

Igotadose

RIGOLO wrote: »

Thats sort of a typical Liberal stance, put words into someones mouth so the Liberaly can start the arguement on the high moral ground. I didnt say anything of the sort about being happy to ignore them . I think they need to change their approach, but if you think the liberals have a winning approach , by all means argue that case .

Here's one suggestion: As you use liberals pejoratively, and the other pejorative "Democrat Party" (when its name is the Democratic party), let's change the dialog: moderates, and reactionaries. Moderates because what's liberal in the US is by far less radical than the rest of the western world (have a look at some of the politics in Ireland). And, reactionary, because 'conservatism' is really about small governments, individual rights and controlled budgets, none of which is in any way part of the current 'conservative' dogma coming from the US. It's really 'reactionary' - trying to turn time back to some idealized version of the past.

The American Electorate gave it a long hard look, in fact they were looking at it for 8 years.
And thats why they flippped over 1,000 State and National seats red during Obamas term , and thats also why they rejected HRC who was part of the failures throughout Obamas 8 years.

Rejected via winning the popular vote. Whether Obama had any influence on local elections is a stretch - during GWB's term, plenty of states were Democratic in all houses, was that because of him or in spite of him? No, states flipped because of the plottings of the reactionary media.

Hope that helps.

Speaking of, are you in agreement that the Civil War wasn't by any stretch of the imagination a Democratic/Republican issue? Haven't seen your answer to that question.

Christy42

RIGOLO wrote: »

Christy42 wrote: »

Right so you are happy to admit you want to ignore them. Good start.

Not sure complaining about police brutality is "attacking" but whatever. As for the satirists you complain about, look up spitting image. It may shock you.

Look at the Obama era recovery. Look at Obamacare which became popular when Trump tried to get rid of it without a plan.

You complain about people shutting down free speech and yet complain about Hollywood stars voicing their opinion. I don't always agree but they have a right to it. Some stars are a bit weird with their conspiracy theories it is true (see birther conspiracy). I am also less sure that the majority of liberals are stars.

Thats sort of a typical Liberal stance, put words into someones mouth so the Liberaly can start the arguement on the high moral ground. I didnt say anything of the sort about being happy to ignore them . I think they need to change their approach, but if you think the liberals have a winning approach , by all means argue that case .


The American Electorate gave it a long hard look, in fact they were looking at it for 8 years.
And thats why they flippped over 1,000 State and National seats red during Obamas term , and thats also why they rejected HRC who was part of the failures throughout Obamas 8 years.

If you don't want people putting words in your mouth then you should afford them the same courtesy.

You said the liberals were all racists and 1930s. I gave you several other talking points like the recovery and Obamacare which you ignored.

Either we debate on an equal footing or we don't at all. The American electorate (including pretty much all relevant politicians) cheered on the Iraq war. They aren't always right. (Though they absolutely get to decide their policy just like they were happy with that war). As an example Obamacare was incredibly unpopular and was a massive part of those 1000 Republican wins. However when it came time to get rid of it, it suddenly became incredibly popular as Republicans had nothing else.

RIGOLO

Christy42 wrote: »

If you don't want people putting words in your mouth then you should afford them the same courtesy.

You said the liberals were all racists and 1930s. I gave you several other talking points like the recovery and Obamacare which you ignored.

Either we debate on an equal footing or we don't at all. The American electorate (including pretty much all relevant politicians) cheered on the Iraq war. They aren't always right. (Though they absolutely get to decide their policy just like they were happy with that war). As an example Obamacare was incredibly unpopular and was a massive part of those 1000 Republican wins. However when it came time to get rid of it, it suddenly became incredibly popular as Republicans had nothing else.

you have to stop putting words in peoples mouths.

I never said Liberals are racists.... read my post ...

I said

If the liberals want in on the future, they need to sort out their own house, figure out what they stand for, and then maybe come back to the table and have more to say than , your all racists and what about the 1930's.

Water John

I see Donald Trump the scientist, is saying if climate change is happening it will bounce back again. WTF.

Professor Moriarty

Water John wrote: »

I see Donald Trump the scientist, is saying if climate change is happening it will bounce back again. WTF.

When you are trying to feed your inflated Ego, nothing else matters. Future climate catastrophes, future budget deficits, future relations with other countries etc. Everything pales into insignificance compared to any opportunity to get admiration from his base. He's at his most ecstatic when he's being cheered at his rallies. He's at his most deflated when he's attacked in the media or compared to Obama.

Here's the essential insight into The Donald. He's just about smart enough to know that his financial and climate change legacy will destroy his children and grandchildren's lives as well as those of the great unwashed. But he doesn't care. He is literally and terminally obsessed because that great big Ego demands constant admiration.

RIGOLO

Igotadose wrote: »

Speaking of, are you in agreement that the Civil War wasn't by any stretch of the imagination a Democratic/Republican issue? Haven't seen your answer to that question.

Captain Obvious wrote: »

It's not lack of knowledge, it's revisionism.

A very complex time, which I don’t like revisiting thru a prism of modern day lens.

You can talk all you want about a North versus South war, but when it came to the politics involved , its pretty obvious which side each party lay upon.

The Civil War ended in 1865, post the civil war the reconstruction phase began, and whilst initialy this was enforced militarily it was accepted by The Republican led Government that peace could only last under a legislative authority.

At which point the Democrats (pro-slavery and anti Civil rights) realized they may have lost the war but they could protect their anti-black stance, their anti-suffrage stance etc, by cementing their electoral base.

As soon as Federal military authority was withdrawn the Republican movement in the South collapsed and the Southern Democrats quickly found many way to withhold the vote from the black man.

By 1871 all Southern states had returned to the Union yet between 1880 and 1928 no State of the Confederacy cast an Electoral Vote for a Republican

The Democrat party opposed:
The Emancipation Proclamation
The 13th Amendment ‘slavery shall not exist in the US ‘
The 14th Amendment 'equal protection under the law to all citizens , ex-slaves
The 15th Amendment 'the right of ALL citizens including ex-slaves, to vote
The Reconstruction Act of 1867
The Civil Rights of 1866
The Enforcement Act of 1870
The Forced Act of 1871
The Ku Klux Klan Act of 1871
The Civil Rights Act of 1875
The Freeman Bureau
The Civil Rights Act of 1957
The Civil Rights Act of 1960
The United State Civil Rights Commission


Its not revisionism in the slightest, its just historical fact.

Captain Obvious

Water John wrote: »

I see Donald Trump the scientist, is saying if climate change is happening it will bounce back again. WTF.

He's right. I mean, it'll require a lot, perhaps all, of the human population to die and thousands of years but it will bounce back.

RIGOLO wrote: »

A very complex time, which I don’t like revisiting thru a prism of modern day lens.

You can talk all you want about a North versus South war, but when it came to the politics involved , its pretty obvious which side each party lay upon.

The Civil War ended in 1865, post the civil war the reconstruction phase began, and whilst initialy this was enforced militarily it was accepted by The Republican led Government that peace could only last under a legislative authority.

At which point the Democrats (pro-slavery and anti Civil rights) realized they may have lost the war but they could protect their anti-black stance, their anti-suffrage stance etc, by cementing their electoral base.

As soon as Federal military authority was withdrawn the Republican movement in the South collapsed and the Southern Democrats quickly found many way to withhold the vote from the black man.

By 1871 all Southern states had returned to the Union yet between 1880 and 1928 no State of the Confederacy cast an Electoral Vote for a Republican

The Democrat party opposed:
The Emancipation Proclamation
The 13th Amendment ‘slavery shall not exist in the US ‘
The 14th Amendment 'equal protection under the law to all citizens , ex-slaves
The 15th Amendment 'the right of ALL citizens including ex-slaves, to vote
The Reconstruction Act of 1867
The Civil Rights of 1866
The Enforcement Act of 1870
The Forced Act of 1871
The Ku Klux Klan Act of 1871
The Civil Rights Act of 1875
The Freeman Bureau
The Civil Rights Act of 1957
The Civil Rights Act of 1960
The United State Civil Rights Commission


Its not revisionism in the slightest, its just historical fact.

Of those examples, only 3 are in the last century. The Civil Rights Commission was a part of the Civil Rights Act so I'm not sure why you listed it separately. Maybe to try pad out the list. Both civil rights bills were voted for by a majority of democrats. Took me only a couple of minutes to find all that out on Wikipedia. Perhaps if you could provide a source for your claim that the party opposed those bills we might be able to proceed without assuming you just made it up.


I'm not even sure what your point is. Are you trying to point out that the Democratic Party has changed for the better and the Republican Party has not? Would looking at current voting patterns not be a better judge of the party?

Leroy42

Captain Obvious wrote: »

I'm not even sure what your point is. Are you trying to point out that the Democratic Party has changed for the better and the Republican Party has not?

That is exactly what it reads like to me. 'Sure the GOP are racists now, but hey the DNC started off as racists so they are as bad as each other' seems to be the line Rigolo is taking.

ancapailldorcha

I think that it can be safely and objectively concluded that the party of Lincoln has been dead for a very, very long time now.

Christy42

RIGOLO wrote: »

Christy42 wrote: »

If you don't want people putting words in your mouth then you should afford them the same courtesy.

You said the liberals were all racists and 1930s. I gave you several other talking points like the recovery and Obamacare which you ignored.

Either we debate on an equal footing or we don't at all. The American electorate (including pretty much all relevant politicians) cheered on the Iraq war. They aren't always right. (Though they absolutely get to decide their policy just like they were happy with that war). As an example Obamacare was incredibly unpopular and was a massive part of those 1000 Republican wins. However when it came time to get rid of it, it suddenly became incredibly popular as Republicans had nothing else.

you have to stop putting words in peoples mouths.

I never said Liberals are racists.... read my post ...

I said

If the liberals want in on the future, they need to sort out their own house, figure out what they stand for, and then maybe come back to the table and have more to say than , your all racists and what about the 1930's.

Sorry I meant that you said liberals were just calling people racists and 1930s. Misphrased it.

Still you putting words in people's mouths. Stop it or stop complaining about it.