Donald Trump presidency discussion thread V

Igotadose

rossie1977 wrote: »

So basically like every sotu.

Go back and watch Obamas sotus and most Republicans sit on the hands throughout.

Further, lest we forget, GOP congressman Wilson shouted "You Lie!" during the 2009 SOTU. So much for the GOP seeking high ground viz. SOTU decorum. Nasty womens wearing white, bad bad bad! Congressman shouting down the POTUS, oooohh that's o.k., POTUS was a Democrat after all. Sheesh.

There were neo nazis marching with torches in Charlottesville and one of them ran over and killed a protestor.

Trump came out and said there was 'fine people on both sides'. That's why he was criticized.

And the 'we condemn' line was a couple days later after the 'both sides' dogwhistle by Trump.

Christy42

Igotadose wrote: »

Further, lest we forget, GOP congressman Wilson shouted "You Lie!" during the 2009 SOTU. So much for the GOP seeking high ground viz. SOTU decorum. Nasty womens wearing white, bad bad bad! Congressman shouting down the POTUS, oooohh that's o.k., POTUS was a Democrat after all. Sheesh.


And the 'we condemn' line was a couple days later after the 'both sides' dogwhistle by Trump.

Wasn't he forced into it by staff and regret the condemn line as well?

Outlaw Pete

If you folks had anything substantial on Trump you wouldn't have to resort to misrepresenting what he has said day after day, but yet that's the bulk of what goes on around here........

rossie1977 wrote: »

There were neo nazis marching with torches in Charlottesville and one of them ran over and killed a protestor.

Trump came out and said there was 'fine people on both sides'. That's why he was criticized.

What you're slyly suggesting (as have many) with the above comment is that Trump was calling those Neo Nazis, including the driver of the car, "fine people" - he was not!

Here's what he said in context:

[Asked a question about those protesting the removal of the statue]

"And you had some very bad people in that group, but you also had people that were very fine people, on both sides.

"You had people in that group that were there to protest the taking down of, to them, a very important statue.

"You had people, and I'M NOT TALKING ABOUT THE NEO NAZIS AND THE WHITE NATIONALISTS, BECAUSE THEY SHOULD BE CONDEMNED TOTALLY, but you had many people in that group OTHER THAN NEO NAZIS AND WHITE NATIONALISTS and the press has treated them absolutely unfairly.

The truth matters.

MrFresh

Outlaw Pete wrote: »

If you folks had anything substantial on Trump you wouldn't have to resort to misrepresenting what he has said day after day, but yet that's the bulk of what goes on around here........



What you're slyly suggesting (as have many) with the above comment is that Trump was calling those Neo Nazis, including the driver of the car, "fine people" - he was not!

Here's what he said in context:



The truth matters.

I think everyone knows what he said. I think most people consider the people opposing the removal of racist icons as racists and white nationalists.

Kimsang

Professor Moriarty wrote: »

Oops! You do know that Quillette isn't exactly respected being a flakey libertarian 'magazine'. You do know that the author of the article was subsequently found to be a right wing troll who is banned from Twitter and the article was widely discredited as being malicious and unresearched nonsense? You do know that, ironically, the journalists mentioned in the 'article' were subsequently harassed?

Indeed many people are being banned from twitter these days, I wouldn't take it as evidence of anything. Especially considering Vijaya Gadde is the head of trust and safety team and people like Anita Sarkeesian sit in their council.

I also know that Majiid Nawaz of Quillette was formerly labelled as a Anti-Muslim extremist by Southern Poverty Law Centre, and he in fact successfully sued them for being incorrect.

To your claim in bold, I can only find extremist nonsense, could you please link me ?

Brian?

Outlaw Pete wrote: »

If you folks had anything substantial on Trump you wouldn't have to resort to misrepresenting what he has said day after day, but yet that's the bulk of what goes on around here........



What you're slyly suggesting (as have many) with the above comment is that Trump was calling those Neo Nazis, including the driver of the car, "fine people" - he was not!

Here's what he said in context:



The truth matters.

The truth matters alright. The truth is that people who marched with Neo Nazis and White Supremacists have to be judged by the company they keep.

If they were "fine people" , they wouldn't have marched with bigots. They could have protested another time. They didn't though, they joined forces with neo Nazis and bigots and marched with people chanting Nazi slogans like "Jews will not replace us" and "Blood and Soil".

What kind of fine person hears that and marches along with these people????

Kimsang

Akrasia wrote: »

Its shocking that journalists would agree with anti fascist rhetoric. There should be more balance. Why do these journalists so rarely bring up Hitler's positive attributes....

Association Fallacy

You like the colour blue? Hitler also liked the colour blue! You must never like the colour blue again!

Is this an argument we would accept anywhere else?

Remember the context. History revisionists were destroying statues all over. ACLU HELPED the 'Unite the Right' rally happen. Many people turned up, the majority were not nazis.

Brian?

Kimsang wrote: »

Association Fallacy


Is this an argument we would accept anywhere else?

Remember the context. History revisionists were destroying statues all over. ACLU HELPED the 'Unite the Right' rally happen. Many people turned up, the majority were not nazis.

Why do you keep calling them "history revisionists"? Most of these statues were erected as a reaction to the civil rights movements, not directly after the civil war.

The only revisionism is the portrayal of Confederate soldiers as heroes. They were not fighting for a just and honorable cause, they were fighting to maintain the right to own slaves.

Timberrrrrrrr

Outlaw Pete wrote: »

If you folks had anything substantial on Trump you wouldn't have to resort to misrepresenting what he has said day after day, but yet that's the bulk of what goes on around here........



What you're slyly suggesting (as have many) with the above comment is that Trump was calling those Neo Nazis, including the driver of the car, "fine people" - he was not!

Here's what he said in context:



The truth matters.

Ah pete you're back!

You seemed to have missed my post, any chance you could answer Billy's question (that you also seemed to miss) highlighted in this post please?

Timberrrrrrrr wrote: »

Any chance you could reply to the question in this post? You seem to have missed it........again.

Outlaw Pete

Outlaw Pete wrote: »

If you folks had anything substantial on Trump you wouldn't have to resort to misrepresenting what he has said day after day, but yet that's the bulk of what goes on around here........



What you're slyly suggesting (as have many) with the above comment is that Trump was calling those Neo Nazis, including the driver of the car, "fine people" - he was not!

Here's what he said in context:



The truth matters.

The truth matters, but not to Trump or his supporters. You lot never seem to care about the constant lies he and his cronies spout. He's almost up to 11,000 provable lies now. What's your take on that?

FrostyJack

Kimsang wrote: »

Association Fallacy

Ha, the very fallacy Trump puts into all his speeches, Mexicans are rapists, Mulisms are ISIS, Media are all fake news, Black teenagers in Central park are up to no good etc.

Remember the context. History revisionists were destroying statues all over. ACLU HELPED the 'Unite the Right' rally happen. Many people turned up, the majority were not nazis.

No one said they were all Nazi's, but they were willing to tolerate and walk with them even though their country folk fought in a World War against their ideology, in order to support a symbol a slavery. They may not all be Nazi's but they all had questionable morals.

Kimsang

Brian? wrote: »

Why do you keep calling them "history revisionists"? Most of these statues were erected as a reaction to the civil rights movements, not directly after the civil war.

The only revisionism is the portrayal of Confederate soldiers as heroes. They were not fighting for a just and honorable cause, they were fighting to maintain the right to own slaves.

I would call removing statues 'history revisionists'. There was a clear ideological intent in what they were doing. I don't see much difference between what they're doing and ISIS destroying cultural heritage.

Statues are there not just to make heros of, they are also a reminder and can even be a cautionary tale.

Professor Moriarty

Kimsang wrote: »

Indeed many people are being banned from twitter these days, I wouldn't take it as evidence of anything. Especially considering Vijaya Gadde is the head of trust and safety team and people like Anita Sarkeesian sit in their council.

I also know that Majiid Nawaz of Quillette was formerly labelled as a Anti-Muslim extremist by Southern Poverty Law Centre, and he in fact successfully sued them for being incorrect.

To your claim in bold, I can only find extremist nonsense, could you please link me ?

No problem. The Colombia Journalist Review. And The Huffington Post. And The Independent.

Timberrrrrrrr

Kimsang wrote: »

I would call removing statues 'history revisionists'. There was a clear ideological intent in what they were doing. I don't see much difference between what they're doing and ISIS destroying cultural heritage.

Statues are there not just to make heros of, they are also a reminder and can even be a cautionary tale.

So you would be ok with a statue of Cromwell going up in the middle of Dublin?

Igotadose

Outlaw Pete wrote: »

If you folks had anything substantial on Trump you wouldn't have to resort to misrepresenting what he has said day after day, but yet that's the bulk of what goes on around here........



What you're slyly suggesting (as have many) with the above comment is that Trump was calling those Neo Nazis, including the driver of the car, "fine people" - he was not!

Here's what he said in context:



The truth matters.

And he took an opportunity to get in a dig at McCain for voting down Trumpcare. What a small-minded guy.

As for his overall speech, if he'd simply said, "We condemn violence in all its form and support the right of people to peaceably assemble," that'd had covered it. But no, had to try to split hairs. And it seems he supports keeping those Confederate leaders statues up; probably should give that a rethink as well. FWIW if you look into the groups protesting (legally) the removal of those confederate statues, they're pretty dodgy.

pixelburp

Kimsang wrote: »

I would call removing statues 'history revisionists'. There was a clear ideological intent in what they were doing. I don't see much difference between what they're doing and ISIS destroying cultural heritage.

Statues are there not just to make heros of, they are also a reminder and can even be a cautionary tale.

That's all well and good if the Confederate statues were erected as cautionary tales, but in many cases, they were clearly weren't & were there to venerate and celebrate various Southern military figures. The only revisionism is in ignoring the obvious historical scar these individuals present in national or local history, to ignore that is more revisionist than those would seek these statues to be pulled down.

No one would rightly assert the need or justification for keeping statues celebrating figures of Apatheid, or indeed a bust of Cromwell in the middle of Leinster; the same tracks for Confederate 'heroes' whose statues ... well, rub it in.

Kimsang

FrostyJack wrote: »

Ha, the very fallacy Trump puts into all his speeches, Mexicans are rapists, Mulisms are ISIS, Media are all fake news, Black teenagers in Central park are up to no good etc.



No one said they were all Nazi's, but they were willing to tolerate and walk with them even though their country folk fought in a World War against their ideology, in order to support a symbol a slavery. They may not all be Nazi's but they all had questionable morals.

I agree Trump does it. He doesn't claim the higher morale high-ground though.

But the marchers weren't supporting a symbol of hatred. I believe they were protecting culture. Would you call people that stood in opposition to ISIS destroying cultrual heritage as supporting symbols of hate? I'm sure that's exactly how ISIS saw them.

Would you say the ACLU had questionable morales?

Brian?

Kimsang wrote: »

I would call removing statues 'history revisionists'. There was a clear ideological intent in what they were doing. I don't see much difference between what they're doing and ISIS destroying cultural heritage.

There is a massive difference between the 2. The civil ware statues stand as a reminder that the south fought to keep people as slaves.

Statues are there not just to make heros of, they are also a reminder and can even be a cautionary tale.

Are you kidding me? These statues are not used as a cautionary tale. I have nothing against memorials to dead ordinary soldiers, but these are to glorify the generals from the confederacy who fought to keep slavery legal.

If the former confederate states want to erect monuments as cautionary tales, why didn't they erect some statues of slaves in bondage?

FrostyJack

Kimsang wrote: »

I would call removing statues 'history revisionists'. There was a clear ideological intent in what they were doing. I don't see much difference between what they're doing and ISIS destroying cultural heritage.

Statues are there not just to make heros of, they are also a reminder and can even be a cautionary tale.

They were not destroying the statues they were removing them from prominent places like on main streets and in front of government buildings. Would you be ok with statues of Cromwell or Churchhill on O'Connell bridge ? Nelson's Pillar? Given the fact that the likes of General Lee lost the war they should be hidden away for the embarrassment to the Southern people so they can move into the 21st century. I like how you used your Association Fallacy again, saying ISIS took down cultural heritage things so it is the same as statues being stored somewhere else.

Kimsang

pixelburp wrote: »

That's all well and good if the Confederate statues were erected as cautionary tales, but in many cases, they were clearly weren't & were there to venerate and celebrate various Southern military figures. The only revisionism is in ignoring the obvious historical scar these individuals present in national or local history, to ignore that is more revisionist than those would seek these statues to be pulled down.

No one would rightly assert the need or justification for keeping statues celebrating figures of Apatheid, or indeed a bust of Cromwell in the middle of Leinster; the same tracks for Confederate 'heroes' whose statues ... well, rub it in.

You make some good points. I guess I don't know enough about these statues and their context.

But when Isis starts destroying culture in Iraq, I don't go to research what they are destroying and whether it is worth destroying, do you see what I mean?

Fair enough if people democratically voted or something to destroy these statues, but it was done under the pressure of mobs of protestors. There was nothing civil or planned about it.

Brian?

Kimsang wrote: »

I agree Trump does it. He doesn't claim the higher morale high-ground though.

But the marchers weren't supporting a symbol of hatred. I believe they were protecting culture. Would you call people that stood in opposition to ISIS destroying cultrual heritage as supporting symbols of hate? I'm sure that's exactly how ISIS saw them.

You realise some culture isn't worth protecting? A culture of owning other people and being willing to fight a war to maintain that right isn't worth saving.

Would you say the ACLU had questionable morales?

Why do you keep bringing up the ACLU? The ACLU supported their right to protest.

No one is contesting their right to protest. They have every right. As did the counter protesters.

The issue I have, along with others, is describing people who march with bigots "fine people". They aren't.

mcmoustache

FrostyJack wrote: »

No one said they were all Nazi's, but they were willing to tolerate and walk with them even though their country folk fought in a World War against their ideology, in order to support a symbol a slavery. They may not all be Nazi's but they all had questionable morals.

There were swasticas and chants of "jews will not replace us". It was right there in video.

Anyone pretending that this was some kind of march by history buffs is full of hot air.

pixelburp

Kimsang wrote: »

You make some good points. I guess I don't know enough about these statues and their context.

But when Isis starts destroying culture in Iraq, I don't go to research what they are destroying and whether it is worth destroying, do you see what I mean?

Fair enough if people democratically voted or something to destroy these statues, but it was done under the pressure of mobs of protestors. There was nothing civil or planned about it.

No, I don't because you're trying to conflate the rampant destruction of works that are considered blasphemous (idolotry of false gods, basically), and the attempt to remove a hurtful, historically disgusting statue venerating a torrid time in US history. Trying to draw some intellectual through-line between the predominantly peaceful protests against the status and ISI is a blatantly bad faith tactic.

Here is the statue in question:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robert_Edward_Lee_(sculpture)

This, and others like it, were NOT erected as cautionary tales, they were built as commemorations or celebrations of military figures who were, even leaving aside the slavery aspect, were also traitors.

Kimsang

Brian? wrote: »

There is a massive difference between the 2. The civil ware statues stand as a reminder that the south fought to keep people as slaves.



Are you kidding me? These statues are not used as a cautionary tale. I have nothing against memorials to dead ordinary soldiers, but these are to glorify the generals from the confederacy who fought to keep slavery legal.

If the former confederate states want to erect monuments as cautionary tales, why didn't they erect some statues of slaves in bondage?

In Limerick there are statues of people suffering during the famine. This isn't glorying the suffering of those people. I guess it comes down to interpretation.

To clarify my position, vs many points made here, I would be happy if the statues were removed in an orderly civil way, but they were removed at the behest of an emotional mob. Those are two entirely different things, hence my comparison to isis.

FrostyJack

Kimsang wrote: »

Would you say the ACLU had questionable morales?

ACLU did not support the rally , they supported the rights for them to have the rally, are you deliberately misrepresenting their attendance there? They support the right to free speech of thing you disagree with not they supported Nazi's marching and defending slavers.

pixelburp

Kimsang wrote: »

In Limerick there are statues of people suffering during the famine. This isn't glorying the suffering of those people. I guess it comes down to interpretation.

To clarify my position, vs many points made here, I would be happy if the statues were removed in an orderly civil way, but they were removed at the behest of an emotional mob. Those are two entirely different things, hence my comparison to isis.

Again, this was not the intent of those Confederate statues, you're being a little disingenuous if I'm being honest, or wilfully ignoring of the intent of erection here; in case you missed it, here's the statue:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robert_Edward_Lee_(sculpture)

A bog-standard, military statue that is clearly meant as celebration of the figure, not commiseration or 'cautionary tale'. The figure is demonstrative and blatantly confrontational, this is fairly clear and unobtrusive.

Kimsang

FrostyJack wrote: »

ACLU did not support the rally , they supported the rights for them to have the rally, are you deliberately misrepresenting their attendance there? They support the right to free speech of thing you disagree with not they supported Nazi's marching and defending slavers.

The argument was being made that whoever was there had questionable morales, because nazis were there. This is guilt by association.

I believe there was a very real reason to protest that day and many good fine people were there.

weisses

Kimsang wrote: »

The argument was being made that whoever was there had questionable morales, because nazis were there. This is guilt by association.

I believe there was a very real reason to protest that day and many good fine people were there.

Correct me if Im wrong but wasn't this protest organized by Jason Kessler and Richard Spencer ?

If so ... explain that whole morale thing for me again please ?

BloodBath

Are ye all forgetting that George Washington and Thomas Jefferson were slave owners yet they are on the money, on mount Rushmore and celebrated and quoted all over the US. Ye don't see the hypocrisy? The US was built on slavery. It's ingrained in their disgusting history.

But it's all Trump right? Not an endemic part of their crappy culture which continues to this day.

pixelburp

weisses wrote: »

Correct me if Im wrong but wasn't this protest organized by Jason Kessler and Richard Spencer ?

If so ... explain that whole morale thing for me again please ?

Correct: https://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/white-nationalist-leads-torch-bearing-protesters-against-removal-confederate-statue-n759266

BloodBath wrote: »

Are ye all forgetting that George Washington and Thomas Jefferson were slave owners yet they are on the money, on mount Rushmore and celebrated and quoted all over the US. Ye don't see the hypocrisy? The US was build on slavery. It's ingrained in their disgusting history.

But it's all Trump right? Not an endemic part of their crappy culture which continues to this day.

Sure, and if the subject came up I'd be all for the removal of Washington from public display as well; the question didn't come up so why throw it out as some argument against action? The first step in coming to terms with its past, the least that can be done is remove statues that openly commemorate or celebrate those who were brazen in the attitude of wanting to maintain the slave trade.

As we've seen in the news though, Republicans are stoutly against any kind of reparations in the first place, so the country is a long way from a South Africa or Spanish form of healing.