Donald Trump presidency discussion thread V

Brian?

Kimsang wrote: »

I believe it is subjective. My argument which spawned this tangent; was that there were indeed good people on both sides of what happened in Charlottesville. Having a symbol of previous oppression around isn't always condoning its actions and idoloizing the statue. I don't feel like I have to defend why the statue isn't a symbol of oppression, but just that it is a point of conjecture for many people, and good reasonable people can be seen to be opposing the removal of this statue. As a previous poster alluded to, white southerners could see it as an attack on their culture.

I am sure there are good and reasonable people who object to the removal of these statues. But I believe they are objecting for the wrong reasons. Statues like this are a symbol of oppression though. These people fought to keep slavery legal. They believed in it so much they fought a war. White southerners need to be more self aware IMO. If they are clinging to cultural symbols of the confederacy, they need to be aware of what the confederacy was. A white supremacist revolt.

What either of think of the statues is largely irrelevant though. The "Unite the Right" march was organised by bigots, for bigots. Anyone who joined it without realising this must have been blind. Even if they were blind, sure the "Blood and Soil" and "Jews will not replace us" chants would have given it away.

We may have very different moral compasses, but how can a "fine person" not be driven away once they see and hear this kind of thing??

I think we agree the statue was erected to idoloize the man. But since, it becomes a lot more than that. Generations of people have left that statue standing, and for good reason. A statue needs only ever be taken down once, and it will be forgotten about forever.

1. Tear down the statues of Confederate Generals
2. Erect memorials to the victims of slavery

Problem solved.

Just to be clear, you say "generations of people have left that statue standing", but was absolutely not for good reasons. It was erected during the Jim Crowe laws to lord it over the black citizens of Charlottesville. Was left up by people who rigidly enforced segregation on racial lines and fought the civil rights movement tooth and nail.

Manic Moran

I suspect that there is an unfortunate conflation between fighting for a state, and fighting for what the state wants, especially given the change in the perception of the nature of the US in the last 150 years or so.

There is little disputing that the confederate states were fighting for the right to have slavery. There is little dispute that a statue of Generals Stuart or Lee or whoever are statues of people who fought for the right of those states to have slavery. However, the States were considered to be far more sovereign back then than they are today. These were before the days of incorporation, or the concept of the federal government controlling what states did through use of the commerce clause. The fact that generals like Stuart or Hill were abolitionists was secondary to their position on the sovereignty of the State, they would have fought for their State had the trigger cause been slavery or salmon fishing rights. The States right argument is now commonly demeaned by many, but that does not make it irrelevant to the people actually fighting at the time. They were Virginians first, and thus can be commemorated as Virginia war heroes distinctly from the cause for which Virginia was fighting. Others disagree. The problem, I submit, is that those who disagree refuse to even countenance the position of those who look at things from the State issue.

Kimsang

Brian? wrote: »

I am sure there are good and reasonable people who object to the removal of these statues.

Thank you, that is all I've been trying to say. The media have not reflected this properly.

We may have very different moral compasses, but how can a "fine person" not be driven away once they see and hear this kind of thing??

I believe many of the fine people were driven away when they saw this type of thing. But the argument can also be made for the other side for Antifa and Black Lives Matter.

I'm sure we can agree ACLU would be considered a neutral bystander they described the events as such:

"The situation that occurred was preventable" Gastañaga wrote that: "The lack of any physical separation of the protesters and counterprotesters on the street was contributing to the potential of violence. [Police] did not respond. In fact, law enforcement was standing passively by, waiting for violence to take place, so that they would have grounds to declare an emergency, declare an 'unlawful assembly' and clear the area."

Brian?

Manic Moran wrote: »

I suspect that there is an unfortunate conflation between fighting for a state, and fighting for what the state wants, especially given the change in the perception of the nature of the US in the last 150 years or so.

There is little disputing that the confederate states were fighting for the right to have slavery. There is little dispute that a statue of Generals Stuart or Lee or whoever are statues of people who fought for the right of those states to have slavery. However, the States were considered to be far more sovereign back then than they are today. These were before the days of incorporation, or the concept of the federal government controlling what states did through use of the commerce clause. The fact that generals like Stuart or Hill were abolitionists was secondary to their position on the sovereignty of the State, they would have fought for their State had the trigger cause been slavery or salmon fishing rights. The States right argument is now commonly demeaned by many, but that does not make it irrelevant to the people actually fighting at the time. They were Virginians first, and thus can be commemorated as Virginia war heroes distinctly from the cause for which Virginia was fighting. Others disagree. The problem, I submit, is that those who disagree refuse to even countenance the position of those who look at things from the State issue.

I am fully aware that some people fought for the confederacy because they believed they were fighting primarily for their state. This does not change anything for me when it comes to war memorials and their meanings.

The real nub of the issue here is why these statues were erected where they were and when they were erected. The intention behind them was not to solemnly commemorate the fallen soldiers, it was to glorify their leaders. I am sure there are solemn memorials, I just don't know of them.

As far as I am concerned, taking up arms to defend the right to own other human beings was wrong. This isn't revisionist, this is an opinion based on certain moral beliefs.

Christy42

Manic Moran wrote: »

I suspect that there is an unfortunate conflation between fighting for a state, and fighting for what the state wants, especially given the change in the perception of the nature of the US in the last 150 years or so.

There is little disputing that the confederate states were fighting for the right to have slavery. There is little dispute that a statue of Generals Stuart or Lee or whoever are statues of people who fought for the right of those states to have slavery. However, the States were considered to be far more sovereign back then than they are today. These were before the days of incorporation, or the concept of the federal government controlling what states did through use of the commerce clause. The fact that generals like Stuart or Hill were abolitionists was secondary to their position on the sovereignty of the State, they would have fought for their State had the trigger cause been slavery or salmon fishing rights. The States right argument is now commonly demeaned by many, but that does not make it irrelevant to the people actually fighting at the time. They were Virginians first, and thus can be commemorated as Virginia war heroes distinctly from the cause for which Virginia was fighting. Others disagree. The problem, I submit, is that those who disagree refuse to even countenance the position of those who look at things from the State issue.

The problem is people walking around with and alongside Nazi flags.

If you want an argument they have to go. Until then talk of state fishing rights or whatever is simply ignoring the elephant in the room.

We both know few at that march cared about this. Hence the Nazi flags (not generally a symbol of individual states rights) and the racist slogans.

If a statue is making someone proudly carrying a Nazi flag and shouting racist slogans then that person needs to sort out their priorities pronto.

I have not seen much horror from the right that this march was taken over by racists and Nazis. They should be annoyed at the Nazis and racists for ruining their point about history etc. etc. Except everyone really knows the entire point of the march was to encourage what the Nazi flag stands for. Otherwise those history Biffs at the march would have given the racists the short shrift.

Manic Moran

Brian? wrote: »

I am fully aware that some people fought for the confederacy because they believed they were fighting primarily for their state. This does not change anything for me when it comes to war memorials and their meanings.

The real nub of the issue here is why these statues were erected where they were and when they were erected. The intention behind them was not to solemnly commemorate the fallen soldiers, it was to glorify their leaders. I am sure there are solemn memorials, I just don't know of them.

I'm happy enough to stipulate that they were there to glorify their leaders. But not all were built 60 years after the war, and nobody doing any protesting is attempting to distinguish those which were and those which were not. Building a monument 60 years after the fact is hardly unusual even to day. The US World War 2 memorial was built in 2004.

To Christy's point, I fully agree with "If a statue is making someone proudly carrying a Nazi flag and shouting racist slogans then that person needs to sort out their priorities pronto."and "The problem is people walking around with and alongside Nazi flags.". There is an interesting secondary question, then. If those carrying Nazi flags do go.... Does that reframe the matter of statues of confederate generals? Should it?

Kimsang

Manic Moran wrote: »

There is an interesting secondary question, then. If those carrying Nazi flags do go.... Does that reframe the matter of statues of confederate generals? Should it?

Interestingly, this turned up in popular culture recently in the form of,
"'Should we ban the ok symbol; because nazis have usurped it?"

The general consensus, to my shock; was yes.
Blizzard even went so far as to ban a gamer at one of their events for using it(innocently) and banning it from all future events.

The Overwatch League has banned the “OK” hand symbol from the Blizzard Arena after a viewer complained on Twitter about the symbol’s perceived connections with hate groups

I don't believe we should give these bigots the power of our words or culture.

As a Spurs fan(Tottenham Hotspur-Football) we have a history of being referred to by the negative slur of "yid", it was often a slur used against us by opposing fans(as Spurs were often associated with Jews).

While such usage remains controversial, the majority of Tottenham fans support its use in a survey and use the word with pride, and consider the usage an act of reclaiming the word as a badge of honour, nullifying its derogatory meaning when used by rival fans.

Spurs then reclaimed the word calling themselves 'yids' and 'the yid army' which took the power away from the bigots.
Similarly the gay community experienced something similar in the 90's with reclaiming words.

In my opinion we cannot continue to ban/delete words just because people we don't like also use them. Height of ridiculousness.

</edit>Let's say we delete every picture of Gen. Lee, every statue, every commemoration; Nazis and white supremacists would then have more power when they use that image.

gormdubhgorm

I found this good article which debates Trump's foreign policy stance.

https://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2017/05/the-brilliant-incoherence-of-trumps-foreign-policy/521430/

There is also an audio version of it.

weisses

Outlaw Pete wrote: »

Well by that logic then we should judge all the counter protesters by the actions of Antifa who taunted those protesting and instigated the violence (in this clip at least) by smashing those they disagreed with in the face with baseball bats:


So, you okay with all those on the left who were there being judged by the scumbag company that they keep?

attacking protesters in a protest organized by white supremacist far right neo nazi's ... I'm all in

That's all the logic you need ... they are scum

You dont need to be on the left to realize that ... a function brain would suffice

eire4

MrFresh wrote: »

The problem for Trump and his administration is that they have so little credibility in the international community. I'd be surprised if they get any support on Iran outside of the likes of SA and Israel.

No doubt about that. Even before the current administration the Americans have lied in a big way such as with Iraqi and then you have the current administration which has zero creditability when it comes to telling the truth.

Itssoeasy

The hope hicks transcript from her appearance before Congress was released.

https://www.google.ie/amp/s/amp.axios.com/house-judiciary-committee-hope-hicks-interview-424ad44c-c597-4365-aa8e-1c5caf75672e.html

Itssoeasy

So It appears that where hope hicks sat in the White House is the equivalent of the third secret of Fatima. In the transcript I linked to it's one of the first things objected to by her lawyers.

Kimsang

Professor Moriarty wrote: »

Which journalists have "far-left" ideology?

Kimsang wrote: »

"It’s Not Your Imagination: The Journalists Writing About Antifa Are Often Their Cheerleaders"
Article from Quillette

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?

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 ?

Professor Moriarty wrote: »

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

(I missed this earlier)

Hmm.....

1st link)
Any article that begins with "Eoin Lenihan, a far-right social media user" without following up with citations, should be taken with a pinch of salt. Doesn't provide any evidence other than question what the links are between Antifa members and journalists. He also links to a twitter thread where he mis-identifys the author(Lenihan) and never follows up.
Lenihan responds in full '
The article was also heavily critiqued here

But Lenihan did share his data with Quillette—including a draft of the academic article he’s written about his research, a list of the 16 Antifa seed Twitter accounts he used as the basis of his analysis, the identity of the 58,254 users who were found to follow one or more of these accounts, the scripts Lenihan used to analyze and record relationships among Twitter accounts, the tabulated statistical results of this analysis, and the list of 75 text strings used as proxies to distinguish truly extreme Antifa-related beliefs (“dox them,” “punch them,” “club them,” etc.) from the more moderate campus-friendly version (“**** white people,” #****whitesupremacy, #goodnightwhitepride, etc). What’s more, Lenihan supplied all of this in electronic format. So not only was I able to test the integrity of Lenihan’s own data-visualization figures. I also was able to create my own variations, and so could test the effect of different parameters so as to help ensure that the author wasn’t cherry-picking his values in a way that allowed him to achieve pre-determined results. - Claire Lehmann (Quillette)

2nd link)
A blog that confirms Lenihan's story,(a Breitbart writer?) but more importantly suggests:

Since he published his findings, Lenihan has had his account mass-reported on Twitter. Mass-reporting is when an account is swarmed by trolls who abuse the “report” button with the hopes of tricking a tech platform’s algorithms into automatically suspending them.

3rd link)
This article again has no evidence to support your claim that Lenihans article was anything but accurate, but goes on to explain the consequences some journalists suffered afterwards. Lenihan has also been subject to abuse since the publication of the first article you quote.

Since the publication of the piece, I have been subjected to harassment and my livelihood is under threat. Therefore, I am calling on the CJR to retract the article.

I think this might be easier if you could cite me one news story from one left leaning publication that shows Antifa in a bad light. Do this and I concede.

Professor Moriarty

Kimsang wrote: »

(I missed this earlier)

Hmm.....

1st link)
Any article that begins with "Eoin Lenihan, a far-right social media user" without following up with citations, should be taken with a pinch of salt. Doesn't provide any evidence other than question what the links are between Antifa members and journalists. He also links to a twitter thread where he mis-identifys the author(Lenihan) and never follows up.
Lenihan responds in full '
The article was also heavily critiqued here

2nd link)
A blog that confirms Lenihan's story,(a Breitbart writer?) but more importantly suggests:

3rd link)
This article again has no evidence to support your claim that Lenihans article was anything but accurate, but goes on to explain the consequences some journalists suffered afterwards. Lenihan has also been subject to abuse since the publication of the first article you quote.


I think this might be easier if you could cite me one news story from one left leaning publication that shows Antifa in a bad light. Do this and I concede.

Okay let's nail this. You posted nonsense from an article written by a bona fide far right troll. He is a far right troll. Full stop. His 'research methodology' is ludicrous at best. You didn't know that. You know now. So your point is wrong. 100% wrong because it is based on the troll's 'article'.

Let's see. Who to believe? A far right troll writing in an ultra libertarian 'magazine' whose HQ is some woman's couch. Or the Colombia Journalism Review, The Huffington Post or The Independent. So hard, must choose...

You know, I like to educate myself by engaging in meaningful debate. With respect, you're not educating me, you're wasting my time.

esteve

Has someone just tried to support their argument by posting a Daily Caller article.. i mean..really??

Professor Moriarty

esteve wrote: »

Has someone just tried to support their argument by posting a Daily Caller article.. i mean..really??

Yes, really.

Stallingrad

Very hard to know where the truth lies in yesterdays military action on Iran being called off, maybe the whole action was a bluff where Trump was always going to cancel it with a view to setting up talks or a new deal. It would be his standard bluster/brinkmanship ops.

Whatever happened I think everyone wakes up this morning grateful that a futile bombing mission, that would have only escalated things 10 fold, did not happen.

aloyisious

Stallingrad wrote: »

Very hard to know where the truth lies in yesterdays military action on Iran being called off, maybe the whole action was a bluff where Trump was always going to cancel it with a view to setting up talks or a new deal. It would be his standard bluster/brinkmanship ops.

Whatever happened I think everyone wakes up this morning grateful that a futile bombing mission, that would have only escalated things 10 fold, did not happen.

Woke up to the news that nothing had happened after going to sleep with the bemused "they shot down the unmanned aircraft" look on Don's face on the news. It was nice to hear that despite Don reportedly telling the Iranians they were going to be attacked, zilch happened. I don't know if there was a row in the W/H back rooms about any attack on Iran or if there was nothing to see at all, seeing as we're talking about Don telling it like it is.

Re the shooting-down of the UAV, not knowing in who's airspace it was at the time, I won't comment on the nearness or farness of it being a casus belli. No Gary Powers this time.

amandstu

aloyisious wrote: »

Woke up to the news that nothing had happened after going to sleep with the bemused "they shot down the unmanned aircraft" look on Don's face on the news. It was nice to hear that despite Don reportedly telling the Iranians they were going to be attacked, zilch happened. I don't know if there was a row in the W/H back rooms about any attack on Iran or if there was nothing to see at all, seeing as we're talking about Don telling it like it is.

Re the shooting-down of the UAV, not knowing in who's airspace it was at the time, I won't comment on the nearness or farness of it being a casus belli. No Gary Powers this time.

Hopefully both sides will back up their claims with evidence.

This reminds me of the Russian plane over /not over Turkey.

seamus

Stallingrad wrote: »

Very hard to know where the truth lies in yesterdays military action on Iran being called off, maybe the whole action was a bluff where Trump was always going to cancel it with a view to setting up talks or a new deal. It would be his standard bluster/brinkmanship ops.

Whatever happened I think everyone wakes up this morning grateful that a futile bombing mission, that would have only escalated things 10 fold, did not happen.

It wasn't a bluff, it was a calculated warning.

The US knows that it doesn't have anyone's backing for war right now. The shipping attack blame, the UAV, the "called off" bombing. These are all attempts to make Iran jittery, make them step up military activity, so that the US can then use this as proof of how dangerous Iran is and go in.

Bill Hicks called it out nearly 30 years ago..

Iran needs to do nothing right now. Call out the US as a bully, declare their refusal to dance to the US's tune, and take the wind out of Bolton's sails.

TomOnBoard

Stallingrad wrote: »

Very hard to know where the truth lies in yesterdays military action on Iran being called off, maybe the whole action was a bluff where Trump was always going to cancel it with a view to setting up talks or a new deal. It would be his standard bluster/brinkmanship ops.

Whatever happened I think everyone wakes up this morning grateful that a futile bombing mission, that would have only escalated things 10 fold, did not happen.

I didn't think I'd be saying this, but I'm with Iran on this one. The sabre rattling by the US is simply unacceptable, and I wouldn't be at all surprised if they went into Iranian airspace with the drone.

I don't know what happened with the alleged US attack. I hope it was a case of good sense prevailing and probably over-riding Bolton and Pompeo belligerence. The US has absolutely no right to be there anyway and escalating tensions, given that she has thrown out normal diplomatic processes. Why does she think she has to be involved in every bun fight around the world, and almost always ends up with massive local civilian casualties and destruction. I'm really fed up with the arrogant attitude that the US employs and the destruction it leaves in the wake of its bullying escapades.

Christy42

TomOnBoard wrote: »

I didn't think I'd be saying this, but I'm with Iran on this one. The sabre rattling by the US is simply unacceptable, and I wouldn't be at all surprised if they went into Iranian airspace with the drone.

I don't know what happened with the alleged US attack. I hope it was a case of good sense prevailing and probably over-riding Bolton and Pompeo belligerence. The US has absolutely no right to be there anyway and escalating tensions, given that she has thrown out normal diplomatic processes. Why does she think she has to be involved in every bun fight around the world, and almost always ends up with massive local civilian casualties and destruction. I'm really fed up with the arrogant attitude that the US employs and the destruction it leaves in the wake of its bullying escapades.

In this particular case they threw out the agreement with Iran and then complained when Iran didn't hold their end of the ripped up agreement.


They have been pushing heavily for a war.

Outlaw Pete

Shows he's no war monger anyway, as some would have us believe.

Tricky position to be in and no matter what he did he'd no doubt be condemned.

https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/1142055383193804801
https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/1142055392488374272

seamus

Outlaw Pete wrote: »

Shows he's no war monger anyway, as some would have us believe.

Tricky position to be in and no matter what he did he'd no doubt be condemned.

https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/1142055383193804801
https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/1142055392488374272

More fool you for believing anything that he says. Large chunks of that text aren't even internally consistent. Did you even bother to read it?

Complaining about Obama providing aid to Iran, while he tried to send $8bn to Saudi Arabia - the only country who have successfully managed to bring "Death to America" in the last 60 years.

spacecoyote

Outlaw Pete wrote: »

Shows he's no war monger anyway, as some would have us believe.

Tricky position to be in and no matter what he did he'd no doubt be condemned.

https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/1142055383193804801
https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/1142055392488374272

This is just Trump approach 101. Create a problem, then get rid of it, then claim you're a hero for doing so.

He's done it with the tariffs, now he's doing it with Iran.

Threaten Iran...then back out if it...then claim you saved the day when you artificially created the incident in the first place

everlast75

So he never checked how many people would die *before* he ordered the strike?

What a stable genius...

Harry Palmr

Donald, here's a thought. Don't even think about starting a shooting war in the first place. I'll assume John Bolton was egging him on mind you.

And changing your mind cos people will die is the worst possible reason. Imagine prosecuting WW2 with that frame of mind! :pac:

Leroy42

As a tweet I read stated, last night showed that Trump will have to eventually pick a side. He likes to talk tough and at the same time talk about getting the US out of the ME.

Yesterday the contradiction in those positions came into reality. He took the tough line first before realising that, dispite all his complaints about Obama, taking such action as the planned attack has serious consequences.

pixelburp

An odd exchange took place between TIME magazine & Trump during an interview; they shared the transcript, and I'm curious - could the journalist be thrown in jail for photographing a letter (specifically, a letter from Kim). What's this "section II" he referred to? Also, his request for going off-the-record, only for the transcript to continue is kinda hilarious (unless this is common practise).

Of course naturally it dovetailed into Trump having a pop at TIME for printing negative stories - do we count them as well as "some of" the mainstream media who are enemies of the people? Reading this, the man seems to have such a brittle ego. Again this narrative of him calling out dishonest press is a bad-faith, disingenuous argument.


https://time.com/5611476/donald-trump-transcript-time-interview/

TRUMP: Here’s a letter, O.K., now I’m going to show you this letter. So this was written by Kim Jong-un. It was delivered to me yesterday. By hand.

[President asks to go off-the-record]

[...]


TRUMP: Excuse me —

TIME: — under threat of prison time, that that was the case Mr. President.

TRUMP: Excuse me — Under Section II — Well, you can go to prison instead, because, if you use, if you use the photograph you took of the letter that I gave you —

TIME: Do you believe that people should be —

TRUMP: confidentially, I didn’t give it to you to take photographs of it — So don’t play that game with me. Let me just tell you something. You take a look —

TIME: I’m sorry, Mr. President. Were you threatening me with prison time?

TRUMP: Well, I told you the following. I told you you can look at this off-the-record. That doesn’t mean you take out your camera and start taking pictures of it. O.K.? So I hope you don’t have a picture of it. I know you were very quick to pull it out — even you were surprised to see that. You can’t do that stuff. So go have fun with your story. Because I’m sure it will be the 28th horrible story I have in TIME Magazine because I never — I mean — ha. It’s incredible. With all I’ve done and the success I’ve had, the way that TIME Magazine writes is absolutely incredible.

FrostyJack

Harry Palmr wrote: »

And changing your mind cos people will die is the worst possible reason. Imagine prosecuting WW2 with that frame of mind! :pac:

Doesn't seem to mind killing people with drone strikes, he more than doubled the civilians killed in the 2 years he took over and then hides the causality count because his admin is so transparent. Under Obama, before a strike was launched they had to consult lawyers, now the military have full control to kill whoever they want and face no legal consequences.