Donald Trump Presidency discussion Thread VIII (threadbanned users listed in OP)

Sean.3516

Overheal wrote: »

See you spout all these same talking points as tom cotton and his allies about how the project is trash but don’t actually say how it is so, which screams of parroting of said talking points without any true understanding of the grist of the material or any independent critical thought. Your only evidence is theirs: and it’s a retraction they happily issued so they are providing the best evidence available to people that is open to change subject to our best understanding of the slavery era.

Em, I literally explained why it was trash and gave you examples. I didn't say it was trash because they had to print a retraction which changed one word in the entire project giving them the semantic wiggle room to continue pushing a false premise. The retraction only made it slightly less trash. The entire premise of the project that American history can be understood as a continuous exploitation of blacks is still false.

It's literally called the 1619 Project in order to suggest that America's founding took place not in the year 1776 (the year most people are familiar with) but in 1619 when the first slave arrived in America. Therefore slavery has defined America's entire past as well as its present. I mean I'm not exactly reaching here. The people who wrote it have openly said this. Democratic presidential candidates ran with this during the recent primaries.

looksee

Sean.3516 wrote: »

Well considering that America is a bastion of morality and fairness, yes.


I imagine many wouldn't. But not because Cotton is wrong. Because of their own historical ignorance.


That's not what he said. Nobody knew in 1787 that the US would turn out so great. But anti-slavery Founders at the time knew that in order to eventually end slavery, the slave states would have to be kept in the union so the influence of the anti-slavery states in the more powerful North would eventually allow it to be stamped out. This couldn't happen if the South was a separate country.


I'd imagine he knows more about the subject than the average black person in America.


Again you're being deliberately obtuse.
Slavery wasn't necessary to abolish slavery. Tolerating slavery at the time while taking concrete steps like banning the importation of slaves etc. was necessary so slavery could be abolished later.

It would have been a lot easier for the South to secede and keep their slaves in 1787 than it was when they tried in 1861 as we found out.
The point isn't that the means were good because the ends were good. The point is that the means were in fact the only means available at the time. And also the ends are pretty damn good.

Where to start with this? If the whole argument hinges on the first para - the bastion of morality and fairness - then it dies before it has even started.

The 'ends justifies the means' - I would not expect any black person, or indeed anyone, to agree with this, and to suggest that they would only disagree because they do not know their own history is, well, plain offensive.

Tom Cotton knows more about black history than the average black person - really? He is a veteran and a lawyer, where is his qualification in history? Where is his research evidence?

And the whole point of the entire subject is that at the end (the one that justifies the means) - now, a 150 or so years after abolition, the black population is still demonstrably at a disadvantage

Sean.3516

looksee wrote: »

Where to start with this? If the whole argument hinges on the first para - the bastion of morality and fairness - then it dies before it has even started.

If you disagree that America is a bastion of morality and fairness, please state how it isn't and compared to what?

looksee wrote: »

The 'ends justifies the means' - I would not expect any black person, or indeed anyone, to agree with this, and to suggest that they would only disagree because they do not know their own history is, well, plain offensive.

Did you even read my post?

I never used the term "ends justify the means" originally because it is an oversimplification of the argument. Nobody is saying, not me, not Tom Cotton that it was a good thing that America kept slavery because America is a great country today. The argument for the third time, is that slavery could never have been abolished in 1787, (the year the Constitution was written) It was never going to happen. Even if there had been a consensus among the Northern states, they would never have had the military leverage to compel the South to stay in the union and free their slaves. They envisioned however that if the South remained in the union, eventually in the future, the North would overtake the South as the centre of power and in terms of population, the middle states would abolish slavery (which they did) and there would be enough consensus and leverage against slavery that it could eventually be abolished (which it was in the 60s).

If the South had left the union early on, you can be sure they would have kept slavery a lot longer than the 1860s. If you think that's reaching, note Spanish Cuba kept slavery until 1888 and many Arab countries enslaved blacks well into the 20th century.

To simplify this down to "the ends justify the means therefore it was a good thing we had slavery" is absurd. Again, I didn't characterise it that way, the other poster did.

And you do need to know some basic history in order to understand this no matter what colour you are.

looksee wrote: »

Tom Cotton knows more about black history than the average black person - really? He is a veteran and a lawyer, where is his qualification in history? Where is his research evidence?

Well, the average American black or white knows almost nothing about their own history. Tom Cotton being a lawyer would know something about the Constitution. Like the fact that it originally banned the further importation of slaves and stopped the South from counting their slaves as citizens so they couldn't dominate Congress. He would have read the Federalist Papers in law school and known that this was done deliberately to put slavery on the path to abolition.

You don't need to be a credentialed historian to be taken seriously on this stuff. You just have to know actual things. Classic "argument from authority" fallacy.

looksee wrote: »

And the whole point of the entire subject is that at the end (the one that justifies the means) - now, a 150 or so years after abolition, the black population is still demonstrably at a disadvantage

If you want to talk about why blacks are at a disadvantage today, that's a separate debate. We were talking about why America had slavery.

Also if the goal from the beginning was to keep blacks at a disadvantage, releasing them from slavery was a bad idea.

Igotadose

Trump, keeping it classy, going to NC for some reason (raise funds maybe for his flailing campaign), rather that paying respects to John Lewis in the Capitol Rotunda. He's sending Pence. Classy.

https://www.rawstory.com/2020/07/trump-to-leave-washington-instead-of-paying-respects-to-john-lewis-report/

looksee

I never used the term "ends justify the means"

Apologies, you did not, I unconsciously extrapolated it from 'The point isn't that the means were good because the ends were good. The point is that the means were in fact the only means available at the time. And also the ends are pretty damn good.' I don't however think I was all that far wrong.

I think you are arguing with 20/20 hindsight.

pixelburp

Igotadose wrote: »

Trump, keeping it classy, going to NC for some reason (raise funds maybe for his flailing campaign), rather that paying respects to John Lewis in the Capitol Rotunda. He's sending Pence. Classy.

https://www.rawstory.com/2020/07/trump-to-leave-washington-instead-of-paying-respects-to-john-lewis-report/

For a man who has insisted he was the "least racist person you ever met" he goes out of his way to present the contrary. A goliath of the civil rights movement effectively snubbed by the sitting president. Mind you, it's probably not even racism just Trump's lack of common decency or understanding of anything beyond "what's in it for me?" Not like you can make yourself the centre of attention at a funeral.

Quin_Dub

Sean.3516 wrote: »

If you disagree that America is a bastion of morality and fairness, please state how it isn't and compared to what?


Did you even read my post?

I never used the term "ends justify the means" originally because it is an oversimplification of the argument. Nobody is saying, not me, not Tom Cotton that it was a good thing that America kept slavery because America is a great country today. The argument for the third time, is that slavery could never have been abolished in 1787, (the year the Constitution was written) It was never going to happen. Even if there had been a consensus among the Northern states, they would never have had the military leverage to compel the South to stay in the union and free their slaves. They envisioned however that if the South remained in the union, eventually in the future, the North would overtake the South as the centre of power and in terms of population, the middle states would abolish slavery (which they did) and there would be enough consensus and leverage against slavery that it could eventually be abolished (which it was in the 60s).

If the South had left the union early on, you can be sure they would have kept slavery a lot longer than the 1860s. If you think that's reaching, note Spanish Cuba kept slavery until 1888 and many Arab countries enslaved blacks well into the 20th century.

To simplify this down to "the ends justify the means therefore it was a good thing we had slavery" is absurd. Again, I didn't characterise it that way, the other poster did.

And you do need to know some basic history in order to understand this no matter what colour you are.


Well, the average American black or white knows almost nothing about their own history. Tom Cotton being a lawyer would know something about the Constitution. Like the fact that it originally banned the further importation of slaves and stopped the South from counting their slaves as citizens so they couldn't dominate Congress. He would have read the Federalist Papers in law school and known that this was done deliberately to put slavery on the path to abolition.

You don't need to be a credentialed historian to be taken seriously on this stuff. You just have to know actual things. Classic "argument from authority" fallacy.


If you want to talk about why blacks are at a disadvantage today, that's a separate debate. We were talking about why America had slavery.

Also if the goal from the beginning was to keep blacks at a disadvantage, releasing them from slavery was a bad idea.

Or you know , they could have given them the Vote??????

People like Cotton need to step up and own the mistakes of the past - He criticism of the 1619 project may have merit and he's entitled to have those views and to robustly defend them.

But suggesting that Slavery was a necessary evil cannot ever be seen as a valid position to hold , not then and absolutely not now.

Two thirds of those same "founding fathers" were Slave owners themselves.

This utterly ridiculous elevation of these men to positions of essentially deification is beyond madness.

They made mistakes , lots and lots of mistakes . Some weren't perhaps mistakes per se , but decisions of their time and should be treated as such.

This absolutist view that every thing they did or put in the Constitution were things of undiluted perfection and that should never be updated with modern interpretation etc. has always baffled me.

Slavery was not a necessary evil , It is, was and ever shall be a repugnant stain on humanity.

To suggest that it was necessary to keep a group of racist animals "onside" as part of some greater good is disgusting.

There is no "end" that justifies allowing other humans to be owned like livestock.

And anyone trying to defend that position is utterly unworthy of respect from any right thinking evolved human-being.

Overheal

pixelburp wrote: »

For a man who has insisted he was the "least racist person you ever met" he goes out of his way to present the contrary. A goliath of the civil rights movement effectively snubbed by the sitting president. Mind you, it's probably not even racism just Trump's lack of common decency or understanding of anything beyond "what's in it for me?" Not like you can make yourself the centre of attention at a funeral.

AFAIK, the only funeral President Trump has attended was that of GHWB. He also skipped Elijah Cummings funeral. And John McCains, surprising no one. And George Floyds. Am I missing someone, where he did attend? I hate funerals too but you'd have to be a sociopath to veer away from them like this so actively.

pixelburp

Trump's national security advisor, Robert O'Brien has tested positive for CoVid. How close company he keeps with the inner circle I couldn't say...

Water John

Must say Mitch McConnell gave a great speech at John Lewis's funeral.

Itssoeasy

Water John wrote: »

Must say Mitch McConnell gave a great speech at John Lewis's funeral.

Really ? As in it sounded genuine and from the heart ?

aloyisious

Water John wrote: »

Must say Mitch McConnell gave a great speech at John Lewis's funeral.

Did I mishear him say he was on the bridge crossing with John Lewis in the 60's?

Itssoeasy

aloyisious wrote: »

Did I mishear him say he was on the bridge crossing with John Lewis in the 60's?

I went and listened to his speech and he said he was at the march on Washington in 1963.

And to be fair it was a good speech.

Water John

No, I think he heard Lewis speak at that gathering in Washington that MLK spoke at also;
'The Lincoln Memorial: Lewis was the last living speaker from the 1963 March on Washington for Jobs and Justice that culminated at the memorial. The march was one of Lewis’ first official acts after becoming the leader of the Student Nonviolent Coordinating Committee.'

StringerBell

I don't think Trump would have been welcome tbh and it's probably better he doesn't attend.

pixelburp

StringerBell wrote: »

I don't think Trump would have been welcome tbh and it's probably better he doesn't attend.

I don't disagree there would be those giving him the side eye, but just from an optics point of view it'd dispel a huge chunk of claims that Trump was a racist if he just turned up to the funeral of one of America's leading black figures. It would have astounded but also been seen as a conciliatory action, well. I think so anyway, ha. Instead, whether intended or not, this is a brazen and overt snub by Trump. Especially at a time when the African American community is already feeling pretty raw. So who knows, aside from hating funerals for not allowing focus on him, maybe he's just afraid of being surrounded by a lot of black people.

EltonJohn69

Trump scared when answering questions about Putin.... it is clear as day that he scared of crossing/bad mouthing Putin, every other world leader Trump shows very little respect to....

fr336

EltonJohn69 wrote: »

Trump scared when answering questions about Putin.... it is clear as day that he scared of crossing/bad mouthing Putin, every other world leader Trump shows very little respect to....

Elton i thought you were a great friend of mine...too bad! There was no collusion...everyone knows it...its been a total witch hunt start to finish...

aloyisious

EltonJohn69 wrote: »

Trump scared when answering questions about Putin.... it is clear as day that he scared of crossing/bad mouthing Putin, every other world leader Trump shows very little respect to....

Well it is a U.S national security matter and Vlad gives such good advice on them that Trump had to shut the question down fast.

Leroy42

EltonJohn69 wrote: »

Trump scared when answering questions about Putin.... it is clear as day that he scared of crossing/bad mouthing Putin, every other world leader Trump shows very little respect to....

Even to think that simply refusing to say what they talked about will play out well is staggering.

The military, in particular, should be outraged that the CiC shows such little interest or concern. He could even had said something like he wouldn't talk specifics about what was talked about but rest assured that as POTUS I had frank and clear discussions about any and all matters which concern the US or its allies.

I can only think that Trump feels that he has bought off the support of the military through the extra funding and the pay rises. He rapid decision to pull out of Afghanistan makes even more sense when viewed in the context of Russia working hand in hand with the Taliban to drive them out.

fullstop

Trump retweeting conspiracy theories that Hydroxychloroquine is being suppressed in the US to keep deaths high on purpose to harm his re-election chances. The mind, still, boggles.

Leroy42

fullstop wrote: »

Trump retweeting conspiracy theories that Hydroxychloroquine is being suppressed in the US to keep deaths high on purpose to harm his re-election chances. The mind, still, boggles.

If only he could get into a position of power to be able to influence things like that!

Itssoeasy

fullstop wrote: »

Trump retweeting conspiracy theories that Hydroxychloroquine is being suppressed in the US to keep deaths high on purpose to harm his re-election chances. The mind, still, boggles.

That new tone didn’t last very long.

robinph

Has Trump been deleting his own tweets or was Twitter doing it? Seems to be a few disappeared from his feed today.

banie01

robinph wrote: »

Has Trump been deleting his own tweets or was Twitter doing it? Seems to be a few disappeared from his feed today.

I was under the impression that as his tweets whilst he is in office are a matter of public record and a "presidential' communique.
That whatever passes for the public records act stateside, precluded their being deleted?

Now it may be that Twitter took down the ones in breach of their terms?
But, is he or his team allowed to delete them?

Quin_Dub

robinph wrote: »

Has Trump been deleting his own tweets or was Twitter doing it? Seems to be a few disappeared from his feed today.

I think I saw something about Twitter and/or Facebook deleting a post with a conspiracy theory video that he had shared/retweeted.

Not quite sure how that works , but I guess if the original is gone the share/retweets get removed too.

banie01

banie01 wrote: »

I was under the impression that as his tweets whilst he is in office are a matter of public record and a "presidential' communique.
That whatever passes for the public records act stateside, precluded their being deleted?

Now it may be that Twitter took down the ones in breach of their terms?
But, is he or his team allowed to delete them?

It looks like they took down one of the tweets he retweeted about Hydroxychloroquine.

Midlife

Sean.3516 wrote: »

If you disagree that America is a bastion of morality and fairness, please state how it isn't and compared to what?

Well they're about 60th in the gini coefficient.

Top 1% makes more than the bottom 90%.

33 million workers earn less than $10 an hour which puts a family below the poverty line.

Way beyond other first world countries in terms of murders per capita.

Systemic corruption of important services by bested interests which lead to things like the opiod crisis and people losing drinking water.

Not to mention the status igmfbkack people across the country. This recognised 'evil' you speak of has clearly not been addressed.

There are many many countries showing better treatment of citizens and a far more fair and equitable approach to society than the US right now.

But you do view it as a bastion of morality and fairness? Please explain?

Additionally how do you square away the fact the the evil acts you speak of have never been righted?

The problem with blind patriotism is that it doesn't allow for faults. There are many good think about America but it is far from perfect and the destructive force of unabated capitalism is leaving far too much of the society behind. Especially in the last couple of decades where politics had been for sale.

aloyisious

According to Business Insider, Trump tweeted Monday that Twitter's trending topics are "really ridiculous, illegal, and, of course, very unfair." because they make him look bad. Twitter declined to comment for this story.

https://www.msn.com/en-ie/news/politics/president-trump-suggested-that-twitter-s-trending-topics-are-illegal-because-they-make-him-look-bad/ar-BB17fKg2?ocid=msedgntp

robinph

Quin_Dub wrote: »

I think I saw something about Twitter and/or Facebook deleting a post with a conspiracy theory video that he had shared/retweeted.

Not quite sure how that works , but I guess if the original is gone the share/retweets get removed too.

It Trump retweeted something that makes it then part of the public record of his unpresidentedness, but that tweet then gets deleted is Twitter breaking the rules? Needs a special tag for deleted retweets by Trump to highlight his idiocy.