| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
justintyme
Joined: 08 Jul 2012
Posts: 8407
Location: Northfield, MN
Back to top |
 Posted: 08/16/17 6:52 pm ::: |
Reply  |
|
| ArtBest23 wrote: |
It's far simpler than that. Washington and Jefferson helped found the United States. Jefferson Davis and, yes, Lee, committed treason against the United States. Doesn't even matter their motivations. They're traitors. Nothing more really needs to be said.
It's a imbecilic comparison. Hard to believe anyone other than Richard Spencer and his followers would echo Trump's nonsense. |
Yeah, you don't see too many Washington/Jefferson statues in England.
I was just trying to forstall the obvious "but Washington and Jefferson committed treason too" stupidity by going a little deeper.
_________________
↑↑↓↓←→←→BA
|
|
tfan
Joined: 31 May 2010
Posts: 9624
Back to top |
| Posted: 08/16/17 8:18 pm ::: |
Reply |
|
| justintyme wrote: |
| Washington and Jefferson didn't fight a war for the express purpose of maintaining slavery. It is a bad comparison. |
Doesn't seem like they have to be any worse than slave owners (they also may have been involved in mass murder or land theft leading to suffering and death with regard to Native Americans) to not be memorialized. But I guess it does come down to giving them a pass for the era. The bible actually has slavery that people conveniently ignore. But I think politicians should stop quoting the phrase "all men are created equal" from those folks with great sanctimony and drama.
|
|
pilight
Joined: 23 Sep 2004
Posts: 66912
Location: Where the action is
Back to top |
| Posted: 08/16/17 8:46 pm ::: |
Reply |
|
| Washington and Jefferson are known for other things to weigh against their slave owning. Robert E Lee is really only known for being a leader of a rebellion in support of slavery.
_________________
I'm a lonely frog
I ain't got a home
|
|
ArtBest23
Joined: 02 Jul 2013
Posts: 14550
Back to top |
| Posted: 08/16/17 9:01 pm ::: |
Reply |
|
We have a couple of small memorials and plaques to Benedict Arnold, who was an American war hero before he was a traitor, but interestingly they omit his name.
I suppose we could do that with Lee. Put up plaques commemorating his service without naming him. We should probably rename the barracks at West Point that bears his name, though, despite his service as Commandant.
Both waged war against the United States.
Lee is a more difficult case because of his 32 years of military service to the United States.
But as a general matter we should stop honoring people who waged war against the United States. Treat them as what they were - traitors. Heck, what they did is a lot worse than Snowden. None of these people defending the Lee statue would tolerate statues to him.
|
|
ArtBest23
Joined: 02 Jul 2013
Posts: 14550
Back to top |
|
cthskzfn
Joined: 21 Nov 2004
Posts: 12851
Location: In a world where a PSYCHOpath like Trump isn't potus.
Back to top |
| Posted: 08/17/17 10:09 am ::: |
Reply |
|
Basket of deplorables.
Putin puppet.
Trump started his career back in 1973 being sued by the Justice Department for racial discrimination because he would not rent apartments in one of his developments to African-Americans.
Donald Trump’s ideas aren’t just different, they’re dangerously incoherent. They’re not even really ideas, just a series of bizarre rants, personal feuds and outright lies. He is not just unprepared. He is temperamentally unfit to hold an office that requires knowledge, stability and immense responsibility.
There is no other Donald. There will be no pivot.
What else was Clinton right about?
_________________
Silly, stupid white people might be waking up.
|
|
mercfan3
Joined: 23 Nov 2004
Posts: 19760
Back to top |
| Posted: 08/17/17 12:24 pm ::: |
Reply |
|
| justintyme wrote: |
| ArtBest23 wrote: |
| justintyme wrote: |
Not to mention, what they were protesting was pretty disgusting in its own right. |
If you're addressing just the Lee statue, I'm not convinced the issue is quite that clear-cut.
And some of these "tear it down" crusades are pretty questionable, like the removal of chief Justice Taney's statue in Maryland. Not quite the same as tearing down Jefferson Davis's statue.
There's no defense to a Davis statue. He represents one end of the continuim.
Taney wasn't a traitor. He was an attorney general and chief Justice of the US. The legal problem he had to address was largely created by the drafters of the Constitution, not by him. He didn't pull it out of thin air. And he was joined by six other justices. In a total vacuum, the outcome of his decision was reprehensible, and it was by modern standards wrong, but it wasn't decided in a vacuum. It was far more a result of his Jacksonian views of federalism than of racism.
Lee is a difficult case for other reasons. In the simplest terms, he was guilty of treason. But his record both pre and post war muddy the waters. BTW, Lee publicly opposed honoring Confederate generals and officials with statues. He would likely have opposed having a statue of himself erected. |
I agree that the crusade can go too far. But I was speaking to the specifics of this statue. Honoring Lee for the good he did in his life is best served by a contextualized museum exibit and history books.
These are more nuanced figures that are famous for reasons other than their work in or for the confederacy. We should be mindful of that. Lee as the leader of the Confederate forces is, unfortunately, inextricable from his role during the war. And he was very aware of that during his life. As you noted, he himself would not have disagreed with this fact. |
I think the purpose of erecting the statue is important too.
These confederate symbols were built as a show of white dominance. (During the Civil Rights Era, and during the Jim Crow era). I think it's important to recognize that when talking about whether a statue should remain.
Granted, it's pretty simple..there should be no statues honoring the Confederacy. For pretty blatantly obvious reasons.
Anyway, tfan is certainly not the only person with his head in the sand over what Trump is doing and has said. I've had people argue that "alt right" is not the same as "white nationalists." That Bannon most definitely isn't racist, etc.. It's shocking it took this long for many people to wake up to it. But some people continue to doubt it.
The ONE positive though, is that with Trump being this blatant about it, it has awoken a conversation. It's not a question any longer, and the majority of the country sees that. This means that, yes, we can have conversations about what we should be celebrating, and the more intricate aspects of racism because it's clear the not so subtle aspects are running the country.
_________________
“Anyone point out that a Donald Trump anagram is ‘Lord Dampnut’”- Colin Mochrie
|
|
mercfan3
Joined: 23 Nov 2004
Posts: 19760
Back to top |
|
pilight
Joined: 23 Sep 2004
Posts: 66912
Location: Where the action is
Back to top |
| Posted: 08/17/17 12:55 pm ::: |
Reply |
|
| cthskzfn wrote: |
Basket of deplorables.
Putin puppet.
Trump started his career back in 1973 being sued by the Justice Department for racial discrimination because he would not rent apartments in one of his developments to African-Americans.
Donald Trump’s ideas aren’t just different, they’re dangerously incoherent. They’re not even really ideas, just a series of bizarre rants, personal feuds and outright lies. He is not just unprepared. He is temperamentally unfit to hold an office that requires knowledge, stability and immense responsibility.
There is no other Donald. There will be no pivot.
What else was Clinton right about? |
She gave us plenty of reasons not to vote for Trump. She gave no reasons to vote for her.
_________________
I'm a lonely frog
I ain't got a home
|
|
mercfan3
Joined: 23 Nov 2004
Posts: 19760
Back to top |
| Posted: 08/17/17 12:56 pm ::: |
Reply |
|
| pilight wrote: |
| cthskzfn wrote: |
Basket of deplorables.
Putin puppet.
Trump started his career back in 1973 being sued by the Justice Department for racial discrimination because he would not rent apartments in one of his developments to African-Americans.
Donald Trump’s ideas aren’t just different, they’re dangerously incoherent. They’re not even really ideas, just a series of bizarre rants, personal feuds and outright lies. He is not just unprepared. He is temperamentally unfit to hold an office that requires knowledge, stability and immense responsibility.
There is no other Donald. There will be no pivot.
What else was Clinton right about? |
She gave us plenty of reasons not to vote for Trump. She gave no reasons to vote for her. |
Only if you didn't listen to her.
_________________
“Anyone point out that a Donald Trump anagram is ‘Lord Dampnut’”- Colin Mochrie
|
|
Howee
Joined: 27 Nov 2009
Posts: 15737
Location: OREGON (in my heart)
Back to top |
| Posted: 08/17/17 3:23 pm ::: |
Reply |
|
| tfan wrote: |
| Doesn't seem like they have to be any worse than slave owners (they also may have been involved in mass murder or land theft leading to suffering and death with regard to Native Americans) to not be memorialized. |
This point DOES bring up the inconvenient contextual *glitch* re: whom we should venerate as historical figures, deserving of their own monuments. I personally believe EVERY AMERICAN NATIVE has the right to trash/tear down any Washington or Jefferson memorial, and Pilgrim tribute. Gone should be any public reference to Custer, or Lewis and Clark. These historical figures went beyond enslaving: they contributed to efforts that were intended to render Natives extinct. Genocide.
But. Ain't gonna happen. And YOU all know why.
| cthskzfn wrote: |
| Donald Trump’s ideas aren’t just different, they’re dangerously incoherent. They’re not even really ideas, just a series of bizarre rants, personal feuds and outright lies. He is not just unprepared. He is temperamentally unfit to hold an office that requires knowledge, stability and immense responsibility. |
See: BAT-SHIT CRAZY.
_________________
Oregon: Go Ducks!
"Inévitablement, les canards voleront"
|
|
tfan
Joined: 31 May 2010
Posts: 9624
Back to top |
| Posted: 08/17/17 3:46 pm ::: |
Reply |
|
| mercfan3 wrote: |
| pilight wrote: |
| cthskzfn wrote: |
Basket of deplorables.
Putin puppet.
Trump started his career back in 1973 being sued by the Justice Department for racial discrimination because he would not rent apartments in one of his developments to African-Americans.
Donald Trump’s ideas aren’t just different, they’re dangerously incoherent. They’re not even really ideas, just a series of bizarre rants, personal feuds and outright lies. He is not just unprepared. He is temperamentally unfit to hold an office that requires knowledge, stability and immense responsibility.
There is no other Donald. There will be no pivot.
What else was Clinton right about? |
She gave us plenty of reasons not to vote for Trump. She gave no reasons to vote for her. |
Only if you didn't listen to her. |
In California at least (which didn't need a single advertisement - maybe they do it to benefit down-ballot candidates), the ads run by her and her PACs seemed to be exclusively anti-Trump. I heard over and over quotes of Trump on the Howard Stern show. "In my opinion if a woman is flat-chested she can't be a 10"
|
|
mercfan3
Joined: 23 Nov 2004
Posts: 19760
Back to top |
| Posted: 08/17/17 8:52 pm ::: |
Reply |
|
| tfan wrote: |
| mercfan3 wrote: |
| pilight wrote: |
| cthskzfn wrote: |
Basket of deplorables.
Putin puppet.
Trump started his career back in 1973 being sued by the Justice Department for racial discrimination because he would not rent apartments in one of his developments to African-Americans.
Donald Trump’s ideas aren’t just different, they’re dangerously incoherent. They’re not even really ideas, just a series of bizarre rants, personal feuds and outright lies. He is not just unprepared. He is temperamentally unfit to hold an office that requires knowledge, stability and immense responsibility.
There is no other Donald. There will be no pivot.
What else was Clinton right about? |
She gave us plenty of reasons not to vote for Trump. She gave no reasons to vote for her. |
Only if you didn't listen to her. |
In California at least (which didn't need a single advertisement - maybe they do it to benefit down-ballot candidates), the ads run by her and her PACs seemed to be exclusively anti-Trump. I heard over and over quotes of Trump on the Howard Stern show. "In my opinion if a woman is flat-chested she can't be a 10" |
I'm not arguing that she didn't give people plenty of reasons not to vote for Trump. She did.
I'm saying she gave plenty of reasons to vote for her, and those were rarely acknowledged unless you took the time to listen to her.
_________________
“Anyone point out that a Donald Trump anagram is ‘Lord Dampnut’”- Colin Mochrie
|
|
justintyme
Joined: 08 Jul 2012
Posts: 8407
Location: Northfield, MN
Back to top |
| Posted: 08/17/17 9:47 pm ::: |
Reply |
|
| mercfan3 wrote: |
I'm saying she gave plenty of reasons to vote for her, and those were rarely acknowledged unless you took the time to listen to her. |
I agree that she did. However, 90% of her ads were about how disgusting Trump is, rather than how amazing she would be. I mean, she put it out there, but you had to care enough to look for it. You had to watch the debates, had to go to her website, had to attend her rallies, had to read her endorsements.
But if you just watched TV, like most voters do, it would have been easy to miss her positive ads. Add in the fact that her negative attributes were on full display, most people saw nothing to counter them.
Compare the two campaign slogans. "I'm with her" is a beautiful sentiment, but it only reaches people who were already likely to vote for her. "Make America Great Again" is pretty much nonsense, but it is also a populist meme that makes people think about all their problems and offers them hope. This is the type of thing that gets people to overlook personal flaws and vote for a candidate anyway. Especially in swing states. So Trump was able to attack, attack, attack, while his meme went viral with its vague promise, while she attacked back with no real meme on how she was going to make people's lives better. And let's be honest, most voters don't put much more thought into the issues than what meme resonates the most with them.
_________________
↑↑↓↓←→←→BA
|
|
pilight
Joined: 23 Sep 2004
Posts: 66912
Location: Where the action is
Back to top |
| Posted: 08/17/17 10:06 pm ::: |
Reply |
|
| justintyme wrote: |
| I agree that she did. However, 90% of her ads were about how disgusting Trump is, rather than how amazing she would be. I mean, she put it out there, but you had to care enough to look for it. You had to watch the debates, had to go to her website, had to attend her rallies, had to read her endorsements. |
Even in the debates all she did was attack Trump.
I would have gone to one of her rallies, but she never came within 200 miles of where I live.
Her website featured standard Demo boilerplate, right out of the party handbook. Everybody's heard it a million times without any of it getting done.
I have no problem voting for a left wing woman. Heck, the first presidential election I voted in I voted for Lenora Fulani. However, it's going to take a lot more than what Clinton showed to get me to vote for a Democratic party apparatchik.
_________________
I'm a lonely frog
I ain't got a home
|
|
tfan
Joined: 31 May 2010
Posts: 9624
Back to top |
| Posted: 08/18/17 4:07 am ::: |
Reply |
|
| mercfan3 wrote: |
I'm not arguing that she didn't give people plenty of reasons not to vote for Trump. She did.
I'm saying she gave plenty of reasons to vote for her, and those were rarely acknowledged unless you took the time to listen to her. |
I will confess that I never watched a large portion of one of her rally speeches. The highlights I saw on news shows seemed to heavily favor portions where she attacked Trump. They may have been doing her a disservice (I watched Fox News where you would expect that, but also watched a lot of Anderson Cooper and Don Lemon on CNN).
I was surprised to learn from someone online that on her website she was advocating a very large, massive really, installation of rooftop solar panels. I view that very favorably and would have liked for her to mention that in the debates (Sanders and Trump). Although she may have and I missed it. It could also be that that policy was viewed as both a negative and a positive for a general election.
|
|
mercfan3
Joined: 23 Nov 2004
Posts: 19760
Back to top |
| Posted: 08/18/17 9:26 am ::: |
Reply |
|
| justintyme wrote: |
I agree that she did. However, 90% of her ads were about how disgusting Trump is, rather than how amazing she would be. I mean, she put it out there, but you had to care enough to look for it. You had to watch the debates, had to go to her website, had to attend her rallies, had to read her endorsements.
But if you just watched TV, like most voters do, it would have been easy to miss her positive ads. Add in the fact that her negative attributes were on full display, most people saw nothing to counter them.
Compare the two campaign slogans. "I'm with her" is a beautiful sentiment, but it only reaches people who were already likely to vote for her. "Make America Great Again" is pretty much nonsense, but it is also a populist meme that makes people think about all their problems and offers them hope. This is the type of thing that gets people to overlook personal flaws and vote for a candidate anyway. Especially in swing states. So Trump was able to attack, attack, attack, while his meme went viral with its vague promise, while she attacked back with no real meme on how she was going to make people's lives better. And let's be honest, most voters don't put much more thought into the issues than what meme resonates the most with them. |
1. Her general campaign slogan was "Stronger Together" just as meaningless and populist (although, it doesn't call back the 1950s).
2. I would argue that this is the media's fault, rather than Clinton's. It's not her fault that the entire election coverage was centered around Donald Trump. - Seriously, one time both Clinton and Sanders were giving a speech, and CNN chose to put the cameras on an empty podium that Trump was going to speak at. He brought the ratings. The media treated him as such. - There was no policy coverage.
Yes, she ran negative campaign ads. She ran positive ads about herself too. (Mostly centered on her work helping children.) One of which was the fourth most aired political ad. Of course, anything she runs that is positive about herself is automatically considered inauthentic
3. Yeah, I know, most voters don't do much more than watch tv. Which is why I hold the media more responsible for this election than anything. Their shock at Donald and his Russian ties and White supremacist ideas is laughable. They were told for a year. Donald didn't hide it for a year.
| pilight wrote: |
Even in the debates all she did was attack Trump. |
Inaccurate. Those debates were literally a crazy person and Clinton trying to talk to people about her ideas.
| pilight wrote: |
I would have gone to one of her rallies, but she never came within 200 miles of where I live. |
You could have easily youtubed one of her speeches.
| pilight wrote: |
Her website featured standard Demo boilerplate, right out of the party handbook. Everybody's heard it a million times without any of it getting done. |
First of all, the past two Democratic Presidents both created programs to help people get health insurance (CHIP and ACA), and they significantly improved the economy. Only for the country to give Republicans a majority in Congress, so that nothing else can get done.
Second, again..you show how little you looked into Clinton. Her policies were the most progressive of any Democratic candidate ever. They were also painstakingly detailed and generally considered the best of candidates running (including the Primary, not just verses Trump) by experts who reviewed said polities. Not quite boilerplate.
| pilight wrote: |
I have no problem voting for a left wing woman. Heck, the first presidential election I voted in I voted for Lenora Fulani. However, it's going to take a lot more than what Clinton showed to get me to vote for a Democratic party apparatchik. |
So you like to vote for people who have no chance at winning, and then take the moral high ground? Quite a privileged place to be in.
Here's the truth. Clinton wasn't given a fair shake by people and by the media. She was right. She was right about Trump. And likely, she was right about her policies. Anyone who didn't vote for Clinton is partially responsible for this mess. It's one thing to vote third party, or to not care when it's something like McCain vs. Obama. McCain's a reasonable person. When it's something like Gore/Kerry vs. Bush and Chenney, or Clinton (or literally anyone sane) vs. Donald Freaking Trump..please understand your civic duty. We have a two party system. Is it ideal? Not necessarily. It's not changing, and the reality was, one of the two was going to be President.
Listen, I can't stand Bernie Sanders..for a lot of reasons. However, if it's Bernie vs. Donald in 2020, I'm voting for him. I'm also contributing to his campaign and making phone calls on his behalf. Policy matters. Having our President not be a tool for a foreign government matters. Having a President that's not a freaking white supremacist matters.
| tfan wrote: |
I was surprised to learn from someone online that on her website she was advocating a very large, massive really, installation of rooftop solar panels. I view that very favorably and would have liked for her to mention that in the debates (Sanders and Trump). |
She did actually mention it during one of the forums. She also mentioned that the increase in solar energy was going to put coal workers out of work, and she wanted to put them into work in solar energy...but of course, the GOP jumped on the "putting coal workers out of work" line.
_________________
“Anyone point out that a Donald Trump anagram is ‘Lord Dampnut’”- Colin Mochrie
|
|
justintyme
Joined: 08 Jul 2012
Posts: 8407
Location: Northfield, MN
Back to top |
| Posted: 08/18/17 10:18 am ::: |
Reply |
|
So I don't know if I am the only Call of Duty gamer here or not, but I suppose you don't have to actually play the game or know much about it--other than that in November they are releasing a game called Call of Duty: World War II--to get the magnificent satire that Clickhole (an Onion site) just unleashed:
Next-Level Gaming: The New ‘Call Of Duty’ Will Penalize Players For Shooting Nazis Who Are Actually Very Fine People
| Quote: |
| The new “Nazi Sense” mechanic adds a whole new gameplay dimension on top of Call Of Duty: WWII’s already intense firefights. Instead of just blasting away at every enemy soldier, players will have to consider whether each individual Nazi might be an otherwise decent person who just happens to be fighting alongside some real bad apples. Shoot a Nazi who’s actually a pillar of his community and is proud of his heritage and you’ll take a blow to your health or ammo. Shoot too many decent, hardworking Nazis, and you’ll have to start over from the last checkpoint. |
_________________
↑↑↓↓←→←→BA
|
|
|
|
