The Trump Presidency | Biden Inaugurated

Status
Not open for further replies.
Nucks said:
We can thank President Grant for the state the country is in. When the progressives of the US had the worst elements of conservatism by the short hairs at the end of the civil war, they didn't beat the racism, bigotry, and idiocy out of them like the western powers did with Germany and Japan post WW2. Reconstruction is one of the worst things to ever happen to the USA. A shame that hundreds of thousands of Americans who believed in liberal ideals ultimately died for almost nothing. A few decades later, a form of de-facto slavery was re-instituted by the raging shitlords that had just gotten run over by the Union, and their ideology and belief systems that are counter to western democracy, were allowed to thrive.
Click to expand...
Whoa now... Grant was a shit president, but it was the death of Lincoln, the shittyness of Andrew Johnson’s presidency, and the power vacuum filled by the Radical Republicans (as liberal as you could get in 1860s USA) that led to the military occupation of the South.

That occupation was ended prematurely by Rutherford B. Hayes in the Compromise of 1877 as he finagled his way into the presidency by dangling the end of reconstruction like a carrot in front of southern democrat electoral college voters.
 
“Shithole countries”. This is the poem New Colossus. It’s on the plaque at the bottom of the Statue of Liberty...

Not like the brazen giant of Greek fame,
With conquering limbs astride from land to land;
Here at our sea-washed, sunset gates shall stand
A mighty woman with a torch, whose flame
Is the imprisoned lightning, and her name
Mother of Exiles. From her beacon-hand
Glows world-wide welcome; her mild eyes command
The air-bridged harbor that twin cities frame.
“Keep, ancient lands, your storied pomp!” cries she
With silent lips. “Give me your tired, your poor,
Your huddled masses yearning to breathe free,
The wretched refuse of your teeming shore.
Send these, the homeless, tempest-tossed to me,
I lift my lamp beside the golden door!”
 
Carolina Red said:
Whoa now... Grant was a shit president, but it was the death of Lincoln, the shittyness of Andrew Johnson’s presidency, and the power vacuum filled by the Radical Republicans (as liberal as you could get in 1860s USA) that led to the military occupation of the South.

That occupation was ended prematurely by Rutherford B. Hayes in the Compromise of 1877 as he finagled his way into the presidency by dangling the end of reconstruction like a carrot in front of southern democrat electoral college voters.
Click to expand...

Grant oversaw the Amnesty Act of 1872. So yea, I think he is primarily accountable for the farce that Reconstruction was. Like I said, they shoulda beat the southern democrats with a stick to cure them of their stupid :)
 
Nucks said:
Grant oversaw the Amnesty Act of 1872. So yea, I think he is primarily accountable for the farce that Reconstruction was. Like I said, they shoulda beat the southern democrats with a stick to cure them of their stupid :)
Click to expand...
Lincoln’s plan was always to include amnesty. It’s the one part of it that the Radical Republicans still adhered to. The states and their people had been formally “readmitted” (I argue that they never actually left) to the Union and held seats in Congress. Restoring voting rights was the logical step in returning the country to a “normal” status.
 
The Shithole comment will definitely hurt him. It may play well in part of his base but it won't do anything to galvanize it in the face of all the other things that is eroding his support - the Daca issue, Russia investigation etc. The general sentiment in the country is trending away from the GOP so this sort of thing will actually help the Dems in the lead up to November.
 
berbatrick said:
Click to expand...

She grabbed my attention when she talked about "smacking the right people and hugging the right people" about Trumps speech at the UN. This lady is the closest I've seen to Rumsfeld in a while, coherent and intelligent, yet so hawkish it amounts to being evil.
 
DiseaseOfTheAge said:
What has started? What races are turning on each other to a potentially violent end?

They aren't, are they?

It's incredibly offensive to suggest Americans are verging on a race war. I slate Americans in general all the time. I slate their record on race all the time. This is something else.
Click to expand...

20170812_CVille_GG_404.JPG


It's already started.
 
DiseaseOfTheAge said:
War usually involves more than a handful of people.
Click to expand...

War - a state of competition or hostility between different people or groups

That's one defintion. Numbers are irrelevant although there is clearly more than a "handful" of white supremacists in the USA
 
Barca84 said:
War - a state of competition or hostility between different people or groups

That's one defintion. Numbers are irrelevant although there is clearly more than a "handful" of white supremacists in the USA
Click to expand...

That doesn't advance your original point though.
 
Just been watching BBC news. They couldn't actually bring themselves to use the word shithole - I guess they'll leave that job to the Mail. They did say that the new Embassy site and plan was announced before Obama got elected though. The tone continues as permanently "bemused" by Trump, rather than shocked.
 
Your very silly desire to teach us the dictionary definition of a word is not terribly fascinating. Nor are pictures showing things we all know and acknowledge. If you have a point, then go for it.
 
Raoul said:
The point is you're suggesting a one off event is tantamount to a war. It clearly isn't.
Click to expand...

But wars are fought in many ways and violence is just one manifestation eg Charlottesville Discrimination, prejudice, deprivation of rights and, yep, the election of a racist president are other manifestations among others.

That's why I asked you to define war and have now given one definition of it from The Oxford Dictionary. Are you denying that there is a state of hostility between some members of different race groups in the USA?
 
DiseaseOfTheAge said:
Your very silly desire to teach us the dictionary definition of a word is not terribly fascinating. Nor are pictures showing things we all know and acknowledge. If you have a point, then go for it.
Click to expand...

See above Einstein. It's a definition of war not mine. Wars aren't all about armed conflict and guys in green.

Although this should probably be moved to the US politics thread
 
Raoul said:
The point is you're suggesting a one off event is tantamount to a war. It clearly isn't.
Click to expand...

Raoul, you seem to be suggesting that the term war can only be used to describe a physically violent struggle. And that is just not the case. Having lived here for 15 years, and having a mixed race family, my anecdotal observations are that The US is a deeply divided country on race issues, and in a perpetual state of cultural war between ethnicities.

The Trump administration is raising racial tensions in this country to levels not seen in the last 30 years. I think it would be folly to predict with any degree of confidence, the depths to which this dividing of people can plummet. And while I don’t think it is likely that we’ll see a partisan black vs White violent struggle on a mass scale; it is also worth considering that as more oppressive legislation gets passed, and divides deepen, civil disobedience rises. This naturally leads to conflict.

The race war in this country is very real and very sad, and it is only getting worse by the day. The hope is that, upon reflection, the vast majority of the voting public will ultimately unify around a message of hope and reject the racist ideals of this president. And the country will come out of this....far down the line....stronger. However, if Trump is able to secure a second term, I don’t think a violent struggle is out of the question.

I think we are in uncharted territory of modern American politics.
 
DiseaseOfTheAge said:
Would a reasonable person describe it as a race war?

It is entirely your definition as it is you that is suggesting that it is applicable in this context.
Click to expand...

No it's a definition of war according to The Oxford Dictionary. And yes see above. There's a strong argument of course that the race war has in fact never stopped. As it stands it meets that definition. That's just a fact no matter how you try to spin it because you find it unpalatable.
 
Barca84 said:
No it's a definition of the The Oxford Dictionary. And yes see above. There's a strong argument of course that the race war has never stopped.
Click to expand...
I'm backing out after Simon's post. I know he's a better poster on these topics than I.
 
simonhch said:
Raoul, you seem to be suggesting that the term war can only be used to describe a physically violent struggle. And that is just not the case. Having lived here for 15 years, and having a mixed race family, my anecdotal observations are that The US is a deeply divided country on race issues, and in a perpetual state of cultural war between ethnicities.

The Trump administration is raising racial tensions in this country to levels not seen in the last 30 years. I think it would be folly to predict with any degree of confidence, the depths to which this dividing of people can plummet. And while I don’t think it is likely that we’ll see a partisan black vs White violent struggle on a mass scale; it is also worth considering that as more oppressive legislation gets passed, and divides deepen, civil disobedience rises. This naturally leads to conflict.

The race war in this country is very real and very sad, and it is only getting worse by the day. The hope is that, upon reflection, the vast majority of the voting public will ultimately unify around a message of hope and reject the racist ideals of this president. And the country will come out of this....far down the line....stronger. However, if Trump is able to secure a second term, I don’t think a violent struggle is out of the question.

I think we are in uncharted territory ok modern American politics.
Click to expand...

There's definitely no race war. There may be racial tensions, which has always to varying degrees, been the case. There's also no culture war. It just a perceptual illusion based on changing societal norms and the various tensions involved with social attitudes changing from generation to generation.
 
Barca84 said:
No it's a definition of war according to The Oxford Dictionary. And yes see above. There's a strong argument of course that the race war has in fact never stopped. As it stands it meets that definition. That's just a fact no matter how you try to spin it because you find it unpalatable.
Click to expand...

A technical definition can be something completely different than a normative inference. War is a loaded term that infers something other than what is taking place. This isn't even a skirmish.
 
Barca84 said:
No it's a definition of war according to The Oxford Dictionary. And yes see above. There's a strong argument of course that the race war has in fact never stopped. As it stands it meets that definition. That's just a fact no matter how you try to spin it because you find it unpalatable.
Click to expand...
That's an entirely uncalled for edit, frankly. I have no idea how you think you can justify claiming that.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.