Donald Trump

"

LostForm wrote:

like history is just meaningless to you or something?

And yet.. you cite so little history, nor do you interpret it correctly.

"

LostForm wrote:

In case you havnt noticed, Jefferson was very very wrong in his postulates,

So say you - a human living hundreds of years later, judging by what standards and values? The current popular ones that are so transitory as to almost be memes?

Jefferson was against slavery, and tried to prevent it becoming part of our nation. His postulates of inferiority were based on what he saw - humans with no education or training, but raised literally as chattel. Any group of people raised and treated as such would look far less than what they would be capable of. Many at the time also viewed the poor non-landholding class as less than fit to make important decisions. Hence the electoral college system and the initial restrictions on who could vote based on property ownership.

But then, history is so meaningful to you that I'm sure you already knew this.

People without an education or inherited resources weren't going to go very far, or appear equal to those who had much better opportunities at the outset.

Our public education system is based around the idea of helping people overcome the hurdles to advancement that used to be poised for the common citizen.

Jefferson's postulate on an outbreak of violence was based on several historical precedents of what happened when a large number of former slaves sought or gained freedom. So - this wasn't wrong.

"

LostForm wrote:

I mean you can sit here and say Liberia has turned out better than the USA, and I am sure in another 4000 word essay you might try to, but the fact is you, and Jefferson are wrong, proved by history.

What does history show us?

"He also believed that to keep slaves in bondage, with part of America in favor of abolition and part of America in favor of perpetuating slavery, could only result in a civil war that would destroy the union. Jefferson’s latter prediction was correct: in 1861, the contest over slavery sparked a bloody civil war and the creation of two nations—Union and Confederacy—in the place of one."



From the NYT:
..................

"For nearly a century, Democrats have honored two men as the founders of their party: Thomas Jefferson, for his visionary expression of the concept of equality, and Andrew Jackson, for his populist spirit and elevation of the common man.

Political candidates and activists across the country have flocked to annual Jefferson-Jackson Day dinners, where speeches are given, money is raised, and the party celebrates its past and its future.

But these time-honored rituals are colliding with a modern Democratic Party more energized by a desire for racial and gender inclusion than reverence for history."

.........


Jefferson was very forward looking, and looked at several avenues for ending slavery. Anyone who looks at this past and sees him in a bad light because of current sentiments is
like having a huge hole in the head. I don't wish any ill to people who have been brainwashed by bad information, or unable or too lazy to think and learn for themselves. I certainly don't give their opinions as much weight.

Jefferson, like FDR, is a core component of the democratic party philosophy and history. His thoughts and perspectives are a large component of who America is and how it got there, regardless of party.




Jefferson was so wrong that Martin Luther King Jr quotes him in his December 15th, 1963 rally at Atlanta:

"Atlanta needs another Jefferson that stretches across the pages of history words lifted to cosmic proportions: We hold thes truths to be self evident, that ALL MEN are created equal - that they are endowed by their creator with certain inalienable rights and among these are life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness"

Video is here of the speech:http://crdl.usg.edu/cgi/crdl?format=_video&query=id%3Augabma_wsbn_40895&_cc=1



I didn't bring Jefferson up to show him as a bad example, but rather to show how racism is perceived - sometimes falsely.

Hence why I wrote:"Even such democrats as Thomas Jefferson, who advocated for emancipation, had what modern so called progressive thinkers would consider racist ideals"

I then emphasized that misperception after the quote:

"Perspective is a very selective thing. Choose the wrong viewpoint and you will never see the problem clearly enough to solve it"

It isn't that Jefferson's perspective was wrong for the time and situation he was living in. It is that the perspective that Thomas Jefferson had racist ideals is the wrong viewpoint.

"

LostForm wrote:

And please tell me some more about how the democratic segregation party merging with the republican party did not change the politics of either the democratic party or the republicans, because man that has got to be some mental gymnastics.

What a beautiful strawman you have concocted there. I didn't mention the merge (which was more like a mass defection), nor did I mention its impact on political positions. Feel free to argue as much as you want against a position I didn't take. Strom Thurmond would be a good name to put in your debate with this imaginary other person.

"

LostForm wrote:

And please please please grab a few more anecdotes from charlotte to display as the larger picture

The larger picture? What are you perceiving as the larger picture?

As for "anecdotes"

That must be why the LA Times is reporting that the governor Pat McCrory declared a state of emergency in Charlotte on Wednesday night after violent new protests and initiated efforts to deploy the National Guard and state troopers.

The National Guard is frequently deployed to deal with random anecdotal incidents. NOT. Then again, maybe you live somewhere where a major civic leader deploys military forces just because of a few protestors are doing it wrong every once in awhile.

"

LostForm wrote:

because frankly I think history is going to prove you wrong there too, even if you are contradicting the very statement you linked as the problems our country is facing and his suggested solutions.

I'm not sure which point you think I made or allude to that history will prove me wrong on, so I will leave this one alone until you can clarify.

The illustration of violence from Chicago were not isolated incidents, they are indicative of the chaos that is going on there. Fortunately, since the motivation for this situation is based on outside manipulation and requires constant stoking, the fires (figuratively speaking) will die out in another night or two. In the end the people protesting will have suffered losses to their own community because of the mindless chaos. None of it needed to happen, and with proper leadership, the government would be actively investigating the problems, the causes and working towards solutions, and at the same time, maintaining the peace and discouraging the movement from protesting by disseminating the truth and what actions are being done to fix things.

Instead, we have an angry populace, fed half truths, deception and hate in order to keep a movement going.

Mr Luther King Jr's words are fitting

"We will be the victims of an illusion wrapped in superficiality."

Symantics below the spoiler

I wasn't trying to say Johnson was actually responsible for the legislation, just that many (bigoted?) people saw Johnson as responsible - or at least as some kind of point of no return. When Johnson signed, the Jim Crow types switched parties.

So considering that those folks were still Democrats at the time you're pulling statistics... no surprises really. No great revelation to be had there.

"

ScrotieMcB wrote:

I wasn't trying to say Johnson was actually responsible for the legislation, just that many (bigoted?) people saw Johnson as responsible - or at least as some kind of point of no return. When Johnson signed, the Jim Crow types switched parties.

So considering that those folks were still Democrats at the time you're pulling statistics... no surprises really. No great revelation to be had there.

Yeah, there was a big defection in the south, where segregationists felt Johnson and the Democrats had betrayed him. No dispute about that at all. I think it changed the outlook and politics of the GOP as well as making them more socially, since it brought a bigger chunk of the bible belt into the fold.

A significant chunk of that electorate became the Reagan democrats, but the GOP leaders since then (as well as their opponents) haven't done squat to advance any core issues, so they've begun losing voters.

IMO - Obama missed a golden opportunity to really advance civil rights. He squandered all his his political capitol on ramming his version of health care down everyone's throats. Had he focused on civil rights and small reforms at first, he would have built up the clout to pass small chunks of the ACA, and have the rest of it (the parts that are not working well at all right now) in the public mind as a necessary deal.

I think Trump, if elected, may end up getting more progress on the enforcement aspect of civil rights, just as a matter of expediency. That Obama has let it go on so long without some serious federal effort to solve the problem is like finding out you have a broken water pipe leaking onto the kitchen table and not fixing it for 2 years.

Obama destroyed civil rights, and divided the country more.

Liberals are the largest racist faction in our society today, they just think they arent.

"

Manocean wrote:

Obama destroyed civil rights, and divided the country more.

Liberals are the largest racist faction in our society today, they just think they arent.

Yeah, it was Obama, not the racist fucking GOP with their "one-term-president" mission. Definitely not the GOP that was circulating "spear chucker" memes amongst themselves. Definitely not the birth-certificate demanding idiots that have been parading around for the past 8 years.

I guess if he didn't want to divide the country, he shouldn't have been black while president.

"

Antnee wrote:

"

Manocean wrote:

Obama destroyed civil rights, and divided the country more.

Liberals are the largest racist faction in our society today, they just think they arent.

Yeah, it was Obama, not the racist fucking GOP with their "one-term-president" mission.

So the Democrats with their one term agenda against Bush were also racist?

"

Antnee wrote:

Definitely not the GOP that was circulating "spear chucker" memes amongst themselves.

Are you conveniently forgetting the racist memes they used against Bush? (these were long before the ones used against Obama)

"

Antnee wrote:

Definitely not the birth-certificate demanding idiots that have been parading around for the past 8 years.

Obama could have produced the long form certificate long before he did. Had his father not been from a different country and if he hadn't spent a part of his childhood living in Indonesia, the claims would have been racist. Because these things were true and Obama let the allegations simmer so long, the question of his birth place was neither racist, nor unjustified.

"

Antnee wrote:

I guess if he didn't want to divide the country, he shouldn't have been black while president.

If he is black while being president because one parent was black, then he must also be white while being president because one parent was white.

"

Antnee wrote:

Did you see what he was wearing? God he was just begging to get it.

Thanks to Hillary's supporters efforts to circulate the photo, everyone did see the tribal outfit he was wearing. Personally, I thought his outfit was a touching gesture, meant to show respect for the culture he was visiting.

Now, think back and tell me how many bumper stickers you saw advocating that Obama receive the exact kind of treatment this one did for Bush?:



Imagine the out roar that would ensue. But there was no out roar for the way Bush was treated. Are we to assume that because Bush is white that it is OK?

If it happens to a liberal, it's racist. If it happens to a conservative, they were asking for it...

Obama was treated very poorly by his opponents. Their behavior was uncivilized, however Obama was not treated any more unfairly than his predecessor in office. In fact, Obama was handled with kid gloves by comparison.

Imagine a Nobel peace prize winner saying something like this about Obama:

"On July 11, 2007, Nobel Peace Prize laureate Betty Williams gave the keynote speech to the International Women’s Peace Conference in Dallas, Texas, and said (to laughter and applause from the audience):

“I mean right now, I could kill George Bush, no problem. No, I don’t mean that. I mean — how could you nonviolently kill somebody? I would love to be able to do that.”




Or John Kerry in Oct 2006:

"Maher: You could have went to New Hampshire and killed two birds with one stone.

Kerry: Or, I could have gone to 1600 Pennsylvania and killed the real bird with one stone."


Feel free to Google the number of threats made on each president vs the number of investigations by the Secret Service and actual sentences handed out. You'll find the disparity shows racism against Bush, not Obama.

And let me know when a major broadcast network like CBS shows something like this (From the The Late Late Show with Craig Kilborn:



No calls from the Secret Service, no investigation. Only a weak sauce letter from the FCC, and then only after the FCC received numerous complaints from the viewing public.

Now, if someone thinks wanting someone else dead is worse than voicing racist thoughts, then they have already surrendered their humanity to an all consuming hatred and self worship.

Jefferson’s latter prediction was correct


Ah so the civil war was a race war then? As in all the blacks and a few white people that think they will be accepted by blacks on one side, and all the white people on the other?

Nope, it wasn't a race war, but a war over discontinuing slavery, though you will even deny it was about slavery if you toe (*not tow) the southern line, but over 'northern aggression on southern businessmen', both sides are pretty much all the same race, a pretty big indicator whether it was a 'race war' or not.


Also, incase you didn't notice, there isn't still two different countries here, it is one.



1861, the contest over slavery sparked a bloody civil war and the creation of two nations—Union and Confederacy—in the place of one."

indeed sir lol.




The governor of Florida declared a state of emergency due to a impending tropical storm potentially hitting florida as a hurricane.

https://weather.com/safety/hurricane/news/tropical-storm-hermine-preps-impacts-florida

A state of emergency is not necessarily in response to destruction or combustible situations, but a means to secure federal money incase it is needed. Pre-emptive state of emergencies have become very common in republican run states, to the point where state of emergency requests are being denied as frivolous, though that is not the case in the charlotte protests. The state of emergency also allows for national guard to be used, not necessarily because it is needed but just in case, and again I think history is going to show it isn't needed.

>mfw people argue that liberals aren't extremely racist while race baiting and being racist

right when far right wing claims Obama didn't even try to help with civil rights and that they were ttally in support of him accomplishing something so grand

"

dalailama wrote:

All things are equivalent; context is irrelevant

Wew. I'm seriously not going to bother. (ok, just a touch. Bush-as-Chimp? THAT is your first counter? Are you fucking serious with that?!)

Yall have fun with your shitposting. I'll just vote- a privilege I enjoy as an adult.