EPTUS Politics Mega-thread - Page 6654
| Forum Index > Closed |
Read the rules in the OP before posting, please. In order to ensure that this thread continues to meet TL standards and follows the proper guidelines, we will be enforcing the rules in the OP more strictly. Be sure to give them a re-read to refresh your memory! The vast majority of you are contributing in a healthy way, keep it up! NOTE: When providing a source, explain why you feel it is relevant and what purpose it adds to the discussion if it's not obvious. Also take note that unsubstantiated tweets/posts meant only to rekindle old arguments can result in a mod action. | ||
|
LegalLord
United States13779 Posts
| ||
|
RealityIsKing
613 Posts
On January 27 2017 04:11 DarkPlasmaBall wrote: Oh I get it, you're doing the whole "alternative fact" thing? To replace the other alternatives as the better alternative. | ||
|
Saryph
United States1955 Posts
| ||
|
Slaughter
United States20254 Posts
On January 26 2017 22:33 LegalLord wrote: He is a war hero and an important figure in the founding of the US. That in hindsight, in a more peaceful world, we find some of his actions to be less than fashionable, doesn't change that fact. Let's not play that game of revisionist history and pretend that all the historical figures of controversy that are also among the most important in the nation's history, didn't exist and that their contributions should be buried. That entire push to remove him is just that: historical revisionism. I have no respect for people who want to whitewash history to repaint themselves as heroes of history and haters of everything controversial that had to happen to get there. Andrew Jackson isn't so sacrosanct that he cannot be replaced. Lets be real, he is a controversial figure at best and guess what? Good Americans who did great things did not stop appearing after that era. There is no reason to keep the people who are on the currency the same forever and ever. This isn't revisionist history lol, if anything you are the one trying to give him extra credit since he wasn't really that involved during the founding of the country as he was too young to fight or be a political person, no one is changing what Jackson did they are just taking him off the 20 because he is among the weaker of the people currently on the currency (hey I'm fine taking Grant off if your so weirdly attached to Jackson). | ||
|
ChristianS
United States3289 Posts
My sister works at the State Department, and to hear her description of that organization, this is actually a big fucking deal. People's job titles mostly don't reflect their actual purpose there, and there's a lot of things that get done basically because there's one person who's been there for 30 years and they remember everything about that thing. If you lose people like that there's no process for off-loading those duties to other people - they just won't get done until something falls apart, and then it will get assigned to some noobie who has no idea how to fix it. Stay tuned for a lot of diplomatic blunders and accidentally pissing off foreign governments because shit we used to be reliable for we now have no clue how to do effectively. | ||
|
farvacola
United States18846 Posts
His answer? "Dude sounds like he's from Russia." | ||
|
Sermokala
United States14101 Posts
On January 27 2017 03:48 TheNewEra wrote: Elections in Mexico are coming up. Nieto is constantly loosing support because people feel like he is getting bullied around by the USA without speaking out against them. This standing up against Trump is mostly an publicity move so he doesn't loose the next election. If Trump continues his course against Mexico and Nieto looses the election, ALMO is gonna be president, a far left, nationalistic, Anti-US candidate. And 1 year later a country allied with China will share a border with the USA. If you thought that the Mexican economy was bad just wait until it has zero trade with the US including any involvement with texan international zero tax oil ports. Trump has been angling to get ALMA elected from his mexican PR heist during the campaign. Blaming forefingers for economic trouble is an easy sell and I expect all of this will continue as a power play for a US favored NAFTA 2.0. This is exactly what he was elected on why are you acting surprised or confused in any way. On January 27 2017 04:02 On_Slaught wrote: At some point we all need to just step back and think about how absurd it is that we're having Mexico pay for this thing at all. Realistically the total cost is a drop in the bucket of the total budget. The only reason this is happening is because Trump made an absurd campaign promise. And now he's going to risk the political and economic stability of the continent over something he should have never said in the first place but was likely just going along with the applause at the time. Does anybody actually think any thought went into this pledge at the time beyond the fact that his voters would eat it up? Risking major political economic problems in North America over something so minor can only be attributed to his massive ego and pride. Perhaps most absurd is what Trump just said in his speech now. He said that Mexico is not respecting America. That's like a bully demanding that somebody else pay for their lunch and then saying that person is not respecting them when they refuse to. Of course this all ignores the fact that have been brought up in this thread that by making Mexico economically weaker Trump is only going to make the problem worse. And some shity wall wasn't going to stop the backlash. Mexico has a lot more to lose then the united states ergo We have the impetus and the Melian right as an imperial power to bully our neighbors for our benefit. This is what "making america great again" is all about. On January 27 2017 04:07 DarkPlasmaBall wrote: Honestly, I hope that the Mexican president cancels all meetings with Donald Trump over the next 4 years. Bullies need to be ignored or told off, despite Trump ironically playing the victim card: "By early afternoon, Mr. Trump said it was the United States that was being treated unfairly." https://mobile.nytimes.com/2017/01/26/world/mexicos-president-cancels-meeting-with-trump-over-wall.html?smid=fb-nytimes&smtyp=cur&referer=https://m.facebook.com/ Pardon my perpetual eye roll. What a fucking tool. Yes prove someone that you're better then them by acting even worse then they do. Great logic and wisdom. Bullies need to be stood up to and engaged as an equal or you play right into their game of isolation and threatened conflict. Sean spicer should commit professional seppuku for that Jesus Christ what an embarrassment. I can't think of any world where thats remotely justified even if he somehow did what he wanted to do. | ||
|
LegalLord
United States13779 Posts
On January 27 2017 04:29 Slaughter wrote: Andrew Jackson isn't so sacrosanct that he cannot be replaced. Lets be real, he is a controversial figure at best and guess what? Good Americans who did great things did not stop appearing after that era. There is no reason to keep the people who are on the currency the same forever and ever. This isn't revisionist history lol, if anything you are the one trying to give him extra credit since he wasn't really that involved during the founding of the country as he was too young to fight or be a political person, no one is changing what Jackson did they are just taking him off the 20 because he is among the weaker of the people currently on the currency (hey I'm fine taking Grant off if your so weirdly attached to Jackson). I would say Grant is probably better for that purpose, yes. I'm not convinced that Harriet Tubman over Grant is better though. While her contributions are important and arguably worthy of such an acknowledgment, the way it is done it's an attempt to play identity politics more than an attempt to give credit to an important historical figure. I see no reason to put women or minorities on the money unless they genuinely earned their place there. | ||
|
xDaunt
United States17988 Posts
On January 27 2017 03:13 Mohdoo wrote: If Canada joins Mexico, I think they'll have a good shot. But I really don't see Trudeau fighting Trump. Especially since Trudeau would LOVE for a Canada-->US pipeline to exist Canada is already signaling that Mexico is on its own. | ||
|
Introvert
United States4887 Posts
On January 27 2017 04:34 LegalLord wrote: I would say Grant is probably better for that purpose, yes. I'm not convinced that Harriet Tubman over Grant is better though. While her contributions are important and arguably worthy of such an acknowledgment, the way it is done it's an attempt to play identity politics more than an attempt to give credit to an important historical figure. I see no reason to put women or minorities on the money unless they genuinely earned their place there. While I agree that the move seemed political, in a vacuum there really isn't anything wrong with it. She has hero status and is someone who always gets her own section in history textbooks. (Hopefully) most people who finished any sort of education would know who she is. It's the why that's fishy. | ||
|
Nyxisto
Germany6287 Posts
On January 27 2017 04:34 LegalLord wrote: I would say Grant is probably better for that purpose, yes. I'm not convinced that Harriet Tubman over Grant is better though. While her contributions are important and arguably worthy of such an acknowledgment, the way it is done it's an attempt to play identity politics more than an attempt to give credit to an important historical figure. I see no reason to put women or minorities on the money unless they genuinely earned their place there. Please tell me how anybody is supposed to put a black woman on a dollar bill without someone inevitably saying what you just said? You are turning this into identity politics right now. | ||
|
Doodsmack
United States7224 Posts
On January 27 2017 04:13 farvacola wrote: Here's the offending tweet: Cybersecurity is very important to the Trump team as you might imagine | ||
|
LegalLord
United States13779 Posts
On January 27 2017 04:45 Nyxisto wrote: Please tell me how anybody is supposed to put a black woman on a dollar bill without someone inevitably saying what you just said? You are turning this into identity politics right now. Interesting question indeed. Let's look back to the campaign. http://www.history.com/news/should-harriet-tubman-replace-jackson-on-the-20-bill After months of collecting votes, an ongoing campaign to remove the wild-haired Andrew Jackson from the $20 bill and replace him with an iconic female American now has a specific woman in mind: Harriet Tubman. According to the advocacy group Women on 20s, more than 600,000 people participated in a recent online poll, with the abolitionist and Underground Railroad conductor emerging as the clear winner. Hmm, perhaps the fact that there was an explicit goal to replace Jackson with a woman should tip you off to the reasons that went into the request? | ||
|
On_Slaught
United States12190 Posts
| ||
|
LegalLord
United States13779 Posts
On January 27 2017 04:43 Introvert wrote: While I agree that the move seemed political, in a vacuum there really isn't anything wrong with it. She has hero status and is someone who always gets her own section in history textbooks. (Hopefully) most people who finished any sort of education would know who she is. It's the why that's fishy. In a vacuum, it's a reasonably justifiable move. I wouldn't choose Jackson though. But we don't live in a vacuum and the reason for the replacement stunk of identitarianism and historical revisionism. So I can't support it. | ||
|
Blisse
Canada3710 Posts
On January 27 2017 04:34 Sermokala wrote: If you thought that the Mexican economy was bad just wait until it has zero trade with the US including any involvement with texan international zero tax oil ports. Trump has been angling to get ALMA elected from his mexican PR heist during the campaign. Blaming forefingers for economic trouble is an easy sell and I expect all of this will continue as a power play for a US favored NAFTA 2.0. This is exactly what he was elected on why are you acting surprised or confused in any way. It should really be made absolutely clearer that these are exactly the policies that the public voted in with Trump. It's a shame that because of his asinine flip-flopping it was impossible to paint an appropriate picture of these policies during the election, but everything that's happened should pretty much be expected given what you know of Trump. I'm actually impressed he's followed through so thoroughly on pushing these agendas. There are a bunch of reports all over social media of more expansive racial profiling, to put it lightly. I'm also thoroughly continually unimpressed by the extreme disingenuity of the entire Republican base, screaming crap about Hillary's private email servers while now using their own private email servers, screaming unfounded bull about Hillary's selling out of Russian uranium while leaning pro-Russia hard, screaming about illicit Saudi donations while Trump praises the Saudis and conveniently leaves them out of his anti-immigration policy at this time, complaining about improper coverage while also lying through his teeth, praising Fox news while screaming that CNN is fake news. What a time to be alive. edit: also adding Republicans complaining about Obama signing so many executive orders while Obama has historically signed very few compared to other presidents, the Republican Congress has blocked every proposal Obama tried to push, and now Trump has been signing executive orders with nary a pip from the clowns. | ||
|
GreenHorizons
United States23617 Posts
On January 26 2017 22:33 LegalLord wrote: He is a war hero and an important figure in the founding of the US. That in hindsight, in a more peaceful world, we find some of his actions to be less than fashionable, doesn't change that fact. Let's not play that game of revisionist history and pretend that all the historical figures of controversy that are also among the most important in the nation's history, didn't exist and that their contributions should be buried. That entire push to remove him is just that: historical revisionism. I have no respect for people who want to whitewash history to repaint themselves as heroes of history and haters of everything controversial that had to happen to get there. Nope. What's revisionist history is how people try to excuse the past as if it "wasn't that bad then". Happens with slavery all the time, and this one about Jackson has been more popular recently. Jackson's plans (and Van B's actions) were considered horrific at the time, you may be familiar with one of his opponents, a man by the name "Davy Crockett" (Who was a scout for Jackson and who's grandparents were killed by Creeks and Cherokees)? Also it was illegal according to the constitution at the time. It's just part of America's never ending list of illegal and racist crap this country did to get here. It was bad enough at the time and certainly bad enough now that lionizing him makes people look foolish (or just like an asshole). | ||
|
Nyxisto
Germany6287 Posts
On January 27 2017 04:51 LegalLord wrote: Interesting question indeed. Let's look back to the campaign. http://www.history.com/news/should-harriet-tubman-replace-jackson-on-the-20-bill Hmm, perhaps the fact that there was an explicit goal to replace Jackson with a woman should tip you off to the reasons that went into the request? Of course there was an explicit goal, there will always be explicit statements when issues of race or gender are touched. There is no 'vacuum'. This discussion will always come up, that doesn't mean she hasn't done enough to be on that dollar bill. This attitude is essentially the same that has polemically been summed up as "The Germans will never forigve the Jews for the Holocaust." You're using the historical fact of discrimination as an argument against this woman, simply because she reminds everybody of a historical injustice and of the fact that race issues still exist. You can't sanitize this out of the public sphere. | ||
|
LegalLord
United States13779 Posts
On January 27 2017 04:54 GreenHorizons wrote: Nope. What's revisionist history is how people try to excuse the past as if it "wasn't that bad then". Happens with slavery all the time, and this one about Jackson has been more popular recently. Jackson's plans (and Van B's actions) were considered horrific at the time, you may be familiar with one of his opponents, a man by the name "Davy Crockett" (Who was a scout for Jackson and who's grandparents were killed by Creeks and Cherokees)? Also it was illegal according to the constitution at the time. It's just part of America's never ending list of illegal and racist crap this country did to get here. It was bad enough at the time and certainly bad enough now that lionizing him makes people look foolish (or just like an asshole). What's revisionist is to look at the historical contributions of Jackson as a whole in the context of modern sensibilities, and to conclude, "oh he's Hitler now." If you have a problem with what he did with ignoring the Supreme Court and killing Native Americans, that is absolutely a good thing to dispute. I won't seek to justify if it was right or not - it's easy to say it was wrong, but at the same time we can look at an alternate history where Jackson never removed the Indians and see that the US would have probably suffered greatly for it. And he is a war hero and the man of Jacksonian Democracy ("of the people, by the people, for the people"). Let's not bury his legacy simply because we want a very simple and feel-good narrative of the US's historical legacy, because that is historical revisionism. | ||
|
zlefin
United States7689 Posts
On January 27 2017 04:53 Blisse wrote: It should really be made absolutely clearer that these are exactly the policies that the public voted in with Trump. It's a shame that because of his asinine flip-flopping it was impossible to paint an appropriate picture of these policies during the election, but everything that's happened should pretty much be expected given what you know of Trump. I'm actually impressed he's followed through so thoroughly on pushing these agendas. There are a bunch of reports all over social media of more expansive racial profiling, to put it lightly. I'm also thoroughly continually unimpressed by the extreme disingenuity of the entire Republican base, screaming crap about Hillary's private email servers while now using their own private email servers, screaming unfounded bull about Hillary's selling out of Russian uranium while leaning pro-Russia hard, screaming about illicit Saudi donations while Trump praises the Saudis and conveniently leaves them out of his anti-immigration policy at this time, complaining about improper coverage while also lying through his teeth, praising Fox news while screaming that CNN is fake news. What a time to be alive. it is unfortunate indeed; sadly such behaviors are very common amongst all. more about partisanship/group identity than any actual coherent philosophy or standpoint. given the findings so far in psych/socio logy, I think it's somesthing we just have to work with/around, the grouping tendences in people are just too strong. | ||
| ||
