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.
On August 15 2017 03:03 Wulfey_LA wrote: "But there aren't many KKK/Nazis/out and out racist marchers" is not a defense here. The objects of all these rallies and debates and violence are Confederate monuments across the country. The questions about the legacy of the Civil War in this country affect everyone, even if only a relatively small population is being racist and violent about it. The Civil War cost ~500,000 American lives and brought about a complete rewriting of our Constitution (yes, those new amendments changed the whole thing). Should we have statues dedicated to treasonous slavers and white supremacists on government property? This is a universally important question. No complaining about scale gets you out of that question.
What amendments and why was it a "complete rewriting of our constitution?" One of the more absurd assertions from you (yes yes it's true) that should rank with a Trump supporter's "he's delivered on all his campaign promises up to today."
The rights of the constitution largely didn't apply against state governments and prior to the Civil War, states could make all kinds of unequal and illiberal laws. The 14th amendment decisively said that states couldn't do that anymore. We were not the same nation afterwards. The Federal Government would dominate the States.
Less than 24 hours after Charlotte trump released this ad that contains a list of people he identifies as the enemy.
Woah there no need to go full Nixon. He's trying to change the narrative and identify people obstructing his agenda (which is massive massive bigly success already apparently). List of people he identifies as enemies my ass, Nevuk.
I mean,
When the “President’s enemies” line is spoken, there’s an image of Congress in the background, followed by images of a lot of media figures (mostly from CNN and MSNBC). Anderson Cooper, Jake Tapper, Don Lemon, Erin Burnett, Joe Scarborough, Mika Brzezinski, Rachel Maddow, Chris Hayes and more show up there.
American Urban Radio Networks White House Correspondent April Ryan was featured in the video as well
It isn't like the text says "my enemies", but the audio does.
And none of them are listed and the ones flashed for "enemies" stay on for less than three seconds.
What it actually and clearly was is present from the start: "Democrats obstructing, the media attacking our president, career politicians standing in the way of success" "But president Trump's plan is working"
It's the normal populist drivel about obstruction (Obama relic reused) and establishment figures slowing down his reforms for the people, the little guy. But people like you have to remind everybody that it's no longer read and react in the era of tribalism, but it's now take everything up to 11. Fifteen overlapping photos with "the presidents enemies don't want him to succeed, but Americans say let President Trump do his job" is not even close to your hot take.
We will just have to agree to disagree. It wasn't a huge part of the ad, but I'd be alarmed if it were even in there as subliminal messaging. We are really quibbling over the importance of a couple seconds. I will say some of those targeted were rather alarmed, though.
On August 15 2017 03:03 Wulfey_LA wrote: "But there aren't many KKK/Nazis/out and out racist marchers" is not a defense here. The objects of all these rallies and debates and violence are Confederate monuments across the country. The questions about the legacy of the Civil War in this country affect everyone, even if only a relatively small population is being racist and violent about it. The Civil War cost ~500,000 American lives and brought about a complete rewriting of our Constitution (yes, those new amendments changed the whole thing). Should we have statues dedicated to treasonous slavers and white supremacists on government property? This is a universally important question. No complaining about scale gets you out of that question.
What amendments and why was it a "complete rewriting of our constitution?" One of the more absurd assertions from you (yes yes it's true) that should rank with a Trump supporter's "he's delivered on all his campaign promises up to today."
The rights of the constitution largely didn't apply against state governments and prior to the Civil War, states could make all kinds of unequal and illiberal laws. The 14th amendment decisively said that states couldn't do that anymore. We were not the same nation afterwards. The Federal Government would dominate the States.
EDIT: and that whole you couldn't own black people thing anymore
The rights of the constitution were completely rewritten? It fundamentally changed the power balance, only after several supreme court decisions made the amendment large, but rewrote very little. In the grand scheme of things, the constitution is composed of five major articles +2 and incorporation was absolutely not a rewriting.
From your non sequitur about slave ownership, you might be confused about state and federal laws versus the constitution. They're different.
Less than 24 hours after Charlotte trump released this ad that contains a list of people he identifies as the enemy.
Woah there no need to go full Nixon. He's trying to change the narrative and identify people obstructing his agenda (which is massive massive bigly success already apparently). List of people he identifies as enemies my ass, Nevuk.
Out of curiosity, and since all you Trumpers suddenly disappeared fron that debate, what's your take on Charlotte's events and the aftermath?
Debate? You must mean echo chamber. You'll have to drill down to some concrete questions that I didn't already post on, and the search function is open to you for the ones on the historical statue issue, political tweets from senators/NYT, left wing and right wing violence, etc.
Oh, and if you have curiosity, I'm not a Trumper. He was bottom of the barrel of acceptable candidates for the primary, and it was only the dawning reality of a Clinton presidency that got my to the polling station. Unless you're the kind of tribal member that wants to be called a Hillary shill. I'm a conservative Republican.
On August 15 2017 03:03 Wulfey_LA wrote: "But there aren't many KKK/Nazis/out and out racist marchers" is not a defense here. The objects of all these rallies and debates and violence are Confederate monuments across the country. The questions about the legacy of the Civil War in this country affect everyone, even if only a relatively small population is being racist and violent about it. The Civil War cost ~500,000 American lives and brought about a complete rewriting of our Constitution (yes, those new amendments changed the whole thing). Should we have statues dedicated to treasonous slavers and white supremacists on government property? This is a universally important question. No complaining about scale gets you out of that question.
What amendments and why was it a "complete rewriting of our constitution?" One of the more absurd assertions from you (yes yes it's true) that should rank with a Trump supporter's "he's delivered on all his campaign promises up to today."
The rights of the constitution largely didn't apply against state governments and prior to the Civil War, states could make all kinds of unequal and illiberal laws. The 14th amendment decisively said that states couldn't do that anymore. We were not the same nation afterwards. The Federal Government would dominate the States.
EDIT: and that whole you couldn't own black people thing anymore
Not to mention its repeal was something of a Tea Party platform. Not sure how uniformly it was agreed upon, but repealing the 14th was a thing.
Citation needed.
As in, the Tea Party is a very loose collection of nonprofits and activists, and I never saw any widespread acceptance of that into their platforms. I suppose you can use the logic that also calls BLM an arson and violence organization by pointing to a paucity of examples.
When it comes to "him saying it now should be good enough", think about how much quicker he was to put a specific person on blast for leaving his council than it was to put the driver on blast for killing somebody.
On August 15 2017 03:03 Wulfey_LA wrote: "But there aren't many KKK/Nazis/out and out racist marchers" is not a defense here. The objects of all these rallies and debates and violence are Confederate monuments across the country. The questions about the legacy of the Civil War in this country affect everyone, even if only a relatively small population is being racist and violent about it. The Civil War cost ~500,000 American lives and brought about a complete rewriting of our Constitution (yes, those new amendments changed the whole thing). Should we have statues dedicated to treasonous slavers and white supremacists on government property? This is a universally important question. No complaining about scale gets you out of that question.
What amendments and why was it a "complete rewriting of our constitution?" One of the more absurd assertions from you (yes yes it's true) that should rank with a Trump supporter's "he's delivered on all his campaign promises up to today."
The rights of the constitution largely didn't apply against state governments and prior to the Civil War, states could make all kinds of unequal and illiberal laws. The 14th amendment decisively said that states couldn't do that anymore. We were not the same nation afterwards. The Federal Government would dominate the States.
EDIT: and that whole you couldn't own black people thing anymore
Not to mention its repeal was something of a Tea Party platform. Not sure how uniformly it was agreed upon, but repealing the 14th was a thing.
Citation needed.
As in, the Tea Party is a very loose collection of nonprofits and activists, and I never saw any widespread acceptance of that into their platforms. I suppose you can use the logic that also calls BLM an arson and violence organization by pointing to a paucity of examples.
On August 15 2017 03:03 Wulfey_LA wrote: "But there aren't many KKK/Nazis/out and out racist marchers" is not a defense here. The objects of all these rallies and debates and violence are Confederate monuments across the country. The questions about the legacy of the Civil War in this country affect everyone, even if only a relatively small population is being racist and violent about it. The Civil War cost ~500,000 American lives and brought about a complete rewriting of our Constitution (yes, those new amendments changed the whole thing). Should we have statues dedicated to treasonous slavers and white supremacists on government property? This is a universally important question. No complaining about scale gets you out of that question.
What amendments and why was it a "complete rewriting of our constitution?" One of the more absurd assertions from you (yes yes it's true) that should rank with a Trump supporter's "he's delivered on all his campaign promises up to today."
It may be an overstatement to say it was a complete rewrite, but I think it is generally understood to be more or less true. The 14th amendment changed a lot.
The civil war changed society while the constitution hummed along, by and large.
On August 15 2017 03:03 Wulfey_LA wrote: "But there aren't many KKK/Nazis/out and out racist marchers" is not a defense here. The objects of all these rallies and debates and violence are Confederate monuments across the country. The questions about the legacy of the Civil War in this country affect everyone, even if only a relatively small population is being racist and violent about it. The Civil War cost ~500,000 American lives and brought about a complete rewriting of our Constitution (yes, those new amendments changed the whole thing). Should we have statues dedicated to treasonous slavers and white supremacists on government property? This is a universally important question. No complaining about scale gets you out of that question.
What amendments and why was it a "complete rewriting of our constitution?" One of the more absurd assertions from you (yes yes it's true) that should rank with a Trump supporter's "he's delivered on all his campaign promises up to today."
The rights of the constitution largely didn't apply against state governments and prior to the Civil War, states could make all kinds of unequal and illiberal laws. The 14th amendment decisively said that states couldn't do that anymore. We were not the same nation afterwards. The Federal Government would dominate the States.
EDIT: and that whole you couldn't own black people thing anymore
Not to mention its repeal was something of a Tea Party platform. Not sure how uniformly it was agreed upon, but repealing the 14th was a thing.
Citation needed.
As in, the Tea Party is a very loose collection of nonprofits and activists, and I never saw any widespread acceptance of that into their platforms. I suppose you can use the logic that also calls BLM an arson and violence organization by pointing to a paucity of examples.
On August 15 2017 03:03 Wulfey_LA wrote: "But there aren't many KKK/Nazis/out and out racist marchers" is not a defense here. The objects of all these rallies and debates and violence are Confederate monuments across the country. The questions about the legacy of the Civil War in this country affect everyone, even if only a relatively small population is being racist and violent about it. The Civil War cost ~500,000 American lives and brought about a complete rewriting of our Constitution (yes, those new amendments changed the whole thing). Should we have statues dedicated to treasonous slavers and white supremacists on government property? This is a universally important question. No complaining about scale gets you out of that question.
What amendments and why was it a "complete rewriting of our constitution?" One of the more absurd assertions from you (yes yes it's true) that should rank with a Trump supporter's "he's delivered on all his campaign promises up to today."
It may be an overstatement to say it was a complete rewrite, but I think it is generally understood to be more or less true. The 14th amendment changed a lot.
The civil war changed society while the constitution hummed along, by and large.
Right. The United States would not be a modern state without the 14th amendment. But I don't know, maybe it was just some words.
On August 15 2017 03:03 Wulfey_LA wrote: "But there aren't many KKK/Nazis/out and out racist marchers" is not a defense here. The objects of all these rallies and debates and violence are Confederate monuments across the country. The questions about the legacy of the Civil War in this country affect everyone, even if only a relatively small population is being racist and violent about it. The Civil War cost ~500,000 American lives and brought about a complete rewriting of our Constitution (yes, those new amendments changed the whole thing). Should we have statues dedicated to treasonous slavers and white supremacists on government property? This is a universally important question. No complaining about scale gets you out of that question.
What amendments and why was it a "complete rewriting of our constitution?" One of the more absurd assertions from you (yes yes it's true) that should rank with a Trump supporter's "he's delivered on all his campaign promises up to today."
The rights of the constitution largely didn't apply against state governments and prior to the Civil War, states could make all kinds of unequal and illiberal laws. The 14th amendment decisively said that states couldn't do that anymore. We were not the same nation afterwards. The Federal Government would dominate the States.
EDIT: and that whole you couldn't own black people thing anymore
Not to mention its repeal was something of a Tea Party platform. Not sure how uniformly it was agreed upon, but repealing the 14th was a thing.
Citation needed.
As in, the Tea Party is a very loose collection of nonprofits and activists, and I never saw any widespread acceptance of that into their platforms. I suppose you can use the logic that also calls BLM an arson and violence organization by pointing to a paucity of examples.
I remember this discussion from 2010 under the cover of birth right citizens. There was a push to alter the deal further by the tea party.
So you're switching to talk about birthright citizenship? He mentioned only incorporation.
To change birthright citizenship, you would need change the 14th amendment. I wasn’t born yesterday, so I see a push to repeal and replace it with a less immigrant(brown people) friendly version. Just like when the Nazis say “European Heritage’ I know they aren’t’ really talking watching Euro vision. The problem with their argument is that we aren’t stupid.
On August 15 2017 03:03 Wulfey_LA wrote: "But there aren't many KKK/Nazis/out and out racist marchers" is not a defense here. The objects of all these rallies and debates and violence are Confederate monuments across the country. The questions about the legacy of the Civil War in this country affect everyone, even if only a relatively small population is being racist and violent about it. The Civil War cost ~500,000 American lives and brought about a complete rewriting of our Constitution (yes, those new amendments changed the whole thing). Should we have statues dedicated to treasonous slavers and white supremacists on government property? This is a universally important question. No complaining about scale gets you out of that question.
What amendments and why was it a "complete rewriting of our constitution?" One of the more absurd assertions from you (yes yes it's true) that should rank with a Trump supporter's "he's delivered on all his campaign promises up to today."
The rights of the constitution largely didn't apply against state governments and prior to the Civil War, states could make all kinds of unequal and illiberal laws. The 14th amendment decisively said that states couldn't do that anymore. We were not the same nation afterwards. The Federal Government would dominate the States.
EDIT: and that whole you couldn't own black people thing anymore
Not to mention its repeal was something of a Tea Party platform. Not sure how uniformly it was agreed upon, but repealing the 14th was a thing.
Citation needed.
As in, the Tea Party is a very loose collection of nonprofits and activists, and I never saw any widespread acceptance of that into their platforms. I suppose you can use the logic that also calls BLM an arson and violence organization by pointing to a paucity of examples.
I remember this discussion from 2010 under the cover of birth right citizens. There was a push to alter the deal further by the tea party.
So you're switching to talk about birthright citizenship? He mentioned only incorporation.
Why would my assertion only be valid if examples arguing against incorporation as the reason for repeal are found. The original point was about the 14th amendment being a big deal. The point of my mentioning it's repeal as an issue was to argue that the amendment is seen by some conservative types as important enough to deserve repeal. Whether it is for naturalization or for incorporation doesn't matter.
On August 15 2017 03:03 Wulfey_LA wrote: "But there aren't many KKK/Nazis/out and out racist marchers" is not a defense here. The objects of all these rallies and debates and violence are Confederate monuments across the country. The questions about the legacy of the Civil War in this country affect everyone, even if only a relatively small population is being racist and violent about it. The Civil War cost ~500,000 American lives and brought about a complete rewriting of our Constitution (yes, those new amendments changed the whole thing). Should we have statues dedicated to treasonous slavers and white supremacists on government property? This is a universally important question. No complaining about scale gets you out of that question.
What amendments and why was it a "complete rewriting of our constitution?" One of the more absurd assertions from you (yes yes it's true) that should rank with a Trump supporter's "he's delivered on all his campaign promises up to today."
The rights of the constitution largely didn't apply against state governments and prior to the Civil War, states could make all kinds of unequal and illiberal laws. The 14th amendment decisively said that states couldn't do that anymore. We were not the same nation afterwards. The Federal Government would dominate the States.
EDIT: and that whole you couldn't own black people thing anymore
Not to mention its repeal was something of a Tea Party platform. Not sure how uniformly it was agreed upon, but repealing the 14th was a thing.
Citation needed.
As in, the Tea Party is a very loose collection of nonprofits and activists, and I never saw any widespread acceptance of that into their platforms. I suppose you can use the logic that also calls BLM an arson and violence organization by pointing to a paucity of examples.
All you need is some Google action. I know it is WND, but more is out there. I wasn't saying it was accepted by all tea partiers or even most, just that it has been in the air among the anti-statists on the right for awhile now. I didn't think it was a controversial point to make, certainly not like saying one person calling for violence tars the whole bunch, as in your counter-point. I thought it was held to be a respectable scholarly position by those who adopt it as one.
When you say that the Tea party and conservatives in general want to repeal the 14th amendment you have to admit that the part about slavery is implied. Just say that the tea party wants to repeal birthright citizenship and naturalization.
Yeah, this the week he should pardon the sheriff who defied a judge’s order and kept doing deportation patrols. A guy who really respects the law..
Arpaio’s widely publicized tactics included forcing inmates to wear pink underwear and housing them in desert tent camps where temperatures often climbed well past 100 degrees Fahrenheit. He also controversially brought back chain gains, including a voluntary chain gang for women prisoners.
This will be great optics. Won’t further the narrative that Trump is the president that supports racists in this country.
On August 15 2017 04:43 Sermokala wrote: When you say that the Tea party and conservatives in general want to repeal the 14th amendment you have to admit that the part about slavery is implied. Just say that the tea party wants to repeal birthright citizenship and naturalization.
Wasn't that the 13th amendment though? 14th just made sure about the citizenship part.
EPT
