|
Now that we have a new thread, 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 complete and thorough read before posting! NOTE: When providing a source, please provide a very brief summary on what it's about and what purpose it adds to the discussion. The supporting statement should clearly explain why the subject is relevant and needs to be discussed. Please follow this rule especially for tweets.
Your supporting statement should always come BEFORE you provide the source.If you have any questions, comments, concern, or feedback regarding the USPMT, then please use this thread: http://www.teamliquid.net/forum/website-feedback/510156-us-politics-thread |
On October 14 2020 23:39 Doodsmack wrote:Show nested quote +On October 14 2020 23:25 Erasme wrote:
Except that those statues weren't build to celebrate history. It was a way to remind minorities that they were in the South. Okay but no one really knows that fact these days (and it's probably not universally true, e.g. if you consider actual battlefield sites). People just recognize statues as something that has to do with history.
? Do you think minorities passing by those statues don't feel anything ?
|
On October 14 2020 23:39 Doodsmack wrote:Show nested quote +On October 14 2020 23:25 Erasme wrote:
Except that those statues weren't build to celebrate history. It was a way to remind minorities that they were in the South. Okay but no one really knows that fact these days (and it's probably not universally true, e.g. if you consider actual battlefield sites). People just recognize statues as something that has to do with history.
Yes we do. That's why we're tearing them down.
|
On October 14 2020 20:47 iamthedave wrote:Show nested quote +On October 14 2020 18:34 Velr wrote:
Imho the issue on this is, that US-Politics makes this seem like such a clear "Yes" or "No" issue, while it clearly isn't. All nuance has been lost on this topic.
I mean, the right is calling pro choice people "baby murderers", accusing them of wanting to harvest babies and even wanting to kill "viable" newborns out of convenience. I doubt you find any leftist/democrat/whatever aside from clear psychopaths that are for any of these things.
Roe vs Wade also doesn't help much to solve this in an acceptable way, because it also lacks nuance (from what i understand). But if the alternative is "no abortions at all, ever", pro choice people will obviously defend it.
Alone that this issue is pictured as a fight between "pro life" and "pro choice" people is ridiculously stupid. How can you have nuance when the actual Vice President of the actual United States has proudly said 'we will see the end of abortion in our times'? Unfortunately, it isn't pictured as a fight between those two groups, it actually is a fight between them.
You can't anymore.
Americans seem to love this Team vs Team, Good vs Evil, Black vs White shit and fall for it on just about every topic. Everything seems to be finde as long as you can just have 2 clearly defined sides that you can antagonise as much as you want. So democrats became baby eating marxist and republicans facist gun nuts to each other. Have fun solving that.
I personally doubt the US makes it another 20 years with its current political system.
|
On October 14 2020 23:37 farvacola wrote:Show nested quote +On October 14 2020 23:25 Erasme wrote:
Except that those statues weren't build to celebrate history. It was a way to remind minorities that they were in the South. Sadly, it is not uncommon for folks from outside the US to display a better understanding of the nation's history than many of its inhabitants.
You're comparing educated foreigners with an interest in history with average Americans. Not exactly fair. An average European has a very rudimentary understanding of their country's history, and a very rough idea of the American history at best. I'm sure the same applies to Asians, Africans etc. :-)
|
On October 14 2020 16:44 Biff The Understudy wrote:Show nested quote +On October 14 2020 16:00 Silvanel wrote:On October 14 2020 06:40 Biff The Understudy wrote:On October 14 2020 05:50 Elroi wrote:I don't get it. It seems to me that there are so many viable ways to attack him. All of this misquoting and intentional misunderstanding just makes mainstream media look like the bad guys and Trump as the paradoxical hero. On October 14 2020 05:14 Arghmyliver wrote:On October 14 2020 03:44 Doodsmack wrote:On October 14 2020 03:04 NewSunshine wrote:
It sounds a little different coming from a leader who has both refused to condemn and encouraged the violent parts of his base. It also sounds different coming from someone who incessantly accuses his opposition of perpetrating election fraud, and who told the Proud Boys to "stand by". So there's some context. The "stand by" comment was highly suspect but some of this is just liberal media misinformation. For example the Charlottesville comment. Look at what Trump actually said: Reporter: “Do you think that what you call the alt-left is the same as neo-Nazis?”
Trump: “Those people — all of those people — excuse me, I’ve condemned neo-Nazis. I’ve condemned many different groups. But not all of those people were neo-Nazis, believe me. Not all of those people were white supremacists by any stretch. Those people were also there because they wanted to protest the taking down of a statue of Robert E. Lee.”
Reporter: “The neo-Nazis started this. They showed up in Charlottesville to protest —”
Trump: “Excuse me, excuse me. They didn’t put themselves — and you had some very bad people in that group, but you also had people that were very fine people on both sides. You had people in that group. Excuse me, excuse me. I saw the same pictures as you did. You had people in that group that were there to protest the taking down of, to them, a very, very important statue and the renaming of a park from Robert E. Lee to another name.” He first defined the two "sides" as those opposed to taking down the statue and those favoring it. Thus he defined the white supremacists as a subset of one of the two sides. He then said there very fine people on both sides, which is to say that some among the pro-statue side were fine people. That is not the same as saying that some white supremacists are very fine people. If you believe it is the same, you've basically been duped by misinformation. Oh and by the way, he also said this: I’m not talking about the neo-Nazis and the white nationalists, because they should be condemned totally. Robert E Lee was a general in the army of the Confederate States of America who fought to maintain the right to enslave black people. Napoleon was also a general who fought to maintain the right to enslave black people. Napoleon never went to war to defend slavery. Lee did. That's extremely different. Napoleon was kind of a dick, everyone agrees on that but his legacy encompass a lot, lot, lot more than his policies on slavery. Statues of Lee were erected by white supremacist groups such as the Sister of the Confederacy; there is absolutely no ambiguity over what they are meant to celebrate, I don't think ANY "fine person" would march to defend a statue of Lee. I will add that Poland mentions Napoleon in its national anthem (in positive light), his legacy is vast and at least parts of it are very positive. He is certainly an extremely complex character. But NOBODY looks at a statue of Napoleon and think "fuck yeah, white power". If anything people learn that one of his many flaws as a person were his racial views and one of his biggest crimes his restauration of slavery. But his role in history is soooo much more important than that. I personally see him as a very negative figure with some contingent positive traits. But he built modern France and inspired generations after him and that's really something worth celebrating. He is a giant in our history. If on the other hand you erect a statue of Lee and if you go demonstrate to preserve it, you absolutely are making a statement about white supremacy. Lee didn't write the Code Civil, didn't spread enlightenment across Europe and isn't responsible for building most of modern america's institution. His only role in history was to fight for rebels who betrayed the country to protect their rights to enslave people. No "fine person" celebrates that.
Would you oppose the Haitian population in France tearing down Napoleon statues?
|
On October 15 2020 01:09 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +On October 14 2020 16:44 Biff The Understudy wrote:On October 14 2020 16:00 Silvanel wrote:On October 14 2020 06:40 Biff The Understudy wrote:On October 14 2020 05:50 Elroi wrote:I don't get it. It seems to me that there are so many viable ways to attack him. All of this misquoting and intentional misunderstanding just makes mainstream media look like the bad guys and Trump as the paradoxical hero. On October 14 2020 05:14 Arghmyliver wrote:On October 14 2020 03:44 Doodsmack wrote:On October 14 2020 03:04 NewSunshine wrote:
It sounds a little different coming from a leader who has both refused to condemn and encouraged the violent parts of his base. It also sounds different coming from someone who incessantly accuses his opposition of perpetrating election fraud, and who told the Proud Boys to "stand by". So there's some context. The "stand by" comment was highly suspect but some of this is just liberal media misinformation. For example the Charlottesville comment. Look at what Trump actually said: Reporter: “Do you think that what you call the alt-left is the same as neo-Nazis?”
Trump: “Those people — all of those people — excuse me, I’ve condemned neo-Nazis. I’ve condemned many different groups. But not all of those people were neo-Nazis, believe me. Not all of those people were white supremacists by any stretch. Those people were also there because they wanted to protest the taking down of a statue of Robert E. Lee.”
Reporter: “The neo-Nazis started this. They showed up in Charlottesville to protest —”
Trump: “Excuse me, excuse me. They didn’t put themselves — and you had some very bad people in that group, but you also had people that were very fine people on both sides. You had people in that group. Excuse me, excuse me. I saw the same pictures as you did. You had people in that group that were there to protest the taking down of, to them, a very, very important statue and the renaming of a park from Robert E. Lee to another name.” He first defined the two "sides" as those opposed to taking down the statue and those favoring it. Thus he defined the white supremacists as a subset of one of the two sides. He then said there very fine people on both sides, which is to say that some among the pro-statue side were fine people. That is not the same as saying that some white supremacists are very fine people. If you believe it is the same, you've basically been duped by misinformation. Oh and by the way, he also said this: I’m not talking about the neo-Nazis and the white nationalists, because they should be condemned totally. Robert E Lee was a general in the army of the Confederate States of America who fought to maintain the right to enslave black people. Napoleon was also a general who fought to maintain the right to enslave black people. Napoleon never went to war to defend slavery. Lee did. That's extremely different. Napoleon was kind of a dick, everyone agrees on that but his legacy encompass a lot, lot, lot more than his policies on slavery. Statues of Lee were erected by white supremacist groups such as the Sister of the Confederacy; there is absolutely no ambiguity over what they are meant to celebrate, I don't think ANY "fine person" would march to defend a statue of Lee. I will add that Poland mentions Napoleon in its national anthem (in positive light), his legacy is vast and at least parts of it are very positive. He is certainly an extremely complex character. But NOBODY looks at a statue of Napoleon and think "fuck yeah, white power". If anything people learn that one of his many flaws as a person were his racial views and one of his biggest crimes his restauration of slavery. But his role in history is soooo much more important than that. I personally see him as a very negative figure with some contingent positive traits. But he built modern France and inspired generations after him and that's really something worth celebrating. He is a giant in our history. If on the other hand you erect a statue of Lee and if you go demonstrate to preserve it, you absolutely are making a statement about white supremacy. Lee didn't write the Code Civil, didn't spread enlightenment across Europe and isn't responsible for building most of modern america's institution. His only role in history was to fight for rebels who betrayed the country to protect their rights to enslave people. No "fine person" celebrates that. Would you oppose the Haitian population in France tearing down Napoleon statues?
I would not. Napoleon certainly represents something very different in Haiti than he does in France. In Haiti, what he must definitely be remembered about is how he re-established slavery and behaved like a complete pig to black people in general. In France he represents a colossal sum of transformations and influences, some good, some bad.
For the same obvious reasons, he doesn't have statues in Russia, as we don't have statues of Nelson or Kutuzov in France. Context is everything when it's about symbols.
|
On October 14 2020 23:22 Doodsmack wrote:Show nested quote +On October 14 2020 16:44 Biff The Understudy wrote:On October 14 2020 16:00 Silvanel wrote:On October 14 2020 06:40 Biff The Understudy wrote:On October 14 2020 05:50 Elroi wrote:I don't get it. It seems to me that there are so many viable ways to attack him. All of this misquoting and intentional misunderstanding just makes mainstream media look like the bad guys and Trump as the paradoxical hero. On October 14 2020 05:14 Arghmyliver wrote:On October 14 2020 03:44 Doodsmack wrote:On October 14 2020 03:04 NewSunshine wrote:
It sounds a little different coming from a leader who has both refused to condemn and encouraged the violent parts of his base. It also sounds different coming from someone who incessantly accuses his opposition of perpetrating election fraud, and who told the Proud Boys to "stand by". So there's some context. The "stand by" comment was highly suspect but some of this is just liberal media misinformation. For example the Charlottesville comment. Look at what Trump actually said: Reporter: “Do you think that what you call the alt-left is the same as neo-Nazis?”
Trump: “Those people — all of those people — excuse me, I’ve condemned neo-Nazis. I’ve condemned many different groups. But not all of those people were neo-Nazis, believe me. Not all of those people were white supremacists by any stretch. Those people were also there because they wanted to protest the taking down of a statue of Robert E. Lee.”
Reporter: “The neo-Nazis started this. They showed up in Charlottesville to protest —”
Trump: “Excuse me, excuse me. They didn’t put themselves — and you had some very bad people in that group, but you also had people that were very fine people on both sides. You had people in that group. Excuse me, excuse me. I saw the same pictures as you did. You had people in that group that were there to protest the taking down of, to them, a very, very important statue and the renaming of a park from Robert E. Lee to another name.” He first defined the two "sides" as those opposed to taking down the statue and those favoring it. Thus he defined the white supremacists as a subset of one of the two sides. He then said there very fine people on both sides, which is to say that some among the pro-statue side were fine people. That is not the same as saying that some white supremacists are very fine people. If you believe it is the same, you've basically been duped by misinformation. Oh and by the way, he also said this: I’m not talking about the neo-Nazis and the white nationalists, because they should be condemned totally. Robert E Lee was a general in the army of the Confederate States of America who fought to maintain the right to enslave black people. Napoleon was also a general who fought to maintain the right to enslave black people. Napoleon never went to war to defend slavery. Lee did. That's extremely different. Napoleon was kind of a dick, everyone agrees on that but his legacy encompass a lot, lot, lot more than his policies on slavery. Statues of Lee were erected by white supremacist groups such as the Sister of the Confederacy; there is absolutely no ambiguity over what they are meant to celebrate, I don't think ANY "fine person" would march to defend a statue of Lee. I will add that Poland mentions Napoleon in its national anthem (in positive light), his legacy is vast and at least parts of it are very positive. He is certainly an extremely complex character. But NOBODY looks at a statue of Napoleon and think "fuck yeah, white power". If anything people learn that one of his many flaws as a person were his racial views and one of his biggest crimes his restauration of slavery. But his role in history is soooo much more important than that. I personally see him as a very negative figure with some contingent positive traits. But he built modern France and inspired generations after him and that's really something worth celebrating. He is a giant in our history. If on the other hand you erect a statue of Lee and if you go demonstrate to preserve it, you absolutely are making a statement about white supremacy. Lee didn't write the Code Civil, didn't spread enlightenment across Europe and isn't responsible for building most of modern america's institution. His only role in history was to fight for rebels who betrayed the country to protect their rights to enslave people. No "fine person" celebrates that. I suspect your view on people who favor the statues wouldn't be this black and white if Trump weren't president and/or if he hadn't said there were very fine people there. One could favor the statues merely as a recognition of history, for example.
It's very black and white. Those statues were erected financed by Klan sympathizers and white supremacists in the XXth century with a very clear agenda in mind. There is 0 confusion about what they mean and why they stand there.
As there is zero confusion about why definitely not very fine people made the trip to protest their removal.
It's as unambiguous as it gets really.
|
On October 15 2020 01:16 Biff The Understudy wrote:Show nested quote +On October 15 2020 01:09 GreenHorizons wrote:On October 14 2020 16:44 Biff The Understudy wrote:On October 14 2020 16:00 Silvanel wrote:On October 14 2020 06:40 Biff The Understudy wrote:On October 14 2020 05:50 Elroi wrote:I don't get it. It seems to me that there are so many viable ways to attack him. All of this misquoting and intentional misunderstanding just makes mainstream media look like the bad guys and Trump as the paradoxical hero. On October 14 2020 05:14 Arghmyliver wrote:On October 14 2020 03:44 Doodsmack wrote:On October 14 2020 03:04 NewSunshine wrote:
It sounds a little different coming from a leader who has both refused to condemn and encouraged the violent parts of his base. It also sounds different coming from someone who incessantly accuses his opposition of perpetrating election fraud, and who told the Proud Boys to "stand by". So there's some context. The "stand by" comment was highly suspect but some of this is just liberal media misinformation. For example the Charlottesville comment. Look at what Trump actually said: Reporter: “Do you think that what you call the alt-left is the same as neo-Nazis?”
Trump: “Those people — all of those people — excuse me, I’ve condemned neo-Nazis. I’ve condemned many different groups. But not all of those people were neo-Nazis, believe me. Not all of those people were white supremacists by any stretch. Those people were also there because they wanted to protest the taking down of a statue of Robert E. Lee.”
Reporter: “The neo-Nazis started this. They showed up in Charlottesville to protest —”
Trump: “Excuse me, excuse me. They didn’t put themselves — and you had some very bad people in that group, but you also had people that were very fine people on both sides. You had people in that group. Excuse me, excuse me. I saw the same pictures as you did. You had people in that group that were there to protest the taking down of, to them, a very, very important statue and the renaming of a park from Robert E. Lee to another name.” He first defined the two "sides" as those opposed to taking down the statue and those favoring it. Thus he defined the white supremacists as a subset of one of the two sides. He then said there very fine people on both sides, which is to say that some among the pro-statue side were fine people. That is not the same as saying that some white supremacists are very fine people. If you believe it is the same, you've basically been duped by misinformation. Oh and by the way, he also said this: I’m not talking about the neo-Nazis and the white nationalists, because they should be condemned totally. Robert E Lee was a general in the army of the Confederate States of America who fought to maintain the right to enslave black people. Napoleon was also a general who fought to maintain the right to enslave black people. Napoleon never went to war to defend slavery. Lee did. That's extremely different. Napoleon was kind of a dick, everyone agrees on that but his legacy encompass a lot, lot, lot more than his policies on slavery. Statues of Lee were erected by white supremacist groups such as the Sister of the Confederacy; there is absolutely no ambiguity over what they are meant to celebrate, I don't think ANY "fine person" would march to defend a statue of Lee. I will add that Poland mentions Napoleon in its national anthem (in positive light), his legacy is vast and at least parts of it are very positive. He is certainly an extremely complex character. But NOBODY looks at a statue of Napoleon and think "fuck yeah, white power". If anything people learn that one of his many flaws as a person were his racial views and one of his biggest crimes his restauration of slavery. But his role in history is soooo much more important than that. I personally see him as a very negative figure with some contingent positive traits. But he built modern France and inspired generations after him and that's really something worth celebrating. He is a giant in our history. If on the other hand you erect a statue of Lee and if you go demonstrate to preserve it, you absolutely are making a statement about white supremacy. Lee didn't write the Code Civil, didn't spread enlightenment across Europe and isn't responsible for building most of modern america's institution. His only role in history was to fight for rebels who betrayed the country to protect their rights to enslave people. No "fine person" celebrates that. Would you oppose the Haitian population in France tearing down Napoleon statues? I would not. Napoleon certainly represents something very different in Haiti than he does in France. In Haiti, what he must definitely be remembered about is how he re-established slavery and behaved like a complete pig to black people in general. In France he represents a colossal sum of transformations and influences, some good, some bad. For the same obvious reasons, he doesn't have statues in Russia, as we don't have statues of Nelson or Kutuzov in France. Context is everything when it's about symbols.
I said Haitians in France. So I was talking about the statue at Les Invalides.
|
Interesting to see that resistance Twitter, joined by Facebook and Twitter themselves, is being so quick to bury this NY Post story about Hunter Biden's emails. One resistance journalist, Maggie Haberman, did so much as link to the story and she is now excommunicated as "MAGA Haberman." WaPo is pretending to have a policy against publishing leaked materials close to an election (lol):
Facebook exec:
Needless to say, none of these standards would be applied to the Trump family (see leaked tax returns).
|
On October 15 2020 01:16 Biff The Understudy wrote:Show nested quote +On October 15 2020 01:09 GreenHorizons wrote:On October 14 2020 16:44 Biff The Understudy wrote:On October 14 2020 16:00 Silvanel wrote:On October 14 2020 06:40 Biff The Understudy wrote:On October 14 2020 05:50 Elroi wrote:I don't get it. It seems to me that there are so many viable ways to attack him. All of this misquoting and intentional misunderstanding just makes mainstream media look like the bad guys and Trump as the paradoxical hero. On October 14 2020 05:14 Arghmyliver wrote:On October 14 2020 03:44 Doodsmack wrote:On October 14 2020 03:04 NewSunshine wrote:
It sounds a little different coming from a leader who has both refused to condemn and encouraged the violent parts of his base. It also sounds different coming from someone who incessantly accuses his opposition of perpetrating election fraud, and who told the Proud Boys to "stand by". So there's some context. The "stand by" comment was highly suspect but some of this is just liberal media misinformation. For example the Charlottesville comment. Look at what Trump actually said: Reporter: “Do you think that what you call the alt-left is the same as neo-Nazis?”
Trump: “Those people — all of those people — excuse me, I’ve condemned neo-Nazis. I’ve condemned many different groups. But not all of those people were neo-Nazis, believe me. Not all of those people were white supremacists by any stretch. Those people were also there because they wanted to protest the taking down of a statue of Robert E. Lee.”
Reporter: “The neo-Nazis started this. They showed up in Charlottesville to protest —”
Trump: “Excuse me, excuse me. They didn’t put themselves — and you had some very bad people in that group, but you also had people that were very fine people on both sides. You had people in that group. Excuse me, excuse me. I saw the same pictures as you did. You had people in that group that were there to protest the taking down of, to them, a very, very important statue and the renaming of a park from Robert E. Lee to another name.” He first defined the two "sides" as those opposed to taking down the statue and those favoring it. Thus he defined the white supremacists as a subset of one of the two sides. He then said there very fine people on both sides, which is to say that some among the pro-statue side were fine people. That is not the same as saying that some white supremacists are very fine people. If you believe it is the same, you've basically been duped by misinformation. Oh and by the way, he also said this: I’m not talking about the neo-Nazis and the white nationalists, because they should be condemned totally. Robert E Lee was a general in the army of the Confederate States of America who fought to maintain the right to enslave black people. Napoleon was also a general who fought to maintain the right to enslave black people. Napoleon never went to war to defend slavery. Lee did. That's extremely different. Napoleon was kind of a dick, everyone agrees on that but his legacy encompass a lot, lot, lot more than his policies on slavery. Statues of Lee were erected by white supremacist groups such as the Sister of the Confederacy; there is absolutely no ambiguity over what they are meant to celebrate, I don't think ANY "fine person" would march to defend a statue of Lee. I will add that Poland mentions Napoleon in its national anthem (in positive light), his legacy is vast and at least parts of it are very positive. He is certainly an extremely complex character. But NOBODY looks at a statue of Napoleon and think "fuck yeah, white power". If anything people learn that one of his many flaws as a person were his racial views and one of his biggest crimes his restauration of slavery. But his role in history is soooo much more important than that. I personally see him as a very negative figure with some contingent positive traits. But he built modern France and inspired generations after him and that's really something worth celebrating. He is a giant in our history. If on the other hand you erect a statue of Lee and if you go demonstrate to preserve it, you absolutely are making a statement about white supremacy. Lee didn't write the Code Civil, didn't spread enlightenment across Europe and isn't responsible for building most of modern america's institution. His only role in history was to fight for rebels who betrayed the country to protect their rights to enslave people. No "fine person" celebrates that. Would you oppose the Haitian population in France tearing down Napoleon statues? I would not. Napoleon certainly represents something very different in Haiti than he does in France. In Haiti, what he must definitely be remembered about is how he re-established slavery and behaved like a complete pig to black people in general. In France he represents a colossal sum of transformations and influences, some good, some bad. For the same obvious reasons, he doesn't have statues in Russia, as we don't have statues of Nelson or Kutuzov in France. Context is everything when it's about symbols.
In my eyes, someone should only be judged as their entire selves, not separated by land. If Hitler built a school in some country that didn't suffer from Hitler otherwise, it would be weird for that country to build a statue of Hitler. If Napoleon was a terrible dude to some group of people, he was a terrible dude. He also apparently did some good things, which I know nothing about. If he's terrible to some people, history to other people, seems like a good net-positive to just get rid of the statues. I'd feel really uncomfortable as a Haitian seeing a statue of Napoleon.
|
On October 15 2020 01:24 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +On October 15 2020 01:16 Biff The Understudy wrote:On October 15 2020 01:09 GreenHorizons wrote:On October 14 2020 16:44 Biff The Understudy wrote:On October 14 2020 16:00 Silvanel wrote:On October 14 2020 06:40 Biff The Understudy wrote:On October 14 2020 05:50 Elroi wrote:I don't get it. It seems to me that there are so many viable ways to attack him. All of this misquoting and intentional misunderstanding just makes mainstream media look like the bad guys and Trump as the paradoxical hero. On October 14 2020 05:14 Arghmyliver wrote:On October 14 2020 03:44 Doodsmack wrote:On October 14 2020 03:04 NewSunshine wrote:
It sounds a little different coming from a leader who has both refused to condemn and encouraged the violent parts of his base. It also sounds different coming from someone who incessantly accuses his opposition of perpetrating election fraud, and who told the Proud Boys to "stand by". So there's some context. The "stand by" comment was highly suspect but some of this is just liberal media misinformation. For example the Charlottesville comment. Look at what Trump actually said: Reporter: “Do you think that what you call the alt-left is the same as neo-Nazis?”
Trump: “Those people — all of those people — excuse me, I’ve condemned neo-Nazis. I’ve condemned many different groups. But not all of those people were neo-Nazis, believe me. Not all of those people were white supremacists by any stretch. Those people were also there because they wanted to protest the taking down of a statue of Robert E. Lee.”
Reporter: “The neo-Nazis started this. They showed up in Charlottesville to protest —”
Trump: “Excuse me, excuse me. They didn’t put themselves — and you had some very bad people in that group, but you also had people that were very fine people on both sides. You had people in that group. Excuse me, excuse me. I saw the same pictures as you did. You had people in that group that were there to protest the taking down of, to them, a very, very important statue and the renaming of a park from Robert E. Lee to another name.” He first defined the two "sides" as those opposed to taking down the statue and those favoring it. Thus he defined the white supremacists as a subset of one of the two sides. He then said there very fine people on both sides, which is to say that some among the pro-statue side were fine people. That is not the same as saying that some white supremacists are very fine people. If you believe it is the same, you've basically been duped by misinformation. Oh and by the way, he also said this: I’m not talking about the neo-Nazis and the white nationalists, because they should be condemned totally. Robert E Lee was a general in the army of the Confederate States of America who fought to maintain the right to enslave black people. Napoleon was also a general who fought to maintain the right to enslave black people. Napoleon never went to war to defend slavery. Lee did. That's extremely different. Napoleon was kind of a dick, everyone agrees on that but his legacy encompass a lot, lot, lot more than his policies on slavery. Statues of Lee were erected by white supremacist groups such as the Sister of the Confederacy; there is absolutely no ambiguity over what they are meant to celebrate, I don't think ANY "fine person" would march to defend a statue of Lee. I will add that Poland mentions Napoleon in its national anthem (in positive light), his legacy is vast and at least parts of it are very positive. He is certainly an extremely complex character. But NOBODY looks at a statue of Napoleon and think "fuck yeah, white power". If anything people learn that one of his many flaws as a person were his racial views and one of his biggest crimes his restauration of slavery. But his role in history is soooo much more important than that. I personally see him as a very negative figure with some contingent positive traits. But he built modern France and inspired generations after him and that's really something worth celebrating. He is a giant in our history. If on the other hand you erect a statue of Lee and if you go demonstrate to preserve it, you absolutely are making a statement about white supremacy. Lee didn't write the Code Civil, didn't spread enlightenment across Europe and isn't responsible for building most of modern america's institution. His only role in history was to fight for rebels who betrayed the country to protect their rights to enslave people. No "fine person" celebrates that. Would you oppose the Haitian population in France tearing down Napoleon statues? I would not. Napoleon certainly represents something very different in Haiti than he does in France. In Haiti, what he must definitely be remembered about is how he re-established slavery and behaved like a complete pig to black people in general. In France he represents a colossal sum of transformations and influences, some good, some bad. For the same obvious reasons, he doesn't have statues in Russia, as we don't have statues of Nelson or Kutuzov in France. Context is everything when it's about symbols. I said Haitians in France. So I was talking about the statue at Les Invalides.
I'm quite certain they know how central he is in the foundation of our nation and are fully aware that his statue is not meant to celebrate his position on slavery. I wouldn't suspect my fellow citizens to be un-nuanced and lack enough subtlety not to realize something that obvious.
|
On October 15 2020 01:37 Biff The Understudy wrote:Show nested quote +On October 15 2020 01:24 GreenHorizons wrote:On October 15 2020 01:16 Biff The Understudy wrote:On October 15 2020 01:09 GreenHorizons wrote:On October 14 2020 16:44 Biff The Understudy wrote:On October 14 2020 16:00 Silvanel wrote:On October 14 2020 06:40 Biff The Understudy wrote:On October 14 2020 05:50 Elroi wrote:I don't get it. It seems to me that there are so many viable ways to attack him. All of this misquoting and intentional misunderstanding just makes mainstream media look like the bad guys and Trump as the paradoxical hero. On October 14 2020 05:14 Arghmyliver wrote:On October 14 2020 03:44 Doodsmack wrote:
[quote]
The "stand by" comment was highly suspect but some of this is just liberal media misinformation. For example the Charlottesville comment. Look at what Trump actually said:
[quote]
He first defined the two "sides" as those opposed to taking down the statue and those favoring it. Thus he defined the white supremacists as a subset of one of the two sides. He then said there very fine people on both sides, which is to say that some among the pro-statue side were fine people. That is not the same as saying that some white supremacists are very fine people. If you believe it is the same, you've basically been duped by misinformation. Oh and by the way, he also said this:
[quote] Robert E Lee was a general in the army of the Confederate States of America who fought to maintain the right to enslave black people. Napoleon was also a general who fought to maintain the right to enslave black people. Napoleon never went to war to defend slavery. Lee did. That's extremely different. Napoleon was kind of a dick, everyone agrees on that but his legacy encompass a lot, lot, lot more than his policies on slavery. Statues of Lee were erected by white supremacist groups such as the Sister of the Confederacy; there is absolutely no ambiguity over what they are meant to celebrate, I don't think ANY "fine person" would march to defend a statue of Lee. I will add that Poland mentions Napoleon in its national anthem (in positive light), his legacy is vast and at least parts of it are very positive. He is certainly an extremely complex character. But NOBODY looks at a statue of Napoleon and think "fuck yeah, white power". If anything people learn that one of his many flaws as a person were his racial views and one of his biggest crimes his restauration of slavery. But his role in history is soooo much more important than that. I personally see him as a very negative figure with some contingent positive traits. But he built modern France and inspired generations after him and that's really something worth celebrating. He is a giant in our history. If on the other hand you erect a statue of Lee and if you go demonstrate to preserve it, you absolutely are making a statement about white supremacy. Lee didn't write the Code Civil, didn't spread enlightenment across Europe and isn't responsible for building most of modern america's institution. His only role in history was to fight for rebels who betrayed the country to protect their rights to enslave people. No "fine person" celebrates that. Would you oppose the Haitian population in France tearing down Napoleon statues? I would not. Napoleon certainly represents something very different in Haiti than he does in France. In Haiti, what he must definitely be remembered about is how he re-established slavery and behaved like a complete pig to black people in general. In France he represents a colossal sum of transformations and influences, some good, some bad. For the same obvious reasons, he doesn't have statues in Russia, as we don't have statues of Nelson or Kutuzov in France. Context is everything when it's about symbols. I said Haitians in France. So I was talking about the statue at Les Invalides. I'm quite certain they know how central he is in the foundation of our nation and are fully aware that his statue is not meant to celebrate his position on slavery. I wouldn't suspect my fellow citizens to be un-nuanced and lack enough subtlety not to realize something that obvious.
That's the same thing almost verbatim (but a bit more condescending than usual) racist white people say about Andrew Jackson in the US.
|
On October 15 2020 01:37 Biff The Understudy wrote:Show nested quote +On October 15 2020 01:24 GreenHorizons wrote:On October 15 2020 01:16 Biff The Understudy wrote:On October 15 2020 01:09 GreenHorizons wrote:On October 14 2020 16:44 Biff The Understudy wrote:On October 14 2020 16:00 Silvanel wrote:On October 14 2020 06:40 Biff The Understudy wrote:On October 14 2020 05:50 Elroi wrote:I don't get it. It seems to me that there are so many viable ways to attack him. All of this misquoting and intentional misunderstanding just makes mainstream media look like the bad guys and Trump as the paradoxical hero. On October 14 2020 05:14 Arghmyliver wrote:On October 14 2020 03:44 Doodsmack wrote:
[quote]
The "stand by" comment was highly suspect but some of this is just liberal media misinformation. For example the Charlottesville comment. Look at what Trump actually said:
[quote]
He first defined the two "sides" as those opposed to taking down the statue and those favoring it. Thus he defined the white supremacists as a subset of one of the two sides. He then said there very fine people on both sides, which is to say that some among the pro-statue side were fine people. That is not the same as saying that some white supremacists are very fine people. If you believe it is the same, you've basically been duped by misinformation. Oh and by the way, he also said this:
[quote] Robert E Lee was a general in the army of the Confederate States of America who fought to maintain the right to enslave black people. Napoleon was also a general who fought to maintain the right to enslave black people. Napoleon never went to war to defend slavery. Lee did. That's extremely different. Napoleon was kind of a dick, everyone agrees on that but his legacy encompass a lot, lot, lot more than his policies on slavery. Statues of Lee were erected by white supremacist groups such as the Sister of the Confederacy; there is absolutely no ambiguity over what they are meant to celebrate, I don't think ANY "fine person" would march to defend a statue of Lee. I will add that Poland mentions Napoleon in its national anthem (in positive light), his legacy is vast and at least parts of it are very positive. He is certainly an extremely complex character. But NOBODY looks at a statue of Napoleon and think "fuck yeah, white power". If anything people learn that one of his many flaws as a person were his racial views and one of his biggest crimes his restauration of slavery. But his role in history is soooo much more important than that. I personally see him as a very negative figure with some contingent positive traits. But he built modern France and inspired generations after him and that's really something worth celebrating. He is a giant in our history. If on the other hand you erect a statue of Lee and if you go demonstrate to preserve it, you absolutely are making a statement about white supremacy. Lee didn't write the Code Civil, didn't spread enlightenment across Europe and isn't responsible for building most of modern america's institution. His only role in history was to fight for rebels who betrayed the country to protect their rights to enslave people. No "fine person" celebrates that. Would you oppose the Haitian population in France tearing down Napoleon statues? I would not. Napoleon certainly represents something very different in Haiti than he does in France. In Haiti, what he must definitely be remembered about is how he re-established slavery and behaved like a complete pig to black people in general. In France he represents a colossal sum of transformations and influences, some good, some bad. For the same obvious reasons, he doesn't have statues in Russia, as we don't have statues of Nelson or Kutuzov in France. Context is everything when it's about symbols. I said Haitians in France. So I was talking about the statue at Les Invalides. I'm quite certain they know how central he is in the foundation of our nation and are fully aware that his statue is not meant to celebrate his position on slavery. I wouldn't suspect my fellow citizens to be un-nuanced and lack enough subtlety not to realize something that obvious.
In your eyes, why does this dictate "so then we ought to have a statue of him"?
|
On October 15 2020 01:33 Mohdoo wrote:Show nested quote +On October 15 2020 01:16 Biff The Understudy wrote:On October 15 2020 01:09 GreenHorizons wrote:On October 14 2020 16:44 Biff The Understudy wrote:On October 14 2020 16:00 Silvanel wrote:On October 14 2020 06:40 Biff The Understudy wrote:On October 14 2020 05:50 Elroi wrote:I don't get it. It seems to me that there are so many viable ways to attack him. All of this misquoting and intentional misunderstanding just makes mainstream media look like the bad guys and Trump as the paradoxical hero. On October 14 2020 05:14 Arghmyliver wrote:On October 14 2020 03:44 Doodsmack wrote:On October 14 2020 03:04 NewSunshine wrote:
It sounds a little different coming from a leader who has both refused to condemn and encouraged the violent parts of his base. It also sounds different coming from someone who incessantly accuses his opposition of perpetrating election fraud, and who told the Proud Boys to "stand by". So there's some context. The "stand by" comment was highly suspect but some of this is just liberal media misinformation. For example the Charlottesville comment. Look at what Trump actually said: Reporter: “Do you think that what you call the alt-left is the same as neo-Nazis?”
Trump: “Those people — all of those people — excuse me, I’ve condemned neo-Nazis. I’ve condemned many different groups. But not all of those people were neo-Nazis, believe me. Not all of those people were white supremacists by any stretch. Those people were also there because they wanted to protest the taking down of a statue of Robert E. Lee.”
Reporter: “The neo-Nazis started this. They showed up in Charlottesville to protest —”
Trump: “Excuse me, excuse me. They didn’t put themselves — and you had some very bad people in that group, but you also had people that were very fine people on both sides. You had people in that group. Excuse me, excuse me. I saw the same pictures as you did. You had people in that group that were there to protest the taking down of, to them, a very, very important statue and the renaming of a park from Robert E. Lee to another name.” He first defined the two "sides" as those opposed to taking down the statue and those favoring it. Thus he defined the white supremacists as a subset of one of the two sides. He then said there very fine people on both sides, which is to say that some among the pro-statue side were fine people. That is not the same as saying that some white supremacists are very fine people. If you believe it is the same, you've basically been duped by misinformation. Oh and by the way, he also said this: I’m not talking about the neo-Nazis and the white nationalists, because they should be condemned totally. Robert E Lee was a general in the army of the Confederate States of America who fought to maintain the right to enslave black people. Napoleon was also a general who fought to maintain the right to enslave black people. Napoleon never went to war to defend slavery. Lee did. That's extremely different. Napoleon was kind of a dick, everyone agrees on that but his legacy encompass a lot, lot, lot more than his policies on slavery. Statues of Lee were erected by white supremacist groups such as the Sister of the Confederacy; there is absolutely no ambiguity over what they are meant to celebrate, I don't think ANY "fine person" would march to defend a statue of Lee. I will add that Poland mentions Napoleon in its national anthem (in positive light), his legacy is vast and at least parts of it are very positive. He is certainly an extremely complex character. But NOBODY looks at a statue of Napoleon and think "fuck yeah, white power". If anything people learn that one of his many flaws as a person were his racial views and one of his biggest crimes his restauration of slavery. But his role in history is soooo much more important than that. I personally see him as a very negative figure with some contingent positive traits. But he built modern France and inspired generations after him and that's really something worth celebrating. He is a giant in our history. If on the other hand you erect a statue of Lee and if you go demonstrate to preserve it, you absolutely are making a statement about white supremacy. Lee didn't write the Code Civil, didn't spread enlightenment across Europe and isn't responsible for building most of modern america's institution. His only role in history was to fight for rebels who betrayed the country to protect their rights to enslave people. No "fine person" celebrates that. Would you oppose the Haitian population in France tearing down Napoleon statues? I would not. Napoleon certainly represents something very different in Haiti than he does in France. In Haiti, what he must definitely be remembered about is how he re-established slavery and behaved like a complete pig to black people in general. In France he represents a colossal sum of transformations and influences, some good, some bad. For the same obvious reasons, he doesn't have statues in Russia, as we don't have statues of Nelson or Kutuzov in France. Context is everything when it's about symbols. In my eyes, someone should only be judged as their entire selves, not separated by land. If Hitler built a school in some country that didn't suffer from Hitler otherwise, it would be weird for that country to build a statue of Hitler. If Napoleon was a terrible dude to some group of people, he was a terrible dude. He also apparently did some good things, which I know nothing about. If he's terrible to some people, history to other people, seems like a good net-positive to just get rid of the statues. I'd feel really uncomfortable as a Haitian seeing a statue of Napoleon.
Been through that. It's not about being a good person. It's about your contribution to your country's history. Napoleon is an immensely complex character but his contributions to France are certainly worth celebrating. He basically founded modern France.
And yeah. He was kind of a megalomaniac asshole. That too. Hence the "complex".
|
On October 15 2020 01:41 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +On October 15 2020 01:37 Biff The Understudy wrote:On October 15 2020 01:24 GreenHorizons wrote:On October 15 2020 01:16 Biff The Understudy wrote:On October 15 2020 01:09 GreenHorizons wrote:On October 14 2020 16:44 Biff The Understudy wrote:On October 14 2020 16:00 Silvanel wrote:On October 14 2020 06:40 Biff The Understudy wrote:On October 14 2020 05:50 Elroi wrote:I don't get it. It seems to me that there are so many viable ways to attack him. All of this misquoting and intentional misunderstanding just makes mainstream media look like the bad guys and Trump as the paradoxical hero. On October 14 2020 05:14 Arghmyliver wrote:
[quote]
Robert E Lee was a general in the army of the Confederate States of America who fought to maintain the right to enslave black people.
Napoleon was also a general who fought to maintain the right to enslave black people. Napoleon never went to war to defend slavery. Lee did. That's extremely different. Napoleon was kind of a dick, everyone agrees on that but his legacy encompass a lot, lot, lot more than his policies on slavery. Statues of Lee were erected by white supremacist groups such as the Sister of the Confederacy; there is absolutely no ambiguity over what they are meant to celebrate, I don't think ANY "fine person" would march to defend a statue of Lee. I will add that Poland mentions Napoleon in its national anthem (in positive light), his legacy is vast and at least parts of it are very positive. He is certainly an extremely complex character. But NOBODY looks at a statue of Napoleon and think "fuck yeah, white power". If anything people learn that one of his many flaws as a person were his racial views and one of his biggest crimes his restauration of slavery. But his role in history is soooo much more important than that. I personally see him as a very negative figure with some contingent positive traits. But he built modern France and inspired generations after him and that's really something worth celebrating. He is a giant in our history. If on the other hand you erect a statue of Lee and if you go demonstrate to preserve it, you absolutely are making a statement about white supremacy. Lee didn't write the Code Civil, didn't spread enlightenment across Europe and isn't responsible for building most of modern america's institution. His only role in history was to fight for rebels who betrayed the country to protect their rights to enslave people. No "fine person" celebrates that. Would you oppose the Haitian population in France tearing down Napoleon statues? I would not. Napoleon certainly represents something very different in Haiti than he does in France. In Haiti, what he must definitely be remembered about is how he re-established slavery and behaved like a complete pig to black people in general. In France he represents a colossal sum of transformations and influences, some good, some bad. For the same obvious reasons, he doesn't have statues in Russia, as we don't have statues of Nelson or Kutuzov in France. Context is everything when it's about symbols. I said Haitians in France. So I was talking about the statue at Les Invalides. I'm quite certain they know how central he is in the foundation of our nation and are fully aware that his statue is not meant to celebrate his position on slavery. I wouldn't suspect my fellow citizens to be un-nuanced and lack enough subtlety not to realize something that obvious. That's the same thing almost verbatim (but a bit more condescending than usual) racist white people say about Andrew Jackson in the US.
Andrew Jackson didn't contribute for shit to anything else than losing a war and betraying his nation. Comparing Napoleon to Jackson just show your ignorance as soon as you leave your tiny little world seen through that inflexible unique lens of yours.
Glad to see you are back in insinuating I am racist. I know that it is just impotence, but seriously, change your tune. It's pathetic.
I am not continuing this conversation with you. I will be forced to talk frankly and last time that costed me.
|
That’s a pretty stupid way to make a double standard. These guys circulated the pee tape story. It only goes in one direction. Either you publish with disclaimers about verifiability, or suppress until you find it. The suppression is way more interesting than the story itself, because you do have to be skeptical about the story itself.
|
On October 15 2020 01:45 Biff The Understudy wrote:Show nested quote +On October 15 2020 01:41 GreenHorizons wrote:On October 15 2020 01:37 Biff The Understudy wrote:On October 15 2020 01:24 GreenHorizons wrote:On October 15 2020 01:16 Biff The Understudy wrote:On October 15 2020 01:09 GreenHorizons wrote:On October 14 2020 16:44 Biff The Understudy wrote:On October 14 2020 16:00 Silvanel wrote:On October 14 2020 06:40 Biff The Understudy wrote:On October 14 2020 05:50 Elroi wrote:
I don't get it. It seems to me that there are so many viable ways to attack him. All of this misquoting and intentional misunderstanding just makes mainstream media look like the bad guys and Trump as the paradoxical hero.
[quote]
Napoleon was also a general who fought to maintain the right to enslave black people. Napoleon never went to war to defend slavery. Lee did. That's extremely different. Napoleon was kind of a dick, everyone agrees on that but his legacy encompass a lot, lot, lot more than his policies on slavery. Statues of Lee were erected by white supremacist groups such as the Sister of the Confederacy; there is absolutely no ambiguity over what they are meant to celebrate, I don't think ANY "fine person" would march to defend a statue of Lee. I will add that Poland mentions Napoleon in its national anthem (in positive light), his legacy is vast and at least parts of it are very positive. He is certainly an extremely complex character. But NOBODY looks at a statue of Napoleon and think "fuck yeah, white power". If anything people learn that one of his many flaws as a person were his racial views and one of his biggest crimes his restauration of slavery. But his role in history is soooo much more important than that. I personally see him as a very negative figure with some contingent positive traits. But he built modern France and inspired generations after him and that's really something worth celebrating. He is a giant in our history. If on the other hand you erect a statue of Lee and if you go demonstrate to preserve it, you absolutely are making a statement about white supremacy. Lee didn't write the Code Civil, didn't spread enlightenment across Europe and isn't responsible for building most of modern america's institution. His only role in history was to fight for rebels who betrayed the country to protect their rights to enslave people. No "fine person" celebrates that. Would you oppose the Haitian population in France tearing down Napoleon statues? I would not. Napoleon certainly represents something very different in Haiti than he does in France. In Haiti, what he must definitely be remembered about is how he re-established slavery and behaved like a complete pig to black people in general. In France he represents a colossal sum of transformations and influences, some good, some bad. For the same obvious reasons, he doesn't have statues in Russia, as we don't have statues of Nelson or Kutuzov in France. Context is everything when it's about symbols. I said Haitians in France. So I was talking about the statue at Les Invalides. I'm quite certain they know how central he is in the foundation of our nation and are fully aware that his statue is not meant to celebrate his position on slavery. I wouldn't suspect my fellow citizens to be un-nuanced and lack enough subtlety not to realize something that obvious. That's the same thing almost verbatim (but a bit more condescending than usual) racist white people say about Andrew Jackson in the US. Andrew Jackson didn't contribute for shit to anything else than losing a war and betraying his nation. Comparing Napoleon to Jackson just show your ignorance as soon as you leave your tiny little world seen through that inflexible unique lens of yours. Glad to see you are back in insinuating I am racist. I know that it is just impotence, but seriously, change your tune. It's pathetic.
I know you noticed I said "Andrew Jackson" but you seem to be reacting as if you read "Robert E. Lee"?
Jackson is still on the $20 because people believe the same "nuance" argument you're pitching on Napoleon.
EDIT: I am not continuing this conversation with you. I will be forced to talk frankly and last time that costed me. That's fine, but Andrew Jackson didn't contribute for shit to anything else than losing a war and betraying his nation. he won his wars...
|
The Hunter stuff coming via Steve Bannon and Giuliani are probably why no one is giving it the light of day.
Steve Bannon, former adviser to President Trump, told The Post about the existence of the hard drive in late September and Giuliani provided The Post with a copy of it on Sunday.
Turns out if you flush your reputation down the toilet, people don't believe you when you come with 'surprise damning information'.
|
On October 15 2020 01:56 Gorsameth wrote:The Hunter stuff coming via Steve Bannon and Giuliani are probably why no one is giving it the light of day. Show nested quote +Steve Bannon, former adviser to President Trump, told The Post about the existence of the hard drive in late September and Giuliani provided The Post with a copy of it on Sunday. Turns out if you flush your reputation down the toilet, people don't believe you when you come with 'surprise damning information'.
The computer allegedly had a sex tape of Hunter too. That would actually be pretty strong confirmation that the computer belonged to someone close to him and contains legitimate material. And that's a tall claim for the Post to make if it's not true.
|
idk man, who would send a sex tape to a friend? wtf
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
