Damn! He mad!
Society The Donald J. Trump Show - 4 more years editions
- Thread starter IschKabibble
- Start date
D
Deleted member 1
Guest
No, not at any point. He was in the US military at the time the war was ramping up and he ultimately resigned and throughout his life actively opposed the abolitionist cause. He was conflicted about leading the Confederate military because he considered himself done with fighting, but on the central question of the Civil War, i.e. slavery and its continuance, he did not waver.
If we ever decide to actively support enslavement, I hope we are. In our case, it will probably be our environmental habits we're scrutinized over. Someone will be doing a textual analysis of all our posts someday and say "this scumbag said he liked the smell of gasoline!"
I've read that he thought about joining the Union, but in the end sided with his state of Virginia. And that he opposed the erection of Confederate statues after the war as they wouldn't help the country heal.
He wrote that slavery was a "moral and political evil", but he inherited slaves through marriage and didn't free them immediately - so plentry of hypocrisy there.
Different times back then and there is no doubt he was on the wrong side of history, but I don't know how happy he would be to have the supremacists of today using his name as some sort of idol worship.
D
Deleted member 1
Guest
I used to think that quite strongly explained many of History's bad behaviors. Both the oppressors and their victims were just primitive thinkers of sorts. They didn't have the broader Vision to make the decisions we make today. They bought into religious Dogma and Eugenics to justify the oppression. Yet which is the cause and effect?
Germain to the topic at hand is reading context to history and realizing what the circumstances of that time were.
For instance, blacks had voting rights in various US territories. When they became States they often lost their voting rights. Later these voting rights were granted again. Then they were taken again. Then they were granted again in the 20th century as they stand to this day.
If blacks had voting rights in the 1800's, the same way as now, and then a group came in and disenfranchised them, what victimization of thinking is there for those oppressors? Blacks had rights. The majority a couple of times wanted to grant them rights. The "wrong" side won and implemented oppression in the face of this.
If somebody came along and removed voting rights for blacks now, surely we would think they are wrong? And surely they would be wrong.
And all of the arguments for and against those voting rights would be made in this present day.
Sometimes in history people are just wrong. And they were on the wrong side of history and even society at that time period. And sometimes they won even though they didn't have the moral right on their side.
Even if by some incredible turn of events it were decided to be the most scientific amd ethically acceptable decision?
Regarding the "moral and political evil" quote from Lee, it's useful to read what he says in the sentence immediately following:
"I think it however a greater evil to the white man than to the black race, & while my feelings are strongly enlisted in behalf of the latter, my sympathies are more strong for the former. The blacks are immeasurably better off here than in Africa, morally, socially & physically. The painful discipline they are undergoing, is necessary for their instruction as a race, & I hope will prepare & lead them to better things. How long their subjugation may be necessary is known & ordered by a wise Merciful Providence."
The point being his belief in white supremacy and natural superiority was absolute and especially that any state system that wanted to preserve a system of enslavement had the prerogative to do so, which is why he eventually resigned his commission and joined the rebel cause, particularly following Virginia's joining.
It's easy to say he was a man of his time, but the reason a war was fought was because there were plenty of contemporaneous men who made very different choices. His opposition to monuments had to do with not wanting to memorialize war in any form, but it's unsurprising that he would come to be a symbol that supremacists could rally around because of the beliefs he chose to adhere to.
You could make that argument about artificial intelligence right now and several are.
One certainly could, and sitting here now it almost seems absurd that one would feel the need to defend the rights of a human creation. But 200 years from now might be a very, very different story. What's true today, may not be true tomorrow.
Fair enough.
I yield, good sir.
And the media wonders why so many think they're a fuggin joke lol
Trump’s Attacks on the Press Are Illegal. We’re Suing.
Had no idea Politico was run by Saul Rosenberg
Trump’s Attacks on the Press Are Illegal. We’re Suing.
Had no idea Politico was run by Saul Rosenberg
So Kav wanted to hold Bill's feet to the fire for using his position of authority to rape and impugn a young intern?
sounds like Kav's a real dirtbag. Can't imagine what folks would be saying if he wanted to give Bill a wink-nod and send him on his way.
In history most people are wrong, and eventually end up on the wrong side of history. You're going to be extremely hard pressed to name someone we can't stick on that "wrong side" with just a little bit of effort. Your bringing up Eugenics is particularly interesting example as there was a time that it was accepted as valid science.
That corrupt bitch is as much Indiana as my redneck ass.
Rape? Wait was Bill accused of raping Lewinski?
Not even close, she probably is less. 1/1024th part Native?
By #MeToo standards (and most ethical standards), consent cannot be granted to a person with positional authority.
Sex without consent is rape.
Why does Trump capitalize random letters when he writes?
View: https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/1052556944068755456
View: https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/1052556222459727872
View: https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/1052539788190986240
View: https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/1052556944068755456
View: https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/1052556222459727872
View: https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/1052539788190986240
He was accused of it in other cases if memory serves. That was when his wife would threaten them.
Correct. He was accused of rape by Juanita Broaddrick, who (unlike Mrs. Blasey-Ford) had told two close friends about the rape immediately after it happened. Kathleen Willey, Paula Jones, and Leslie Millwee all described sexual assaults, all reporting the same pattern of behavior.
These accusations were not enough to disqualify Bill Clinton from the office of POTUS, according to the DNC.
The third way democrats that took over the Democratic Party with Bill Clinton are mostly corrupt as fuck. That doesn't mean it was a good idea to put a rapist on the Supreme Court. It may get the Republicans a majority now, but I can tell you the movement to pack the court is picking up steam and decisions like blocking Merrick Garland and confirming Kavanaugh will be used to justify it.