Trump's remarks | Imamother

imasinger ↓

Sun, Aug 20 2017, 9:35 am

Squishy wrote:

I have no doubt these statues will be pulverized also. It is a shame.

But in the interests of equality, we should pulverize the Lincoln statutes in Prospect Park, Union Square, and the NY Historical society. After all, he was white supremacist.

Actually, I read that the city of Baltimore was trying to find a cemetery where Confederate soldiers were buried as a suitable relocation.

blini ↓

Sun, Aug 20 2017, 12:26 pm

I can't really believe I am typing this but there are simply no "fine people" who go to a Nazi rally. None.

That you go and be violent is not even relevant. The very act of attending is abhorrent and makes you the most opposite of a fine person as you can get. That the President of the most powerful country can't make that distinction...

While I'm not on-board with the tactics of the black bloc/antifa movement, had I been part of the inter-faith counter-protest, I would have been darn glad of their protection.

↑ 33055 ↓

Sun, Aug 20 2017, 12:52 pm

blini wrote:

Was Senator Byrd a fine man?

Are any white supremacists fine people?

What about Lincoln?

↑ WhatFor ↓

Sun, Aug 20 2017, 12:52 pm

blini wrote:

Take heart. It seems like the vast majority of Americans agree on this.

As a result of Trump's remarks, he's had to disband multiple councils because there were too many CEOs and other professionals who couldn't abide by his rhetoric. (Specifically members of the Manufacturing Council, Strategic and Policy forum, Arts Council resigned, although he retroactively disbanded them, and the plans for the Infrastructure Council that was in the works were scrapped.)

In the meantime, at least nine major charities and non-profits have pulled out of having their events at Mar-a-lago this year, including the Red Cross; Susan G. Komen Foundation; Salvation Army; American Friends of Magen David Adom; American Cancer Society; Cleveland Clinic, and others. That is quite a statement.

↑ dancingqueen ↓

Sun, Aug 20 2017, 1:14 pm

You know squishy I seem to recall you doing lot of mocking of people on the left when the presidential election didn't go their way, even though many national polls were predicting a different president. There were no dire warnings about what happens when a majority is ignored. You were happy because the democratic process was in your favor that time.

Now, you/the right don't like the result of another fair vote, there's all the talk of agendas and the majority. Again, I maintain that this is all part of the democratic process. If you are really so bothered by the results that lead to the removal of statues you are welcome to protest the vote though I would recommend against marching with nazis.

↑ blini ↓

Sun, Aug 20 2017, 1:33 pm

Squishy wrote:

Was Senator Byrd a fine man?

Are any white supremacists fine people?

What about Lincoln?

Sorry, I'm not sure I understand the subtext. Is your point that there are people who we now hold in esteem who also held racial views (denounced or not)?

It's kind of a great question, but I'm not sure how it relates to a dude going to a nazi rally armed to the teeth and chanting "Jews will not replace us." In that moment, he ceases being a fine person. If later, he recants and apologizes and spends the rest of his life doing great works and great charity, well then he may become a man that saw the error of his ways and tried to do good things. However, I suppose I will always look at it like a character flaw.

Or were you suggesting that it's possible that attendees were tricked into thinking it was something it was not? Forgive me if I misunderstood.

↑ 33055 ↓

Sun, Aug 20 2017, 1:34 pm

dancingqueen wrote:

I am against extremism and reactionary politics.

I am consistent on both positions you brought together. I don't like the riots on the left because they lost the election or they don't like what a speaker will say. I also don't like the reactionary policies that are destroying our heritage.

Right now the ones who are tearing down the statues are not consistent.

↑ 33055 ↓

Sun, Aug 20 2017, 1:43 pm

blini wrote:

You answered fairly. I feel the same way about Senator Bryd. Similarly, I feel the same way about others who recant.

Additiinally, I think the officials who permitted the march were tricked with a bait and switch. I think it was possible some of the attendees were fine people who were tricked as well. I am in full agreement that when the purpose of the rally was revealed, fine people left.

What are your thoughts about Lincoln? Should we be honoring a white supremacist?

↑ blini

Sun, Aug 20 2017, 2:11 pm

Squishy wrote:

It may be as you say, and if so, I feel sorry for anyone who was tricked.

Are we talking about statues? I think Lincoln is a bit different because he was tireless about ending slavery, and it's feasible to think that his racial views (from that speech - that's what you mean, right?) might've changed over time. It's also feasible that he felt he had to speak that way to appease voters. I mean racial intolerance wasn't just a southern thing. Or it could be that he felt that way. A lot of the abolitionists liked separate but equal, or even not so equal just not enslaved. But the sum - emancipation - probably outweighs the parts.

The next one is Washington... Well, that's a hard one because slavery was so entrenched. I think founding the country probably outweighs the evils here for most Americans.

But the statues that are being protested are for people in open rebellion against the United States, and were likely - I'd have to fact check myself - erected during the Jim Crow era, years after the actual war. I think they have a place in society - in a museum. Just my opinion.

↑ 33055 ↓

Sun, Aug 20 2017, 6:18 pm

blini wrote:

The bait and switch is my terminology. The permit was issued for a cause I believe in. When the black municipal officials announced the protest, it doesn't appear they thought it is was any other cause than to protest the removal of the statue.

Lincoln wanted to ship the slaves back to Africa or Central America. His Emancipation Proclamation was only a tactic to win the war to preserve the union. It didn't actually free any slaves at the time but allowed his generals to let the runways join his army. It gave him 200,000 more men. An early draft contained the provision of shipping freed slaves out of the country. He argued with black leaders and abolitionists that given the differences between the two races and the hostility, it is better they were ousted from the country. For some reason, the black leaders and abolitionists took exception to this.

Some statues were erected in an effort to reunite the country immediately after the war. And some were erected years before the war. It doesn't appear historical context is being looked at in this Stalinistic purge.

↑ 33055 ↓

Sun, Aug 20 2017, 6:23 pm

WhatFor wrote:

Two year olds make a statement by stamping their feet and crying also. Along with the above mentioned folks, they don't think of the long term effects of their actions.

Here is an editorial that discusses this the perils of isolating Trump.

The perils of isolating Trump
By Post Editorial Board August 20, 2017 | 7:25pm

The CEOs who fled President Trump’s advisory councils, leading to their dismantling, in the wake of Charlottesville, Va., made a mistake, asserts Emory professor Mark Bauerlein: “If they wished only to criticize the President’s response, they could easily have done so while remaining members of the newly formed panels.” But liberals, Bauerlein says, have created a climate where dialogue isn’t enough: “The villain must be isolated. Interaction of any kind is the same as endorsement.” In the end, it’s only going to make it more difficult to form any consensus on stamping out hate: “The resignations are another version of the social ritual of exclusion . . . Implicitly they are an exile of Trump from the society of well-meaning, open-minded souls.”

↑ marina ↓

Sun, Aug 20 2017, 10:02 pm

Squishy wrote:

Here's the link to your article btw. http://nypost.com/2017/08/20/t.....ents/

So what's your line? Say you were on Trump's advisory council. What would the be the minimum he would have to do for you to walk out?

When do you walk out in you daily life? Obviously people are complicated and the vast majority of ALL people, whether neonazis or actual nazis or wife beaters or child molesters or Joe Shmoe or Lincoln are not unidimensional people, they have bad and good sides.

But if you're eating dinner with friends and you find out that one of your companions is a "villain," at what point do you actually walk out? If at all.

Last edited by marina on Mon, Aug 21 2017, 8:06 am; edited 1 time in total

↑ 33055 ↓

Mon, Aug 21 2017, 3:56 am

marina wrote:

An interesting perspective that was mentioned above.

It is an interesting perspective. I am not opposed to monuments honoring slavery; however, the reasons for the civil war were more complex than freeing slaves. The North fought to preserve the union. President Lincoln respected the institution of slavery was protected by the constitution.

Today's Post carried an article about protesters demanding the removal of a statue of Dr Marion Simms. The article is gone now. Perhaps someone realized how misguided the protest is.

Dr Simms is the father of modern gyn. His techniques are still in use today. He treated slave women who had a painful debilitating condition without anesthesia. The protesters called it forced medical experiments on slaves. They ignore the slaves were willing participants and anesthesia was controversial at the time. Vesicovaginal fistula is a painful condition with near constant urine leaking out of women. There is a similar condition with near constant fecal matter flowing.

The protesters were wearing hospital gowns soaked with blood. Perhaps they should have been wearing slave garb soaked with urine sms feces.

A case can be made that certain statues have become a symbol for white supremacists - but Dr Simms???

↑ 33055 ↓

Mon, Aug 21 2017, 4:13 am

marina wrote:

Here's the link to your article btw. http://nypost.com/2017/08/20/t.....ents/

So what's you line? Say you were on Trump's advisory council. What would the be the minimum he would have to do for you to walk out?

When do you walk out in you daily life? Obviously people are complicated and the vast majority of ALL people, whether neonazis or actual nazis or wife beaters or child molesters or Joe Shmoe or Lincoln are not unidimensional people, they have bad and good sides.

But if you're eating dinner with friends and you find out that one of your companions is a "villain," at what point do you actually walk out? If at all.

I don't know when you walk out, but you walk out with grace and dignity. You also walk out while considering the results.

If a man is abusing his wife at your dinner table, do you walk out and leave her further isolated and vulnerable? Or do you stay in hopes that yours will be a moderating voice?

My understanding of Bannon's exile in part was because the Kushner's rabbi spoke out against him? The President would not have listened to his voice through his daughter and son in law if he absented himself through grandiose temper tantrums.

The American Cancer society's purpose is to raise money to cure cancer. If by canceling their event they lost an opportunity for goodwill from Trump for say more money for research, was this the right decision consistent with their mission? Suppose this resulted in more pain, suffering, and death? Is this right because they didn't like the timing of when he condemned the white supremacists and they joined the flow?

Attending an event at Mar Logo is not tantamount to supporting white supremacists. Donors need to look at what they are supporting.

↑ marina ↓

Mon, Aug 21 2017, 8:13 am

Quote:

The American Cancer society's purpose is to raise money to cure cancer. If by canceling their event they lost an opportunity for goodwill from Trump for say more money for research, was this the right decision consistent with their mission? Suppose this resulted in more pain, suffering, and death? Is this right because they didn't like the timing of when he condemned the white supremacists and they joined the flow?

Or what if by staying they risked alienating their donor base?

Same with CEOs. I'd like to think that as business leaders, especially if beholden to shareholders, these people acted after a careful analysis of costs and benefits, both short term and long term.

If they acted impulsively, just being like OMG TRUMP IS RLLY BAD DUDE WE GOTTA GO, it would be difficult to imagine how they became CEOs in the first place.

↑ marina ↓

Mon, Aug 21 2017, 8:40 am

Squishy wrote:

Here's a review I read that contrasts the varying historical accounts of Dr. Simms' actions:

http://www.urologichistory.mus.....s.pdf

Despite these varying accounts, I think we can agree on two important points: (1) he bought the slaves; (2) black women were not considered full human beings at that time, individuals with their own agency and decision-making power.

Given those two points, it's very difficult to imagine that these women submitted to this surgery without anesthesia, but with informed consent.

In other words, I strongly disagree with your "willing participants" characterization, at least as a term to describe the overall group he worked on.

↑ marina ↓

Mon, Aug 21 2017, 8:51 am

Fox wrote:

The most definitive analysis of this entire imbroglio came from journalist Peter J. Hasson in a tweet over the weekend:

Quote:

Reminder that Richard Spencer's big white nationalist conference had 200-300 attendees. BronyCon -- (men dressed like ponies!) -- had 7,000+

The Serial Killers Conference this year had about 25-50 attendees, but yeah, the Cereal Eaters Conference had quite a bit more.

Is this a definitive analysis for you about the risks serial killers pose to our society? Why?