http://occupydemocrats.com/2016/08/03/hang-btch-fg-ngger-uncensored-rally-videos-show-trumps-america-2/ (http://occupydemocrats.com/2016/08/03/hang-btch-fg-ngger-uncensored-rally-videos-show-trumps-america-2/)
This is the underlying problem that I really don't think get's addressed enough; regardless of who wins this election, there is going to be millions of people sparked up by his rhetoric. Do you think their confidence to wear their bigotry on the sleeve will disappear just because their candidate, who insist's the election was rigged and isn't sure he will acknowledge he lost, didn't win?
I think what we need more than anything is to find SOME type o]f common ground with these people and work from there. On the whole, I think Trump supporters have real, legitimate issues facing them that are very valid... but they took for one reason or another the route o]fear and bigotry and pointing the finger at the weaker target to be the blame for all of their problems. I'm not sure how many Trump supporters really are "just idiots" by nature vs how many have been duped into buying his bullshit. And that bullshit is not exclusive to "idiots"; I know plenty of otherwise intelligent people who eat it up as well.
I guess the point is while Trump has been heavily divisive... I think we on the left have to also realise that there are many legitimately good people on the other side who have come to the wrong conclusions based off ofear of the wrong things, but with right reasons to be concerned. The rhetoric we use in someways is just as dangerous as the rhetoric they use, even f we are more politically correct about it or don't take it so far.
Things would look different if either side had a decent representative (candidate). Lincoln and Davis these folks are not.
Remember, it was New England who demonized the South first ... and was the first who wanted to secede. The descendants of Puritans who burned witches ... weren't entirely rational. Southerners (but not Rhet Butler) who thought the North would be easy to whip ... weren't entirely rational. Recognizing (as you say) that both sides have reasonable fears that need calming down ... is mature.
Quote from: Baruch on November 06, 2016, 07:16:40 PM
Things would look different if either side had a decent representative (candidate). Lincoln and Davis these folks are not.
Recognizing (as you say) that both sides have reasonable fears that need calming down ... is mature.
I quite disagree. HRC is a more than adequate candidate for president. I would say she is in the top 25% of all candidates. If that translates into her being a top president will have to wait for the future. But Trump is not fit to be even a business person. But because he is a man running against a woman, he gets votes just for that. Both sides do not have reasonable fears that need calming down. The HRC side has all kinds of fears of the Trump side; he is as evil as any other fascist. Both sides do not have equal claim to the truth or honesty. There are not two sides to this coin. And I am really tired of the media trying to present an argument that each side is equally guilty of dishonesty and just out right lies.
OK Mike ... but stop saying you aren't a DDDDDDDDDDDDD ;-) At least one of you admits to being a Kos-sak. That or get in a 12 step group for people in denial of their own political fanaticism.
So dictatorship by a righteous minority (your pick) is better than dictatorship by the majority? Those who agree with the last sentence ... are true cadre of the Revolution. Don't forget to light up your Cuban cigars.
Quote from: Shiranu on November 06, 2016, 07:11:47 PMI think what we need more than anything is to find SOME type of common ground with these people and work from there. On the whole, I think Trump supporters have real, legitimate issues facing them that are very valid... but they took for one reason or another the route of fear and bigotry and pointing the finger at the weaker target to be the blame for all of their problems.
I agree, but how much common ground can realistically be found with their right-wing nationalistic narrative? What sort of common ground am I supposed to find with them in regarding abortion, socialism, or Muslim immigrants? That seems like a bridge too far.
They do bring up good points regarding the economic plight of many Americans, particularly blue collar workers, the harmful effects of globalism, and government corruption. But imho, a lot of it just seems like the cult of Trump. Sorting the fertilizer from the cow chips seems like almost as big an undertaking as bridging the gap between the 1950s and the 2010s.
Hitler and Stalin made a pact ... but it didn't last long. The US is far more likely to break up in a civil war. And without Lincoln ... there will be no putting it back together. Will I miss it?
There is no political compatibility between present so called liberals and so called conservatives ... other than our violent evil foreign policy. Domestically there is no agreement. That spells civil war to me. A tragedy, but so is most of human history.
When the Progressives jump into their starships to go fight the Klingons ... I will believe they aren't as full of shit as Biblicists who think that disobedient teenagers should be stoned with stones. The liberals and conservatives both stink of self righteousness. In fact most of them are religious, they aren't atheists. But for some of you, I am sure you dream of your atheist progressive cadre ... ala Vladimir Lenin.
Quote from: Baruch on November 06, 2016, 10:02:19 PM
OK Mike ... but stop saying you aren't a DDDDDDDDDDDDD ;-) At least one of you admits to being a Kos-sak. That or get in a 12 step group for people in denial of their own political fanaticism.
So dictatorship by a righteous minority (your pick) is better than dictatorship by the majority? Those who agree with the last sentence ... are true cadre of the Revolution. Don't forget to light up your Cuban cigars.
Don't smoke. But that's okay, I'll just hide under the bed.
Quote from: Mike Cl on November 06, 2016, 10:34:01 PM
Don't smoke. But that's okay, I'll just hide under the bed.
Your post was triggering, I think the PC stormtroopers should pre-crime you ;-)
Quote from: Shiranu on November 06, 2016, 07:11:47 PM
I think what we need more than anything is to find SOME type of common ground with these people and work from there. On the whole, I think Trump supporters have real, legitimate issues facing them that are very valid... but they took for one reason or another the route o]fear and bigotry and pointing the finger at the weaker target to be the blame for all of their problems. I'm not sure how many Trump supporters really are "just idiots" by nature vs how many have been duped into buying his bullshit. And that bullshit is not exclusive to "idiots"; I know plenty of otherwise intelligent people who eat it up as well.
This guy begs to differ.
Last Note to Trump Voters: You Are Wrong and You Are Shit and Your Candidate Is Shit... The very things they think should convince sane people to turn against Trump are the very things that Trump voters love about their orange cult leader. You aren't dealing with anyone with reasonable intelligence or the ability to process logic, so stop trying. Trump voters are shit humans, so obviously they want a shit human for president. And your oh-so-good points about how terrible Trump is are wasted on such shit.
You can show Trump voters articles by every economist under the sun about how Trump's economic policies will bring about another recession, and they'll tell you that your so-called "experts" don't know anything and Trump knows all. That goes for just about any other policy. Of course, Trump will build the wall and have Mexico pay for it. Of course, Trump will knock the hell out of ISIS. Of course, Trump will bring back manufacturing jobs. Of course, Trump will make coal central to the energy policy of the nation. Of course, Trump will round up all undocumented immigrants and send them back to their countries. Of course, we have to figure out "what the hell is going on" with Muslims, who all know what every other Muslim is doing always. And if other countries have a problem with how Trump handles things like NATO or torture, well, fuck them for not also believing in Trump. That's what nukes are for.
For Trump voters, his behavior as a shit human being makes no difference. His "grab them by the pussy" remarks were just friendly "locker room talk" and meaningless, and every single one of those women accusing him of sexual assault are lying about him or exaggerating or wanted it. His Trump University troubles are lies made up by a liberal media that has always been out to get him and should be punished. Those people he didn't pay for things like chandeliers or pianos or whatever for his hotels or country clubs didn't do a good job and didn't deserve full pay. And why the fuck should he have to release his taxes like every other major party candidate since the 1970s? Besides, they're under audit. Didn't you hear what the man said?
And I don't wanna hear how I need to "understand" where Trump voters are coming from. I know where they come from. I know them. I lived in three states that are going to go for Trump. I've got skin in this game. ...
By now, we've all had discussions with relatives, friends, co-workers, Facebook fucknuts, all of whom have told us with the same glazed eyes or barely coherent comment threads that they want Trump to shake things up or some such nonsense, usually followed by how Hillary Clinton is a criminal, and if you try to point out that Clinton has never been charged with anything after all of the investigations of her while Trump has had to pay fines because he broke the law and has more lawsuits coming, they won't care. They won't care about the Russia ties. They won't care about the FBI's fuckery. They won't care. You are a fool to talk to them about it anymore. They are lost in a shit-tide that they want to be a shit-wave that covers the entire nation in shit.
So my final words to them are this: You are wrong. Everything you believe is wrong. It isn't just that it conflicts with my ideology. It's that you are factually, demonstrably wrong, about Hillary Clinton, about Barack Obama, about Donald Trump, and your candidate consistently, flagrantly lies. He is utter shit. The fact that you don't care about this makes you shit. You should be whipped out of the public sphere like vermin-infested dogs until you only occupy the hinterlands and can live in your compounds of shit. The rest of us are done with you.
I am going into this election with my eyes wide open to my candidate's flaws. That makes me more honorable than the lot of you combined. So take your pathetic hatred of everything that has helped America progress and fuck yourself with it.
Adios, motherfuckers. The country is about to tell you to fuck off. And when next Tuesday is over, crawl back to your deplorable lives, eat shit, and disappear.http://rudepundit.blogspot.com/2016/11/last-note-to-trump-voters-you-are-wrong.html
I think it all depends on which of his supporters you're talking about finding common ground with. I have a friend who is normally intelligent, but he's getting older and not as sharp as he once was. He told me a few weeks ago that he saw an article on CNN where Obama said he wouldn't leave office if Trump won. In reality it was a fake news site where he saw it which said it was on CNN. I, of course, can find common ground with him. But his rabid masses? The "lock her up" crowd or, better still, the "execute her!" crowd? How about the "Impeach Hillary" crowd? You might as well ask me to find common ground with the Arian Brotherhood. I don't just find them to be ignorant. I find them to be loathsome underminers of democracy. If you're talking about impeaching a future president because your candidate didn't win, I'm sorry, but you're a piece of shit who is either too stupid to understand or too selfish to accept what a "democracy" is (or even a republic). I just can't find common ground with that lot. They believe what they believe and what they believe is that anyone who doesn't agree with them is sub-human and un-American. They throw around the word "liberal" like it's a dirty word. They literally believe that the party known for wanting to help the poor is evil. They understand democracy so little that they truly believe that it's only democracy if they win every time, no matter how much they have to cheat. "Normal" Trump supporters, no problem. But the rabid Hillary haters who think she vamped out in Benghazi or claimed Obama wanted to turn America over to the Muslims? I'm not going to go nuts just to find common ground with people who are nuts.
Sorry liberal scum ... we ain't going anywhere.
Sorry conservative scum ... we ain't going anywhere.
Who could be outside of your binary pea-brains ... Independents!
FEMA camps for all the Rs and Ds ... if necessary by foreign invasion to clean up this threat to humanity.
Quote from: GSOgymrat on November 07, 2016, 05:02:32 PMSo my final words to them are this: You are wrong. Everything you believe is wrong. It isn't just that it conflicts with my ideology. It's that you are factually, demonstrably wrong, about Hillary Clinton, about Barack Obama, about Donald Trump, and your candidate consistently, flagrantly lies. He is utter shit. The fact that you don't care about this makes you shit. You should be whipped out of the public sphere like vermin-infested dogs until you only occupy the hinterlands and can live in your compounds of shit. The rest of us are done with you.
I am going into this election with my eyes wide open to my candidate's flaws. That makes me more honorable than the lot of you combined. So take your pathetic hatred of everything that has helped America progress and fuck yourself with it.
Adios, motherfuckers. The country is about to tell you to fuck off. And when next Tuesday is over, crawl back to your deplorable lives, eat shit, and disappear.
I really, really want to emphatically agree with this. But...
...not all Trump supporters are contemptible pieces of garbage. We're talking roughly 40% of the country. They're...*searches for the right word*...misguided. And definitely, a lot of what Trump's had on offer has been equal parts outrageous and contemptible. I hope that not long after he crashes and burns his supporters will wise up to that, or at the very least, be dimly aware that that sort of thing isn't accepted by rest of the population.
I hope that after the election is over, we can end this electoral war and no longer be at each other's throats. We're not all going to agree, that much is certain, but we don't have to hate each other.
Quote from: Hydra009 on November 07, 2016, 06:57:24 PM
I really, really want to emphatically agree with this. But...
I don't agree with it either. I just enjoy a good sanctimonious, off-the-chain rant sometimes.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Syjp9lsWBhc
Yeah, but I feel like I'm using bad logic to argue against it. For example, my 40% argument could also apply to lots of countries who have been host to extremely horrible (yet extremely popular) political ideologies.
I feel kinda bad that I can't really argue with "eat shit and fuck off" except to knee-jerk against it.
Funny how so many people's idea of utopia, is a world composed of their own clones ;-) Narcissism extreme.
QuoteI hope that after the election is over, we can end this electoral war and no longer be at each other's throats. We're not all going to agree, that much is certain, but we don't have to hate each other.
I really hope I am wrong, but I don't see us being anywhere near the tipping point where people either do anything about it or say, "Okay, this is getting ridiculous.".
I think partisanship is a growing reality of the modern world, which is not an encouraging sign given how that mindset has worked in the past.
But I'm 26 and honestly don't know all that much about how society changes over generations. Maybe this is a common trend, and just doesn't make the history books unless something important happens.
I guess we'll have to wait till tonight to find out if half of the nation is really as fucking stupid as CNN and the rest of the bullshit peddlers want us to believe or if HRC wins in a landslide so bad that nobody in their right mind would ever back someone so seriously unhinged as Trumpster fire again.
I've always believed that there is a certain amount of people nobody should trust to look out the window to tell us if it's raining or not, the type of person who thinks it's funny to shit in a public swimming pool and blame others for shitting in the pool. Fortunate that these are extreme minorities, but they do exist. If shitting in swimming pools came up on the ballot CNN would have us believe that it's just too close to call and 49.99% of people like swimming in a mixture of chlorine and shit.
Quote from: Shiranu on November 07, 2016, 10:24:11 PM
I really hope I am wrong, but I don't see us being anywhere near the tipping point where people either do anything about it or say, "Okay, this is getting ridiculous.".
I think partisanship is a growing reality of the modern world, which is not an encouraging sign given how that mindset has worked in the past.
But I'm 26 and honestly don't know all that much about how society changes over generations. Maybe this is a common trend, and just doesn't make the history books unless something important happens.
The Hyper-Polarization of America-- This year's campaign might be the worst yet, but the anger and divisiveness didn't start with Trump and Clintonâ€"and it won't end anytime soon.
https://blogs.scientificamerican.com/guest-blog/the-hyper-polarization-of-america/
America’s satire show of record, Saturday Night Live, bid farewell to the 2016 campaign with a sketch that featured the actors who have played Hillary Clinton (Kate McKinnon) and Donald Trump (Alec Baldwin) feeling so soiled by the negativity of the campaign that they needed a cathartic hug fest in the microcosm of the U.S. body politic that is Times Square. Moving on from the rancor of this election season is something the nation as a whole will not be able to do so easily. This is because of the scope and nature of the partisan polarization that shapes the current moment in American politics.
In fact, the divisiveness and anxiety associated with the recent campaign is very much a product of this hyperpolarization. To understand this, it is important to recognize that ours is not necessarily a polarization characterized by cavernous ideological gaps or a pronounced bimodal issue position distribution. Recent scholarship on American politics tells us that we are a nation largely sorted into two teams, a people less and less able to understand or empathize with the other side. In “Affect, Not Ideology,†Shanto Iyengar, Guarav Sood and Yphtach Lelkes show that recent decades have seen a dramatic growth in the difference between how Americans feel about their own party and the other party. And, as Alan Abramowitz and Steven Webster emphasize, the real change has been in how negatively we feel about the other side.
My own research repeatedly shows that partisanship for many Americans today takes the form of a visceral, even subconscious, attachment to a party group. Our party becomes a part of our self-concept in deep and meaningful ways. This linkage of party and “self†changes the way we judge the parties and incorporate and receive new information. I and others have measured profound, nearly blinding, application of motivated reasoning on the part of voters when evaluating the actions of politicians and partisans from the two sides. Stephen Goggin and I show the pronounced boosting that occurs when voters are asked to rate a typical candidate from both parties on positive and negative traits. John Henderson and I find that selectivity produces a pervasive impulse to skip campaign ads from the other party. Relatedly, Leonie Huddy, Lilliana Mason and Lene Aarøe show that partisan identity fundamentally shapes levels of engagement in campaign activity.
Bringing all of this together in Why Washington Won’t Work, Marc Hetherington and Thomas Rudolph paint a picture of a nation overwhelmed by dislike and distrust of the other side and, consequently, a political process incapable of compromise and mired in gridlock. It is easy to see how this sort of distrust and dysfunction manifests itself in assumptions about the motivations (malice, greed, bigotry, moral bankruptcy, or most charitably, naiveté) of those on the other partisan team. Those on the other side no longer just disagree about the issues, they are bad people with dangerous ideas. This paves the way for efforts to delegitimize electoral outcomes and the leaders they produce by way of conspiracy theories and claims of fraud and rigging. Perhaps most dangerously, it also can be used to justify nearly any effort to thwart the opposition.
This hyperpolarization did not begin with Hillary Clinton and Donald Trump. It has been building for years. For hints of this transition, we can look to the colors of our electoral map in presidential elections over the years. For most of the last century, much of the map would swing wildly between red and blue from election to election. A Republican landslide would turn most states red. A strong year for Democrats would be nearly all blue. In 1984, for instance, Walter Mondale, a perfectly credible Democratic nominee, won only two places: his home state of Minnesota and the District of Columbia. Four years later, Michael Dukakis did only slightly better. In the 1990s, though, the current map began to take shape. And, heading into Tuesday’s election there are 40 states (plus the District of Columbia) that have voted for the same party in every election since 2000. This sort of partisan electoral stability at the state level is historically anomalous and it reflects a, perhaps unprecedented, level of polarization in the electorate. This is the climate in which Hillary Clinton will have to govern.
But one particular feature of this polarization is especially important to understand heading into the next four years. In Asymmetric Politics, Matt Grossmann and David Hopkins show us that there are important qualitative differences between the two parties. The Democratic Party is best described as a collection of group interests and the Republican Party is unified by ideology. This finding may be either the cause of or the product of a phenomenon my research has shown in study after study. Over and over, Republican voters behave in more partisan ways than do their Democratic counterparts. They identify more strongly with their party. They show more bias in interpreting new information. They engage in more boosting of their party (and derogation of the other). And, they are more likely to select out of receiving messages from the other side.
I call this phenomenon of asymmetric polarization the Intensity Gap. This is a gap I believe has played an important role in President Obama’s administration and will likely be even more important heading into a Clinton Administration. The heightened partisan intensity among Republicans both frees and constrains Republican leaders. It can mean that they suffer a penalty among their base for appearing to compromise with Democrats, and that the consequences of obstruction may be minimal. This all foretells ongoing gridlock and division.
So, while Alec Baldwin and Kate McKinnon and may be able to scrub off the patina of unease and loathing that characterized Campaign 2016, the effects of this campaign and the hyperpolarization that produced it, are likely to linger into the foreseeable future.
Enough navel gazing ...
"DECENCY, SECURITY AND LIBERTY ALIKE DEMAND THAT GOVERNMENT OFFICIALS SHALL BE SUBJECTED TO THE SAME RULES OF CONDUCT THAT ARE COMMANDS TO THE CITIZEN. IN A GOVERNMENT OF LAWS, EXISTENCE OF THE GOVERNMENT WILL BE IMPERILED IF IT FAILS TO OBSERVE THE LAW SCRUPULOUSLY. FOR GOOD OR FOR ILL, IT TEACHES THE WHOLE PEOPLE BY ITS EXAMPLE. IF THE GOVERNMENT BECOMES A LAWBREAKER, IT BREEDS CONTEMPT FOR LAW; IT INVITES EVERY MAN TO BECOME A LAW UNTO HIMSELF; IT INVITES ANARCHY." LOUIS D. BRANDEIS
It is up to the citizens to decide to keep a republic or lose it.
PS - those who didn't live in the 60s ... you don't know what polarization is ... you are only triggered
Quote from: Shiranu on November 07, 2016, 10:24:11 PM
I really hope I am wrong, but I don't see us being anywhere near the tipping point where people either do anything about it or say, "Okay, this is getting ridiculous.".
I think partisanship is a growing reality of the modern world, which is not an encouraging sign given how that mindset has worked in the past.
But I'm 26 and honestly don't know all that much about how society changes over generations. Maybe this is a common trend, and just doesn't make the history books unless something important happens.
In my experience, this is not a common thread. Since I've had experience living in various places, including the South, I have learned that racism and bigotry has not gone away but is usually below the surface. Trump brought out into the open and made viable this countries racism, bigotry, and the worst parts of Nationalism. I don't see that part simply going away and hiding. The Ted Nugents of this world feel vindicated by Trump--win or lose.
Quote from: Baruch on November 08, 2016, 06:39:00 AM
PS - those who didn't live in the 60s ... you don't know what polarization is ... you are only triggered
This got me thinking. Yes, it was bad in the 60s. The Army National Guard shot and killed college students in a peaceful protest for Christ Sakes. But there seems to be something slightly different going on now. In the 60s, polarization was about an issue, Vietnam, that deeply divided the country. Today, the polarization doesn't seem to revolve around anything in particular. It just lingers there, like a thing in itself, almost waiting for something to nettle it, so that it can express itself.
Now it's about those "fucking liberals" (what does it even mean to be liberal? Most people use the synonym, Democrat, but that's hardly accurate). Or it's about those "dumb rednecks". My point is that the terms, liberal and redneck, don't describe an issue. They are just vague references to a general perception about a vague ideology.
Rather than an objection to an issue, polarization today is more like a habitual indoctrination that lingers half way between consciousness and the unconscious. In a way, that's worse than the 60s, because it seems more irrational.
Perhaps. Remember the Outer Limits episode, where the scientists had to invent an alien, to scare the humans into working with each other? The Soviet Union formed that alien in the 60s ... and we don't have that now ... not even Terrorism seems to keep Americans together. It may be time to split, unless you can get the British to burn down Washington DC again.
Quote from: SGOS on November 08, 2016, 08:54:56 AM
This got me thinking. Yes, it was bad in the 60s. The Army National Guard shot and killed college students in a peaceful protest for Christ Sakes. But there seems to be something slightly different going on now. In the 60s, polarization was about an issue, Vietnam, that deeply divided the country. Today, the polarization doesn't seem to revolve around anything in particular. It just lingers there, like a thing in itself, almost waiting for something to nettle it, so that it can express itself.
Now it's about those "fucking liberals" (what does it even mean to be liberal? Most people use the synonym, Democrat, but that's hardly accurate). Or it's about those "dumb rednecks". My point is that the terms, liberal and redneck, don't describe an issue. They are just vague references to a general perception about a vague ideology.
Rather than an objection to an issue, polarization today is more like a habitual indoctrination that lingers half way between consciousness and the unconscious. In a way, that's worse than the 60s, because it seems more irrational.
You are historicaly incorrect. It used to be that there were Liberal Republicans and Conservative Democrats. Now, everyone is so partisan in purity.
Quote from: Shiranu on November 06, 2016, 07:11:47 PM
http://occupydemocrats.com/2016/08/03/hang-btch-fg-ngger-uncensored-rally-videos-show-trumps-america-2/ (http://occupydemocrats.com/2016/08/03/hang-btch-fg-ngger-uncensored-rally-videos-show-trumps-america-2/)
I think what we need more than anything is to find SOME type o]f common ground with these people and work from there.
Just what Nader's been trying to do for a while:
Ralph Nader Finds Common Ground to Unite Conservatives, Liberals (http://ivn.us/2014/06/10/ralph-nader-encourages-left-right-convergence/)
Quote from: Unbeliever on November 10, 2016, 04:45:54 PM
Just what Nader's been trying to do for a while:
Ralph Nader Finds Common Ground to Unite Conservatives, Liberals (http://ivn.us/2014/06/10/ralph-nader-encourages-left-right-convergence/)
Nader prevented Gore from winning in 2000. May he rot in an early Christian Hell. The world would be much better had Gore won.
Quote from: Cavebear on November 11, 2016, 12:28:38 AM
Nader prevented Gore from winning in 2000. May he rot in an early Christian Hell. The world would be much better had Gore won.
Says a carbon credits/I invented the Internet ... supporter ;-)
The world would have been a much better place if the CIA had taken out Johnson instead of Kennedy.
Quote from: Cavebear on November 11, 2016, 12:28:38 AM
Nader prevented Gore from winning in 2000. May he rot in an early Christian Hell. The world would be much better had Gore won.
No, the SCOTUS prevented Gore from winning. That's why America is now a zombie nation.
I do think a civil war is coming. When? That's anyone's guess, but about the only thing that might prevent it may just be an invasion by another nation and if Trump can't work with our military and it looks like he can't or won't it may just wind up with some other nation sensing that blatant weakness and decide to move. Look, the military of this nation has a history of defending certain principles right or wrong and if they believe that the administration is teatering on extremism and putting us all in extreme peril they might just move to remove the incoming regime. There is a very real possibility of a military coup.
Quote from: AllPurposeAtheist on November 16, 2016, 02:17:05 PM
I do think a civil war is coming. When? That's anyone's guess, but about the only thing that might prevent it may just be an invasion by another nation and if Trump can't work with our military and it looks like he can't or won't it may just wind up with some other nation sensing that blatant weakness and decide to move. Look, the military of this nation has a history of defending certain principles right or wrong and if they believe that the administration is teatering on extremism and putting us all in extreme peril they might just move to remove the incoming regime. There is a very real possibility of a military coup.
That coup also works against the Left as well as the Right. But a coup doesn't equal civil war. The military not stepping in to restore order, or divided itself (thanks General Lee) ... then you get civil war.
Quote from: Baruch on November 16, 2016, 07:34:16 PM
That coup also works against the Left as well as the Right. But a coup doesn't equal civil war. The military not stepping in to restore order, or divided itself (thanks General Lee) ... then you get civil war.
Even as a child, I never considered Lee to be a hero of any sort. I regard him simply as a traitor.
Quote from: Mike Cl on November 16, 2016, 07:41:29 PM
Even as a child, I never considered Lee to be a hero of any sort. I regard him simply as a traitor.
I tend to agree ... but if you get into other people's dilemmas ... it isn't as clear cut. I am still not sure George Washington was a good guy.
For me, General Lee could have been a really great American ... and ended the war quickly. It took Lincoln until 1865 to find a comparable Union general (Grant). But people back then were all Scarlett this and Rhett that ... pretty bizarre world compared to today.
Quote from: Baruch on November 16, 2016, 08:08:51 PM
I tend to agree ... but if you get into other people's dilemmas ... it isn't as clear cut. I am still not sure George Washington was a good guy.
For me, General Lee could have been a really great American ... and ended the war quickly. It took Lincoln until 1865 to find a comparable Union general (Grant). But people back then were all Scarlett this and Rhett that ... pretty bizarre world compared to today.
Lee valued Virginia and it's culture over that of the entire country. So, he gave his considerable aid to the states who wanted to keep slavery. That, today, he would probably be branded as a traitor.
Washington was not pure as the driven snow, for sure. But he could have ended up with a lot more power than he did. He did set the tone for the future by handing off power as he did.
I don't want a coup..that's for sure, but if it means keeping the shitbags from completely fucking up the entire nation then so be it..
Quote from: Mike Cl on November 16, 2016, 07:41:29 PM
Even as a child, I never considered Lee to be a hero of any sort. I regard him simply as a traitor.
Lee was brilliant. But a traitor. Jackson was brilliant. But a traitor, and died. Stuart was a traitor and died. Lee should have been hanged. Davis should have been hanged.
Quote from: Cavebear on November 17, 2016, 03:38:07 AM
Lee was brilliant. But a traitor. Jackson was brilliant. But a traitor, and died. Stuart was a traitor and died. Lee should have been hanged. Davis should have been hanged.
Fortunately (see Lincoln second inaugural address in video) reconciliation ruled. Vindictiveness would have required the execution of the entire White adult male population of the South, and the shipping of their women and children to Africa for 400 years of cotton picking. Then Lincoln was killed and the US teetered on failure for a few days ...
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dyCS-_MLd7g
I do blame President Andrew Johnson for failing Reconstruction ... but Radical Republicans still wanted a pound of flesh ... and gold in their carpet bags. I agree with Lincoln ... both sides were Americans, though one side is sadly mistaken in their politics. I feel the same about W Coast secession ... I would kill them, until they surrender.
Quote from: Baruch on November 17, 2016, 07:04:11 AM
Fortunately (see Lincoln second inaugural address in video) reconciliation ruled. Vindictiveness would have required the execution of the entire White adult male population of the South, and the shipping of their women and children to Africa for 400 years of cotton picking. Then Lincoln was killed and the US teetered on failure for a few days ...
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dyCS-_MLd7g
I do blame President Andrew Johnson for failing Reconstruction ... but Radical Republicans still wanted a pound of flesh ... and gold in their carpet bags. I agree with Lincoln ... both sides were Americans, though one side is sadly mistaken in their politics. I feel the same about W Coast secession ... I would kill them, until they surrender.
No, a few bodies and heads would have made a profound effect on the South. Hanged people do that. Instead Lee was allowed to suggest forgiveness over the years and too many took it to heart.as an acceptance of their cause. Davis, Lee, and all the top confederate generals should have been hanged and their bodies left on posts to discourage what happened afterwards. Too many young men died fighting the insurrection for the leaders of the insurrection not to pay some price.
Ah, but the South won. Jefferson Davis survived, and Lincoln died. Smoke and mirrors. There are no final victories ... just the perpetual struggle.
Of course, the Southern leaders did commit treason ... but that charge had been weakened in the early Republic over the Aaron Burr affair ... it is very hard to prosecute ... when the leaders of the State themselves got into office thru treason.