President Donald Trump: The Thread

[LittleHurt05]

Now the White House Press Secretary is peddling Lost Cause propaganda

 

Sanders: “If some individuals had been willing to come to some compromises on different things, [Civil War] may not have occurred.” pic.twitter.com/KiQQmEDv0R

— Christina Wilkie (@christinawilkie) October 31, 2017

 

Willing to say anything to keep a once in a lifetime job? Or just flat our ignorant/racist?

[BigSqwert]

Now the White House Press Secretary is peddling Lost Cause propaganda

 

Sanders: “If some individuals had been willing to come to some compromises on different things, [Civil War] may not have occurred.” pic.twitter.com/KiQQmEDv0R

— Christina Wilkie (@christinawilkie) October 31, 2017

 

Ta-Nehesi shows how easily this is debunked.

[StrangeSox]

Unfortunately, the "there were many causes/it wasn't really about slavery" version is what a majority of Americans are taught. Some of what Kelly was saying was more or less paraphrasing Shelby Foote from Ken Burns' The Civil War.

 

Technically, it's true, in the sense that nearly all wars could be avoided if "some individuals were willing to come to some compromises on different things." But we should laud the 1860's Republicans for finally saying "enough is enough" on compromises with chattel slavery. Even then, Lincoln didn't pursue abolitionist policies and offered compensated emancipation for slave owners along with some half-baked "ship 'em all to Liberia/South America" schemes. Everything leading up to the Civil War since the start of the country was a series of compromises over slavery that reached an inevitable breaking point.

 

There was nothing noble or honorable about committing treason in the name of the eternal preservation and expansion of slavery. Robert E. Lee wasn't an honorable man; he was a traitor to the country whose army killed tens of thousands of US soldiers and enslaved free black people in the pursuit of a horrific cause. He personally owned and beat slaves. We should not be celebrating these men or their cause.

 

edit: another good article by Civil War historian James McPherson:

http://www.nybooks.com/articles/2001/04/12/southern-comfort/

 

Davis and Stephens set the tone for the Lost Cause interpretation of the Civil War during the next century and more: slavery was merely an incident; the real origin of the war that killed more than 620,000 people was a difference of opinion about the Constitution. Thus the Civil War was not a war to preserve the nation and, ultimately, to abolish slavery, but instead a war of Northern aggression against Southern constitutional rights. The superb anthology of essays, The Myth of the Lost Cause, edited by Gary Gallagher and Alan Nolan, explores all aspects of this myth. The editors intend the word “myth” to be understood not as “falsehood” but in its anthropological meaning: the collective memory of a people about their past, which sustains a belief system shaping their view of the world in which they live.

 

The Lost Cause myth helped Southern whites deal with the shattering reality of catastrophic defeat and impoverishment in a war they had been sure they would win. Southerners emerged from the war subdued but unrepentant; they had lost all save honor, and their unsullied honor became the foundation of the myth. Having outfought the enemy, they were eventually ground down by “overwhelming numbers and resources,” as Robert E. Lee told his grieving soldiers at Appomattox. This theme was echoed down the years in Southern memoirs, at reunions of Confederate veterans, and by heritage groups like the United Daughters of the Confederacy and the Sons of Confederate Veterans. “Genius and valor went down before brute force,” declared a Georgia veteran in 1890. The Confederacy “had surrendered but was never whipped.” Robert E. Lee was the war’s foremost general, indeed the greatest commander in American history, while Ulysses S. Grant was a mere bludgeoner whose army overcame his more skilled and courageous enemy only because of those overwhelming numbers and resources.

 

From the 1930s to the 1950s the most influential interpretation of the causes of the Civil War was that put forth by the “revisionist” school of historians, whose leading figure was Avery Craven. The revisionists denied that sectional conflicts between North and South were genuinely divisive. The differences between these regions, wrote Craven, were no greater than those existing at different times between East and West. Such minor disparities did not have to lead to war; they could have, and should have, been accommodated peacefully within the political system.8 The Civil War was thus not an irrepressible conflict, as earlier generations had called it, but a “repressible conflict,” as Craven titled one of his books. The war was brought on not by genuine issues but by extremists on both sides, especially abolitionists and radical Republicans, who whipped up emotions and hatreds for their own self-serving partisan purposes. The passions they stirred up got out of hand in 1861 and erupted into a tragic, unnecessary war which accomplished nothing that could not have been achieved by negotiations and compromise.

 

Any such compromise in 1861, of course, would have left slavery in place and would have reinforced the right of slave owners to take their property into the territories. But revisionists considered slavery unimportant; as Craven once stated, the institution of bondage “played a rather minor part in the life of the South and the Negro.”9 Slavery would have died peacefully of natural causes in another generation or two had not fanatics forced the issue to armed conflict. Republicans who harped on the evils of slavery and expressed a determination to rein in what they called “the Slave Power” goaded the South into a defensive response that finally caused Southern states to secede to get free of the incessant pressure of these self-righteous Yankee zealots. Revisionism thus tended to portray Southern whites as victims reacting to Northern attacks; it was truly a war of Northern aggression.

 

As Gary Gallagher notes in his introduction to The Myth of the Lost Cause, “White Southerners emerged from the Civil War thoroughly beaten but largely unrepentant.” Some proponents of the Lost Cause remained candid about the racial ideology that sustained the Confederacy. The unrepentant Edward Pollard, wartime editor of the Richmond Examiner, wrote the first history of the Confederacy, with the appropriate title The Lost Cause. The war had ended slavery, Pollard acknowledged, but it “did not decide negro equality…. This new cause—or rather the true question of the war revived—is the supremacy of the white race.”17 In a speech to Confederate veterans in 1890, a former captain in the 7th Georgia Volunteer Infantry echoed Pollard: “We fought for the supremacy of the white race in America.”

 

Such candor was exceptional in commemorations of the Lost Cause. More popular was Jefferson Davis’s postwar assertion that slavery was “in no wise the cause of the conflict, but only an incident.” In considering this “incident,” it would be well to keep in mind Henry David Thoreau’s observation that circumstantial evidence is sometimes conclusive—for example, when you find a “trout in the milk.” All of the Confederate states were slave states and all of the free states remained in the Union. That is a rather large trout.

Edited October 31, 2017 by StrangeSox

[bmags]

In Illinois I was definitely taught that Robert E Lee was a reluctant soldier who didn't even believe in slavery but loved the south and states rights, but I didn't really encounter the "the civil war was about states rights not slavery" until I lived in Missouri.

 

 

[LittleHurt05]

In Illinois I was definitely taught that Robert E Lee was a reluctant soldier who didn't even believe in slavery but loved the south and states rights, but I didn't really encounter the "the civil war was about states rights not slavery" until I lived in Missouri.

 

Growing up in the Chicago burbs, the only idea I've ever known was that the Civil War was over slavery. Guess it makes sense that other parts of the country think differently, but I would have never thought to think about it another way.

 

[StrangeSox]

Part of the Russian government's efforts on social media last year included time-worn voter suppression tactics of telling Democratic voters intentionally incorrect voting times, places and requirements.

https://twitter.com/MikeIsaac/status/925458159015211008?

 

You can also see some of the pro-Trump ads they bought/rallies they organized here:

https://twitter.com/donie/status/925456668481253384

[StrangeSox]

Trying to set the highly partisan nature of how these ads were targeted aside, it's really troubling how low-cost and easy it is for foreign governments to influence so many Americans. Facebook admitted yesterday that the fake Russian accounts and stories reached 127 Million Americans during 2016. I have no idea what you do to combat that other than a generational project of instilling critical thinking and media literacy so that such tactics can't be as effective.

 

[Jerksticks]

Trying to set the highly partisan nature of how these ads were targeted aside, it's really troubling how low-cost and easy it is for foreign governments to influence so many Americans. Facebook admitted yesterday that the fake Russian accounts and stories reached 127 Million Americans during 2016. I have no idea what you do to combat that other than a generational project of instilling critical thinking and media literacy so that such tactics can't be as effective.

I don't know about your Facebook, but for every conservative post I'd have like 6000 liberal posts (yes hyperbole). The gap has widened even more since the election. I'm in my 30s so of course the younger people are super liberal and the older folks are consevative, generally. Which is pretty much how it always is.

 

Unless some quid pro quo emerges, say relating to ukraine policy, i don't honestly think the Russians cared who won. They just wanted to f*** with as much West as they could. I'll maintain that viewpoint until some proof otherwise emerges. Collusion seems just as unlikely now that it's MuellerTime as it always has IMO.

[Quin]

I don't know about your Facebook, but for every conservative post I'd have like 6000 liberal posts (yes hyperbole). The gap has widened even more since the election. I'm in my 30s so of course the younger people are super liberal and the older folks are consevative, generally. Which is pretty much how it always is.

 

Unless some quid pro quo emerges, say relating to ukraine policy, i don't honestly think the Russians cared who won. They just wanted to f*** with as much West as they could. I'll maintain that viewpoint until some proof otherwise emerges. Collusion seems just as unlikely now that it's MuellerTime as it always has IMO.

 

Guessing you missed the Papadopoulos news?

 

[caulfield12]

https://uk.news.yahoo.com/james-comey-burns...-095517604.html

 

Trump trolled by “hidden” James Comey Twitter account...

[RockRaines]

Growing up in the Chicago burbs, the only idea I've ever known was that the Civil War was over slavery. Guess it makes sense that other parts of the country think differently, but I would have never thought to think about it another way.

They all just need to watch the channel 11 documentary and it will all make sense. Its on Netflix now.

[Dick Allen]

Terrorist attack in NYC is Chuck Schumer's fault. Trump's boys are too busy following 10 year old undocumented immigrants with cerebral palsy who need their gallbladders removed around a hospital so they can send her back to where she belongs once she has recovered enough.

 

Biggest mass shooting in US history, and another terrorist attack under Trump's watch. He needs to take some credit.

Edited November 1, 2017 by Dick Allen

[Kyyle23]

He is blaming the diversity visa program on Schumer, when it was signed into law by Bush, and the Gang of 8 including Schumer did away with it. The sheer amount of lies that come from the top are astounding.

 

 

Also, SQUIRREL!

[StrangeSox]

White dude murders 5 dozen with guns, injures hundreds more: DON'T POLITICIZE THIS!!!!

 

Brown dude murders 8 with a rental truck: BAN MUSLIMS!!!!

[Quin]

White dude murders 5 dozen with guns, injures hundreds more: DON'T POLITICIZE THIS!!!!

 

Brown dude murders 8 with a rental truck: BAN MUSLIMS!!!!

 

Essentially.

[RockRaines]

Its super shocking that the president shows a total lack of leadership.

[Dick Allen]

Its super shocking that the president shows a total lack of leadership.

Especially considering his greatness. No president, probably in any industry, as accomplished more in such a short period of time as Trump. He really is terrific.

[SoxFan2003]

White dude murders 5 dozen with guns, injures hundreds more: DON'T POLITICIZE THIS!!!!

 

Brown dude murders 8 with a rental truck: BAN MUSLIMS!!!!

 

It's amazing to me how bad he is at politics. He just couldn't resist taking a shot at Schumer whether it made sense or not.

 

[Balta1701]

It's amazing to me how bad he is at politics. He just couldn't resist taking a shot at Schumer whether it made sense or not.

Dude did win an election. Maybe the rules of politics aren't the rules we thought they were.

[SoxFan2003]

Dude did win an election. Maybe the rules of politics aren't the rules we thought they were.

 

You're absolutely right. I guess I'm even more amazed that people buy into what he's selling.

 

[caulfield12]

Actually, the Gang of 8, including @SenSchumer, did away with the Diversity Visa Program as part of broader reforms. I know, I was there," wrote Flake. Then, in a follow-up tweet, he added: "In fact, had the Senate Gang of 8 bill passed the House, it would have ended the Visa Lottery Program AND increased merit based visas."

(Read this for much more on the history of diversity visas.)

 

Any past president would be cowed by not only repeatedly politicizing these sorts of tragedies but also getting some of the basic facts wrong. Trump, of course, is, by his own definition, "modern day presidential."

 

The best way to understand that phrase is to think of Trump more as pundit and less as president. Trump views all of politics -- and all of the world -- through the lens of cable and reality TV. In both of those mediums, you are often rewarded by jumping to conclusions, by saying the most controversial thing and always always always refusing to back down or apologize.

 

It works for pundits. Not so much for presidents.

http://www.cnn.com/2017/11/01/politics/tru...tack/index.html

 

 

Someone pointed out that Uzbekistan lies partially in the Caucasus Mountains...the root of where the term for white people comes from.

 

Cuomo on CNN had the good point about the fact that he was here for 7-8 years in the US before radicalizing...and why nothing is being done about that, rather than simply demonizing every single Muslim person who desires to enter the US.

 

And you know the next attack will be committed by someone with a higher education/access to resources/scientific background that still would have been granted a visa under a “merit-based” system. Making all Muslims take additional “loyalty pledges” or blocking ALL immigration and/or Muslim immigration isn’t going to work, either.

Edited November 1, 2017 by caulfield12

[Soxbadger]

Caulfield,

 

Its an uphill battle. Its easy to believe "others" are more dangerous than we are.

 

 

 

 

 

[Dick Allen]

Lies, lies,lies,lies....from CNN (Fake News)

 

White Ho

Press secretary Sarah Sanders said President Trump didn't call the US justice system a joke earlier today at his cabinet meeting.

 

"He said the process has people calling us a joke and calling us a laughing stock," Sanders said. "Simply pointing out his frustration of how long that this process takes, how costly this process is. And particularly for someone to be a known terrorist, that process should move faster. That's the frustration he has."

 

Here are President Trump's exact remarks:

 

"That was a horrible event, and we have to stop it, and we have to stop it cold. We also have to come up with punishment that's far quicker and far greater than the punishment these animals are getting right now. They'll go through court for years. And at the end, they'll be -- who knows what happens."

 

"We need quick justice and we need strong justice -- much quicker and much stronger than we have right now. Because what we have right now is a joke and it's a laughingstock. And no wonder so much of this stuff takes place. And I think I can speak for plenty of other countries, too, that are in the same situation."

[caulfield12]

Caulfield,

 

Its an uphill battle. Its easy to believe "others" are more dangerous than we are.

 

 

Yeah, even with General Kelly, who was supposed to be a moderating influence.

 

He would rather give a seminar on Robert E. Lee’s “honour,” supposed indifference about slavery and strategic military brilliance rather than say a single positive thing about Representatives Wilson and Waters.

 

 

It’s amazing you can demonize nearly every single ethnic group in America (except Asian-Americans), and there are no consequences because of the Electoral College and gerrymandering. Eventually, changing demographics will make that nearly impossible....but we’re at least 15-20 years away from that point.

 

[Big Hurtin]

Especially considering his greatness. No president, probably in any industry, as accomplished more in such a short period of time as Trump. He really is terrific.

 

Meanwhile...

 

A majority of Americans think now is the worst time in U.S. history

 

 

https://news.vice.com/story/whats-in-americ...vicenewstwitter