If only we had an alternate universe where the exact same stuff happened but the President at the time was a Democrat and did the exact same thing. You’d likely be going nuts. But Trumps a Republican so none of that stuff is important let’s get right back to attacking Dems.
It’s pretty incredible. How many historians are going to look at what happened during the 2020 election and the multitudes of unprecedented actions by the President and say “meh he came and went.”
None, given that a few days ago Lindsey Graham said how Trump will win in 2024. It’s amazing how someone who came and went still has the GOP by the balls or whatever it has that might pass for balls.
I really enjoy it when you and @Mufasa back your points up by calling me a hypocrite due to what you imagine my reaction would be to events taking place only in your head.
I have no doubt I’m going completely nuts in there. I’m probably arguing all kinds of silly points. Or perhaps I’m angrily marching on DC with an AR-15, a MAGA hat and a Nazi flag.
You can choose your own adventure inside your own imagination.
It’s not difficult to imagine given your common reaction to anything Dems do vs anything Republicans do. Everyone knows the difference in reaction you would have. It certainly wouldn’t be glossed over as “meh it came and went.”
I’m sure it is quite easy for you to imagine. I’m sure everyone in your imagination agrees that I’m a rank hypocrite in your alternative universe.
I can’t argue against your imagination.
Must mean my imaginations a Republican?!
I understand and agree. My point was to twojar that it would have been helpful to me to say you’re targeting the national leadership instead of the entire party everywhere when making the point he was going for. I think it would have prevented some misunderstandings around meaning. At least it would have for me.
However regardless of her leadership status, she does have weight with the public at large. She is good at self-promotion, no denying that, and as a result she is highly visible. On the other side of the aisle Ted Cruz was not part of the GOP leadership per se, but he was highly visible and very opinionated. As a result things he said had weight for better or worse.
This describes one of my problems with it well. The term “white supremacy” has a well established meaning over decades. They shouldn’t use the term when they’re talking about something else. I was around (albeit super young) for the first big public round of discussion on racial bias in policing. Granted that discussion never entirely went away, but they called it racial profiling then.
In my opinion they have begun trying to co-opt the white supremacy phrase because it has more emotional impact than racial profiling did (not to mention they can use it for anything, where profiling has a determined scope). However this is a problem, because it already has a well-established meaning. Moreover I don’t generally like people who resort to trying to come up with incredible emotionally impactful terms as a substitute for making arguments. Comedy and rants aside, since most people gotta blow off steam somehow.
I am 100% for discussions of bias in policing (and other areas) and believe that generally uncomfortable discussions have to take place about serious issues, even if I disagree with more left leaning solutions. But anyone who deliberately takes such an established and charged term and tries to “reimagine” it immediately loses credibility in my eyes because I see them as trying to argue by emotion instead of a discussion.
lol.
It’s not funny. She still hasn’t written me back. I’m starting to think about getting my Tulsi and 2jar Forever tattoo covered up.
Oh who am I kidding? I can’t stay mad at you, Tulsi.
I think they DO mean guys in hoods and Proud Boys. They say the greatest national security threat is white supremacists Biden’s DOJ says the reason for the violence in Chicago is RACISM and white supremacy.
That would be the greatest domestic terrorist threat, not the greatest threat.
It’s where it all started. The ghettos didn’t invent themselves.
It didn’t help the nyc candidate for mayor she endorsed.
She probably gets more publicity from the right than the left.
You could kill every racist and white supremacist in the world today, and it wouldn’t solve violoence in Chicago.
That’s the part the racism crowd ignores. You could probably make a connection from slavery to the problems of today but what can we do? End slavery?
People are so busy blaming things from the past or, on the other side, denying the impact of the past on today, that no one is talking about how to fix today’s problems.
It’s like the people who tear down statues of Columbus as if that will bring all of the Indians back.
Very possibly, but she’s capitalized on it
I’m a big believer that marks from the past should generally be kept where they are. Trying to reimagine the past does not help us avoid its mistakes. And I think it’s important that we be able to look things in the eyes regardless of our present ethical understanding.
Humanity keeps making the same mistakes regardless.
After the holocaust we said never again. How many genocides have occured since and are currently taking place.
The Rwandan Genocide was shocking, yet no one stepped in to help. Over one million potentially died.
Certainly. All the more reason not to try to erase the past. I understand it could be hard for some people, but in my mind we need more historical literacy not less. And that starts with not trying to avoid the complicated nature of history.
That’s because contrary to what we would wish from a humanitarian perspective, very few people with political power in the West care about African politics.
Columbus is dead so I doubt he cares but the real issue is why his statues are being torn down.
The issue is not looking at history in the eyes but looking at it without context or nuance. They want everything to boil down to a narrative of good vs evil. And inevitably good means the losers and the evil are the winners.
So the idea that by our standards both the Aztecs and conquistadors were barbaric murderers is an impossible thing for them to accept.
Unless it affects profits.
This assumes that the past is known and recounted with a great degree of veracity. In many cases, there is a pretty strong argument to be made that the past needs to be re-examined. History is written by those in power. Most individuals, groups, and nations tend to tell themselves many lies about their own past, almost always to airbrush the nastier bits.
I still remember several well-respected posters arguing at length about how the American Civil War had virtually nothing to do with slavery, to quote one example.
Or what medieval “historians” wrote about Jews.
There are reasonably well-documented reasons for the mistrust of police departments by non-white Americans. And it’s a bit hard to deal with unequal policing if the causes are not acknowledged. Of course some people claim that there is no unequal policing anyway…
Marks and monuments ought to be kept, perhaps, but I can’t really see why people who committed morally reprehensible acts should enjoy a pedestal in a city square due to some “cultural statute of limitations”. It’s quite all right to move the Stalins and Leopolds of this world to some out-of-the-way parks and gardens.
I freely admit I’m no historian or scholar, so I’m probably missing some important angle in this rambling post…
Probably because it didn’t. The United States didn’t go to war with the Confederate States over slavery. The United States went to war to prevent the Confederate States from leaving the United States. If you want to talk about the reasons for the Confederate States leaving the United States, you can definitely bring up slavery.