Trump loudly insists both sides to blame for Virginia violence

[mtls2005]

Chief of Staff Kelly looks disconsolate.

 

 

[Golgota]

58 minutes ago, JHolmesJr said:

what did trump say that was inaccurate?

 

nothing.

 

yet the spinbois want to twist his words to imply…see, things would have been much better under our candidate.

 

rubbish as usual.

Yes, it is not like he was asked three time to condemn them, had the opportunity to do the right thing and he didn't, he just moved away...he released a statement after he saw the outrage it sparked...

The KKK even released a statement praising him for not answering...not sure it is something you should be proud of, when the Klan says he loves you

 

[JHolmesJr]

8 minutes ago, Golgota said:

The KKK even released a statement praising him for not answering...not sure it is something you should be proud of, when the Klan says he loves you

 

 

how's that his fault?

[maewang99]

I just became a Trump supporter.

the fake media is real obvious on this. they have gone too far.

his press conference at Trump Tower. from what I saw, everything he said was true and quite acceptable.  it's almost shocking to see and know that a US president is speaking straight. that's why he was elected. 

the system does work.  it's weird, but somehow it still works.

the only thing that really held me back was Climate.. not anymore.

 

this did it for me on that as well.

on Climate, it's not Trump or anyone we can blame at all. it is a very difficult and time consuming thing to be caught up on.  it took me 2 or 3 years.... of reading and thinking and discussing at least a few hours every day on average... just to get the basic picture on it... and even then I have to trust a few people, Kevin Anderson at U Manchester, Bill Gates at a Q&A at Caltech about a year ago or a little less... because even after all that.. the real skinny on the chemistry and physics involved is something very very few people have the time for. 

I'm retired and I do. 

so Trump, even if what he says and does in office is just as bad as all the others have been. on what I consider very important... Climate....... hey Obama did nothing but a few window dressings and signed COP21.. which James Hansen calls a fraud. and so does Kevin Anderson all but as well.

Trump. he's our president.

and he's quite okay.

George Washington was a slave owner, no matter what he said otherwise on the topic.... he was a slave holder.  an ordinary slave holder not any different from 99% of all the rest of them including Robert E. Lee for damn sure.

and there were all kinds of nutters on every "side" you can think of at Charlotsville.  not just one. 

NOT JUST ONE SIDE.





 

 

 

Edited August 16, 2017 by maewang99

[CaptHaddock]

1 hour ago, boomerangutang said:

                   I think slavery was a lesser part of the reason the South rose up against the North.  I spoke with an 80-something yr old American woman the other day, and she opined that the war revolved mostly around economic issues.   Slavery was, among other things, economic in the sense that a slave was property owned by the man of the house (much like a wife and kids are, today).   

 

                    The south had a lot of ag products (cotton, tobacco, etc) and didn't want the North controlling the economics of it.   Yes, slavery was an issue, but even if the South had won (which it almost did), slavery would have been soon abolished, as it was everywhere else in the world, before and soon after the mid 19th century.

 

                       I just watched a special about how the Canadian Maple syrup industry is controlled by a small group of bureaucrats in Quebec.   I didn't think about it until just now, but it's somewhat similar to the situation which fueled the Civil War:    A group of bureaucrats (the North) controlling prices and commerce of products from the southern states. 

 

 

There is a reason that Americans are perpetually befuddled about the causes of the Civil War.  The cause of the Secession was the election of Lincoln, the first president elected withoutthe support of the South.  This loss of control of the government signalled the end of the undemocratic control of all three branches of the government by the South which was designed into the Constitution without which the South would not have joined the Union, according to slaveholder James Madison.  The constitutional mechanisms that enabled disproportional representation for the South included, the Three Fifths Compromise, enabling the Southerners to count each black chattel slave, with no political or human rights, to be counted as three-fifths of a citizen for the purpose of allocating seats in the House of Representatives, the US Senate itself in which representation was undemocratically uniform for each state regardless of population, and the Electoral College, in which the disproportionate representation of the South in Congress was transferred to the election of the President.

 

The sectional conflict that culminated in the Civil War was already dominant at the founding of the Republic.  Washington, D.C., was chosen as the capital on the theory that it would be a neutral zone between the North and the South.  I am not aware of any other country that chose to locate its capital in a neutral zone between hostile regions.  The proximate causes of the Civil War lay in the divergent interests of the industrial North and the agrarian South.  The North, which was developing manufacturing to compete with the established and more efficient factories of Britain relied on tariffs to protect their "infant industries" after Hamilton's policy.  But it was the South that paid the tariffs.  Objection to tariffs led to the Nullification Crisis of 1833, in which an early war was narrowly averted.

 

But the main proximate causes were the threat to the political (and undemocratic) hegemony of the South in the face of the vigorous national expansion underway from early in the nineteenth century.  Each new state that entered the Union threatened to undermine the South's control of the national government since few of the new states were suitable for growing cotton on which the slave system depended.  The Missouri Compromise and the Compromise of 1850 were among the efforts to stave off the inevitable loss of Southern control of Congress..

 

The apparent reason that school children are not taught this straight-forward history is that to do so would require admitting the deeply undemocratic nature of institutions that we still have with us, the Senate and the Electoral College, necessitating a major restructuring of American government.  The result is that students are led to believe that the war was fought to end slavery, as if there was ever a period in American history when a volunteer white army could be assembled to fight for the rights of black people, a notion more ludicrous than which one can scarcely imagine.

[iReason]

 

The fact is, if the racist, bigoted KKK, neo-Nazis and white supremacists weren't gathering en masse,

the True American Patriots wouldn't have had to go there and confront their overt hate.

 

Bravo to them.

[jayguzz]

Extremely racist, what if a black guy was referred to as black trash

Was he rich?


Sent from my iPhone using Thailand Forum - Thaivisa mobile app

[mikebike]

1 hour ago, boomerangutang said:

                   I think slavery was a lesser part of the reason the South rose up against the North.  I spoke with an 80-something yr old American woman the other day, and she opined that the war revolved mostly around economic issues.   Slavery was, among other things, economic in the sense that a slave was property owned by the man of the house (much like a wife and kids are, today).   

 

                    The south had a lot of ag products (cotton, tobacco, etc) and didn't want the North controlling the economics of it.   Yes, slavery was an issue, but even if the South had won (which it almost did), slavery would have been soon abolished, as it was everywhere else in the world, before and soon after the mid 19th century.

 

                       I just watched a special about how the Canadian Maple syrup industry is controlled by a small group of bureaucrats in Quebec.   I didn't think about it until just now, but it's somewhat similar to the situation which fueled the Civil War:    A group of bureaucrats (the North) controlling prices and commerce of products from the southern states. 

 

 

<deleted>? What century are you living in?

 

I am at a loss for words.

 

 

[iReason]

Trump is back to tweeting alt-right memes

 

"One day after being pushed to condemn white supremacy and hate groups, President Donald Trump turned back to spreading the alt-right message — including retweeting, then deleting, a cartoon of a person superimposed with the CNN logo being run over by a train."

 

"The White House has since told NBC’s Kristen Welker that the retweet of the train-CNN meme was "inadvertently posted,"

and immediately removed when noticed."

https://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics/2017/8/15/16150228/trump-tweeting-alt-right-memes

 

"inadvertently posted"

 

 

[farcanell]

My understanding of history is not that Lee chose slavery over emancipation, but rather, he chose to fight for his home state over those that chose to war against that state

 

honorable.... deserving of a statue, even

[ilostmypassword]

Just now, farcanell said:

My understanding of history is not that Lee chose slavery over emancipation, but rather, he chose to fight for his home state over those that chose to war against that state

 

honorable.... deserving of a statue, even

My understanding is that the German General Staff chose Hitler because they opposed the Communism more not because they supported Nazism.  Let us commemorate their service.

[mikebike]

Not that I fully agree with him, but boy, what a passionate fella...

 

"do a sieg heil to me and I'll slap you with your own hand" - love it!

 

 

Edited August 16, 2017 by mikebike
missed attachment...

[farcanell]

14 minutes ago, ilostmypassword said:

My understanding is that the German General Staff chose Hitler because they opposed the Communism more not because they supported Nazism.  Let us commemorate their service.

Interesting.

 

on that off topic point, I would suggest that the German general staff did not "choose" hitler at all.... Hitler was elected by the people, not appointed by the military, and to understand the reasons for this, you need to consider the many societal issues existing in post World War One Germany.

 

Suggesting equivolancies between these two men is absurd.

Edited August 16, 2017 by farcanell

[ilostmypassword]

Just now, farcanell said:

Interesting.

 

on that off topic point, I would suggest that the German general staff did not "choose" hitler at all.... Hitler was elected by the people, not appointed by the military, and to understand the reasons for this, you need to consider the many societal issues existing in post World War One Germany.

 

equivolancies between these two men are absurd.

Whatever the historical merits of what I wrote, Robert Lee is being celebrated as the military leader of a bad cause not because he loved Virginia.  

[farcanell]

2 minutes ago, ilostmypassword said:

Whatever the historical merits of what I wrote, Robert Lee is being celebrated as the military leader of a bad cause not because he loved Virginia.  

Fair enough.... I had thought to ask about the "why" of the situation... thanks for this reply, as it answers the unasked question that was rattling around inside my brain box

[ilostmypassword]

Just now, farcanell said:

Fair enough.... I had thought to ask about the "why" of the situation... thanks for this reply, as it answers the unasked question that was rattling around inside my brain box

And thank you for challenging me on the German General Staff. Actually, their actions against the communists were pre-Hitler.

[SheungWan]

23 minutes ago, ilostmypassword said:

My understanding is that the German General Staff chose Hitler because they opposed the Communism more not because they supported Nazism.  Let us commemorate their service.

 

8 minutes ago, farcanell said:

Interesting.

 

on that off topic point, I would suggest that the German general staff did not "choose" hitler at all.... Hitler was elected by the people, not appointed by the military, and to understand the reasons for this, you need to consider the many societal issues existing in post World War One Germany.

 

Suggesting equivolancies between these two men is absurd.

Hitler lost the election for President against von Hindenburg in 1932. Hindenburg appointed Hitler Vice-Chancellor in 1933. After Hindenburg died, Hitler appointed himself as Head of State. Not a very useful comparison with Trump at all whatever Trump's flirtations with the alt-right.

t

[Baerboxer]

4 hours ago, FreddieRoyle said:

All I saw is a heavily armed group of liberals spoiling for a fight (without neccessary permits) and coming off worse, then screaming blue murder about it all. They should take stock of the situation, and make an effort to protest peacefully and legally in the future. It's not as if they don't have a habit of violent behavior - just look at the Berkeley riots against free speech where they assaulted and burnt anything and everything in their path.

 Trump is exactly right, all sides here must share the blame. Not sure why this is such a difficult message for some to swallow?

 

The irony of politically correct liberals who want to refuse others the right to express their views is lost on so many left wing people.

 

It doesn't matter how obnoxious, distasteful, appalling or unacceptable you find another's opinion, violently opposing them is wrong. The extreme liberals seem to think only their view must be allowed to be publicly expressed. They are no better than Nazis, fascists, communists or any other totalitarian political ideology.

 

Had they shunned and ostracized this torch lit parade it would have been all quickly forgotten. But they can't stand any opinion but their own. Let the law deal with nutters who break laws regarding racial hate and other discrimination. 

 

The extreme right new the liberals would rise to the bait, and they did. Let them speak and show everyone how disgusting, stupid, and ridiculous their views are. And treat them with the contempt they deserve. But don't give them the platform for attention they crave.

[Baerboxer]

37 minutes ago, ilostmypassword said:

My understanding is that the German General Staff chose Hitler because they opposed the Communism more not because they supported Nazism.  Let us commemorate their service.

 

If that is your understanding then you need to research more. Hitler wasn't a military appointment.

[Golgota]

1 hour ago, JHolmesJr said:

 

how's that his fault?

the answer is : he did not condemn them when he had the opportunity...it is his fault

Edited August 16, 2017 by Golgota

[Golgota]

1 hour ago, maewang99 said:

I just became a Trump supporter.

the fake media is real obvious on this. they have gone too far.

his press conference at Trump Tower. from what I saw, everything he said was true and quite acceptable.  it's almost shocking to see and know that a US president is speaking straight. that's why he was elected. 

the system does work.  it's weird, but somehow it still works.

the only thing that really held me back was Climate.. not anymore.

 

this did it for me on that as well.

on Climate, it's not Trump or anyone we can blame at all. it is a very difficult and time consuming thing to be caught up on.  it took me 2 or 3 years.... of reading and thinking and discussing at least a few hours every day on average... just to get the basic picture on it... and even then I have to trust a few people, Kevin Anderson at U Manchester, Bill Gates at a Q&A at Caltech about a year ago or a little less... because even after all that.. the real skinny on the chemistry and physics involved is something very very few people have the time for. 

I'm retired and I do. 

so Trump, even if what he says and does in office is just as bad as all the others have been. on what I consider very important... Climate....... hey Obama did nothing but a few window dressings and signed COP21.. which James Hansen calls a fraud. and so does Kevin Anderson all but as well.

Trump. he's our president.

and he's quite okay.

George Washington was a slave owner, no matter what he said otherwise on the topic.... he was a slave holder.  an ordinary slave holder not any different from 99% of all the rest of them including Robert E. Lee for damn sure.

and there were all kinds of nutters on every "side" you can think of at Charlotsville.  not just one. 

NOT JUST ONE SIDE.





 

 

 

"the system does work.  it's weird, but somehow it still works."
you mean the system which leads to death?...casualties and their families tend to disagree with you..as I mentioned earlier the terrorism in US is in majority done by far right extremists

http://www.newsweek.com/right-wing-extremism-islamist-terrorism-donald-trump-steve-bannon-628381

[Somtamnication]

This orange colored guy just reminded me why I renounced my US citizenship. I almost forgot why. 

[Jingthing]

This orange colored guy just reminded me why I renounced my US citizenship. I almost forgot why. 

Interesting. It wasn't for tax reasons?

[ChiangMaiLightning2143]

 
The irony of politically correct liberals who want to refuse others the right to express their views is lost on so many left wing people.
 
It doesn't matter how obnoxious, distasteful, appalling or unacceptable you find another's opinion, violently opposing them is wrong. The extreme liberals seem to think only their view must be allowed to be publicly expressed. They are no better than Nazis, fascists, communists or any other totalitarian political ideology.
 
Had they shunned and ostracized this torch lit parade it would have been all quickly forgotten. But they can't stand any opinion but their own. Let the law deal with nutters who break laws regarding racial hate and other discrimination. 
 
The extreme right new the liberals would rise to the bait, and they did. Let them speak and show everyone how disgusting, stupid, and ridiculous their views are. And treat them with the contempt they deserve. But don't give them the platform for attention they crave.

I agree with you the best way to handle extremist protesters such as KKK and "kill the gays" Christian zealots is to completely ignore them.

It is a cop-out however to simply say liberals want to squash all conflicting opinions. No doubt people get upset when outsiders coopt a local issue that has already been decided to use as a Flashpoint for outside agitation.

Imagine actual Nazis coming into your town chanting "blood and soil" and "jew will not replace me". How would you react?

[JHolmesJr]

1 hour ago, iReason said:

including retweeting, then deleting, a cartoon of a person superimposed with the CNN logo being run over by a train."

CNN-- the network that openly backed hillary clinton and lost-- is a train wreck so no surprise there.

[Baerboxer]

7 minutes ago, ChiangMaiLightning2143 said:

I agree with you the best way to handle extremist protesters such as KKK and "kill the gays" Christian zealots is to completely ignore them.

It is a cop-out however to simply say liberals want to squash all conflicting opinions. No doubt people get upset when outsiders coopt a local issue that has already been decided to use as a Flashpoint for outside agitation.

Imagine actual Nazis coming into your town chanting "blood and soil" and "jew will not replace me". How would you react?

 

It's not all liberals of course. Just the extreme politically correct ones. And they, like the extreme right, seek to provoke their opposition.

 

It would be very difficult not to react and take the bait of course. Easier said than done. 

[iReason]

18 minutes ago, JHolmesJr said:

CNN-- the network that openly backed hillary clinton and lost-- is a train wreck so no surprise there.

 

[Pinot]

These Trump supporters twisting themselves into logic pretzels is hilarious. 

 

David Duke knows Trump is on his side and now, so does everyone else. If you're still behind the Nazi Sympathizer-In-Chief after this weekend, I suggest you take a good long look at yourself in the mirror and ask, How did I get here? 

[thaihome]

3 hours ago, boomerangutang said:

                   I think slavery was a lesser part of the reason the South rose up against the North.  I spoke with an 80-something yr old American woman the other day, and she opined that the war revolved mostly around economic issues.   Slavery was, among other things, economic in the sense that a slave was property owned by the man of the house (much like a wife and kids are, today).   

 

                    The south had a lot of ag products (cotton, tobacco, etc) and didn't want the North controlling the economics of it.   Yes, slavery was an issue, but even if the South had won (which it almost did), slavery would have been soon abolished, as it was everywhere else in the world, before and soon after the mid 19th century.

 

                       I just watched a special about how the Canadian Maple syrup industry is controlled by a small group of bureaucrats in Quebec.   I didn't think about it until just now, but it's somewhat similar to the situation which fueled the Civil War:    A group of bureaucrats (the North) controlling prices and commerce of products from the southern states. 

 

 

I think you are espousing "Lost Cause" propaganda.  No wonder, as it has been going on for well over a hundred years. The existence of the confederate statues continues the myth.

 

Slavery allowed southern grown cotton to be very cheap on world market and the slave labor was the largest single contributor to white income in the South. The value of the slaves exceeded the value of any other assets in the South.

 

Even though Lincoln repeatedly stated he had no intention of freeing the slaves in existing states, the very fact that the Republican Party platform contained an abolition plank was enough to convince the Southerners his election was first step in freeing the slaves and would certainly stop any extension into future states. 

 

The Civil War was about the continuing and expansion into the new western States of slavery. Any threat to that was enough to drive the south to attempt to succeed. To attribute any other cause as anything but a minor one is perpetrating  discredited "Lost Cause"  propaganda. 

 

Please read the link below. A good summary of various historical economic research. 

TH 

 

. In the seven states where most of the cotton was grown, almost one-half the population were slaves, and they accounted for 31 percent of white people’s income; for all 11 Confederate States, slaves represented 38 percent of the population and contributed 23 percent of whites’ income. Small wonder that Southerners — even those who did not own slaves — viewed any attempt by the federal government to limit the rights of slaveowners over their property as a potentially catastrophic threat to their entire economic system.

https://eh.net/encyclopedia/the-economics-of-the-civil-war/

[boomerangutang]

3 hours ago, JHolmesJr said:

what did trump say that was inaccurate? nothing.

yet the spinbois want to twist his words to imply…see, things would have been much better under our candidate.

rubbish as usual.

He's supposed to be, and talk and act like a president of all the citizens of the USA.  Instead, he continues, daily, to pander to his base, which is down to about 22% of citizens.  I usually don't fault people for what they don't say, but in Trump's case, what he doesn't say - speaks volumes.  He's worse than a lousy president.  He's actually poisoning the minds of many impressionable Americans (youngsters, in particular).  He's telling them it's ok to be a pussy-grabber, a war-monger, a conceited bitch ("I'm very rich, believe me"), a liar, and a racist.