President Trump & the USA

[MC Prussian]

2 hours ago, leicsmac said:

Sorry, but again we disagree, I don't think I'm drawing the wrong conclusions at all - both Christian and Fields were, in my own opinion, part of an alt-right network that seeks to destroy and devalue its enemy using the same tactics you accuse organisations on the Left of doing. The evidence linking them to the alt-right and linking most left-wing actors to a single unified organisation like BLM or Antifa is about of equal strength. I believe that my own assumption in these matters has at least equal merit as yours.

 

If Fields and Christian aren't enough, where would you think Spencer and his followers play into all of this?

 

Absolutely there can be - there just isn't in this case, IMO, and it's going to take a serious, serious amount of argument to convince me otherwise after what I have seen through various sources over the last year and a half and having spent time in the US.

 

If the quality of source is an issue, I would be happy to run the spectrum for you (though I think the alt-right existing is a matter of public record at this point):

 

https://www.bbc.com/news/blogs-trending-43131290

 

https://www.breitbart.com/big-government/2017/08/16/harvard-mit-study-breitbart-is-not-alt-right/

 

https://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2018/aug/9/unite-right-rally-fewer-white-supremacists-weapons/

 

So, the Beeb (political bias depending on what your own stance is really), Breitbart (very much to the right) and the WT (somewhat to the right) all believe that it exists and regularly attribute various works and acts to it, not to mention other media outlets that could also quote. (Though Breitbart were more focused on making sure they weren't labelled alt-right themselves, obvs.)

 

Thanks for the article - I can see where the writer is coming from wrt accusing lots of people of alt-right leanings as it makes them appear stronger than they might be, but all the same I'd rather such groups be brought out into the light anyway.

The links you provide again prove nothing - it's just a continuation of an argument that is none, you imply and/or claim that the "Alt-Right" exists, yet you can't define it. As you state it, it is your "opinion".

What is the "Alt-Right"?

 

As far as I can tell, it's a relatively new and made-up term (I think Richard Spencer was one of the first to coin it to distinguish his white supremacist movement from traditional conservatives and what he calls "Alt-Light", centralists and libertarians) currently used and abused by some fractions on the left and within media who see everything from their own biased and ideological perspective, and that with a certain intent - it's a dangerous move, because labeling other people with a different political viewpoint to your own with one term, using one single term for an incredibly vast, diverse and heterogenous assembly of individuals and groups or organizations is lethal.

Heck, just because I don't identify as "Socialist", I could be described by people on the American right and the media as "alt-right" and thus be put in the same group as Neo-Nazis, Holocaust deniers, racists and the likes - just because some people and institutions would like you to believe so.

That's both frightening and dangerous. Can you see the incendiary potential here?

 

The BBC article doesn't explain the term, just again uses it loosely. As do the Breibart and WP links - it's no wonder they're putting the term in quotation marks, it doesn't automatically mean they all believe it exists. They're trying to figure it out, but they can't. Again, I think it's an attempt at describing something out of a particular reason, political bias comes into play.

 

As far as we know today, Fields acted on his own behalf. He had right-wing and Nazi sympathies and slipped further and further into a state of fanatism, but that's where it ends.

JJ Christian was also mentally unstable, as described by friends. To this day, there's been no proof of support or funding by any far right-wing group. As far as we know, he acted alone and in a fit of blind rage.

Provide the evidence that these two sickos were instructed by an extremist group to commit their evil deeds and we'll take it from there.

 

And again, just because you think there can't be individual acts of right-wing sympathizers and nutjobs AND collectivist left-wing attempts at undermining society and/or the American government doesn't mean both can't exist simultaneously.

 

 

 

Edited 25 September 2018 by MC Prussian

[leicsmac]

9 hours ago, MC Prussian said:

The links you provide again prove nothing - it's just a continuation of an argument that is none, you imply and/or claim that the "Alt-Right" exists, yet you can't define it. As you state it, it is your "opinion".

What is the "Alt-Right"?

 

As far as I can tell, it's a relatively new and made-up term (I think Richard Spencer was one of the first to coin it to distinguish his white supremacist movement from traditional conservatives and what he calls "Alt-Light", centralists and libertarians) currently used and abused by some fractions on the left and within media who see everything from their own biased and ideological perspective, and that with a certain intent - it's a dangerous move, because labeling other people with a different political viewpoint to your own with one term, using one single term for an incredibly vast, diverse and heterogenous assembly of individuals and groups or organizations is lethal.

Heck, just because I don't identify as "Socialist", I could be described by people on the American right and the media as "alt-right" and thus be put in the same group as Neo-Nazis, Holocaust deniers, racists and the likes - just because some people and institutions would like you to believe so.

That's both frightening and dangerous. Can you see the incendiary potential here?

 

The BBC article doesn't explain the term, just again uses it loosely. As do the Breibart and WP links - it's no wonder they're putting the term in quotation marks, it doesn't automatically mean they all believe it exists. They're trying to figure it out, but they can't. Again, I think it's an attempt at describing something out of a particular reason, political bias comes into play.

 

As far as we know today, Fields acted on his own behalf. He had right-wing and Nazi sympathies and slipped further and further into a state of fanatism, but that's where it ends.

JJ Christian was also mentally unstable, as described by friends. To this day, there's been no proof of support or funding by any far right-wing group. As far as we know, he acted alone and in a fit of blind rage.

Provide the evidence that these two sickos were instructed by an extremist group to commit their evil deeds and we'll take it from there.

 

And again, just because you think there can't be individual acts of right-wing sympathizers and nutjobs AND collectivist left-wing attempts at undermining society and/or the American government doesn't mean both can't exist simultaneously.

 

 

 

3

Alright then, I'll try just once more.

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alt-right

 

Yes, it's a Wiki link, however the sources attached to the article are there to be checked out and are multiple and diverse.

 

Honestly, Prussian, we've had debates on here before but I've never felt that you were trolling and/or arguing in bad faith before when we've talked. Now, with this level of denial about something that very clearly does exist, the use of semantics, and my having to go to great base lengths in order to prove to you that it does in fact exist...I'm not so sure. If I came across as overly confrontational when I began this conversation or said something to set you off then I apologise; I just don't get where this burst of obstinacy is coming from.

 

If you don't think the alt-right exist as an organisation (coined, as you say, be Spencer) and aren't active in a variety of ways - and can't be convinced otherwise - then I see zero point in continuing this line of debate, I'm just going to say that in my own opinion you are massively, near-scientific-factually, wrong, and leave it at that.

 

NB. WRT the bolded part, I might ask you to prove Hrabar was acting as part of the DSA or some other left-wing organisation beyond mere assertion too.

[leicsmac]

Anyway...

 

https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-45644559

 

Trump at the UN.

 

Two gems: getting laughed at when he said this administration had achieved more than almost any other (though he did take it pretty well) and "

"I honour the right of every nation in this room to pursue its own customs, beliefs and traditions....The United States will not tell you how to live or work or worship." (surprised his nose didn't grow after that one).

[Carl the Llama]

11 hours ago, MC Prussian said:

The links you provide again prove nothing - it's just a continuation of an argument that is none, you imply and/or claim that the "Alt-Right" exists, yet you can't define it. As you state it, it is your "opinion".

What is the "Alt-Right"?

 

As far as I can tell, it's a relatively new and made-up term (I think Richard Spencer was one of the first to coin it to distinguish his white supremacist movement from traditional conservatives and what he calls "Alt-Light", centralists and libertarians) currently used and abused by some fractions on the left and within media who see everything from their own biased and ideological perspective, and that with a certain intent - it's a dangerous move, because labeling other people with a different political viewpoint to your own with one term, using one single term for an incredibly vast, diverse and heterogenous assembly of individuals and groups or organizations is lethal.

Heck, just because I don't identify as "Socialist", I could be described by people on the American right and the media as "alt-right" and thus be put in the same group as Neo-Nazis, Holocaust deniers, racists and the likes - just because some people and institutions would like you to believe so.

That's both frightening and dangerous. Can you see the incendiary potential here?

 

The BBC article doesn't explain the term, just again uses it loosely. As do the Breibart and WP links - it's no wonder they're putting the term in quotation marks, it doesn't automatically mean they all believe it exists. They're trying to figure it out, but they can't. Again, I think it's an attempt at describing something out of a particular reason, political bias comes into play.

As I understand it "alt-right" is a bit of an umbrella term for a self-selecting collective of contemporary far-right fringe groups so the definition is unclear and varies by source.  Bannon and Spencer are probably the best known figures within the group and they both identified themselves proudly as part of the movement so it's a bit silly to talk as though it's become a term purely imposed on undesirables by echo chamber dwelling lefties.  There's certainly truth to that though, as evidenced in the way some media outlets use it to describe people like Jordan Peterson or Carl Benjamin who, although having a history of courting controversial topics associated with the alt-right by aforementioned lefties, have both denounced the movement and actively argued against it... Carl Benjamin less convincingly so it has to be said, I do have a lot of doubts about that guy's sincerity.  I can definitely understand your point given how the Charlottesville rally is currently the most ironclad example of tangible alt-right activity and that was over a year ago now, it feels like they've melted back into the woodwork somewhat but I'd still be wary of their political influence in the turbulent climate we're experiencing.

[leicsmac]

2 minutes ago, Carl the Llama said:

As I understand it "alt-right" is a bit of an umbrella term for a self-selecting collective of contemporary far-right fringe groups so the definition is unclear and varies by source.  Bannon and Spencer are probably the best known figures within the group and they both identified themselves proudly as part of the movement so it's a bit silly to talk as though it's become a term purely imposed on undesirables by echo chamber dwelling lefties.  There's certainly truth to that though, as evidenced in the way some media outlets use it to describe people like Jordan Peterson or Carl Benjamin who, although having a history of courting controversial topics associated with the alt-right by aforementioned lefties, have both denounced the movement and actively argued against it... Carl Benjamin less convincingly so it has to be said, I do have a lot of doubts about that guy's sincerity.  I can definitely understand your point given how the Charlottesville rally is currently the most ironclad example of tangible alt-right activity and that was over a year ago now, it feels like they've melted back into the woodwork somewhat but I'd still be wary of their political influence in the turbulent climate we're experiencing.

Yeah, agree with this and it's definitely a more tempered response than my own. Thanks.

 

Apologies but I take issue with the idea of white supremacists not having power and being up to stuff in the US at the present time when it's pretty self-evident that they are active and the election of Trump - whether he meant it to or not - has given them a boost. Not when I worry about friends over there who by virtue of their identity I know the alt-right would be only too happy to target (and in one case, already have).

[MC Prussian]

4 hours ago, leicsmac said:

Alright then, I'll try just once more.

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alt-right

 

Yes, it's a Wiki link, however the sources attached to the article are there to be checked out and are multiple and diverse.

 

Honestly, Prussian, we've had debates on here before but I've never felt that you were trolling and/or arguing in bad faith before when we've talked. Now, with this level of denial about something that very clearly does exist, the use of semantics, and my having to go to great base lengths in order to prove to you that it does in fact exist...I'm not so sure. If I came across as overly confrontational when I began this conversation or said something to set you off then I apologise; I just don't get where this burst of obstinacy is coming from.

 

If you don't think the alt-right exist as an organisation (coined, as you say, be Spencer) and aren't active in a variety of ways - and can't be convinced otherwise - then I see zero point in continuing this line of debate, I'm just going to say that in my own opinion you are massively, near-scientific-factually, wrong, and leave it at that.

 

NB. WRT the bolded part, I might ask you to prove Hrabar was acting as part of the DSA or some other left-wing organisation beyond mere assertion too.

This isn't denial as you see fit. This isn't trolling.

I could equally say you carry a rather leftist agenda into the debate, but the difference is I'm open to debate, whereas you start to develop some kind of defensive mechanism.

White supremacist movements exist, racists exists, right-wingers exists, Nazis exist - I'm just not so sure about the "alt-right", to be honest.

It's a hodge-podge of a collection of individuals, groups and ways of thinking these days - all depending on whom you'd like to believe.

 

The alt-right doesn't exist as a single organization, as I stated before, it was a term originally used by right-wing extremists to distinguish themselves from the "rest of the pack" on the right, be it classic conservatives, "alt-light" (whatever that means; another term coined by Spencer, if I'm not mistaken), libertarians, aso. From what I gather, it's a term to describe a certain ideology, mostly (but not solely) including or based on White Supremacy.

But again, the definitions differ greatly. It is, after all, a very loose term.

And like I also said, it has now become a term misused by certain types of media and some people on the left of the political spectrum to denounce anything only remotely to the right of their respective ideology as "alt-right", which I find is both wrong (by definition) and rather dangerous and insidious, as it creates or speeds up the development of a vicious political divide.

 

Personally, I'd say you're reading too much into it and see an "organization" where there is none. It may be semantics, but I see it as a kind of ideology, a label. Nothing else.

 

Hrabar has been actively participating in chasing after what she and her DSoA Metro DC chapter fellows see as "racists", "bigots" and whatnot in Washington, DC - and the movement has gone after Ted Cruz or Department of Homeland Security Secretary Kirstjen Nielsen in the past (videos exist - look them up), for example.

https://www.theepochtimes.com/socialist-activist-left-justice-department-after-project-veritas-expose_2669864.html

 

I only got aware of this story a few days ago, btw.

[MC Prussian]

3 hours ago, Carl the Llama said:

As I understand it "alt-right" is a bit of an umbrella term for a self-selecting collective of contemporary far-right fringe groups so the definition is unclear and varies by source.  Bannon and Spencer are probably the best known figures within the group and they both identified themselves proudly as part of the movement so it's a bit silly to talk as though it's become a term purely imposed on undesirables by echo chamber dwelling lefties.  There's certainly truth to that though, as evidenced in the way some media outlets use it to describe people like Jordan Peterson or Carl Benjamin who, although having a history of courting controversial topics associated with the alt-right by aforementioned lefties, have both denounced the movement and actively argued against it... Carl Benjamin less convincingly so it has to be said, I do have a lot of doubts about that guy's sincerity.  I can definitely understand your point given how the Charlottesville rally is currently the most ironclad example of tangible alt-right activity and that was over a year ago now, it feels like they've melted back into the woodwork somewhat but I'd still be wary of their political influence in the turbulent climate we're experiencing.

To be honest, I did point out the origins of the term AND pointed at its current use by the media and people on the left.

[MC Prussian]

3 hours ago, leicsmac said:

Yeah, agree with this and it's definitely a more tempered response than my own. Thanks.

 

Apologies but I take issue with the idea of white supremacists not having power and being up to stuff in the US at the present time when it's pretty self-evident that they are active and the election of Trump - whether he meant it to or not - has given them a boost. Not when I worry about friends over there who by virtue of their identity I know the alt-right would be only too happy to target (and in one case, already have).

Where have I said that? Who else has said that?

 

If you want to have this particular debate, then fine. How much power do white supremacists have in the US? How influential are they?

(Simply curious, not trolling)

 

Again, when talking about some of your friends under threat you're using "alt-right" in a context where it's not quite clear whom you mean - it could be anyone on the right, centrists or libertarians even. It could even be people claiming to be or posing as "alt-right", as far as I'm concerned.

And some might take offence at a term used so loosely. It's all too vague for me.

Edited 26 September 2018 by MC Prussian

[leicsmac]

41 minutes ago, MC Prussian said:

This isn't denial as you see fit. This isn't trolling.

I could equally say you carry a rather leftist agenda into the debate, but the difference is I'm open to debate, whereas you start to develop some kind of defensive mechanism.

White supremacist movements exist, racists exists, right-wingers exists, Nazis exist - I'm just not so sure about the "alt-right", to be honest.

It's a hodge-podge of a collection of individuals, groups and ways of thinking these days - all depending on whom you'd like to believe.

 

The alt-right doesn't exist as a single organization, as I stated before, it was a term originally used by right-wing extremists to distinguish themselves from the "rest of the pack" on the right, be it classic conservatives, "alt-light" (whatever that means; another term coined by Spencer, if I'm not mistaken), libertarians, aso. From what I gather, it's a term to describe a certain ideology, mostly (but not solely) including or based on White Supremacy.

But again, the definitions differ greatly. It is, after all, a very loose term.

And like I also said, it has now become a term misused by certain types of media and some people on the left of the political spectrum to denounce anything only remotely to the right of their respective ideology as "alt-right", which I find is both wrong (by definition) and rather dangerous and insidious, as it creates or speeds up the development of a vicious political divide.

 

Personally, I'd say you're reading too much into it and see an "organization" where there is none. It may be semantics, but I see it as a kind of ideology, a label. Nothing else.

 

Hrabar has been actively participating in chasing after what she and her DSoA Metro DC chapter fellows see as "racists", "bigots" and whatnot in Washington, DC - and the movement has gone after Ted Cruz or Department of Homeland Security Secretary Kirstjen Nielsen in the past (videos exist - look them up), for example.

https://www.theepochtimes.com/socialist-activist-left-justice-department-after-project-veritas-expose_2669864.html

 

I only got aware of this story a few days ago, btw.

Thank you for the clarification - I think that I'm understanding where you're getting at a bit better now. Again, I apologise if I have appeared overly defensive here but the way things were framed made me think that having to defend my stance was akin to having to defend that the Earth is round (and yes, I've had to do that before).

 

I'd say that there is something in the idea that what might be described as  the alt-right are a hodgepodge of different folks that have different ways of thought and aren't necessarily driven by any one figurehead or commanding authority (though "chapters" such as Unite the Right, the Atomwaffen Division and the Rise Above Movement, are similar to the DSoA one you describe in that they are small units going after targets of interest), but IMO most of these disparate entities do share one particular ideological goal - white supremacy - and the use of intimidation and violence in order to further that goal. That might not be an organisation, but it might be an organising factor that unites at least some of those disparate groups.

 

24 minutes ago, MC Prussian said:

Where have I said that? Who else has said that?

 

If you want to have this particular debate, then fine. How much power do white supremacists have in the US? How influential are they?

(Simply curious, not trolling)

 

Again, when talking about some of your friends under threat you're using "alt-right" in a context where it's not quite clear whom you mean - it could be anyone on the right, centrists or libertarians even. It could even be people claiming to be or posing as "alt-right", as far as I'm concerned.

And some might take offence at a term used so loosely. It's all too vague for me.

You said that you didn't believe the alt-right existed, I conflated that with disbelief that they (and white supremacists by definition/extension) didn't have power/weren't active in the US. If that isn't the case (and it seems it isn't), again, apologies and thanks for clearing that up.

 

I think various elements of white supremacy are quite powerful in the US right now - they have the President they want (that's not to say he agrees with what they do, from what I can tell he's tried to put distance there) and though events in Charlottesville, Portland and Orange Count (Samuel Woodward), among others, might be dismissed as the random acts of a few lunatics, I think that it shows that these people believe in white supremacy and, emboldened by the current political situation, are willing to kill for it, and have killed for it. They believe in their cause of one supremacist ideology in the same way a fundie jihadi does - either they're both calculating zealots or they're both insane.

 

In addition, there are a number of politicians and influential figures (Sam Brownback, Louie Gohmert, Franklin Graham, Pat Robertson) who while not actively being WASP supremacists, certainly flirt with the idea and have very clear ideas on race and sex. They do have more power, and they are much more clever, using the law and popular opinion, either by controlling the legislature or by exerting influence over the public to vote in those that then can. Perhaps it's a bill shutting down a female health clinic in a majority black neighbourhood (or others) that then makes it impossible to get to another one without the help of those unlikely to give it, or one that denies gay married couples healthcare benefits that mean they have trouble caring for each other should one be hospitalised.

 

I'm with you in that we shouldn't be creating a boogeyman for its own sake as that's counterproductive, but allow a rephrase - it doesn't matter what they call themselves, really, I believe that those who think white males (often Christian) belong at the top of the social ladder in perpetuity in the US are currently in the ascendancy, and to go wayyyyy back to the original points we were making, I also think there is ample evidence here and elsewhere to prove that they engage in exactly the same or worse intimidating and/or violent tactics against chosen targets as you say that left-wing activists do.

[Finnegan]

If "THE LEFT" were going to come up with a term for the alt right it would be a lot less polite than "alt right" tbqh. 

 

 

[leicsmac]

https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-45656149

 

Hope this does go all the way to the Supreme Court and the laws states have regarding this are ruled unconstitutional. If you really believe in the freedom that the Pledge talks about, you also believe in the freedom of not having to stand and recite it, with or without parental permission.

 

https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-45656466

 

Sooooo....it's only electoral interference when it's against you, and when it's for you it's a witch hunt, right, Don?

 

 

[leicsmac]

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/post-nation/wp/2017/08/30/white-lawmaker-warns-black-attorney-she-may-go-missing-if-confederate-statues-are-threatened/?noredirect=on&utm_term=.16e9bc8bbcaa

 

Post-racial society, huh?

[Finnaldo]

8 hours ago, leicsmac said:

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/post-nation/wp/2017/08/30/white-lawmaker-warns-black-attorney-she-may-go-missing-if-confederate-statues-are-threatened/?noredirect=on&utm_term=.16e9bc8bbcaa

 

Post-racial society, huh?

 

There's a place for Confederate statues and memorials. They're called museums.

 

People who are so insistent in keeping them in public civic areas raises somewhat of a red flag to me.

[MC Prussian]

9 hours ago, leicsmac said:

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/post-nation/wp/2017/08/30/white-lawmaker-warns-black-attorney-she-may-go-missing-if-confederate-statues-are-threatened/?noredirect=on&utm_term=.16e9bc8bbcaa

 

Post-racial society, huh?

The story is over a year old. These two have been known locally for taking swings at each other for years.

Also noteworthy:

Quote

Jones said that while she thinks her former colleague's comments "absolutely and completely crossed the line, I personally did not feel threatened."

Also, neither one of the two protagonists come out of this debate with any decency left.

 

With regards to the whole "tearing down Confederate statues", it's got an air of revisionism about it.

Half of the much-respected Founding Fathers were slave owners.

https://www.quora.com/How-many-of-Americas-founding-fathers-were-slave-owners

Will their monuments be torn down, as well? Who defines what is racist and what not? What's the line?

[MC Prussian]

9 hours ago, leicsmac said:

https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-45656466

 

Sooooo....it's only electoral interference when it's against you, and when it's for you it's a witch hunt, right, Don?

How did you react when Obama complained about Russian interference in the elections in 2016?

[Guest MattP]

#bulldozemountrushmore

[Finnaldo]

28 minutes ago, MC Prussian said:

The story is over a year old. These two have been known locally for taking swings at each other for years.

Also noteworthy:

Also, neither one of the two protagonists come out of this debate with any decency left.

 

With regards to the whole "tearing down Confederate statues", it's got an air of revisionism about it.

Half of the much-respected Founding Fathers were slave owners.

https://www.quora.com/How-many-of-Americas-founding-fathers-were-slave-owners

Will their monuments be torn down, as well? Who defines what is racist and what not? What's the line?

 

True, but the War of Independence wasn't a secession based on keeping those slaves. It was the norm at the time.

 

Fast forward to 1861 that's no longer the case. Whilst I get there was plenty else that contributed to the Southern secession, slavery was a big black mark. Continuation of subjugation of a race of people was one of the tenants of the Confederacy and the Civil War, so again, they shouldn't be used in civic areas as some kind of pride mark, they can be observed and understood in museums, surrounded by the history of the event so you can fully recognise the implication this had on American society.

 

I also think that history is generally too lenient on the Union. For the saviours history portrays them as, they did far too little for African-American freemen and that led to issues well into the 20th century and still has effects now.

[MC Prussian]

10 minutes ago, Finnaldo said:

 

True, but the War of Independence wasn't a secession based on keeping those slaves. It was the norm at the time.

 

Fast forward to 1861 that's no longer the case. Whilst I get there was plenty else that contributed to the Southern secession, slavery was a big black mark. Continuation of subjugation of a race of people was one of the tenants of the Confederacy and the Civil War, so again, they shouldn't be used in civic areas as some kind of pride mark, they can be observed and understood in museums, surrounded by the history of the event so you can fully recognise the implication this had on American society.

 

I also think that history is generally too lenient on the Union. For the saviours history portrays them as, they did far too little for African-American freemen and that led to issues well into the 20th century and still has effects now.

Depends on how you look at these statues and monuments - I agree museums can be the place, but leaving them where they are right now can also act as a reminder of darker times past.

There's also a more prevalent theme here, and that is the mindset of some (white) people in the Southern States. How much "redneckery" still exists, is open for debate.

You don't change that by moving statues and destroying monuments, there's a danger of it making it worse.

 

Slightly derailing, but you could say the War of Independence was also a fight against slavery, just with settlers up against the British.

Wouldn't be the logical consequence be all British history in the US destroyed or put into museums, as well?

 

[leicsmac]

2 hours ago, MC Prussian said:

The story is over a year old. These two have been known locally for taking swings at each other for years.

Also noteworthy:

Also, neither one of the two protagonists come out of this debate with any decency left.

 

With regards to the whole "tearing down Confederate statues", it's got an air of revisionism about it.

Half of the much-respected Founding Fathers were slave owners.

https://www.quora.com/How-many-of-Americas-founding-fathers-were-slave-owners

Will their monuments be torn down, as well? Who defines what is racist and what not? What's the line?

I'm glad she didn't feel threatened by it, but IMO it was a needless attempt to put someone - a black woman in this case - "in her place".

 

WRT the statues, Finn pretty much said what I was going to say - that unless there was a clear ulterior motive that's been missed by everyone the Founding Fathers, while slaveowners themselves, didn't start a war in order to preserve the institution of chattel slavery.

 

As has been debated on here before, such monuments can be equally well viewed and regarded in a museum.

 

2 hours ago, MC Prussian said:

How did you react when Obama complained about Russian interference in the elections in 2016?

I waited to see if there was anything of it that made it believable - and while it won't ever be conclusively proven, the methods were much too smart and sophisticated for that, it has a lot more traction behind it than Trumps accusations of Chinese etc meddling in the midterms coming up.

 

And yet he believes one to be much truer than the other. Obvious self-interest is obvious.

 

He might be onto something, it's possible and of course the Chinese likely have that capability, but he's going to have to do a lot more than just talk about it at the UN to be convincing.

 

1 hour ago, MC Prussian said:

Depends on how you look at these statues and monuments - I agree museums can be the place, but leaving them where they are right now can also act as a reminder of darker times past.

There's also a more prevalent theme here, and that is the mindset of some (white) people in the Southern States. How much "redneckery" still exists, is open for debate.

You don't change that by moving statues and destroying monuments, there's a danger of it making it worse.

 

Slightly derailing, but you could say the War of Independence was also a fight against slavery, just with settlers up against the British.

Wouldn't be the logical consequence be all British history in the US destroyed or put into museums, as well?

 

 

They would be a useful reminder of times past, yes, which is why they shouldn't be destroyed. All things (museum or out in the world) on that score being equal though, the only reason I can think of that someone would insist on them remaining outside is as a display of power - and bear in mind a lot of them were placed not immediately after the Civil War, but in the 1960's when the Civil Rights Movement was picking up speed.

 

Good questions in the bolded parts - I would say that white power is still very much a thing if you look at the overall legislature and who holds that power in many areas of the southern and rural US, and I certainly wouldn't want to pander to white supremacists who might get angry at statues being moved for "fear of making it worse". Such ideas should be neutralised, not gratified - but again, that's just my take.

 

I wouldn't say the American Revolution involved slavery as a key concept tbh - I mean, the Founding Fathers wanted the freedom to run their own little fiefdom as they saw fit and didn't like the idea of the UK taking a greater hand in colonial affairs, but the American settlers certainly weren't slaves to the British IMO.

[MC Prussian]

The Christiane Ford hearing is an interesting case, also in connection with the whole #metoo movement.

Consider this:

I'd argue that sexuality and sexual morale in general in the 80ies were much loose than they were today - the incident took place in 1982, so before the AIDS epidemic - so for a now 50+-year old woman to make these kind of accusations when the man under fire is currently running for the Supreme Court and - once instated - could last until the end of his days, makes for fascinating "coincidence".

Why now?

Why not 10, 15, 20 years ago?

In essence, it's her word against his, when both were underage at the time, so one could conclude, simply pretty stupid teenagers.

 

Another woman has stepped into the limelight after mentioning having seen Kavanaugh at a party in the early 80ies where a gang rape took place - yet she also points out that Kavanaugh wasn't involved, just there. Where do people find these kind of individuals as witnesses? Ridiculous.

As of right now, it has the elements of one big smear campaign.

Edited 27 September 2018 by MC Prussian

[Smudge]

23 minutes ago, MC Prussian said:

The Christiane Ford hearing is an interesting case, also in connection with the whole #metoo movement.

Consider this:

I'd argue that sexuality and sexual morale in general in the 80ies were much loose than they were today - the incident took place in 1982, so before the AIDS epidemic - so for a now 50+-year old woman to make these kind of accusations when the man under fire is currently running for the Supreme Court and - once instated - could last until the end of his days, makes for fascinating "coincidence".

Why now?

Why not 10, 15, 20 years ago?

In essence, it's her word against his, when both were underage at the time, so one could conclude, simply pretty stupid teenagers.

 

Another woman has stepped into the limelight after mentioning having seen Kavanaugh at a party in the early 80ies where a gang rape took place - yet she als points out that Kavanaugh wasn't involved, just there. Where do people find these kind of individuals as witnesses? Ridiculous.

As of right now, it has the elements of one big smear campaign.

I am watching testimony, she is very believable.  

[Jon the Hat]

1 hour ago, Smudge said:

I am watching testimony, she is very believable.  

I agree.  And her opening statement went a long way to explaining why she never said anything until now.

i think your attacker being close to becoming one of the most powerful people in the US is a pretty good reason why now.

[bovril]

1 hour ago, Smudge said:

I am watching testimony, she is very believable.  

Trump seems to believe her too. 

 

 

[Detroit Blues]

2 hours ago, Smudge said:

I am watching testimony, she is very believable.  

She seemed very detail oriented to her answers, and did not get trapped in indecisiveness or contradictory statements. It's unfortunate that Kavanugh is just going to get pushed through without any further investigation. His appointment is for life, and yet due to political motivations, Republicans are just going to ignore Dr. Ford's testimony. 

 

 

[Smudge]

1 minute ago, Detroit Blues said:

She seemed very detail oriented to her answers, and did not get trapped in indecisiveness or contradictory statements. It's unfortunate that Kavanugh is just going to get pushed through without any further investigation. His appointment is for life, and yet due to political motivations, Republicans are just going to ignore Dr. Ford's testimony. 

 

 

I know, did you see Lindsay Grahams interview. Abject denial and at the same time steaming about them being ambushed. 

It's a no win for the Republicans. Push him through and I feel they'll damage the November mid terms.