Current Affairs Donald Trump POS: Judgement cometh and that right soon

[DanEFC92]

 

[peteblue]

It is only 6 months, I am sure that he will try to add to it as his term continues.

I'd say the fact that this statue caused hundreds of Nazi's to march in the streets was a pretty potent demonstration of their influence over people's views on civil liberties.

You seem to be portraying that those that object to the removal of these statues are lovers of history and just want to preserve it - do you really think the same guys who rallied this week would travel to protest if Touro synagogue (a century older than the civil war) was slated for removal?

As I said many of these monuments were erected in the Jim Crow era, it it hard to believe they were not a none too subtle sign that some wanted to return the era of Lee. Some were erected as late as the 2000s and in states that wreen't even states during the civil war - will it really do irreparable harm to our knowledge of history to remove them.

The local people ,whose taxes pay for the statues upkeep and also pay for the policing of any demonstrations, wanted them removed which I feel should be a significant factor as well.

Fwiw I would oppose something like the destruction of Arlington House as that to me is actual history. A bunch of cheap knockoff statues mostly based in places that had no connection to Lee himself are not the same in my eyes.

Oh no, these guys, maybe not all, who were marching were just right wing nutters. And I'm sure that many of the opposition, not all by any means, were left wing nutters. That's the nature of marches and demonstrations. But if a statue of say Grant was torn down, it might upset some folk, so why do it. They were just the opposite side of the same American coin......

 

[Dylan]

TBH (and not to agree with Pete) this is a bit of a daft argument. The Confederacy was indefensible, but Lee himself seems to have been a decent sort and if you accept that the many Confederate dead do deserve some form of commemoration, then Lee is probably the best person (or certainly the least contentious) by which to remember them by. To tear his statue down because of the side he fought for, or worse still because of the cretins it attracts nowadays, is a pretty big admission of how much your historical education has failed.

Nah, not having that. I am acutely aware of his involvement in the war. Military history is one of my hobbies.

I know of his involvement. And yes, his activities were on the battlefield were in keeping with the traditions of the US Army and he conducted himself with honour. But he chose his state over his country. He chose to fight for the right to own another human.

As a member of the United States Military, he is bound by the Articles of War, and he broke those when he sided with his state.

 

[SteveSC]

Why? He was one of your greatest generals. OK he was on the wrong side, but what if he'd won. The symbolism attributed by today's intelligentsia to yesterday's heroes is just that, today's view, that doesn't mean it's right. I would defend a statue of Rommel as a military man......

In the Mexican american war he was. As a soldier for the Union.

He resigned from them and joined the states army of his home state.

Later on he ultimately became the General of the confederates, which by the way ironically he was against secession at the start.

There are many of those who say some of his decisions he made as a confederate general were questionable especially at Gettysburg.

You could also argue any general that takes an army to war over contentious issues for his own gain and ego cant be that great at all.

 

[peteblue]

That isn't what "all the other Confederates were fighting for", though.

Probably the majority......

 

[Dylan]

Probably in Argentina, otherwise I'd say no......

So why did it take Trump two days to condemn those who think it is okay. Albeit with conditions attached to his condemnation.

It just shows who he really is.

 

[peteblue]

Nah, not having that. I am acutely aware of his involvement in the war. Military history is one of my hobbies.

I know of his involvement. And yes, his activities were on the battlefield were in keeping with the traditions of the US Army and he conducted himself with honour. But he chose his state over his country. He chose to fight for the right to own another human.

As a member of the United States Military, he is bound by the Articles of War, and he broke those when he sided with his state.

But surely the US was born out of choosing a state over its country.....I'm pretty sure some members of the British army did the same.....we regard George Washington in a similar light...two sides of the same coin.......

 

[peteblue]

So why did it take Trump two days to condemn those who think it is okay. Albeit with conditions attached to his condemnation.

It just shows who he really is.

I've no idea. He's an idiot. Put in today's feral atmosphere he's damned if he does and damned if he doesn't......

 

[Dylan]

But surely the US was born out of choosing a state over its country.....I'm pretty sure some members of the British army did the same.....we regard George Washington in a similar light...two sides of the same coin.......

Very overarching generalization there Pete.

You forget about the taxation without representation?

 

[peteblue]

Anyway, goodnight all.......

 

[peteblue]

Very overarching generalization there Pete.

You forget about the taxation without representation?

I'll give you that....

 

[Dylan]

I've no idea. He's an idiot. Put in today's feral atmosphere he's damned if he does and damned if he doesn't......

No. Not true. If he had come out and immediately condemned the 'white nationalists' then we would all get back to talking about in general how bad of a President he is. But no, he made this crap storm himself when he refused to condemn them, essentially outing himself as a racist white nationalist.

 

[DanEFC92]

 

[ilikecheese]

What does that mean. And why should anyone take note of a politicians spouse......

She accurately predicted what a Trump presidency would look like before the election.

 

[tsubaki]

Nah, not having that. I am acutely aware of his involvement in the war. Military history is one of my hobbies.

I know of his involvement. And yes, his activities were on the battlefield were in keeping with the traditions of the US Army and he conducted himself with honour. But he chose his state over his country. He chose to fight for the right to own another human.

As a member of the United States Military, he is bound by the Articles of War, and he broke those when he sided with his state.

I am not sure your emboldened bit necessarily supports the bit that immediately follows. Lee probably chose to fight for his state because he couldn't bring himself to fight against it; that is after all the choice he was faced with once they had seceded. He can be criticized for it of course, but we shouldn't pretend that it was an easy decision to make.

In any case, to call him a "racist general" is daft.