This remark fits with his determined insistence that if he'd been President, Russia would not have invaded Ukraine and the October 7th massacre would never have happened. War can be avoided, we'd all like to think, but who are the peacemakers? Trump would like you to think he's the one.
I'm reading that quote in a NYT article called "Four of Trump’s Most Meandering Remarks This Week/The former president says that his style is to 'weave' from one subject to the next. Others see something more worrisome in his ramblings."
I love the Abraham Lincoln quote. Why do we see war Presidents as the great ones? If there was a war, why don't we fault him for not saving us from it? And who, this time around, will save the world from war?
But let's not talk about that. Let's talk about the extent to which Trump is meandering. Let's worry about what are pointless ramblings.
The other article about Trump on the front page of the NYT is "At a Pennsylvania Rally, Trump Descends to New Levels of Vulgarity." He's speaking in a way that can be characterized as unpresidential. He said 1. "Such a horrible four years, we had a horrible — think of the — everything they touch turns to —" and the audience yelled "Shit!" 2. (about Harris) "We can’t stand you, you’re a shit vice president," and 3. (about Arnold Palmer) "This is a guy that was all man.... And I refuse to say it, but when he took showers with the other pros, they came out of there, they said, 'Oh, my god, that’s unbelievable.'... I had to tell you the shower part of it because it’s true... We want to be honest.'"
Meanwhile, there's only one article about Kamala Harris on the front page of the NYT at the moment, and it's not about problems with the way she speaks. It's not that she said "It's real," when someone asserted that Israel is committing genocide. It's not that she taunted "You guys are at the wrong rally" when somebody yelled "Christ is Lord."
No, readers are left to assume Harris is speaking in the normal, presidential manner, while Trump is in worrisome decline.
The article the NYT gives us about Harris is news of a weak blip in one question on a poll: "Harris May Be Catching Up on a Key Polling Question: Which Candidate Helps You?"
The NYT seems to be saying: Please be encouraged about Harris, though there's nothing positive that she's said or done that we can elaborate for you today. Leave the Harris door shut, and look at Trump. Isn't he terrible in the same way we've considered him terrible for an entire decade... or, uh, no, at some new more worrisome and ever lower level of descent into hell?
পোস্টগুলি
১৭৭টি মন্তব্য:
Yes, the NYT stories are not the story. The blatant one-sided framing is the story.
Harris is not running for President. The two candidates are Trump and “Not Trump”.
Like I said in the open thread, the nut cases who tried to kill Trump imagined that they were preventing WWIII, like in Stephen King's novel, The Dead Zone, but in fact they were operating to get Trump out of the way and clear the way for WWIII to finally happen.
Give me a president who spends his time thinking of ways to keep wars from being fought, any day. Trump's book was "The Art of the Deal" and Pelosi's book, which describes the Democrats' philosophy, is "The Art of Power." Which approach do you think is morel likely to lead to lasting peace?
Harris is right on Gaza, BTW. I am sure that any replies that this comment draws will fall into two categories.
A) It's not genocide, we just have to kill tens of thousands to make a point that will not be understood in any other way, including by starvation.
B) "Genocide is the only way to settle this conflict, look how peaceful the American Indians have become."
It would not be any of our business except that Israel could not do what they are doing without American weapons. They don't make their own jets, they use our jets to drop the bombs we give them on the people who live around them. I don't get why we keep being drawn into these wars that small countries like Israel and Ukraine pick with neighbors that are so powerful that these little countries are guaranteed to lose them without dragging us into their wars.
War is a failure of negotiation - both sides believe they'll come out better by fighting than what they can get with negotiation. Trump is a master negotiator. He finds stuff to add to the package that makes it work for both sides.
Glenn linked to this perfectly titled response to current news media: Let's Not
Buying the slaves from slaveholders would have avoided the huge capital loss to the South that they could not agree to.
Burn the Grey Lady down. There’s nothing redeeming about it.
Wow, Google is really, really suppressing comments on this topic.
I typed up a long comment about Lincoln suspending the Constitution. Keeping people hostage in the US when they just wanted to form their own union (like the Declaration of Independence says they have a right to) and Google just won't let me post it.
The CNN video is great for showing how disconnected the reporter is to the people being observed. The people are happy and enjoying the moment. The reporter wants them to see the escalator as the moment it is to them, some tragic day in the past. But it is just an escalator, and they are tourist, and they don't care that the reporter is unhappy, because they are enjoying today.
Israel shouldn't be genociding Gaza. They should nuke it. Look how peaceful and productive the Japanese are today.
Trump's rambling is talking in backstage mode, a form of self-awareness, a talk that doesn't try to create a single world. Climbing by climbing all walls at once.
Tim we keep getting "drawn into these wars" every time we elect Democrats to run the country, and until we stop doing that, this will continue to occur.
Trump gives the left so much material for them to cherry pick things and take them out of context but I imagine most folks are seeing right through that at this point. He is as much an entertainer as anything else so meandering to the Times is really a part of a routine on stage following both a script with points to emphasize while utilizing ad libs to personalize it to the specific audience he is speaking to. It’s like a comedy routine (Chapelle is a master at this) where little things drop making a very long set up for a joke to materialize later. Is saw the NY Post had a mention of the Arnold Palmer quip and was initially, “Oh $hit” and then read the story and saw this it was a funny ad lib well recieved by the audience he was speaking to in Palmer’s hometown of Latrobe. When a legend such as Palmer has such outsized status for his professional achievements, it follows that everything about his legend will be outsized, whether true or not.
I'll try to put it another way. Would you vote for a President who suspended the Constitution?
Would you vote for a President who caused the deaths of 600,000 people who's only crime is that they wished to leave the United States?
And yet you revere this person.
Like the memo goes, you don't get to start fight and then claim to be the victim when you get your ass handed to you. 100% of the civilian deaths in Gaza would have been completely avoided by Hamas not attacking Israel.
IF you are committing "genocide".. Shouldn't your target population DECREASE?
If there are ten times more Palestinians NOW, than when the "genocide" started..
It's not a very EFFECTIVE "genocide", is it?
It's the name Lincoln that Google's Censor AI is suppressing. It let me publish that comment so long as I did not tie Lincoln to these activities.
Trump gives the left so much material
As long as the conversation is about Trump, then the conversation is about Trump. Kamala cannot get her message out. Which seems to suit them or they are resigned to this and don't even try any longer. Or worse yet, Democrats are afraid that Kamala's message MIGHT get out and then they are toast.
Lincoln was one of our most dictatorial presidents. He had critics arrested, he threatened the courts, and he used the army to bully state legislatures to vote his way.
Lincoln’s line about “conceived in liberty” in The Gettysburg Address is as ironic as the Declaration of Independence being written by one of the country’s largest slaveholders.
Or C) genocide is an actual word with an actual definition that objectively does not apply to Gaza and certain dingbats on social media should learn to be less careless about how they throw it around.
Openness is strong with Trump. See “big five personality types”.
That’s terrible!
I like the way that Zelensky says that Ukrainians will be heroes for centuries, if only they can draw the United States into a war where the US beats Russia! In other words, the damsel in distress is the true hero!
This is the effective truth of his speech, and as long as people can listen to this kind of tripe and nod their heads, we are doomed to endless war. Only repetition can give this kind of garbage the sound of logic. The main difference between Zelensky's speech, and the plot of The Sum of All Fears,/i<> is that in the movie, the Ukrainian scheme was to avenge Hitler by destroying *both* victorious countries in WWII, by getting the US and Russia to fight a nuclear war with each other.
oops
War is like cancer, if you don’t kill it, it will kill you. What kind of bs is that?
“I’ll tell you what I love, I love cows, but if we go with Kamala, you won’t have any cows anymore,” the former president responded to the child’s question.
“They just come up, they want to do things like no more cows and no windows in buildings. They have some wonderful plans for this country, honestly they’re crazy,” he stated.
In North Carolina, he added that Harris would “outlaw red meat.”
No, readers are left to assume Harris is speaking in the normal, presidential manner, while Trump is in worrisome decline.
From watching SNL last night, it's clear the memo went out from the Harris campaign, letting all their allies know it's crunch time and that they are not helping the cause by being evenhanded, truthful or funny.
Well, at least he didn't pick himself. I guess the proviso, when you were a kid, he couldn't just say yeah, me of course. He seems unaware of the efforts made to avoid the Civil War, compromises that didn't work obviously and inevitably. Every leader but him, they just love war. Trump is Mr. Omnipotent after the fact, he could have done something different because he's so compelling and brilliant. He hires the best people. And there's always bankruptcy, if all else fails, he can file Chapter 11.
Yes, if only Trump had been President in 1939, we could have settled things with Hitler and avoided World War II. We should have negotiated with Hitler, the Third Reich, the Nazis, and the SS.
Totally agree. And when he has to strike, it’s immediate, surgical, and persuasive to the other side.
Because the guy who turned away Jewish refugees from Europe and put Japanese Americans in prison camps is such a positive example of Presidental leadership.
It's a feature, not a bug. It's why the KH campaign has "no slogan, not even a well crafted lie about the bright future" of their administration.
https://ricochet.com/1725796/destruction-does-not-have-to-be-rational/
“They just come up, they want to do things like no more cows and no windows in buildings. They have some wonderful plans for this country, honestly they’re crazy,” he stated. In North Carolina, he added that Harris would “outlaw red meat.”
Rather than outright prohibitions, the actual plan seems to be to make these and other things so expensive that a large percentage of the population cannot afford them.
Trump should have said that Washington was the greatest president because he refused to become a king after the Revolutionary War and because after being president for two terms he voluntarily transferred power following an election, something we take for granted today but which, for a national executive, was unheard of at the time.
She's not about building.
OK then. No negotiations. WWIII it is. Or perhaps just another endless proxy war.
Sounds like a great plan.
The Fundamental Transformation isn't over.
The NYT was in on that one too, balls deep.
I can only imagine the news meeting with the editor.
"We need to Show the Decline, guys. What have you got to Show the Decline?...Ooh that's good!...What else have we got to Show the Decline?.. Great, run with that!....anyone else?" Etc.
The point is to nip the conflict in the bud. Use American military and economic power to convince others that they will be worse off if they don’t come to the negotiating table.
Q are the fabled lemmings suicide or genocide?
Something’s are beyond negotiation. For example, the Iranian position is that all Jews must die. That is a tough one to find common ground on.
As lonejustice illustrates, war time leaders get a lot of good press from the outcome of the war with a lot of their compromises and bad choices being swept under the rug, especially true if they happen to die at the right time. Truman seems to be one who has reversed the trend though I wonder if this is mostly the result of downgrading JFK due to Vietnam and the afterglow of our winning the Cold War under Reagan and GHWB.
I don't get the knock at Trump's admiration for Reagan. Reagan would seem to be an excellent model of a President who took office at a point where the Cold War was definitely in the balance and used a deft blend of direct and indirect action, negotiation, and persuasion to put us on the course that resulted in a decisive victory without resorting to full-on (and likely disastrous) armed conflict shortly after his term ended. Trump could do worse for a model, and Harris certainly will.
Ann, you left out Trumps discussion about the size of Arnold Palmer’s driver.
unrealized capital gains = owning / breeding slaves?
Since C is already taken:
D) since Israel is providing aid to the population being genocided, the party doing the genociding is Hamas and they should, forthwith, cease their actions that are resulting in the death of tens of thousands of civilians. Most easily done by donning uniforms and not hiding within civilian populations while they continue their war of aggression against Israel.
war v tax v tariffs : treat confederate states as foreign
Check her point 3)
Given the Palestinian/Iranian position that all Jews must die, what are the outlines for a settlement in the Middle East?
i'm already voting for Trump, Mark; you don't have to sell me on him!
Something’s are beyond negotiation. For example, the Iranian position is that all Jews must die. That is a tough one to find common ground on.
And in that case, the policy must be unconditional surrender.
I never heard about Arnie’s long wang. It had to be the guys that said it as Arnie wasn’t a sled dog like many of the other tour pros.
…but that’s the thing they will never let your easily manipulated mind to consider. The Art of the Deal. Tump was willing to talk about immigration with the Democrats. Everything is on the table Trump said (Yes, go look it up)…
…instead we’re invited to consider Trump is too old and mentally unfit to be President. Never mind the actual current President who by everyone at this point has been determined to be mentally unfit to be President. Yet he’s still President
to prevent WW2 certain previous disagreement needed to be non-violent
Yes, if only Trump had been President in 1939...
And even before that, since I think a lot of the issues that lead to WW II supposedly came out the Treaty of Versailles, Trump would have been the wise prophet that acted to prevent WW I as well.
Earliest known war was a repeated conflict in Sudan 13,400 years ago. Individuals buried at the prehistoric cemetery Jebel Sahaba in Sudan seem to have experienced violence and trauma at several points during their lives.... (from New Scientist)
If only Trump had been there...he would have stopped it. Because he is The One. It's becoming a little Matrix-y, his candidacy. I wonder if he can bend spoons with his mind.
Lincoln tends to be the interview great President answer. Republicans like Reagan and Democrats can't recall Presidents but some of them can remember the current Democrat one
Trump has said some surprising things lately, like softening or reversing the $10K limit on the state/local tax deduction. His inner Democrat is really coming out, it seems. Even if he can beat the steal, "conservatives" may be pretty disappointed by some of his policies, I am starting to think. Still, no choice whatsoever here.
I have ti admit I don’t get why Lincoln is the safe answer. Lincoln's squeaky voice and ugly wife means he would never win a TV debate. Media and voters would be ruthless…
Planned Parenthood? Parent/hood? Personhood? Capitol punishment?
Israel should also genocide the West Bank if they want to mass abort Palestinians. Also, [catastrophic] [anthropogenic] immigration reform in population replacement a la Chinese in Tibet, Haan in China, Democrats in America, etc.
That said, murder, rape-rape, rape, torture-torture, and abduction in the pursuit of social justice is no ethical vice. Israel should take a knee a la Kamala and bray.
As for slavery, Diversity, and redistributive change schemes...
American Civil Liberties Unburdened. Also, Special, Peculiar, Liberal, Corporate interests. Where's a back... black hole... whore h/t NAACP when you need one.
All's fair in lust and abortion.
To be fair, the Nazis were a European problem to solve in the 30s. They became our problem when Japan hit us in their cowardly sneak attack and Germany subsequently declared war on us in support of their Axis partner. At that point, negotiating was no longer on the table. Much to the delight of Britain and the French government in exile.
If you want to talk about negotiating failures, look towards Chamberlain and his crowd rather than FDR.
One thing the last eight years has taught me: Media will do everything in its power to push, pull or drag a Democratic candidate across the finish line.
When Britain freed its slaves in 1834 (Britain was a 'free' country by law since the 1770s), it paid off the slaveholders, avoiding war and bitterness. Why didn't the US do the same?
Why didn't they pay off the slaveholders, like the British did? A lot cheaper, and a lot less bloodshed and bitterness. Why not? The Caribbean is right on the US' back door!
The South started the Civil War.
From what I’ve seen of Harris’s recent brief, moon-eyed appearances, the lady is struggling with a substance (alcohol) abuse problem. Those cows could be jumping over the Moon for all she knows.
LOL. I'm supposed to believe the foul-mouthed journalists and readers of the NYT's, who pride themselves on not being "prudes" and being "earthy" and taunting the dumb Christians with their "Fucks" and "Goddamns" are shocked at Trump's "Vulgarity".
Really. I always love it when the MSM and Liberal/left try to uphold some value or norm they've been subverting and destroying all my life.
As for Lincoln, in order to understand his greatness you have to read about all the other politicians of the era. Whatever flaws he had, and he had big ones, he was a giant compared to Seward, Chase, Cameron, Stanton or Summner. Let alone Davis, an arrogant close-minded fantatic.
Trump as the peace candidate, and the champion of free speech are the main reasons I'm voting for him this time. Full all his bluster, and Israel worship, I think he'll keep us out of war. Kamala will lead us to war against Iran or Russia. Mark my words.
Seward was more an aboilitionist and an Anglophile, kept England out of the war, the choices he made he was forced to make, tell me other alterrnatives he could have taken
Well, the Abraham Accords were a huge step in the right direction. Decoupling the real interests of the many nations which make up "The Middle East" from the Palestinian/Iranian genocidal goal was the sort of thing the brilliant minds at State would consider to be heresy.
Adds a new dimension to the joke about Palmer’s wife kissing his balls and teh resultant “putter flutter”, no?
In Game Theory, tit for tat is considered the best available strategy. The way the Israelis play it is massive Tit for Tat. Their response is disproportionate, and it's designed to be disproportionate. What did the Palestinians think was going to happen after they committed such atrocities? Well, they've won the sympathies of many Columbia undergrads. Maybe that's the first step in their road to final victory. Maybe not........As Trump
As Trump might say, the best available strategy in The Prisoner's Dilemma is not to become a prisoner.
It's all right. I've read comments like that before. But I don't see a reason to be too bitter against Abraham Lincoln. He was an authoritarian socialist, but those who surrendered to him didn't seem terribly upset, and he didn't live to implement an American dictatorship. Would that Americans continued to reject the legacy of tyranny.
the Bedoin who call themselves Palestinian have made much of mass killings like deir yassin which were exaggerated, this is what they told the likes of cornwell or simon james, or shatila, carried out by the Maronite allies,
@ Tim in Vermont - here are a pair of statements to help you gain clarity. One - if the Gazans were able to kill all the Israelis they would. Two - if the Israelis wanted to kill all the Gazans they could. Think that over. In a genocide, one party sets about killing the undesired as quickly as they can. If this was the aim of the Israeli war policy, it would all have over by now. The Israelis are killing as carefully as they can, not as quickly or completely.
And yes we should have settled with Hitler in 1939 and avoided world war II, 50 million dead, 400,000 of them Americans, and cold war that lasted 45 years. Germany could have been contained, and Hitler would've been limited to controlling Czch, Austria, Western Poland, and Germany.
Yes, “Compensated Emancipation” - the key plank in the platform of LDS prophet and founder Joseph Smith when he ran for President in 1844.
Seward was friends with the terrorist John Brown. That's all you need to know about him.
And if you think Lincoln made military mistakes, you should look at Seward's record. He thought McClellan was a Traitor and wanted people like Pope and Joe Hooker to run the whole show.
I like Althouse’s thinking here.
In 1976, the bicentennial of the founding of the U.S., then LDS church president Spencer Kimball wrote the following:
‘In spite of our delight in defining ourselves as modern, and our tendency to think we possess a sophistication that no people in the past ever had — in spite of these things, we are, on the whole, an idolatrous people — a condition repugnant to the Lord.
We are a warlike people, easily distracted from our assignment of preparing for the coming of the Lord. When enemies rise up, we commit vast resources to the fabrication of gods of stone and steel — ships, planes, missiles, fortifications — and depend on them for protection and deliverance. When threatened, we become antienemy instead of pro-kingdom of God; we train a man in the art of war and call him a patriot, thus, in the manner of Satan’s counterfeit of true patriotism, perverting the Savior’s teaching:
“Love your enemies, bless them that curse you, do good to them that hate you, and pray for them which despitefully use you, and persecute you;
“That ye may be the children of your Father which is in heaven” (Matthew 5:44-45).’
Good point, Kevin. That made me chuckle. Thank you!
A friend with great connections at Goldman Sachs and at the Treasury Department says that everyone he talks to thinks that Trump is going to win. He blames Harris. Is there a different kind of bubble over the establishment--one where Trump cannot lose?
E) Release all the hostages.
F) Elect a new leader of Hamas and let him/her! announce a full unconditional surrender.
Quayle, well, the LDS actually fought the US army, which was protecting Indian tribes from them. Either the Mormons learned from that or conveniently forgot about it….
JSM
The question is, what is the concession he would get from the other side for changing that limit? If it would mean removing the anchor baby policy for immigration, for example, I bet most "conservatives" would be happy with that trade off.
At this point in the election, I would call that tacking to the left to try to bring in any remaining center left voters, but based on his first term, take his statements in the context of a negotiating position. Here he could be signaling to high-tax, blue state residents (or more specifically, their congressional representation) that he would be open to talking about easing their tax burden. I see no problem with that.
Greatness is a literary conceit, and bards gravitate more towards Achilles than Hector. Writers tend to be inspired by leaders like Alexander, Caesar, and Napoleon. These were men whose great cause was themselves. Writers find that inspirational. That certainly wasn't the case with Lincoln. He's inspired a great deal of first rate literature, poetry, and movies. There's definitely something inspirational about him, and we celebrate our best selves when we celebrate him........Washington and Churchill are in the same weight class, but Lincoln is the one with tragedy of war engraved on his face.
Yep - Demographics have determined destiny. An R can win, but much economic policy will move left. I hope that social/cultural issues can move right.
The Arnold Palmer part was cringe. Do any Arnold fans know if Arnold was "hung like a horse"?
The Progressive Democrats are reduced to 'Concern Trolling' using Trump's age - except most will see it as a way of evoking their own senile, dementia--plagued President, thrust into the background and forced to beat his way out from behind the curtains. And here we are, 2+ weeks to go, to Election Day. They've reached the bottom of their bag, no presents left, nothing left except the clean dirt and a few tidbits of chicken scratch. Not even a respectable October Surprise I guess...... unless one counts Jack's meager offerings....
Kevin hits a deep three-pointer!
There’s women what collect married PGA Tour players the way kids collect baseball cards. Women with college degrees and respectable jobs…
A Tour caddy once told me that Arnold's renown went beyond actual golf.
With 20/20 historical hindsight, we see that we killed a half-million white people just to get from slavery to 100 years of Jim Crow. Certainly if the men of 1860 had a time TV to see this, they would have skipped the war and just negotiated Jim Crow, which suited both groups of whites just fine. And without the sunk cost of all those deaths, the Southern whites might have gradually increased black civil rights to reflect technological and economic progress, and gotten to equality sooner than 1965.
But they couldnt see the future. And most Notthern whites werent really interested in improving the black man’s lot - they just wanted to stop the cheap competition for free white farmers. And the Southerners were too caught up in their honor culture to want to negotiate anything with Northern girly-men.
So I dont know if even a nineteenth century Trump could have negotiated a way out of the Civil War.
Maybe a Jim Crow compromise for new states? Heck, even Bleeding Kansas eventually became a Jim Crow regime - see, e.g., Brown v Board. So maybe both sides might have gone for a sharecropping model. Then as Sharecropping came to be seen as more economically efficient than slavery (imagine that instead of buying farm machinery, the “machines” just show up and ask to work for a percentage!), the original slave states might have gone to Jim Crow on their own.
Then once Jim Crow was seen as inefficient (“tell me again why we have to build 2 of everything?”), they would have gone to de jure equality on their own, without any bloody shirts to wave.
Or maybe we just had to draw all those drops with the sword.
JSM
You are the head of US or Israeli intelligence or the head of the US or Israeli government. You get reports of a massive offensive planned by Hamas. It seems unbelievable to you, and you're inclined to dismiss the intel. But it's the 50th anniversary of the Yom Kippur War, so don't you take precautions and send out warnings? People wonder if that was intentional or if it was a massive failure by those in power.
One - if the Gazans were able to kill all the Israelis they would. Two - if the Israelis wanted to kill all the Gazans they could.
The Israeli government pursues a gradualist strategy to achieve their goals. The Arabs have tended to act out emotionally.
Buying the slaves from slaveholders would have avoided the huge capital loss to the South that they could not agree to.
So now we owe reparation to descendants of both slaves and slave-owners?
Some people today have the idea that everyone at the time knew that slavery was on its way out and all the government needed to do was compensate the slaveowners and free the slaves. Cotton prices had been high in the 1850s. It was boom times in the Cotton Belt. Slaveowners thought slavery would be around, if not forever, then at least until God in his wisdom considered that it had achieved his purpose. They weren't going to take a buyout. The militants among them wanted their own slave owning country. They were willing to break up the Democrat Party to bring in a Republican since that would give them an excuse to secede, and they weren't willing to negotiate a national divorce beforehand. They were already seizing federal installations and federal property when Lincoln took office.
Yes I don't see how that would have happened, the Confederacy would have taken the hint, to continue Slavery, look what happened next,
I wondered why golf was always on TV when I was growing up. It couldn't just have been about putting balls into holes.
" I am sure that any replies that this comment draws will fall into two categories." You may be sure. But you are wrong.
Because Abolitionism was an outgrowth of the religious revival movement known as the Second Great Awakening. They wanted abolition NOW! (stamp your foot when you read that for effect) and refused to consider any concessions to the South regarding ending slavery since they (the Abolitionists) were engaged in a holy cause. Also, if you want to get deep into the weeds, there was a lot of resentment between the regions that went back to the Colonial period based largely on regional differences that stemmed from what part of Britain had furnished the majority of immigrants to a specific region.
'genocide is an actual word with an actual definition'
Really. This is from Wikipedia. I don't think that the definitions, as used in practice, are all that clear cut.
"In the 1990s, several authorities asserted that ethnic cleansing as carried out by elements of the Bosnian Serb army was genocide;"
Is "ethnic cleansing" a better term? Maybe, but I used "ethnic cleansing" here, regarding Kiev's plans for the ethnic Russians living in Crimea, for example, and I was scolded that the term is just a crypto accusation of genocide.
Oh good grief, what absurd bullshit. Genocide, no fafo. Found out after multiple transgressions. Found out after thinking that once again the ignorant left would save them. Found out after Israel finally came to the conclusion that the palis would never stop. And note that no muslim country will take the palis as refugees, still. Retribution is a valid response to what the palis have done for decades. The palis are getting what they have earned, what they deserve. Also, the effects of muslim vermin on multiple western countries and communities, completely and only detrimental effects are demonstrated daily. The palis are every bit as poisonous. They fafo, they are enjoying the consequences of their actions . Why have the hostages not been released ? Because the sole aim and goal of the palis and iranians is the genocide of Israel and the Jews worldwide. Retribution is a legitimate response.
100% -- I voted against Trump and not for Harris.
The two worst (presidential) candidates in my 58 years...
I've never seen anybody be so proud of cutting off your nose to spite your face.
Re avoiding WWII
Historically, the French refrained from intervening to block Hitler's 1936 remilitarization of the Rhineland. Their cabinet made that decision based on a report from the Finance Ministry stating the cost of such a move would force them to take the franc off the gold standard and let it float. When the US and British governments, along with those two nations' banking industries, declined to extend the line of credit that would've been needed in order to head off such a potentially panic-inducing economic development, the French decided they couldn't afford to act.
The German military was convinced that, if France would have acted, Hitler would have been gone. Of course, no one knows what would have taken his place. Stalin was still interested in expanding communism and, although many like to ignore it, communism was one of the great killer of the twentieth century.
There are a lot of Jews currently living openly in Iran. Iran could easily kill them all, if they really believed that "all Jews must die." Iran has said a lot of things about the Jewish state that the victors in WWII created from the land of the defeated Ottoman Empire, but I would be curious to read any quotes from Iran that explicitly calls for the death of "all Jews." It sounds a lot like the same kind of mind reading that propagandists with agendas (redundant, I know) so often use.
"And note that no muslim country will take the palis as refugees."
You mean "participate in the ethnic cleansing of Gaza," don't you?
The stunning part of this is the blatant bias that the democrat media now display openly. There is not even a thought to being balanced at all. Listen to this "roundup" on CNN. Just a unabashed cheering for the democrat candidate. Completely open and unembarrassed. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=h0s9NS7j3Bc&t=70s
It would only be genocide if Israel were targeting civilians, they are not, Arabs are.
If Trump had been where Lincoln was he would have offered:
1) They can keep their slaves for 5 years.. then they have to release them all. And no more slaves. That gives them time to find other ways to plant and harvest crops.
2) Cash incentives to mitigate the loss of the slaves (why spend $$ on guns and soldiers when you can spend it giving them a way out?)
3) Use the industrialization of the North to help industrialize the South. It took the end of slavery to bring about cotton picking machines (1930s) It could have been done earlier if the need was that prevalent.
But no.. it was decided a war was needed and it cost:
The war cost an estimated $5.2 billion, or the equivalent of $90 billion today. And the deaths of approximately 620,000 people (and God knows how many were maimed...) And the South's economy remained below 1860 levels for the rest of the century.
Yea they should have made a deal...
Dim theme of the week--this week--is "Trump is unstable". They'll haul some other sort of bull dung out next week for another theme.
"It would only be genocide if Israel were targeting civilians"
Young people don't support Israel, it's way more than just a few radicals at Columbia, it's a generation, and young people don't want to fight in our army anymore. Those Americans who are cheering on the endless wars will inevitably age out of the US electorate, and Israel is going to have to face its enemies without the United States in a couple of decades. The sophistry about "genocide" and "targeting" populations doesn't play anymore. Maybe they should begin now by talking, rather than using US weapons to assassinate the leaders on the other side of the conflict.
"This remark fits with his determined insistence that if he'd been President, Russia would not have invaded Ukraine."
Russia invaded and then annexed the Crimean Peninsula from Ukraine in 2014 while Obama was President and then invaded Ukraine proper in 2022 during Biden's term. That lull in-between invasions was while Trump was President. I think Trump might have a point.
she said that in response to "it's a lie"
And, do really think your hero, Jeff Davis, was going to negotiate?
Japan had seized the French colony of Viet Nam (remember this name, it appears later in American history) and in response the US undertook an oil embargo of the Imperial Japan. So we had already committed low level acts of war against Japan. Then we concentrated our Pacific fleet at Pearl Harbor, at a time when we were carrying on this low level warfare on the Japanese Empire, oh, all except for the aircraft carriers, which we figured would be needing, when the Japanese undertook their "cowardly sneak attack."
The attack was stupid, they fell into FDR's trap, but it was not a "sneak attack" and it wasn't "cowardly," as they struck a plainly military target that was well armed and had every reason to be on its guard.
Buying the slaves is as realistic as buying all the AR-15s from gun owners in the US. There is no possibility of it ever being accepted by the South, not simply for economic reasons, but for moral and social reasons.
Really, Mark. If that’s what you’ve got, God bless.
I think Kamala’s distance is more of the pharmaceutical variety. A restrained alcoholism would probably make her a better, certainly more entertaining, orator. But comfortably numb will rob anyone of eloquence.
I remember watching HRC on the box after and during the Lewinsky hoo-ha and it was painfully obvious she was sedated. The pillowed haze she moved in was palpable.
Before the Islamic revolution, there were 80,000 to 100,000 jews in Iran and they had been there since the Babylonian exile. Now there are fewer than 10,000 and probably fewer than 9,000. But Tim in Vermont thinks things are just peachy for the few jews left. The Iranian theocracy says loudly and often that they want to eliminate jews worldwide, I don't think a remnant of a once large population still being allowed to live overrides their publicly proclaimed goals.
Your version of history is not history at all. The Mormons got along with the Native Americans. There is no historical record of the Mormons ever having a military battle with the U.S. Army, except to try to frustrate the Army’s movement toward the west to “quell the Mormon uprising” which was no uprising at all. The Mormons were trying to get away in the west to be left alone after all the mistreatment they got in the then United States, about which the United States government did absolutely nothing to protect them.
Slavery and Diversity were the original compromise to empathize with progressive pathos exercised with liberal license. A wicked solution to a hard problem. Deja vu.
No I don't. There is a excellent reason that no muslim country will take the pali "refugees" that has nothing to do with your asinine assertion of "ethnic cleansing". The reason is that pali "refugees" are poisonous to any society, indeed every society where they have been allowed to immigrate. Every single one and every single time. They are a poisonous and traitorous society. Further, they should be continued be treated as such. Perhaps you could house a few in your home.
Russia was legally present in force in Crimea. After the American-backed coup, a Slavic Spring, the Obama-backed regime denied services, and Russia provided humanitarian relief. They didn't have a compelling cause to back other Ukrainians until the American-led NATO backed escalation by the Kiev regime in progress. Then the Hamasidols took the stage invading Israel. And black lives in Africa still don't matter, where machetes are the rage raised with abortive ideation and joy.
Prior to 1800, slavery was common throughout the world. Including civilized European countries. By 1900, it was very rare worldwide.
The it was eradicated peacefully, without major wars.
The us was the only place that a major war was fought..
Someone needs to explain why Lincoln was a great president.
It would have been easy to end slavery without war. Expensive and morally repugnant, but easy. The federal govt could have bought and freed the slaves.
It would have been less expensive and less morally repugnant than the War between the States.
John Henry
If Belgium, Germany, France et al in the EU had militarily tried to prevent Britain leaving, would it have been called a "civil war"? Would it have met the definition of a "civil war"?
So why do we call our war of secession, war between the states, war of northern invasion a "Civil War?
I
english confuses me ! what is different in meaning
war against Iran [enemy] \of Israel/ v war with Iran [ally] \against Israel?/
The slave owners claimed it was a transhumane right. Today we have labor arbitrage: outsourcing, insourcing (e.g. immigration reform), and progressive prices. All's fair in lust and abortion.
I doubt a president trump could have stopped ww2 in 1939.he could have stopped it (and ww1) in 1913.or 1919 or even 1932.
But why should he? We had no dog in ww pt1 or part2.
Pretty much nobody in the us felt we had any business in europe# thousand year war. Most Americans had come here to escape the wars.
We were dragged kicking and screaming into them by 2 president's who lied about keeping us out of war. 2 president's who ran specifically on pledges to keep us out of the war.
Fuck you, Woodrow. Fuck you Franklin
I
Of course Trump thinks he could have negotiated a settlement over the slavery issue. Lincoln wasn’t even president when the rebels started surrounding Ft. Sumter. Op
Aught Severn,
The Germans had no treaty requiring them to e
Reado to war with Japan. We did not attack Japan.
On the other hand, fdr dad been waging hot war against Germany for a couple of years. Sinking German ships, occupying Iceland, giving arms to britain and more. All with no real authority
Read the German declaration of war of 12/15/41.read the reasons.
Once they declared war on us, fdr could declare war on them. But not before
John Henry
Cash for Clunker.
Arnie had a great, big singing voice. I worked with a reporter who for some reason made small talk about seeing Jesse Jackson's unit in a sauna. TMI
Quayle, there were Mormon-Indian battles. Probably defensive on the part of the LDS, but by modern standards it doesnt matter - all colonial genocide. And if you are frustrating an army’s movements by raiding their wagon trains, burning grasslands so their horses can’t eat, etc, you are “having a military battle.”
Dont get me wrong - I dont blame the LDS for sticking up for themselves.i do blame Kimball for reciting pious pacifist pabulum on the bicentennial, just after Vietnam, in the middle of the Cold War, in an election year, when both his denomination and the country as a whole used force of arms to create perhaps the best worldly implementation of Christian values yet.
JSM
"Civil War, Genitalia and Genocide" would be a great dissertation title.
Or maybe a great ad for a rock festival.
Probably more interesting than rehashing everything in the past with perfect 20-20 hindsight.
Trump is correct in not crowning Lincoln with certain greatness. One can only wonder why he kept regular United States Army troops stationed in Fort Sumter. The installation was unfinished and inadequately armed and provisioned. It could not resist even South Carolina's meager forces. Lincoln's own writings do not explain much. In short, he claimed that evacuating the fort would give tacit admission that the secessionist states had the right to do so, but that is far from necessarily true. Perhaps he left them in place to create a casus belli. If so, then Lincoln presidency could rightly be condemned as one of mere average probity without the vision or strategic acumen required to seek a peaceful route to re-unification. Imagine North America today if the Confederates had won their independence on the battlefield. If Lincoln did provoke the Civil War, then it was case of very risky gambling with the future the nation. Napoleon III was actively seeking French imperial expansion in the Americas. A stalemate between the North and the South could have invited French intervention on the side of the South. The British would have countered that move, probably from Canada -- the end of such a development is impossible to predict, but the likely outcomes are not favorable to today's reality.
Haiti was a bloody, murderous mess. In Brazil the emperor lost his throne. The US was the only place where the numbers of slaves and slaveowners made a four-year civil war likely. Elsewhere in the New World, there weren't either enough slaves or enough slaveowners to make such a war possible. In South America, Simon Bolivar was smart enough to eventually figure out that if the creoles were to get their independence from Spain they would have to give freedom to the slaves, thus substituting his war of independence for possible bloody conflicts between black and white. As noted above, US slaveowners weren't going to take any buyout so long as the price of cotton was high.
Britain and France both declared war on Nazi Germany in September of 1939 after its invasion of Poland. The President of the United States avoided war with Nazi Germany in 1939. FDR would continue to so throughout the entirety of 1940. It wasn't until midway through the last month of 1941 that the President urged war with Nazi Germany, and only after Hitler first declared against the US.
At worst, lonejustice, your argument makes Trump no different than FDR.
Lincoln did not want to admit that secession had happened. Keeping garrisons in the South on bought-and-paid-for federal property allowed the federal government to maintain the belief (or the fiction) that the union was intact. I would say that it probably is true that if all federal installations were abandoned, secession would be an accomplished and widely recognized fact.
1st, they will attach fart catchers to the cows. But it's a slippery slope.
"Who are the peacemakers?" This is a good question. When I was in the military, many years ago, we knew that the military's mission is to kill people and break things, should a war occur. It's much better to be so strong and appear so strong that your enemies don't mess with you, because they know it would be their funerals. If you appear weak, your enemies will take advantage of you. The seeming appearance of a little instability, as in the Trump years, can also be helpful in negotiating with adversaries. "My boss, President Trump, he's a little crazy... Who knows what might happen if you screw around, Ayatollah?"
Still, in the case of the Civil War, there were differences that were irreconcilable through negotiation. We live in a time when everyone knows that of course enslaving people is wrong. That was not the case in the decades leading up to the Civil War. Similarly, Israel and Iran's proxies have irreconcilable issues that were bound to result in war eventually, it's just that the bad guys tend to wait until the hegemon shows weakness. Putin and the Iranians (and their Hamas, Hezbollah and Houthi henchmen) didn't fool around when Trump was in the White House, but have ignored the Biden regime's mumbled "Don't!"s over the past few years.
The only reason Israel is bombing Hamas/Gaza today is because they didn't finish the job anytime in the last 40 years.
At some point Israel wipes Hamas out or they cease to exist.
If the people of Gaza don't want to be bombed they should wipe out Hamas too.
I just saw the connection between Trump's civil war quote and the SNL skit above. They're distorting what he said. He didn't say that the war had no resolution. He said that he didn't understand why the United States and the Confederated States couldn't negotiate a settlement that would have averted the war entirely.
I'm no Ken Burns, but I suspect that the only way the war could have been avoided would have been to allow for the nation to break up into two nations.
It's not a "genocide" and people who claim that it is don't know the meaning of the word, genocide. Israel is not trying to wipe out an entire race of people. Israel is trying to destroy a dangerous, terrorist organization that won't stop attacking them.
Lazarus writes, "I would say that it probably is true that if all federal installations were abandoned, secession would be an accomplished and widely recognized fact."
And you would be mistaken. The South was never recognized by a foreign power, even in the early years when the Confederacy was winning in the field. The South could have been defeated by economic means alone. It would have taken eight to ten years, but the result would have been similar. Before the secession, American cotton was already losing market share in Europe to other sources ranging from Africa and India to Azerbaijan. The secessionist idea that King Cotton would force the European powers to intervene on behalf in Southern independence was an illusion. The blockade portion of the Anaconda Plan alone would given time have pried the Confederacy apart state by state, starting with Tennessee, followed by North Carolina. Virginia would have rejoined the Union soon after. There was actually very little holding Virginia in the Confederacy except for the repeated invasions by Unionist armies. (Unionist soldier: "Why are you rebs fighting this war?" Confederate soldier: "Because you Yankees are here.")
Without that constant pressure on the Virginians pride, the bite of economic sanctions would have triggered the overthrow of secessionism in the Virginia legislature by 1867 or 1867.
Lincoln's call for volunteers played directly into the hands of the most rabid of the secessionist fire-eaters, and thereby guaranteed a bloodbath.
I suspect you are missing the Big Picture, JSM. He was not talking about our relatively brief time on this Earth, but our souls.
There are only about 8000 Jews left living in Iran, (a country of over 91 million people) but they're not allowed to be "openly Jewish." They have to toe the Islamic line.
"Iranian Jews remain under various discriminatory legal restrictions regarding their position in society. Jews are prohibited from holding significant governmental and decision-making positions. A Jew may not serve on the Guardian Council, as President, or as a military commander. Jews may not serve as judges, and aside from the seat reserved for a Jew in the Majlis, Jews may not become a member of the Majlis through general elections. A Jew may not inherit property from a Muslim. By law, if one member of a Jewish family converts to Islam, that person inherits all family property. Jews also do not have equal rights to Qisas, or retribution, in the Iranian judicial system. For example, if a Jew were to kill a Muslim, the family of the victim would have the right to ask that the death penalty be imposed, but if a Muslim kills a Jew, the penalty would be left to the discretion of the judges with the wishes of the victim's family carrying no legal weight"
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iranian_Jews
Once again rhhardin says what needs to be said…
“The Mormons were trying to get away in the west to be left alone after all the mistreatment they got in the then United States, about which the United States government did absolutely nothing to protect them.”
e.g., they call Missouri the “Show Me” state. They don’t show me shit. 💩
Who won the playoff between Arnold Palmer and Forrest Tucker?
Great Britain had very few slaves actually in Great Britain; most were in colonies like Bermuda, and were owned by very wealthy individuals and corporations that were not located in Bermuda. Any social problem with freed slaves would not be faced by those owners, and they were also able to cut their losses as plantation owners with preferential buying and pricing of their agricultural products.
Slavery in the American South was quite different--the owners were mainly wealthy simply by selling the produce of the land they themselves lived on and directed. And they had reason, based on their own face-to-face mistreatment of slaves, to fear the results of emancipation.
Finally, for the government to pay to free the slaves would require from the government huge taxation or other fundraising that was not legally permitted then.
There's no reason why anyone has to wonder why there was no offer to pay slaveowners in exchange for the release of their slaves, because that policy was actively pursued by Lincoln at the early stages of the war. It went nowhere because the southern and border state legislatures opposed it. The only place where "compensated emancipation" was achieved was the District of Columbia, where slave owners were offered market prices and the federal government ruled the city.
Compensated emancipation had to be proposed to the states because it was a matter of state law at the time. If a state refused to abolish slavery within its borders, a "buyback" policy by the federal government wouldn't have eliminated slavery in that state any more than a handgun-buyback policy eliminates handguns in the cities that try it.
Neither Trump nor any public figure can answer the following Civil War question: How many Americans have to die before you would say Lincoln was wrong to fight, to save the union by force & killing? 100k? 500k? 1 million? 10 million? US pop 1860 just over 31 million, 1% is 310k.
Destroying the country to save the Union is a bit like killing your kids to stop your wife from divorcing you and leaving with 4 of 10 kids.
we could have settled things with Hitler and avoided World War II.
I wasn't aware 'we' had anything going on with Hitler.
Chances are, if Trump was president, we never set foot in Europe during WW II. And there's a strong argument for that.
Again, your TrumpHate is making you stupid.
True. By the time Lincoln took office, his options were (a) accept the dissolution of The Union, or (b) Fight to preserve the Union. If Trump is elected in 2024, he will have to deal with similar realities. He can blame his predecessors for the choices they left him, or her can deal with them.
Tougher choices for Kamala, of course, because she was part of the Administration that put us into this forked up situation.
Iman, yes certainly Kimball was talking about our souls. But he was missing the big picture of the precarious 70s. You give a speech like that after you’ve beaten your enemies, not right after they’ve beaten you. Unless you love the idea of millions of depressed people as potential converts.
Imagine the archbishop of Canterbury giving that speech during the Blitz. Winston would have burned him at the stake!
JSM
PS: did you know your handle autocorrects to “I am?” Very eerie in the middle of a religious discussion.
JSM
Trump knows Lincoln was a tyrant. Couldn’t love him more.
Fort Sumter denialism
@Tom Grey
Lincoln already gave us the answer to that one.
"Fondly do we hope ~ fervently do we pray ~ that this mighty scourge of war may speedily pass away. Yet, if God wills that it continue until all the wealth piled by the bondsman's two hundred and fifty years of unrequited toil shall be sunk and until every drop of blood drawn with the lash shall be paid by another drawn with the sword as was said three thousand years ago so still it must be said 'the judgments of the Lord are true and righteous altogether.'"
Straighten up!
Trying again...
Typographic Kombat
Trump does share similar experience to Lincoln regarding Gun Violence.
Trump is basically Stephen Douglas. He would have let the south secede and have the remaining states decide for themselves if they want one group of people to own another group of people as property. THAT is how Trump would have avoided the Civil War.
Mark, the real question is: would peace have gotten black equality sooner? And/or, would peace plus slavery have been a better outcome than a half million deaths plus Jim Crow? Those are legitimate, non-simplistic questions.
Hell, if you ask the black “leaders,” they are still not free, so I guess a half million white boys died for nothing.
Stephen Douglas doesn’t look that bad in 20/20 hindsight. Neither does the Lincoln of the L-D debates, who flat out said he did not want black equality.
JSM
loudogblog. "genocide" and "ethnic clensing" are used as emotional triggers when you can't make a reasoned argument. It helps to paint the losers as victims of someone elses aggression.
The "peaceful natives" that greeted Columbus on Hispaniola had just finished killing, enslaving and feasting on the tribe that had previously inhabited the island. Far from being the exception, it was a preview of the outright savagery of the entire new world. "Genocide" my ass.
And France and Norway and the Baltic states, eastern Europe and North Africa.
And Hitler would still have invaded Russia. But yeah, other than that he would have been "contained".
Dumb ass alternate histories always rely on ignoring the facts.
You can't buy what's not for sale. All of these "gosh! they could have avoided a war!" nonsense posts ignore the most important aspect of American slavery in the runup to the civil war: Slave states and owners were aggressively attempting to expand slavery to new areas. THIS is the most important fact of slavery in the 1850s - the "slave interest" was aggressively pushing for more slavery, even to the point of proposing annexing parts of Mexico and establishing more slave states. This expansion was non-negotiable. There was no way that slaveholders were going to agree that they would give up their slaves, even if compensated by the federal government (which was proposed and rejected in various plans during the 1850s).
Alternative histories of WWII are the same: They ignore that Germany, Japan, and Italy were aggressively expanding their areas of control. Not one of the proposed and theoretical histories take into account that the "negotiations" would have been with governments that were aggressively expanding and who had no reason to believe they were negotiating from a position of weakness such that they would agree to anything that would thwart their plans for expansion.
Unless Lincoln was willing to accede to the expansion of slavery into the new states of the west, and unless FDR was willing to allow the occupation of the Sudeten and an eventual invasion of Russia, there is nothing that these theoretical negotiations would have been able to do to stop the wars.
The EU and the United States are very, very different in construct. Your parallel is false.
Please note that "civil war" has a definition, and it fits what happened when the Southern states started a war to preserve slavery.
"In short, he claimed that evacuating the fort would give tacit admission that the secessionist states had the right to do so, but that is far from necessarily true."
Lincoln's writings may not shed much light in the question, but the writings of other leaders and the public make it very clear that a withdrawal would have been seen as approval for the secession. Since it was still unclear whether secession was legal, the South Carolinians pushing the question made it necessary for Lincoln to decide. If they had just cooled their heels for a while longer, there would have been room for negotiation to start or continue. But no, the slaveholders couldn't wait and set an ultimatum. The fault isn't Lincoln's, the fault is the South Carolinians.
I am always impressed by modern people who think they know better than those who lived the events. That's the heart of being a Progressive.
You are ignoring the fact that the slaveholders were pushing to force non-slaveholding states to recognize slavery. There were to be no "free" states according to the slaveholders. So Douglas' plan was already a dead letter when he proposed it.
To answer your persistent question about Jim Crow: There was no slavery or reconstruction in the states of the North. Did these northern states get to de facto (vs de jure) equality for blacks before, at the same time as, or after the blacks who lived under Jim Crow?
Biden and his Border Czar enabled contemporary slavery via "surge" of the border via Cartels and and corrupt NGOs.
একটি মন্তব্য পোস্ট করুন