What does a TRUMP presidency look like?

[Admiral Yi]

Washington and Jefferson are going to be a head ache.

[Valmy]

Washington and Jefferson are going to be a head ache.

Maybe.

I have always thought it is insane to name your army bases and other things after people who fought against the federal government.  Those traitors should be hung and condemned. 

It is not so insane when you think about it. The point was to get the loyalty of people who considered them heroes, so you coopt them.

[The Larch]

It seems that Trump is rushing out as much nastiness as possible before the elections.

Trump admin to Supreme Court: Let adoption agencies reject LGBTQ families

In the latest example of the Trump administration seeking to enable legal discrimination against LGBTQ people, the Justice Department is calling on the U.S. Supreme Court to allow religious-affiliated adoption agencies to refuse child placement into LGBTQ homes.

In a 35-page brief, U.S. Solicitor General Noel Francisco and other Justice Department attorneys maintain the City of Philadelphia has "impermissibly discriminated against religious exercise" under the First Amendment by requiring Catholic Social Services to abide by a contract requiring LGBTQ non-discrimination practices in child placement.

[viper37]

Viper, what are you going on about?

Same as always.  Racial problems in the US goes beyond simple Pious North vs Evil Southern seperatists.

The Confederates were no worst than the Loyalists an hundred years earlier.  They lost the battle, and they get demonized, but some people are still proud of them, and I understand that, however misguided it is.

Canada has a lot of momuments and places named for extremely racist&imperialist people, like Simcoe, who refused to honored the deals the Iroquois made with the British government for lands in Ontario and who considered them as vassals of the Empire, not as equals.  Or Lord Durham who considered French Canadians an inferior species who should be assimilated for their own good.  Or John A. McDonald who starved indians so they who abandon their land claims in order for the railroad to be built.  British generals who burnt everything in New France, who paid for indian or French scalps.  English Canadians still refuse to admit any wrongdoing against the French Canadian nation of this country, and they view any resistance to British encroachment as criminality.

Apparently, it's no big deal.

The position of Valmy (and others) always seemed to be that to be proud of your nation is the purest form of evilness to ever exist, and I will always contend that.  Shermann didn't considered blacks equal to whites, couldn't care less about slavery, always refused to integrate blacks in his regiments.  Grant expelled Jews from the territories he controlled.

Yet, they are heroes of the United States.

Unlike Lee and others.  Because they seceded from their country?  Like Jefferson and Washington did?

Slavery is just an excuse.  Race relations in the US go way beyond that simple excuse.  If people want to honor their military leaders, I see no problem with that, as long as they do have some valid military accomplishment.  Having a statue of Lee is no worst than having a statue of Simcoe or naming a city Moncton.  People are the products of their time.

I will judge racists for their actions of today.  Not for their misguided love of a symbol of the past  I ain't gonna blame Washington for having slaves, nor am I gonna blame your founding fathers for not emancipating all slaves in 1776.

I don't think it's a wise idea to remove some belgian king statue either, unless we decide to remove the statues of nearly all historical figures from everywhere, including all British Kings&Queens since the 1500s.

All you're doing right now is comforting the Republicans in their well entranched ideas that Trump is a rempart against chaos.

[viper37]

It seems that Trump is rushing out as much nastiness as possible before the elections.

Trump admin to Supreme Court: Let adoption agencies reject LGBTQ families

In the latest example of the Trump administration seeking to enable legal discrimination against LGBTQ people, the Justice Department is calling on the U.S. Supreme Court to allow religious-affiliated adoption agencies to refuse child placement into LGBTQ homes.

In a 35-page brief, U.S. Solicitor General Noel Francisco and other Justice Department attorneys maintain the City of Philadelphia has "impermissibly discriminated against religious exercise" under the First Amendment by requiring Catholic Social Services to abide by a contract requiring LGBTQ non-discrimination practices in child placement.

Freedom or religion.  Raz will support Trump on this, evidently.  Being against freedom of religion makes you a racist, so I was told.

[The Brain]

How many religions require adoption?

[Razgovory]

It seems that Trump is rushing out as much nastiness as possible before the elections.

Trump admin to Supreme Court: Let adoption agencies reject LGBTQ families

In the latest example of the Trump administration seeking to enable legal discrimination against LGBTQ people, the Justice Department is calling on the U.S. Supreme Court to allow religious-affiliated adoption agencies to refuse child placement into LGBTQ homes.

In a 35-page brief, U.S. Solicitor General Noel Francisco and other Justice Department attorneys maintain the City of Philadelphia has "impermissibly discriminated against religious exercise" under the First Amendment by requiring Catholic Social Services to abide by a contract requiring LGBTQ non-discrimination practices in child placement.

Freedom or religion.  Raz will support Trump on this, evidently.  Being against freedom of religion makes you a racist, so I was told.

Your hatred of Trump is weird, because his policies are pretty much the same as the ones you promote.  Nationalism.

[Razgovory]

Viper, what are you going on about?

Same as always.  Racial problems in the US goes beyond simple Pious North vs Evil Southern seperatists.

The Confederates were no worst than the Loyalists an hundred years earlier.  They lost the battle, and they get demonized, but some people are still proud of them, and I understand that, however misguided it is.

Canada has a lot of momuments and places named for extremely racist&imperialist people, like Simcoe, who refused to honored the deals the Iroquois made with the British government for lands in Ontario and who considered them as vassals of the Empire, not as equals.  Or Lord Durham who considered French Canadians an inferior species who should be assimilated for their own good.  Or John A. McDonald who starved indians so they who abandon their land claims in order for the railroad to be built.  British generals who burnt everything in New France, who paid for indian or French scalps.  English Canadians still refuse to admit any wrongdoing against the French Canadian nation of this country, and they view any resistance to British encroachment as criminality.

Apparently, it's no big deal.

The position of Valmy (and others) always seemed to be that to be proud of your nation is the purest form of evilness to ever exist, and I will always contend that.  Shermann didn't considered blacks equal to whites, couldn't care less about slavery, always refused to integrate blacks in his regiments.  Grant expelled Jews from the territories he controlled.

Yet, they are heroes of the United States.

Unlike Lee and others.  Because they seceded from their country?  Like Jefferson and Washington did?

Slavery is just an excuse.  Race relations in the US go way beyond that simple excuse.  If people want to honor their military leaders, I see no problem with that, as long as they do have some valid military accomplishment.  Having a statue of Lee is no worst than having a statue of Simcoe or naming a city Moncton.  People are the products of their time.

I will judge racists for their actions of today.  Not for their misguided love of a symbol of the past  I ain't gonna blame Washington for having slaves, nor am I gonna blame your founding fathers for not emancipating all slaves in 1776.

I don't think it's a wise idea to remove some belgian king statue either, unless we decide to remove the statues of nearly all historical figures from everywhere, including all British Kings&Queens since the 1500s.

All you're doing right now is comforting the Republicans in their well entranched ideas that Trump is a rempart against chaos.

Valmy didn't say any of that.

[Sheilbh]

From the Fox interview:

Trump: I think I've done more for the black community than any other President and let's take a pass on Abraham Lincoln because he did good but although it's always questionable, you know in other words the end result
Harris: Well we are free Mr. President

I sort of wish they hadn't interrupted so we could hear how Lincoln's good was questionable

[Razgovory]

From the Fox interview:

Trump: I think I've done more for the black community than any other President and let's take a pass on Abraham Lincoln because he did good but although it's always questionable, you know in other words the end result
Harris: Well we are free Mr. President

I sort of wish they hadn't interrupted so we could hear how Lincoln's good was questionable

Yeah, she could see where that was going.

[Valmy]

Prove me that the North was a paradise of racial harmony during and after the Civil War, and I'll grant you the point.

That was not my point since I don't live in this bizarre strawman you created where race relations are a binary state where you are either a paradise of racial harmony or the Belgian Congo. But hey I guess since you clearly know my point better than me perhaps you will let me know what my point is...since all I was saying was that yes the north was racist, I mean fuck dude we are having our current problems because of the murder of a black man by the Minneapolis police are we not, but there was still a significant difference between the regions as far as granting rights to black people were concerned. Which says more about what kinds of shit we were doing here in the South than necessarily big praise for the north

But still it was the Northern States that passed the XIII, XIV, and XV amendments to the Constitution. That was big. But why that would mean that the north was a paradise or some kind of candy land...I am not sure.

Prove me that the North was absolutely against moving in indian territories and displacing its innoccupants, and I'll grant you the point.

Nobody was saying anything about the American Indians.

He was a Federal President, in a Federal administration consisting of Northerners, and Southerners and many others.  So, who objected?  Who dissented?  Who revolted? Who went public saying this made no sense 40 years after the South surrendered?  Who publically refused to serve in such an administration?  Did the policy appear with Wilson and disapeared with him?

Yeah see after the Civil War we re-unified the country so Southerners could have high positions in the Federal Government again. And his party, the Democrats, were the party running Jim Crow in the south. And reconciling with the south and getting them back into the fold led to a lot of acceptance of redemptionist ideas. Which was what I was saying and was part of my point. In any case lots of people hated Woodrow Wilson.

I did not say it was.

Ok but...I thought you were claiming the situation north and south was equivalent and you were making statements suggesting that.

Yes, they did do segregation.

Why are you bringing this up? I never at any time claimed otherwise. However it was hardly universal.

School segregation only disappeared through the 40s, after many suits brought by the NAACP.

I mean it is still a problem in much of the country today.

Meanwhile, in Oregon:

The state of Oregon went farther than even any of the Southern states, specifically excluding blacks from entering the state, or from owning property within it. School integration did not come about until the Mid 1970s. As of 2017, the population of Oregon was about 2% black

Hardly the Deep South.

What? Are we now bringing up western states? They have their own issues. What does that have to do with what I was talking about? And who claimed Oregon was in the deep south?

Lots of people who voted for Donald Trump ended up losing their medical coverage.  This prooves what, exactly?

I was pointing out how different the Democratic Party was north and south, and how different the circumstances of blacks were in those two parts of the country, that such a mind blowing bizarre circumstance came about. I am not sure what medical coverage has to do with anything.

What I find disingenous is specifically targetting the Southerners as being responsible for segregation and civil rights issues, as if the North had always been angelic.

That would be very much disingenous. Nobody has claimed that. You, on the other hand, seemed to be claiming equivalence which is equally disingenous.

The South fought to preserve slavery, but the North never fought to promote equal rights to blacks, or anyone else.

Maybe. But they did use their victory to pass three amendments to the Constitution guaranteeing just that. Surely that counts for something? Besides, as I said, they did allow blacks to vote and be citizens.

At the beginning of the war the Northerners did not even fight to end slavery,

Well that is just a lie, there were significant numbers of abolitionists in the north and they started freeing the slaves almost immediately despite it not being government policy. But even the northerners who were not exactly interested in ending slavery in the south they were interested in ending it in the territories. Plus even those who didn't want either of those things still, by and large, hated the power of the slave owners.

But I think you could say a majority did not think they were fighting to free the slaves, at least at first, but lots of them did.

Lincoln had to wait until a major military victory to abolish the institution, for fear the people would not support his governent through this.  Why not when the southern States seceded?  Why not just after they fired on Fort Sumter?

Well first of all Lincoln lacked the ability to do that. What he did was to announce that he had the power to free the slaves in the areas in rebellion, which is a legal interpretation but not exactly one well defined. And in any case slaves had been being freed already. And Lincoln, as President, was generally behind the more radical members of the Republican party on this issue.

And why they didn't just pass a new Constitutional amendment in 1861 is pretty straightforward. They were trying to keep Missouri, Kentucky, Maryland, and Delaware onside.

Speaking of which, why was the North not mobilized (in a non military meaning) until after the Confederates fired on Fort Sumter?  Since they were all good guys intent on promoting racial equality?

Ok they weren't good guys. They were just people. I am not sure why I need to point that out. I don't understand the first part. Lincoln had only been in office for a little over a month when that happened. What are you even talking about?

Until 1950, how many States prohibited mixed-race marriages? How many States actually enforced anti-segregation laws everywhere?

Lots.

Prove me wrong on all these points, and I'll concede that racism in the US was and still is a strictly southern problem, aggravated by the Civil War.

Well prove to me that it was just as good to be a black man in 1885 Mississippi as it is to be a black man in 2020 Mississippi and I will concede that there are not any differences between the way racism played out in all places and at all times in the United States.

If you prove me that no Union officer ever expressed an opinion, or ever acted against racial harmony during his carreer, I'll even concede the point that the South were the antique version of Cobra and the North the G.I. Joe.

I don't think southerners were Cobra, they were human beings as well. They weren't evil. However we do have to be honest with the things they did and not try to sugar coat it by claiming equivalence.

[Valmy]

Same as always.  Racial problems in the US goes beyond simple Pious North vs Evil Southern seperatists.

Is this why you are doing this? THIS HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH SEPARATISM AND QUEBEC. It is not about you.

Just because the Confederates were trying to build and expand a slave society does not mean that all separatists want to do that.

[HVC]

But all separatists ARE evil. You know, just saying

[Solmyr]

But all separatists ARE evil. You know, just saying

[Barrister]

But all separatists ARE evil. You know, just saying

I agree.

George Washington was a traitor.