Trump's odd remarks on the Civil War

[Sociopathicsteelerfan]

(05-02-2017, 10:56 AM)Belsnickel Wrote: I have a hard time with looking at conservative values between those two. The reason is that, quite frankly, neither is very conservative. Sure, they have some of the ideological stances that we associate with the word, but overall when we look at their positions one would be hard pressed to call either one a conservative.

I think we are too often conflating Republican and conservative, the same for Democrat and liberal. These things are not the same. Both parties have very big tents as far as ideological stances, it's the nature of the two-party system we have. I think the issue is that while Bush II had some things that weren't conservative, they were still seen as very traditional Republican ideals. What I find interesting with Trump is that some of his positions are just anti-Republican as well (his trade issues, for example).

I'd go a step further and state that both terms have been rendered meaningless.  Democrat or Republican has literally become a word that clearly delineates how someone is supposed to feel or think about a catalog of issues.  Are you pro choice, you are a Democrat.  This has become so pronounced that the head of the DNC (who looks strikingly like Medicated Pete btw) that the party is closed to you if you are not pro choice.  Are you pro gun ownership, then you are a Republican.  I could go on but I know you get the point.  All nuance has been left miles behind us.  Ideological purity is demanded now and no deviation is permissible.  One need look no further than the more extreme ideological posters on this board to see it in action.

Quote:Regardless of all of that, it's hard to apply labels anyway. I posted a comic that made this statement, and every day I see it as more and more true. Almost no one really has a political ideology, we all just hold ad-hoc opinions that can change depending on what we see as most beneficial for us at the time.

On some fringe issues, sure.  On the core ones that continue to come up on a regular basis, no.

[Dill]

(05-02-2017, 11:51 AM)Millhouse Wrote: What I dont get is why Trump thinks Jackson would have prevented the war from happening. Would he have abolished slavery & get the rest of the South's approval in doing so? I dont think so.

Is there any reason to believe that Trump was mulling over different outcomes of the Missouri Compromise, perhaps imagining how changes in political demographics between 1832 and 1861 might have allowed a southern candidate to win and reach a better compromise with both abolitionists and slavers?   Perhaps Congress could have increased the federal ratio from three fifths to four fifths in return for a cap on future slave states? Perhaps if Jackson were president in 1854 he could have managed the Kansas Nebraska Act in a more compromising fashion--maybe by cancelling the reservation treaties for that territory and giving that land to the slavers while keeping the remainder free?

Or is it more likely that Trump has heard some people compare him to Jackson. Now he is imagining and constructing a 19th century counterpart to himself with some bits of history he has heard. Jackson is "strong," but had a "big heart"; had he been president in '61 there would have been a "huge" compromise--the best deal in history.  

Most people don't even know that Lincoln was a Republican. The party needs to get the word out through super pacs and the like. Donald is doing something like that here--just raising the American people's consciousness and knowledge of history, in part by analogizing past presidencies to his. It's still about him.

[fredtoast]

These comments about Jackson are indeed puzzling. But when I saw the title of the thread regarding Trump's comments on the Civil War I was expecting quotes about Iron Man and Captain America.

[masterpanthera_t]

(05-02-2017, 12:18 PM)Dill Wrote: Is there any reason to believe that Trump was mulling over different outcomes of the Missouri Compromise, perhaps imagining how changes in political demographics between 1832 and 1861 might have allowed a southern candidate to win and reach a better compromise with both abolitionists and slavers?   

Or is it more likely that Trump has heard some people compare him to Jackson. Now he is imagining and constructing a 19th century counterpart to himself with some bits of history he has heard. Jackson is "strong," but had a "big heart"; had he been president in '61 there would have been a "huge" compromise--the best deal in history.  

No, based on the relative level of being informed on topics seen so far.  

Likely true on your second point.

[BmorePat87]

(05-02-2017, 12:18 PM)Dill Wrote: Is there any reason to believe that Trump was mulling over different outcomes of the Missouri Compromise, perhaps imagining how changes in political demographics between 1832 and 1861 might have allowed a southern candidate to win and reach a better compromise with both abolitionists and slavers?   Perhaps Congress could have increased the federal ratio from three fifths to four fifths in return for a cap on future slave states? Perhaps if Jackson were president in 1854 he could have managed the Kansas Nebraska Act in a more compromising fashion--maybe by cancelling the reservation treaties for that territory and giving that land to the slavers while keeping the remainder free?

Or is it more likely that Trump has heard some people compare him to Jackson. Now he is imagining and constructing a 19th century counterpart to himself with some bits of history he has heard. Jackson is "strong," but had a "big heart"; had he been president in '61 there would have been a "huge" compromise--the best deal in history.  

Most people don't even know that Lincoln was a Republican. The party needs to get the word out through super pacs and the like. Donald is doing something like that here--just raising the American people's consciousness and knowledge of history, in part by analogizing past presidencies to his. It's still about him.

(05-02-2017, 03:27 PM)masterpanthera_t Wrote: No, based on the relative level of being informed on topics seen so far.  

Likely true on your second point.

Apparently Bannon is the Jackson fan, so he's probably feeding a lot of it to Trump. Based on his work as a documentary film maker, his visions seem in line with what Trump is spewing out. 

The only other tweet Trump made about Jackson prior to Bannon being in his ear was once that referenced how Van Buren being elected after Jackson was the last time a Democrat was elected after a Democrat held office for two terms. Of course, that is intellectually dishonest because it would have us not look at the election of Truman in 1948 after 4 elections won by FDR by qualifying it as needing 2 terms. 

[masterpanthera_t]

(05-02-2017, 03:33 PM)BmorePat87 Wrote: Apparently Bannon is the Jackson fan, so he's probably feeding a lot of it to Trump. Based on his work as a documentary film maker, his visions seem in line with what Trump is spewing out. 

The only other tweet Trump made about Jackson prior to Bannon being in his ear was once that referenced how Van Buren being elected after Jackson was the last time a Democrat was elected after a Democrat held office for two terms. Of course, that is intellectually dishonest because it would have us not look at the election of Truman in 1948 after 4 elections won by FDR by qualifying it as needing 2 terms. 

Seems very plausible.  In fact, I would wonder even if the "fact" in the initial tweet was something which was brought to his attention by someone else, as Trump doesn't give any impression of being a historian neither of U.S. history, nor the world.  This wouldn't be a talking point, but for the fact that Trump's tweets seem to be made with an air of intellectual athority on the subject matter, which naturally invite scrutiny.  The interesting thing about the tweet you mentioned is that, even if the qualification of two terms was implied, then it weakens his argument even more, as one could argue that FDR himself was elected as a democrat after a two term democrat held office (of course FDR would basically be following himself here), followed by Truman, so you could say that a Democrat was elected twice after another one held office for two terms. However, to me this seems more trivia than anything necessarily relevant, except for the fact that Trump himself brought it up.

[Sabretooth]

(05-01-2017, 05:13 PM)Matt_Crimson Wrote: Trump should really stop acting like he knows what he's talking about. I'd respect the guy more if he admitted he doesn't know all that much ..

fixed

[Rotobeast]

(05-02-2017, 11:05 AM)Bengalzona Wrote: I could not say which is more intelligent.

But I can say this, Bush was much wiser.

This....

Bush at least knew when/how to shut his mouth.

[BmorePat87]

(05-02-2017, 03:48 PM)masterpanthera_t Wrote: Seems very plausible.  In fact, I would wonder even if the "fact" in the initial tweet was something which was brought to his attention by someone else, as Trump doesn't give any impression of being a historian neither of U.S. history, nor the world. 

Yea, he came out and said he didn't read any presidential biographies, common practice for the two major candidates late in the campaign. 

[oncemoreuntothejimbreech]

It's too damn bad none of the states who seceded issued a letter of secession explaining why they seceded. I guess Trump will never know why there was a civil war in America. Just one of life's many unexplained mysteries.

[Belsnickel]

(05-03-2017, 08:20 AM)BmorePat87 Wrote: Yea, he came out and said he didn't read any presidential biographies, common practice for the two major candidates late in the campaign. 

Probably why he was surprised at how difficult the job is.

[GMDino]

(05-03-2017, 09:06 AM)Belsnickel Wrote: Probably why he was surprised at how difficult the job is.

OT but I really think the problem is we elected a "business man".  He just doesn't understand how anything works because he's never had to make anything he work.  He just issues orders and then casts blame and accepts praise.

[BmorePat87]

(05-03-2017, 09:17 AM)GMDino Wrote: OT but I really think the problem is we elected a "business man".  He just doesn't understand how anything works because he's never had to make anything he work.  He just issues orders and then casts blame and accepts praise.

He also isn't a traditional businessman. He has run private companies that former executives have described as family run organizations with little structure and organization. Decisions are made on a whim and responsibilities aren't clear at the top. It's a bunch of people saying yes to what he wanted to do. His few publicly traded businesses were the ones that failed horribly. 

So there's a reason why he is now complaining about Congress being archaic/complicated, how things get in his way, and why he uses executive orders so much. He is used to doing whatever he wants and when it all came crashing down, there was enough family money to keep him going until he made it back on TV.

[masterpanthera_t]

(05-03-2017, 08:48 AM)oncemoreuntothejimbreech Wrote: It's too damn bad none of the states who seceded issued a letter of secession explaining why they seceded. I guess Trump will never know why there was a civil war in America. Just one of life's many unexplained mysteries.

But look at it from his point of view.  Nobody told him so it's not a real thing, until they told him.  Just like after a 10 minute conversation with Xi, the whole view of China's ability to help with N.Korea changed.  Not that it's up to him to be well informed on the subject on his own or anything.  I'm sure he will be changing his mind soon, and compare himself more to Lincoln once "new" information reaches his ears.

[Dill]

(05-03-2017, 09:17 AM)GMDino Wrote: OT but I really think the problem is we elected a "business man".  He just doesn't understand how anything works because he's never had to make anything he work.  He just issues orders and then casts blame and accepts praise.

(05-03-2017, 09:37 AM)BmorePat87 Wrote: He also isn't a traditional businessman. He has run private companies that former executives have described as family run organizations with little structure and organization. Decisions are made on a whim and responsibilities aren't clear at the top. It's a bunch of people saying yes to what he wanted to do. His few publicly traded businesses were the ones that failed horribly. 

So there's a reason why he is now complaining about Congress being archaic/complicated, how things get in his way, and why he uses executive orders so much. He is used to doing whatever he wants and when it all came crashing down, there was enough family money to keep him going until he made it back on TV.

I might add, it was also a lot of people telling him how great he was while they said yes.

And all of this was apparent from the get go. That's why so many pundits were calling his candidacy a joke. Then he smoked the party competition and finally (with some help from the FBI and Russia) Hillary.

And the win has become proof for his base that he must know what he is doing. The pundits--all experts, really, including judges--are still wrong. On to North Korea now, and then the Iran deal . . . .

[oncemoreuntothejimbreech]

“How would they know that?” Mr. Trump asked when told that local historians had called his plaque a fiction. “Were they there?”

How would Trump know Jackson had a "big heart"?  Was He there?  Did they meet?

[Rotobeast]

(05-04-2017, 09:37 AM)oncemoreuntothejimbreech Wrote: “How would they know that?” Mr. Trump asked when told that local historians had called his plaque a fiction. “Were they there?”

How would Trump know Jackson had a "big heart"?  Was He there?  Did they meet?

He paid to have him exhumed and examined.


(It started as an obsession with comparing hand sizes with past presidents and got a little weirder)
(BTW.... I know Jackson has been turned to dust for a long time, just roll with it)