Jump to content

 
Search In
  • More options...
Find results that contain...
Find results in...
NipkowDisc

The Triumph of Donald Trump

Recommended Posts

1 hour ago, TheCid said:

Civil wars are conflicts between two opposing groups in one country.  Does not have to be geographical divisions, although that is frequent as in the American Civil War.

Regardless, there is zero likelihood of civil war in US.  IF there was one, it would not be based on any of the principles which Jefferson Davis stood for.

 I beg to disagree. You're saying Jefferson Davis didn't stand for white supremacy?

Just want to hear what you have to say about that?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, hamradio said:

 

Jake how in the heck can we have a civil war when there is no clear physical boundaries  like during the Jefferson Davis era.  Are the Democrats and Republicans planning to move to opposite sides of the Mississippi and slug it out?

At worse can expect sporadic rioting and bar room brawls.  There is a thing called Martial Law.

Ham, you make a good point here.

As a college student protesting the Vietnam War along with a lot of other college students, our governor put us under martial law to shut us up. Brought in the National Guard, locked us in the dorms and cancelled school and that was that.

We saw tanks going down streets on the campus.

I wasn't 21 yet, but I'd already lived under martial law in the United States.

As you can remember, at Kent State a college student was murdered by the National Guard.

BTW-- We were actively protesting the Nixon Cambodia Incursion in May of 1970.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Princess of Tap said:

Ham, you make a good point here.

As a college student protesting the Vietnam War along with a lot of other college students, our governor put us under martial law to shut us up. Brought in the National Guard, locked us in the dorms and cancelled school and that was that.

We saw tanks going down streets on the campus.

I wasn't 21 yet, but I'd already lived under martial law in the United States.

As you can remember, at Kent State a college student was murdered by the National Guard.

BTW-- We were actively protesting the Nixon Cambodia Incursion in May of 1970.

 

scalawag!

:D

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Gershwin fan said:

There are certainly still racists around who defend that man and defend the ideals he stood for. You don't even have to travel far from this board for that. I suspect any potential modern Civil War would end up like the Russian civil war with fifty different fractions brawling. The Evangelicals could be the American Basmachis. :lol:

Or we could be like the British and have a War of the Roses.

Don't disagree about the defenders of Jefferson Davis and those who still espouse his "principles," but fortunately they are not enough to create an actual army and air force.  A few guys running around in the woods doesn't count.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Princess of Tap said:

 I beg to disagree. You're saying Jefferson Davis didn't stand for white supremacy?

Just want to hear what you have to say about that?

Jefferson Davis, just like Abraham Lincoln, believed in white supremacy.

I am saying that the principles to which poster was referring are not strong enough in the US today for the required number of people to create and finance an actual civil war.  The only principle that Davis held that is somewhat viable is States Rights and the courts and events have pretty well killed that as being sufficient enough to cause a civil war.

Protests, court cases, illegal activities - yes; a civil war - no.

  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The principle of white supremacy has grown less popular, but it has no need to

reassert itself, it's always been present.

  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Princess of Tap said:

Ham, you make a good point here.

As a college student protesting the Vietnam War along with a lot of other college students, our governor put us under martial law to shut us up. Brought in the National Guard, locked us in the dorms and cancelled school and that was that.

We saw tanks going down streets on the campus.

I wasn't 21 yet, but I'd already lived under martial law in the United States.

As you can remember, at Kent State a college student was murdered by the National Guard.

BTW-- We were actively protesting the Nixon Cambodia Incursion in May of 1970.

 

As I said earlier, civil wars are not based upon geographical boundaries.  They are based upon political, economic, religious and many other reasons.  

Your experiences with the Vietnam protests in whatever state you were in had no relationship to the foundations for a civil war.  The governor, will the full consent of the Federal government, placed the area under martial law to stop "rioting" or other "threats to the populace and good order."  While may not agree with that rationale, it has nothing to do with founding a civil war.

Martial law is not the foundation for a civil war.  Protesting the government's actions is not a foundation for a civil war.  At least not in US history.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
23 minutes ago, Vautrin said:

The principle of white supremacy has grown less popular, but it has no need to

reassert itself, it's always been present.

An always will be, just as other types of "supremacy" beliefs are.  Male supremacy, wealth supremacy to name a couple.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, TheCid said:

As I said earlier, civil wars are not based upon geographical boundaries.  They are based upon political, economic, religious and many other reasons.  

Your experiences with the Vietnam protests in whatever state you were in had no relationship to the foundations for a civil war.  The governor, will the full consent of the Federal government, placed the area under martial law to stop "rioting" or other "threats to the populace and good order."  While may not agree with that rationale, it has nothing to do with founding a civil war.

Martial law is not the foundation for a civil war.  Protesting the government's actions is not a foundation for a civil war.  At least not in US history.

 

I was just talking about martial law in general.

Of course I was in Kansas, and the governor's son was in the same University as me. LOL

Were you in Vietnam at that time?

  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, Princess of Tap said:

I was just talking about martial law in general.

Of course I was in Kansas, and the governor's son was in the same University as me. LOL

Were you in Vietnam at that time?

Not yet.  Went in Nov. '71.  But I had been in the Army since Oct. '69.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Vautrin said:

The principle of white supremacy has grown less popular, but it has no need to

reassert itself, it's always been present.

DUMP is a good example of Whites NOT being supreme.......

  • Haha 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, Hibi said:

DUMP is a good example of Whites NOT being supreme.......

trump has been such a failure as a president he may be the last rich white man to get that job in the 21st century.

Just to think, in nearly 60 years we've gone from JFK to  rock bottom. Go figure?

 

 

  • Like 1
  • Sad 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
15 minutes ago, Princess of Tap said:

trump has been such a failure as a president he may be the last rich white man to get that job in the 21st century.

Just to think, in nearly 60 years we've gone from JFK to  rock bottom. Go figure?

 

 

98% approval rating with the American Taliban, aka Evangelicals.

  • Sad 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, TheCid said:

An always will be, just as other types of "supremacy" beliefs are.  Male supremacy, wealth supremacy to name a couple.

True, but as long as it represents the views of a relatively small number of people it isn't a big

problem, though a problem nonetheless. Dear Abby had an interesting phrase in reply to a

letter from a wife whose hubby is extremely bothered by rich people. She said that money can't

buy happiness but it can smooth the gears of life. Interesting way to put it.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Hibi said:

DUMP is a good example of Whites NOT being supreme.......

Yeah and he's not alone. That's one of the problems with the idea of race supremacy.

Just look at some of the folks who make up any particular population and the whole

idea blows up.

  • Like 1
  • Haha 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 10/23/2019 at 2:59 PM, laffite said:

THE TRIUMPH OF DONALD TRUMP/ is the triumph of Vladimir Putin. If Trump is not removed, then Putin wins. How does that set with out rabidly patriotic righties. It doesn't matter does it, you all have scorched-earth mentalities. Better to have a Trump/Putin and descend unto hell than a politically boring and hated (by you) president who will nevertheless keep us relatively safe. Putin is padding his Trump-assisted wish list before the latter gets impeached. Just in case.

 

 

"I see Russians"

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
16 minutes ago, TalkTalk123 said:

"I see Russians"

Sounds bad. Have you considered therapy? :lol:

But no, citing all the media mania is besides the point. In fact, I agree, it is a little overwrought. It's about a POTUS who has a mancrush on Putin or anyone else who is a dictator. Is it not plausible that there might be something inherently dangerous to make pretty with traditional enemies, enemies who would be only to happy to harm us. Is it simply media mania that Putin might have something on Trump? And is holding the strings on high. I don't think it's so farfetched. The stakes are enough to take it seriously. Jimmy frickin' Dore doesn't have anything to do with it. 

  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 minutes ago, laffite said:

Sounds bad. Have you considered therapy? :lol:

But no, citing all the media mania is besides the point. In fact, I agree, it is a little overwrought. It's about a POTUS who has a mancrush on Putin or anyone else who is a dictator. Is it not plausible that there might be something inherently dangerous to make pretty with traditional enemies, enemies who would be only to happy to harm us. Is it simply media mania that Putin might have something on Trump? And is holding the strings on high. I don't think it's so farfetched. The stakes are enough to take it seriously. Jimmy frickin' Dore doesn't have anything to do with it. 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 minutes ago, TalkTalk123 said:

 

Jill Stein, Hillary Clinton, and Julian Assange haven't anything to do with it.

Put it this way. If Trump can ask Ukraine to get the goods on Biden, then might not Putin already have the goods on Trump. Trump can't even stand getting impeached and that would be nothing compared to having something put out there about Trump's considerable baggage. Get out of Syria, or I'll rat you out. Plausible IMO.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
33 minutes ago, laffite said:

Jill Stein, Hillary Clinton, and Julian Assange haven't anything to do with it.

Put it this way. If Trump can ask Ukraine to get the goods on Biden, then might not Putin already have the goods on Trump. Trump can't even stand getting impeached and that would be nothing compared to having something put out there about Trump's considerable baggage. Get out of Syria, or I'll rat you out. Plausible IMO.

Just to clarify, you "see Russians" similar as the boy who was seeing "dead people"
 
Your hypothetical answer about Putin having something on trump lacks any real antonyms. It's so easy to fault Trump on just about everything, such as pulling troops out of Syria, but it's ironic that the same cry of disparage was lacking when it came to supporting the regime change war in Syria by the US in the first place.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
45 minutes ago, laffite said:

Sounds bad. Have you considered therapy? :lol:

But no, citing all the media mania is besides the point. In fact, I agree, it is a little overwrought. It's about a POTUS who has a mancrush on Putin or anyone else who is a dictator. Is it not plausible that there might be something inherently dangerous to make pretty with traditional enemies, enemies who would be only to happy to harm us. Is it simply media mania that Putin might have something on Trump? And is holding the strings on high. I don't think it's so farfetched. The stakes are enough to take it seriously. Jimmy frickin' Dore doesn't have anything to do with it. 

Denigrating and dismissing our National Security Experts, our State Department, Congressional elected officials on both sides of the aisle, not to mention our loyal and traditional Allies, all for the sake of siding with Russia and Russia's friends or spheres of influence puts trump against what's best for America.

You have to be an idiot, or Jimmy Dore, not to realize that there's more to this and trump is playing a dangerous game of Russian Roulette with the future security of our nation.

When it all comes out, as everything usually does in the end, we will probably not be happy with the results, but we'll be satisfied to have finally gotten to the bottom of it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 minutes ago, TalkTalk123 said:

Your hypothetical answer about Putin having something on trump lacks any real antonyms. It's so easy to fault Trump on just about everything, such as pulling troops out of Syria, but it's ironic that the same cry of disparage was lacking when it came to supporting the regime change in Syria by the US in the first place.

If it were hypothetical I wouldn't worry. Hypothetical situations have a poor record of ever panning out. There were cries of disparagement. That's a red herring anyway, to what we are talking about. I don't fault Trump for everything. Antonyms?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.


© 2019 Turner Classic Movies Inc. A Time Warner Company. All Rights Reserved Terms of Use | Privacy Policy
×
×
  • Create New...