POLITICS President Trump: 100+ Mornings After (Term 1 Complete)

Discussion in 'Politicants' started by IP, Apr 30, 2017.

  1. Tenacious D

    Tenacious D The law is of supreme importance, or no importance

    I had nothing to do with the old thread being closed, if it even is (unless I put some automatic expiration on it, when I started it, but which I don't recall doing) or the decision to move to this one.
     
  2. Tenacious D

    Tenacious D The law is of supreme importance, or no importance

    I am not at all dissuaded in my vigorous & enthusiastic support for Trump, would vote for him again today, and barring the egregious, illegal or completely unforeseen, can't imagine that I won't do the same in 2020.

    However, even with that being said, there is more than ample and entirely valid reasons to criticize his performance, thus far.

    Both he and his Administration have at times - far too often, even - looked like bumblingly unprepared, tone deaf, near-sighted and narrow-minded idiots. On a few occasions, his decisions or course of strategy have been so preposterously bad as to be outright silly, and not to be taken seriously.

    The near-constant state of tumult within his inner circle is not only incredibly problematic, but on-going, and this has spectacularly failed him, both publicly and privately, at times. The transition from Candidate Trump to President Trump has not been a smooth one, to say the very least, but it's not even been a competent one, at times.

    His inauguration speech was easily - easily - the worst in the history of the US, and will never be eclipsed by any worse, simply because such would be impossible to do. I can't imagine a worst speech than had he allowed Obama to ghostwrite it for him, which he never saw before giving it, and which he was somehow forced to read, no matter what it said.

    I strongly disagree with his actions in NK.
     
  3. Oldvol75

    Oldvol75 Super Bigfoot Guru Mod

    I now know for sure just where the president is on gun control. My youngest son, the EMT, was on secret stand by ambulance duty last week while Donald Trump Jr. Secretly turkey hunted down here close to the house. He had to keep it a secret until after he had left the area. The secret service was in the woods in camouflage. He didn't get one but the guy hunting with him did.
     
    Last edited: May 1, 2017
  4. NorrisAlan

    NorrisAlan Founder of the Mike Honcho Fan Club

  5. justingroves

    justingroves supermod

    My roommate my freshman year of college was a history major and loved to talk about the Civil War. We got drunk and debated how Andrew Jackson would have handled the Civil War one time. I said he may have been able to make something work because he had a lot of money on both sides of the issue, he said he would have led the fight against the North.

    I really haven't thought about that conversation for 13 years until now.

    These are things two drunk history nerds talk about, how the hell does the President talk about it in a public setting?
     
  6. IP

    IP Super Moderator

    I didn't do anything to the 100 days thread, for the record. So far as I know it is still open. I'm not forcing anyone to do anything, just thought that thread's time was up.
     
  7. IP

    IP Super Moderator

    Good grief, it'd be an honor to speak with NK's dictator? What is wrong with him?
     
  8. Unimane

    Unimane Kill "The Caucasian"

    There may not be a more written about topic than the Civil War, outside of, possibly, Nazi Germany. When I was in grad school, literally half had an emphasis in the Civil War and this was in the midwest.
     
  9. Tenacious D

    Tenacious D The law is of supreme importance, or no importance

    Hammers?

    The following is from no less than NPR & HistoryNet:

    On Trump's asking why the question isn't as often considered:
    On Jackson potentially preventing the Civil War had be been born later, as Trump suggested:
    On Trump's assertion that Jackson had a "big heart":
    (Emphasis Mine)

    Of course, as to the "he owned slaves" histrionics - 12 other President's owned slaves, and only one of which (Washington) freed them (upon his death). The rest, just like Jackson, both owned and never freed their slaves. And Jackson wasn't even the last President to own slaves - that was Ulysses S. Grant, the hero of the Civil War, himself.

    1. George Washington owned slaves while president.

    2. John Adams did not own slaves.

    3. Thomas Jefferson owned slaves while president.

    4. James Madison owned slaves while president.

    5. James Monroe owned slaves while president.

    6. John Quincy Adams did not own slaves.

    7. Andrew Jackson owned slaves while president.

    8. Martin Van Buren owned slaves, but not while he was president.

    9. William Henry Harrison owned slaves, but not while he was president.

    10. John Tyler owned slaves while president.

    11. James K. Polk owned slaves while president.

    12. Zachary Taylor was the last president who owned slaves during his presidency..

    13. Millard Fillmore did not own slaves.

    14. Franklin Pierce did not own slaves.

    15. James Buchanan did not own slaves, although some may disagree.

    16. Abraham Lincoln did not own slaves.

    17. Andrew Johnson owned slaves, but not while he was president.

    18. Ulysses S Grant owned slaves, but not while he was president. He was the last president who did.


    So, if we're going to say that Trump's comments on Jackson having a big heart is preposterous, based in any way on the fact that he owned slaves.....that's entirely fair....but you'd better decry the possibility that none of the other 11 could have possibly had a "big heart", either, including the likes of Jefferson, Washington, Madison, Monroe, Johnson et al.

    Or, if NPR won't suffice, and Trump is so obviously as "dumb as a bag of hammers", perhaps Lincoln's own sentiment will suffice, as to Jackson having prevented a Civil War some 30 years before:
    If you can't trust Ol' Honest Abe, the founder of the Republican Party, then I don't know who may otherwise suffice.

    Perhaps Trump isn't so dumb, after all. But if he is, well, he's in damned fine company.

    CNN may not be the single best source to get Trump news and commentary. But to each her or his own.

    Link: http://www.npr.org/2017/05/01/52638...kson-have-stopped-the-civil-war-as-trump-said
    Link: http://www.historynet.com/andrew-jackson
    Link: http://pres-slaves.zohosites.com/mobile/
     
  10. IP

    IP Super Moderator

    Ole Hickory the softie. Got it. And about Trump being honored to speak with Kim jong un?
     
  11. Unimane

    Unimane Kill "The Caucasian"

    The big hearted Jackson who offered money to anyone giving his runaway slaves "100 lashes"?

    https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/retropolis/wp/2017/04/11/hunting-down-runaway-slaves-the-cruel-ads-of-andrew-jackson-and-the-master-class/?utm_term=.6e1e4aa7fa24

    My antipathy towards Jackson has been well documented on this board, but I do think there is some difference and nuance when looking at some of these slave owning presidents. First of all, throw out Grant. He got his slave from his father-in-law and then freed him for nothing at a time when he needed the money he could've gotten for selling the slave. Otherwise, guys like Jefferson and Washington struggled with their contradictions/hypocrisy over owning slaves in a way that never occurred to Jackson. Now, I could get started on Jefferson and Washington, among others on that list, but I don't think all were made the same.

    Plus, any sort of notion of Jackson's "big heart" should be negated by his treatment of Native Americans.

    Now, would Jackson have staved off the Civil War? Hypothetically, it's possible, since Lincoln was viewed as hostile to slavery by the South and Jackson seen as a friend to the slave owners. There's a long conversation that could be had on nullification and the looming Civil War, but I don't think Jackson stops it. He, probably, temporarily delays it, but here's the rub in this, it also delays the existence of slavery in this country. It's also a conversation I don't think Trump could ever hope to hold, either.

    By the way, saying that Lincoln cited the actions of Jackson in nullification crisis as a way to avoid secession and Civil War doesn't exactly lend one to the conclusion that Jackson could've stopped the Civil War if Lincoln failed by emulating Jackson. The political landscape of the mid-1830s in America was a significantly different one for this country in the late 1850s. The Civil War was coming as long as the South felt the institution of slavery was under threat.

    In any event, this was a noble try, Tenny, but you know as well as I do that Trump just spouts some gibberish and rambling non-sequiturs in his history and social "lessons", interspersed with "everybody says"-type generalities. He couldn't explain any of those ideas about Jackson for more than 30 seconds in a million years.
     
    Last edited: May 2, 2017
  12. Unimane

    Unimane Kill "The Caucasian"

    By the way, I, obviously, can't stand the guy, but this type of stuff amuses me more than anything. I don't care that he is an idiot in regards to anything that requires a modicum of depth in understanding. I care what he does. Hell, he can love that asshole Jackson all he wants if he can actually get something of his campaign promises that I liked, infrastructure, done. I'd be happy and supportive of him, if that ever occurs.
     
  13. NorrisAlan

    NorrisAlan Founder of the Mike Honcho Fan Club

    I don't think having a "big heart" and owning slaves are mutually exclusive. So forgive me if my post came off that way.

    But to think that in 1859 or 1860, Jackson could have staved off the Civil War is ludicrous. Nobody was going to do that unless they simply let the south secede from the Union, and I don't think that would have stopped it, either.

    What the bag of hammers comment really pertains to is Trump's seemingly incomprehensible idea that the first time he sees or thinks of something is apparently the first time ANYONE has seen or thought of it. The bag of hammers comment was pointed towards this and this alone. I find it infantile and, for a President, very dangerous.

    The Jackson comments were mine and I just don't like Jackson.
     
  14. JayVols

    JayVols Walleye Catchin' Moderator

    Lee doesn't get the "throw out" treatment, yet he inherited slaves from his wife's father who was the granddaughter (adoptive) of George Washington. Lee took leave from his Army Engineer work on the Ohio River building levees to teturn to Arlington to settle his f-i-l's affairs. One of the actions he took was to grant those slaves their freedom and give them the option to remain as hired hands. If I'm not mistaken, all stayed.


    But Lee did become the face of the rebellion though, so I get that.
     
  15. Tenacious D

    Tenacious D The law is of supreme importance, or no importance

    No, I'm not saying he was a softie - I'm saying that Trump's comment that he had a "big heart" wasn't without any merit.

    Why wouldn't the POTUS be willing to meet with any world leader, in seeking a peaceful solution? How is that different than what Obama offered, both in general, and particularly with Iran and Castro (who he did meet, IIRC)? I'd much prefer they met, than our armed forces. Nixon suffered the same criticisms over his trip to China, but that has worked out immensely well, for all involved, and made the peace which we enjoy today possible.

    You're not going to be able to pull me very far away from a path of earnestly seeking peace, including meeting with and engaging in private dialogue with foreign leaders, particularly those whom we oppose and are hostile to us.

    And, I don't think Trump should be meddling in NK, given all that's in front of me, and what little I know right now. I think he's being weak in relenting to the hawks, TBH. So, yes, I think meeting with anyone is much preferred to war and the loss of life.
     
  16. Tenacious D

    Tenacious D The law is of supreme importance, or no importance

    I've cited my sources, Un. I'm not claiming that Jackson was or was not an SOB. I simply noted that a credible historian (NPR) said that some of Jackson's biographers would have agreed with Trump's "big heart" comment.

    His comments were not without merit, and certainly, didn't meet the standard as being proof that he's "dumber than a bag of hammers".

    This seems like more kerfuffle - if someone has decided that Trump is evil / stupid / racist / bad, etc., then every event and utterance is seen through that lens. Sometimes it's proven quite correct, but most times not.
     
  17. Tenacious D

    Tenacious D The law is of supreme importance, or no importance

    All fair.

    Trump is far from alone in saying that Jackson had a "big heart", as this is a position that many historical biographers seem to share.

    Again, many feel that Jackson's unyielding resolve to South Carolina's threats at secession in 1830 - including parking a Navy warship in Charleston Harbor (it's always been the Navy who fixes it, and it always will be - from the Palmetto state in 1830, to Pyongyang 187 years later...GO NAVY!) - could have similarly averted war in 1860. Of course, we can't know if he could or could not have done so - but many, including Lincoln himself, believed it was at least possible. And this, again, is right in line with Trump's comments.

    Perhaps Trump's asking about why war couldn't have been averted in 1860 is less about the Civil War, and more about today, both at home and abroad. Personally, being both a Trump supporter and someone who wishes to see as many bridges across the chasmic divide as are possible, he can't give enough time and thoughtful consideration to the hope of reconciliation, even as unlikely of a vessel as he may be to bring it about.
     
  18. Tenacious D

    Tenacious D The law is of supreme importance, or no importance

    I admire and envy your knowledge of the Civil War, in depth, breadth and command, and wish I had the mind to do the same.
     
  19. NorrisAlan

    NorrisAlan Founder of the Mike Honcho Fan Club

    I think we can agree, though, that until the slavery issue was resolved, the war was only ever going to be pushed back. It was going to happen, one way or the other, unless the South had an epiphany and ended slavery.

    And I, too, envy anyone's knowledge of the Civil War. I just have a peripheral knowledge of it, as my main areas of interest are WWI and WWII. And I am hardly versed in those, either.
     
  20. JayVols

    JayVols Walleye Catchin' Moderator

    I don't hate Jackson, but he wouldn't pop into my head as a shining example of a big hearted guy. Not in the least. He was ill-tempered, unbending and he hated Native Americans. Sure, he adopted a Native American girl who had just lost her entire family; however, Jackson was the reason her parents were dead. Most of what I've studied have concluded that Jackson's adoption of the girl was more about political image rather than genuine concern. Jackson was a cantankerous if not down right mean, petty and vindictive son of a [itch bay]. He took all thing personal, even politics. The only person I really feel he cared about was his wife, Rachael. He took personal affront at pretty much anything that went against him. He was petty and childish in much of his actions both inside and outside gov't, and was completely incapable of letting any of those slights, real or perceived, go for any reason. In this way, I completely understand why Trump is such a huge Jackson fan. They are similar in many areas. They both long(ed) to be liked/praised/socially accepted, but had/have no real idea of how to achieve that end as their go to reactions were/are to attack/thrown a tantrum.

    Again, I don't dislike Jackson, but he was what he was. And big-hearted isn't an appropriate description of him, imho.

    As to Jackson, one of my great-great whatever uncles was John C. Calhoun (can't pick your family). He served as Jackson's VP. They hated each other. I'm reminded of a dinner for Jackson's birthday at the front-end of The Nullification Crisis. Jackson's toasted the groups saying, "Our Federal Union, It must be preserved!" He let everyone know that he was a staunch opponent to the notion that states were sovereign and could pick & choose which federal laws they followed. He also made this toast to embarrass Calhoun who was a proponent of nullification. Afterwards, Calhoun rose to give his toast, "The Union, next to our liberty, most dear!" The cards were on the table, and it was on from there. As a testament to Jackson's thin skin, his hatred of Calhoun originated not to of policy but out of the social scene. Clahoun was accused of mistreating the wife of his Secretary of War, John Eaton. That slight reminded Jackson of the social rejection his wife Rachael received, and it enraged him.

    As to Jackson finding a better solution to the Civil War, no way, imo. Jackson was a hot-head. I think the war would have been sooner had Jackson been in charge. Just pure conjecture, but I think it would have been a bit different in that I don't think the Confederacy would have fired the first shots of the war on Fort Sumter.

    http://www.ushistory.org/us/24e.asp
     

Share This Page