[AMV] Amerikaanse politiek #371 Idiot in Chief

quote:

Op woensdag 16 augustus 2017 01:43 schreef Tijger_m het volgende:

[..]

De een is de grondlegger van de Verenigde Staten, de andere een landverrader. Moeilijker is het niet.

quote:

Op woensdag 16 augustus 2017 01:53 schreef KrappeAuto het volgende:

[..]

wil je ook alles van Washington verwijderen?

quote:

Op woensdag 16 augustus 2017 01:56 schreef JimmyDean het volgende:
Eh... waarom wordt mijn bijdrage verwijderd?

quote:

Op woensdag 16 augustus 2017 01:56 schreef monkyyy het volgende:

[..]

Als de locale city counsels daarmee instemmen zoals bij het standbeeld van Lee gebeurd is, ja.

quote:

Op woensdag 16 augustus 2017 01:45 schreef grrrrg het volgende:

[..]

En dat is het enige waar hij de laatste tijd aan toe komt. Gelukkig maar, misschien vergeet hij Noord-Korea wel.

quote:

Komt omdat hij zo vaak staat te liegen en zijn belastingaangifte niet vrijgeeft.

quote:

David Duke heeft hem iig al weer bedankt, een dikke kus van hem

quote:

Het is hier verboden in Nederland en Duitsland, en oom Donald zit die mensen te verdedigen.

quote:

Op woensdag 16 augustus 2017 02:00 schreef Tijger_m het volgende:

[..]

En dat is ook gebeurd, Charlottesville city council heeft die beslissing genomen. Zij waren en zijn de eigenaar van het park en het beeld. Als ik het goed heb word het beeld verkocht overigens en niet vernietigd iig niet door Charlottesville

quote:

Op woensdag 16 augustus 2017 01:51 schreef grrrrg het volgende:

[..]

Welles! Het ging over alle Mexicanen.

Clip #1: Trump Calls Mexican's Rapists

quote:

The women who know they're going to be raped: Female illegal immigrants taking birth control before they try to cross US border

quote:

Geen idee waar je het hier over hebt, maar je hebt ongetwijfeld ongelijk.

quote:

Op woensdag 16 augustus 2017 01:55 schreef Tijger_m het volgende:

[..]

Lee was een verrader aan de VS, feit. Lee vocht voor het behoud van slavernij, feit.

De vergelijking gaat dus aan alle kanten mank.

Crowd rips down Confederate statue in Durham North Carolina

quote:

Trump's assertion left wing protesters just as violent as white supremacists in Charlottesville sets off firestorm

President Trump's argument Tuesday that left wing groups were just as violent as the white supremacists who staged a demonstration in Charlottesville set off a firestorm of criticism from members of his own party – and raised questions about his personal views of racial tensions in the country.

Just one day after Trump sought to tamp down on controversy by condemning white supremacists for their role in racially motivated clashes in the Virginia city, the president appeared to return to his highly criticized initial response that many sides were to blame for the weekend violence.

"What about the alt-left that came charging at the, as you say, alt-right?" Trump told reporters in a chaotic impromptu press conference at Trump Tower. "Do they have any semblance of guilt? What about the fact they came charging with clubs in their hands?"

Trump said he couldn't make a condemnation of hate groups earlier because he didn't "know all the facts" about an alleged white nationalist who crashed a car into a crowd of protesters, killing one person and wounded 19 others.

[..]

"We must be clear. White supremacy is repulsive. This bigotry is counter to all this country stands for. There can be no moral ambiguity,” said House Speaker Paul Ryan, R-Wis.

House Democratic Leader Nancy Pelosi, D-Calif. added: "There is only one side to be on when a white supremacist mob brutalizes and murders in America.”

Several lawmakers were dismayed the president appeared to equate white supremacists with their opponents. Rep. Ileana Ros-Lehtinen, R-Fla., tweeted: "Blaming 'both sides' for #Charlottesville?! No. Back to relativism when dealing with KKK, Nazi sympathizers, white supremacists? Just no."

Another Republican, Rep. Charlie Dent from Pennsylvania, said Trump "must stop the moral equivalency! AGAIN."

Over the weekend, Trump faced heavy criticism from both Republicans and Democrats for chiding "many sides" for their role in the violence in Charlottesville on Saturday, a statement many regarded as tepid toward racists.

A full two days later, on Monday, Trump at the White House directly condemned the KKK, neo-Nazis and white supremacists and announced the Justice Department would open up a civil rights investigation into the driver of the car that killed Charlottesville resident Heather Heyer.

Yet on Tuesday, amid questions about whether Trump meant the words behind his most recent scripted statement, the president called his initial response "fine" and blamed the press for being dishonest in its coverage.

"There was no way of making a correct statement that early," he said at one point. "I had to see the facts. Unlike a lot of reporters – I didn't know (prominent white supremacist) David Duke was there. I wanted to see the facts."

For his part, former KKK leader Duke tweeted a thank you to the president after his statement Tuesday – for condemning "the leftist terrorists" in Black Lives Matter and Antifa.

Trump also said "not all of those people" who attended the demonstration were not racist or neo-Nazi, but only wanted to protest the city's plans to remove the Robert E. Lee statue.

That statement also drew catcalls from Republicans. "If you're showing up to a Klan rally, you're probably a racist or a bigot," said Rep. Will Hurd, R-Tex., said on CNN.

And Sen. Marco Rubio, R-Fla., tweeted that "the organizers of events" that led to the Charlottesville terror attack "are 100% to blame."

The white supremacists, Rubio tweeted, are "adherents of an evil ideology which argues certain people are inferior because of race, ethnicity or nation of origin.... When (there's an) entire movement built on anger and hatred towards people different than you, it justifies and ultimately leads to violence against them."

Rubio offered a direct message to Trump: "Mr. President, you can't allow #WhiteSupremacists to share only part of blame... (they) will see being assigned only 50% of blame as a win. We can not allow this old evil to be resurrected."

[..]

The Anti-Defamation League disputed Trump's comments, tweeting that "comparisons between white supremacists & counter protesters are beyond the pale."

[..]

Said he had a plan to the nation's racial divide

That plan involves creating more – and better – jobs.

Trump's remarks left many on Twitter expressing concerns he is too soft on racists and bigots.

"If you are still defending Donald Trump at this point, you are not a good person," tweeted Jill Biden, the wife of former Vice President Joe Biden.

[..]

Amid rush hour, after the rain, protestors returned to Fifth Avenue with bullhorns and placards in hand to protest Trump's views of race, immigration, and other issues. "New York hates you," read one sign. Police placed a protest area about a block-and-a-half from Trump Tower.

[..]

Activists are continuing to pressure remaining members to follow suit.

"No adviser committed to the bipartisan American traditions of government can possibly believe he or she is being effective at this point," tweeted Lawrence Summers, a former high-level economic adviser to Democratic presidents Bill Clinton and Barack Obama.

Yet Trump has done little to stem the controversy. Hours after making a formal statement Monday denouncing those who perpetuate racially-motivated attacks, Trump returned Monday night to a usual line of criticism: the press. "Made additional remarks on Charlottesville and realize once again that the #Fake News Media will never be satisfied...truly bad people!"

Trump stirred up more Twitter trouble after that. In the leadup to his press conference Tuesday, he retweeted a prominent figure from the alt-right who pushed the "Pizzagate" and Seth Rich conspiracy theories, who questioned why there was no similar outrage over violence in Chicago.

He tweeted then retweeted and deleted a post that included the cartoon of a train – the "Trump train" running over a CNN reporter, an image that drew criticism in the wake of the deadly car ramming incident in Virginia.

Steady rain in midtown Manhattan kept away many protesters Tuesday – as did a heavy security perimeter that included a line of white sanitation trucks parked along Fifth Avenue, flanking the entrance to Trump Tower.

Trump is expected to return to his 17-day working vacation at his golf club in Beminster, N.J., on Wednesday.

quote:

Op woensdag 16 augustus 2017 02:17 schreef KrappeAuto het volgende:

[..]

Washington hield meer dan 100 slaven. Lee hield ook slaven. Beiden waren in die zin racistisch.

Maar jij bent oneerlijk aan het discussieren. Je doet alsof deze mensen zijn standbeeld willen verwijderen omdat hij niet voor de Unie vocht (lol):

Crowd rips down Confederate statue in Durham North Carolina

Ze willen dit standbeeld verwijderen omdat hij racistisch zou zijn geweest. Trump trekt de lijn door: verwijder dan ook alles van Washington. Een eerlijke vergelijking.

quote:

Op woensdag 16 augustus 2017 02:48 schreef monkyyy het volgende:
[ afbeelding ]

quote:

Is America Headed for a New Kind of Civil War?

“We keep saying, ‘It can’t happen here,’ but then, holy smokes, it can,” Mines told me after we talked, on Sunday, about Charlottesville. The pattern of civil strife has evolved worldwide over the past sixty years. Today, few civil wars involve pitched battles from trenches along neat geographic front lines. Many are low-intensity conflicts with episodic violence in constantly moving locales. Mines’s definition of a civil war is large-scale violence that includes a rejection of traditional political authority and requires the National Guard to deal with it. On Saturday, McAuliffe put the National Guard on alert and declared a state of emergency.

Based on his experience in civil wars on three continents, Mines cited five conditions that support his prediction: entrenched national polarization, with no obvious meeting place for resolution; increasingly divisive press coverage and information flows; weakened institutions, notably Congress and the judiciary; a sellout or abandonment of responsibility by political leadership; and the legitimization of violence as the “in” way to either conduct discourse or solve disputes.

President Trump “modeled violence as a way to advance politically and validated bullying during and after the campaign,” Mines wrote in Foreign Policy. “Judging from recent events the left is now fully on board with this,” he continued, citing anarchists in anti-globalization riots as one of several flashpoints. “It is like 1859, everyone is mad about something and everyone has a gun.”

[..]

Before Charlottesville, David Blight, a Yale historian, was already planning a conference in November on “American Disunion, Then and Now.” “Parallels and analogies are always risky, but we do have weakened institutions and not just polarized parties but parties that are risking disintegration, which is what happened in the eighteen-fifties,” he told me. “Slavery tore apart, over fifteen years, both major political parties. It destroyed the Whig Party, which was replaced by the Republican Party, and divided the Democratic Party into northern and southern parts.”

“So,” he said, “watch the parties” as an indicator of America’s health.

In the eighteen-fifties, Blight told me, Americans were not good at foreseeing or absorbing the “shock of events,” including the Fugitive Slave Act, the Supreme Court’s Dred Scott decision, the John Brown raid, and even the Mexican-American War. “No one predicted them. They forced people to reposition themselves,” Blight said. “We’re going through one of those repositionings now. Trump’s election is one of them, and we’re still trying to figure it out. But it’s not new. It dates to Obama’s election. We thought that would lead culture in the other direction, but it didn’t,” he said. “There was a tremendous resistance from the right, then these episodes of police violence, and all these things [from the past] exploded again. It’s not only a racial polarization but a seizure about identity.”

Generally, Blight added, “We know we are at risk of civil war, or something like it, when an election, an enactment, an event, an action by government or people in high places, becomes utterly unacceptable to a party, a large group, a significant constituency.” The nation witnessed tectonic shifts on the eve of the Civil War, and during the civil-rights era, the unrest of the late nineteen-sixties and the Vietnam War, he said. “It did not happen with Bush v. Gore, in 2000, but perhaps we were close. It is not inconceivable that it could happen now.”

[..]

In the wake of Charlottesville, the chorus of condemnation from politicians across the political spectrum has been encouraging, but it is not necessarily reassuring or an indicator about the future, Gregory Downs, a historian at the University of California at Davis, told me. During the Civil War, even Southern politicians who denounced or were wary of secession for years—including Jefferson Davis—ended up as leaders of the Confederacy. “If the source of conflict is deeply embedded in cultural or social forces, then politicians are not inherently able to restrain them with calls for reason,” Downs said. He called the noxious white supremacists and neo-Nazis the “messengers,” rather than the “architects,” of the Republic’s potential collapse. But, he warned, “We take our stability for granted.”

quote:

Lincoln Memorial vandalised with profanity in Washington DC

The memorial to President Abraham Lincoln, who led the US through the Civil War, has been vandalised in Washington DC.

The vandals appear to have used red spray paint to write "[expletive] law" early on Tuesday morning, the National Park Service said in a statement.

Crews are removing it with a "gel-type architectural paint stripper that is safe for use on historic stone".

US Civil War memorials have become a lightning rod in the US race debate.

Other "undecipherable graffiti" was found written in silver paint on a nearby sign directing tourists to the Smithsonian Institution on Washington's National Mall public park.

President Lincoln led the northern Union government to defeat the secessionist Confederacy and ordered African-American slaves to be freed in 1863.

He was assassinated in Washington only five days after southern General Robert E Lee surrendered, effectively ending the war.

quote:

A new generation of American extremists is on the rise, experts say

"Before 2007 you would get between 10 to 15 members of the Klan or neo-Nazi groups showing up [at rallies]," Johnson explained. "The fact that they're drawing hundreds of people to these rallies is very concerning, because for every one of these individuals who shows up in public and engages in these hateful rants, there are ten others who are sitting at home not participating."

[..]

According to data gathered by the University of Maryland consortium for the Study of Terrorism and Responses to Terrorism (START), individuals associated with far-right groups account for highest number of violent, radicalized individuals in the country, outpacing Islamist and far-left extremists combined.

[..]

Social media may make organizing rallies and connecting with like-minded individuals easier, but the political environment has made extremism appear to be a more legitimate outlet.

According to Braniff, the highly politicized political environment and lack of compromise from opposing political viewpoints has contributed to the cause of domestic extremists.

"A polarized political climate will create that kind of environment where violent outcomes are more likely," he advised, blaming both the media and political establishment. "The more polarized a society is, the easier it is to mobilize people to a more extreme point because they don't see a middle ground."

The increased polarization within American politics has also coincided with the growth and resurgence of radical groups on the left and right.

A new generation of "charistmatic leaders" within the white supremacist movement began to emerge and grow after the election of Barack Obama. The resurgence of violent extremism on the left has been more recent and began around 2016, according to Johnson.

On the left, this has included the growth of the Antifa, and the reemergence of violent black nationalists, responsible for the recent years' police shootings in Dallas and Fresno.

In a climate where the domestic terrorism threat is increasing, Johnson urged national leaders to recognize the threat and correctly identify it as terrorism.

[..]

quote:

U.S. sees 300 violent attacks inspired by far right every year

[..]

A 2015 survey of U.S. law enforcement groups found they consider anti-government violent extremists to be a more severe threat than radicalized Muslims. And while jihadist terrorists have killed 95 people in the U.S. since 9/11, far-right extremists have killed 68 during the same time, including the car attack in Charlottesville. That’s according to data collected by our next guest, Peter Bergen, the director of the national security studies program for New America and a terrorism analyst for CNN.

Peter, I know you focus a lot of jihadists, you know, Islamic terror happening in the United States and happening overseas. But you have also been studying and looking closely at kind of home grown terror, domestic terror threats. When you saw what happened yesterday, what went through your mind?

PETER BERGEN, DIRECTOR OF THE NATIONAL SECURITY STUDIES PROGRAM, NEW AMERICA: Well, clearly, it was an act of domestic terrorism and seems to be an act of extreme right wing terrorism. And it’s one of multiple incidents that we’ve seen in this country, unfortunately. And in fact also, we’re seeing an interesting spike in black nationalist terrorism, there have been eight deaths since 2016 caused by black nationalists and we also, you may recall, of course, the attack on the Republican baseball game by a sort of an extreme anti-Trump person.

So, we’re seeing, you know, political violence comes in all shapes and forms. And I think when we hear word terrorism, a lot of Americans kind of think jihadi terrorism because of the 9/11 attacks but the fact is, is that we have continue to see extreme right wing terrorism, and we have seen a slight uptick in kind of leftist terrorism in the last couple of years.

SREENIVASAN: What are the different causes?

BERGEN: Well, I mean, I mean they scan the political spectrum because you have, you know, black nationalist terrorism which has been spiking. You have a certain amount of anti-Trump terrorism which has sort of had an uptick. You have this extreme right neo-Nazi antigovernment terrorism which has been pretty constant, after all, it was the most lethal attack on American soil before 9/11 was the Oklahoma City bombing which killed 168 people carried out by two right wing — extreme right wing militants.

So, yes, this has been around for a while, this kind of strain of terrorism that we saw in Charlottesville is not new. They don’t tends to kill a large numbers like Islamist terrorist attacks which tend to have a much higher death toll, but it is kind of a constant that’s out there.

[..]

quote:

Op woensdag 16 augustus 2017 02:47 schreef Kijkertje het volgende:

[..]

Nee dit soort monumenten wil men verwijderen omdat ze staan voor de ideologie erachter die nog steeds springlevend is onder een deel van de bevolking.

quote:

De uitleg van burgemeester Landrieu van New Orleans:

New Orleans Mayor on Removing Confederate Monuments

quote:

In some cases, freedom proved to be more uncertain than slavery. Without a master to protect them, free blacks were open to all the prejudice and mistreatment of white Northern society. African Americans expected to be treated differently as free blacks in the Union Army than in slavery. This was not always the case. Scar marks on the backs of slaves indicated that whippings and other forms of abuse still ran rampant in the Union Army.[5]

Not all people in the Union believed that blacks should be free, or that blacks were equal to whites. This contributed to racism in the Union Army. Some Union Army soldiers beat the former slaves as a form of discrimination and punishment. Soldiers in the Union Army used racist nicknames and terms to refer to African Americans.

quote:

Op woensdag 16 augustus 2017 04:39 schreef KrappeAuto het volgende:

[..]

Oh, ja? Welk percentage van mensen wil nu de slavernij herinvoeren en zwarten lynchen?

[..]

De burgemeester doet alsof slavernij de centrale, de enige issue was in de Burgeroorlog. De waarheid is is dat het ook vooral ging om de rechten van staten en de kant waar je aan vocht hing heel erg af van waar je bent geboren en opgegroeid en woonde. Lee kwam uit Virginia waar zijn loyaliteit lag, dus vocht hij mee tegen de Unie.

En laten we ook vooral niet doen alsof het Noorden compleet anti-slavernij en anti-racisme was. Pas na meer dan een jaar mochten zwarten mee doen met vechten tegen het Zuiden; meer een praktische overweging omdat ze meer mannen nodig hadden dan een morele. Ze kregen minder betaald, werden slechter behandeld, dan blanken. Feitelijk werden ze in slavernij-achtige rollen geplaatst. Zie ook Wikipedia:

[..]

Dus het Noorden was marginaal beter op dit punt dan het Zuiden.

Als je hierom mensen compleet wilt verwijderen uit de geschiedenis ben je niet zozeer bezig met een oprecht gevoel over de slavernij-kwestie maar meer met het signaleren dat je deugt.

Maar de wilde barbaren van links vinden natuurlijk het feit dat Lee tegen de Unie vocht niet het grootste probleem. Het gaat ze om het vermeende white supremacy dat achter hem schuil zou gaan.

Laten we eerlijk zijn: iedereen voor ~1900 zou je wel een white supremacist kunnen noemen naar de standaarden van vandaag. We beoordelen mensen dan ook niet naar de standaarden van vandaag maar in de tijd waar ze in leefden.

quote:

Op woensdag 16 augustus 2017 05:15 schreef OMG het volgende:
Ja, en alle Duitsers waren Nazis, dus een beeldje van Anton Mussert hier en daar moet kunnen, want het was die tijd, dus moeten hem daar niet op afrekenen. Wilde linkse barbaren zouden iets achter het trouw zijn aan Hitler zoeken.

quote:

Op woensdag 16 augustus 2017 05:23 schreef OMG het volgende:
Dan stel ik voor er een paar voor wat synagogen te plaatsen. Veranderd vast niks tussen mensen die daar heen gaan en rechtstokkies die een held komen vereren.

quote:

Op woensdag 16 augustus 2017 04:39 schreef KrappeAuto het volgende:

[..]

Oh, ja? Welk percentage van mensen wil nu de slavernij herinvoeren en zwarten lynchen?

[..]

De burgemeester doet alsof slavernij de centrale, de enige issue was in de Burgeroorlog. De waarheid is is dat het ook vooral ging om de rechten van staten en de kant waar je aan vocht hing heel erg af van waar je bent geboren en opgegroeid en woonde. Lee kwam uit Virginia waar zijn loyaliteit lag, dus vocht hij mee tegen de Unie.

En laten we ook vooral niet doen alsof het Noorden compleet anti-slavernij en anti-racisme was. Pas na meer dan een jaar mochten zwarten mee doen met vechten tegen het Zuiden; meer een praktische overweging omdat ze meer mannen nodig hadden dan een morele. Ze kregen minder betaald, werden slechter behandeld, dan blanken. Feitelijk werden ze in slavernij-achtige rollen geplaatst. Zie ook Wikipedia:

[..]

Dus het Noorden was marginaal beter op dit punt dan het Zuiden.

Als je hierom mensen compleet wilt verwijderen uit de geschiedenis ben je niet zozeer bezig met een oprecht gevoel over de slavernij-kwestie maar meer met het signaleren dat je deugt.

Maar de wilde barbaren van links vinden natuurlijk het feit dat Lee tegen de Unie vocht niet het grootste probleem. Het gaat ze om het vermeende white supremacy dat achter hem schuil zou gaan.

Laten we eerlijk zijn: iedereen voor ~1900 zou je wel een white supremacist kunnen noemen naar de standaarden van vandaag. We beoordelen mensen dan ook niet naar de standaarden van vandaag maar in de tijd waar ze in leefden.

quote:

Op woensdag 16 augustus 2017 05:45 schreef Ulx het volgende:
Waarom hebben we eigenlijk geen (of verrekte weinig) beelden van Soekarno en Hatta in Nederland?

En ik ben verder wel voorstander van een eerbetoon aan Balthasar Gerards, Filips II en de Hertog van Alva. In Delft of zo.

quote:

Op woensdag 16 augustus 2017 05:47 schreef Ulx het volgende:
Overigens was de slavernij en de uitbreiding daarvan naar nieuwe staten gewoon de oorzaak van de burgeroorlog. Bleeding Kansas, noem het maar op.

quote:

Op woensdag 16 augustus 2017 05:48 schreef Ulx het volgende:

[..]

Of van John Brown.

quote:

Op woensdag 16 augustus 2017 05:53 schreef Ulx het volgende:

[..]

Hij heeft kleur bekend. Letterlijk.

quote:

Op woensdag 16 augustus 2017 06:05 schreef clumsy_clown het volgende:

[..]

Mmja, het gaat niet alleen om boodschap, maar ook om toon en timing. Ik heb hem zelden zo gepassioneerd horen spreken, en dit was om fucking extreemrechtse protesten te verdedigen. Er is een vrouw doodgegaan, er is terrorisme gepleegd door een zelfbenoemde nazi. Dit is het moment om je als president daartegen uit te spreken, en niét aan te komen met een hoop 'ja maar' argumenten. Het is walgelijk, ronduit walgelijk gedrag. Heb je de speech gezien? Over hoe 'alt-left' schijnbaar de aanval inzette? Hij zegt nog net niet dat de nazi's zichzelf aan het verdedigen waren.

quote:

Op woensdag 16 augustus 2017 06:22 schreef Ulx het volgende:
Wat men hem nu in de schoenen schuift is dat hij het vertikte afstand te nemen van neo-nazi's, vervolgens na dagenlange druk een halfzachte veroordeling doet, om die binnen een dag heel fanatiek weer in te trekken en met een partij whataboutism aan komt kakken en gewoon half ontkent dat dat het een terreurdaad was.

En terecht dat men hem daarop aanspreekt.

quote:

Op woensdag 16 augustus 2017 06:20 schreef clumsy_clown het volgende:

[..]

Trump is niet eigenhandig verantwoordelijk voor het ontstaan van de nazi's, dat zou véél te veel eer zijn. Als POTUS heeft hij echter een grote verantwoordelijkheid, en sneu genoeg heeft hij veel white supremacists in zijn aanhang. Hell, David Duke was op de rally en zei tegen journalisten dat ze vochten om de beloften van Trump waar te maken. Hij is niet direct verantwoordelijk wellicht, maar het feit dat hij op dit moment nut heeft voor nazi's is genoeg reden om ons achter de oren te krabben.

quote:

Het was dan ook 's werelds slapte reactie op een fucking terroristische aanslag. Hij heeft hardere meningen verkondigd over hollywoodactrices dan over een moordenaar. Sad.

quote:

Je kunt Trump van een hoop betichten, maar zeggen dat hij de discussie meer op ratio probeert te voeren, is echt een paar stappen te ver gegrepen. Nogmaals, zijn punt over de standpunten werd ondergesneeuwd door zijn betichtingen naar de 'alt-leftists'. Het gaat hem niet om kalme discussies, het gaat hem erom dat hij de nazi's niet wil veroordelen, en dáárdoor dus het argument rondom Lee gebruikt.