Trump slams Bannon: ‘When he was fired, he not only lost his job, he lost his mind’

  • Thread starter Thread starter Stephen_C
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Yeah, the abolitionist movement went along with it because the slave states wanted a power play otherwise.

It’s too bad though it’s always taken out of its historical context for nefarious identity politics.
 
SuperLuigi said:
El Rushbo said it best “Today’s liberals were yesterday’s slave owners and loyalists”.
Click to expand...
So, a guy from a slave owning state said that the liberals, which were mostly in free states, are yesterday’s slave owners and, I guess, the conservatives, which were mostly in slave holding states, aren’t. Did a bunch of white people move north after the Civil War and I missed it?
 
That’s a major stretch. Even if we accept that the Democratic Party was pro-slavery, who cares? That’s just as bad as condemning me for Catholics who spearheaded the Inquisition 800 years ago. By any conventional definition of the words, conservatives of the 19th century were pro-slavery and liberals were anti-slavery. In the same way that the founding Fathers were radical progressives / liberals while loyalists were conservatives. It has little to do with the name of the political party.
 
twf said:
That’s a major stretch.
Click to expand...
No it’s not.
twf said:
Even if we accept that the Democratic Party was pro-slavery, who cares?
Click to expand...
Two things:
  1. The Democrats keep trying to put THEIR sins of the past on the GOP and the South
  2. The Democrats quite frankly won’t shut-up about it because they need the Black vote. A lot of Black votes also buy into this nonsense with their idolatrous (that’s breaking the First Commandment just so we are clear) voting habits.
twf said:
By any conventional definition of the words, conservatives of the 19th century were pro-slavery and liberals were anti-slavery.
Click to expand...
A commonly incorrect assumption. Today’s Constitutional conservatives would oppose slavery because they are pro-Constitution and against big government. Slavery is big government. Today’s liberals would have in some cases owned slaves or at least supported slavery. They go along with whatever is cool at the time. If you opposed slavery back then, your life was at risk. Today’s liberal wouldn’t be able to handle. Heck, they can’t even handle mean words on the internet.
twf said:
In the same way that the founding Fathers were radical progressives / liberals while loyalists were conservatives.
Click to expand...
The Founding Fathers were anti-big government. All today’s progressives can talk about is how to grow government and how government is the solution. If you disagree, you’re a racist, bigot, ect ect
 
So it sounds like your definition of “conservative” vs “liberal” is anti or pro big government. Republicans are all for huuuuuuuuuuuge government… so your definition of conservatives must be pretty tiny. It’s also a very arbitrary definition of the terms. No sane historian would see the Founding Fathers as anything other than RADICAL progressives… pushing for a complete overhaul of the social order. Same goes with slavery. Abolitionists were progressive because they sought to challenge the social order. Your definition of big versus small government is a very narrow specific definition of terms.
 
  1. Trump claims Bannon lost his mind when he was fired (August 2017)
  2. So that means that Bannon is suffering from a form of insanity.
  3. But in December 2017, both Bannon and Trump were on the same page regarding Roy Moore.
  4. So if Bannon had indeed lost his mind, was the support that both Trump and Bannon gave Moore proof of insanity, or was it a glimmer of sanity?
  5. Or is it just Trump doing what he does best, hurling insults? He gave Bannon the White House position and supported his view point. Now Bannon is a nut, because of the quotes in s book.
Yay MAGA! :confused::roll_eyes:
 
Hey, when I mention The Bishops, you claim I’m appealing to authority.

What’s mentioning El Rushbo?
 
dvdjs said:
The Republican party adopted that legacy - and that region.
Click to expand...
First of all, the south is not “A” region. It’s at least two. And there’s no reason at all to assert that the Repub party in any part of it has adopted the legacy of slavery, segregation, or other oppression of blacks.
 
twf said:
No sane historian would see the Founding Fathers as anything other than RADICAL progressives… pushing for a complete overhaul of the social order
Click to expand...
The Founding FAthers would, today, be regarded as retrograde, not as “progressives”. And “complete overhaul of the social order” is not something they really believed in. That way of thinking is a product of Yankee Puritanism; something alien to most of the Founders.
 
Ridgerunner said:
party in any part of it has adopted the legacy of slavery, segregation, or other oppression of blacks.
Click to expand...
I disagree - I think that the work of the Republican party especially in the South to suppress black voting and its impact make a case for that. Voting demographics also are illuminating.
 
Last edited:
dvdjs said:
I disagree - I think that the work of the Republican party especially in the South to suppress black voting and its impact make a case for that.
Click to expand...
Time for persuasive, empirical evidence from reliable sources. And let’s be sure and distinguish what part of “the south” one is talking about. There are very different parts of it, and always have been.
 
For those who see past the false dichotomy in the “elephants vs donkeys” circus, you want to read this book. It is not the salacious tell-all that some are speculating. It is going to sit on the shelf next to books like “The Agenda” and “Game Change” for modern political must-reads.
 
Last edited:
dvdjs said:
We’ve already gone through this before, citing numerous court rulings.

As to the demographics, I think you know them as well.
Click to expand...
If court rulings are to be the “empirical evidence”, then one can argue that the ascendancy of the Repub party in “the south” has purged the region of the worst features of racism.

The demographics? I’m not talking about the demographics of “the south”. I’m talking about the cultures and political histories
 
Ridgerunner said:
If court rulings are to be the “empirical evidence”, then one can argue that the ascendancy of the Repub party in “the south” has purged the region of the worst features of racism.
Click to expand...
You could argue just bout anything. But what you see is the Republican party continuing efforts to suppress black votes in the South, according to our courts.
Ridgerunner said:
The demographics? I’m not talking about the demographics of “the south”.
Click to expand...
I am talking about the the voting demographics in the South. The discussion of the history of Southern Democrats, as though nothing had changed over the past fifty plus years, totally lacks m rit, when the dramatic change in something as evident as voting demographics makes it clear that a dramatic change has occurred.
 
dvdjs said:
You could argue just bout anything. But what you see is the Republican party continuing efforts to suppress black votes in the South, according to our courts.

Ridgerunner:

The demographics? I’m not talking about the demographics of “the south”.

I am talking about the the voting demographics in the South. The discussion of the history of Southern Democrats, as though nothing had changed over the past fifty plus years, totally lacks m rit, when the dramatic change in something as evident as voting demographics makes it clear that a dramatic change has occurred.
Click to expand...
In Shelby County vs. Holder, the Supremes ruled that the government had not proved its case, either before the Court or before Congress that voting rule preclearance of “bad history” states and localities was necessary today.

And I would not argue that voting patterns in parts of the south have not changed favorably for blacks. But one can just as easily believe this is due to the ascendancy of the Repub party there as to anything the Dems ever did. If it is your belief that it’s due to demographic change, show us the evidence.

And again, do not equate the “deep south” with all of “the south”. In much of the “upper south” neither demographics nor political fundamentals have changed significantly in 150 years, and it’s a lot bigger than the “deep south”.
 
Ridgerunner said:
n Shelby County vs. Holder, the Supremes ruled that the government had not proved its case, either before the Court or before Congress that voting rule preclearance of “bad history” states and localities was necessary today.
Click to expand...
This case put to rest extraordinary scrutiny of the South. Fine. The ordinary scrutiny is sufficient and we still see states in the south missing the mark by working for schemes that are judged to suppress black vote.
Ridgerunner said:
And I would not argue that voting patterns in parts of the south
Click to expand...
The key point is that is ti obvious from their voting solidly for Democrats against Republicans that, whatever the old history of Southern Democrats is, the present reality has changed dramatically in the perception of the black community…
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top