Trumperies

DMB · Post by **DMB** » Fri Apr 28, 2017 4:35 pm

lpetrich, please don't insult QE2 by comparing her to Trump.

JamesBannon · Post by **JamesBannon** » Fri Apr 28, 2017 4:44 pm

[quote=""DMB""]lpetrich, please don't insult QE2 by comparing her to Trump.[/quote]

I think he's right, though. Trump seems to have thought that all he needed to do was to parade around making statements about how cool he is, and signing executive orders. Negotiations to get bills through congress and the senate? Negotiations with foreign leaders? Having his orders struck down as unconstitutional? That's far too much work for a cool guy like Trump.

Copernicus · Post by **Copernicus** » Fri Apr 28, 2017 8:06 pm

In his old job, Donald Trump just hired lawyers to clean up his messes. As President, he makes bigger messes and can't seem to hire enough people to clean them up. Signing executive orders is pretty easy, though.

Hermit · Post by **Hermit** » Fri Apr 28, 2017 8:18 pm

[quote=""JamesBannon""]

DMB;670127 wrote:lpetrich, please don't insult QE2 by comparing her to Trump.

I think he's right, though. Trump seems to have thought that all he needed to do was to parade around making statements about how cool he is, and signing executive orders. Negotiations to get bills through congress and the senate? Negotiations with foreign leaders? Having his orders struck down as unconstitutional? That's far too much work for a cool guy like Trump.[/QUOTE]
WTF? Queen Elizabeth's reign did not consist of parading around making statements about how cool she is. The machinery of governments in the past might look less complicated to you, and a monarch's ability to deal with problems by beheading some of them and decreeing some others out of the way might look like making the life of a ruler easier, but QEII still needed to be a canny and skilful politician to maintain a delicate balance of internal and external powers while keeping the commoners happy and loyal. She succeeded in doing all of that for many years, and she did so without informing herself of situations via the equivalent of Fox news and without resorting to alternative facts and a constant stream of lies and contradictions.

Lpetrich's comparison was most unfortunate and exceedingly inappropriate. If I were in a bad mood I'd describe it as the blathering of a blithering ignoramus, or as the learned strata of Australians you'd likely meet in any pub would put it, a dumb cunt.

JamesBannon · Post by **JamesBannon** » Fri Apr 28, 2017 8:30 pm

Woah! I didn't know I was in amongst a bunch of royalists!

As head of state, the Queen has done a good job (a pity certain other members of the family are as dumb as a bag of spanners). I didn't say, or imply, she hadn't, and neither did lpetrich. However, she doesn't have to negotiate with a recalcitrant House of Commons or House of Lords, nor does she have to negotiate with foreign leaders. In short, she doesn't exercise any executive powers, unlike the POTUS who does. In these senses, her job is easier than the POTUS.

Hermit · Post by **Hermit** » Fri Apr 28, 2017 8:47 pm

[quote=""JamesBannon""]Woah! I didn't know I was in amongst a bunch of royalists!

[/quote]

Tharmas · Post by **Tharmas** » Sat Apr 29, 2017 2:44 pm

[quote=""Hermit""]
a monarch's ability to deal with problems by beheading some of them and decreeing some others out of the way might look like making the life of a ruler easier, but QEII still needed to be a canny and skilful politician to maintain a delicate balance of internal and external powers while keeping the commoners happy and loyal.

[/quote]
I had no idea QEII was so powerful! Let some of the "commoners" on this board chime in: are you happy and loyal? Are you afraid of being beheaded by your Queen?

DMB · Post by **DMB** » Sat Apr 29, 2017 3:17 pm

[quote=""Tharmas""]

Hermit;670142 wrote: a monarch's ability to deal with problems by beheading some of them and decreeing some others out of the way might look like making the life of a ruler easier, but QEII still needed to be a canny and skilful politician to maintain a delicate balance of internal and external powers while keeping the commoners happy and loyal.

I had no idea QEII was so powerful! Let some of the "commoners" on this board chime in: are you happy and loyal? Are you afraid of being beheaded by your Queen?[/QUOTE]

I think Hermit may have been thinking of QE1

This one

rather than this one

Hermit · Post by **Hermit** » Sat Apr 29, 2017 3:51 pm

Ah yes. Total brainfade. Sorry.

Politesse · Post by **Politesse** » Mon May 01, 2017 6:18 pm

Oh, FFS!

Donald Trump voices confusion over US history: 'Why was there a civil war?'

The worst bit:

Asked about his predecessor Andrew Jackson, for whom he often expresses admiration, Trump replied

“He was really angry that he saw what was happening with regard to the civil war. He said, ‘There’s no reason for this.’ People don’t realize, you know, the civil war – if you think about it, why? People don’t ask that question, but why was there a civil war? Why could that one not have been worked out?”
Probably because a bunch of slave-owning sacks of shit preferred violent secession to "forced" recognition of human rights? As for how Jackson siding theoretically with diplomacy when he himself owned hundreds of people, well, at least that's just garden variety stupidity.

lpetrich · Post by **lpetrich** » Mon May 01, 2017 6:46 pm

Trumps totally bizarre claim about avoiding the Civil War - The Washington Post

TRUMP: [Jackson] was a swashbuckler. But when his wife died, did you know he visited her grave every day? I visited her grave actually, because I was in Tennessee.

ZITO: Oh, that's right. You were in Tennessee.

TRUMP: And it was amazing. The people of Tennessee are amazing people. They love Andrew Jackson. They love Andrew Jackson in Tennessee.

ZITO: Yeah, he's a fascinating...

TRUMP: I mean, had Andrew Jackson been a little later, you wouldn't have had the Civil War. He was a very tough person, but he had a big heart. And he was really angry that -- he saw what was happening with regard to the Civil War. He said, There's no reason for this. People don't realize, you know, the Civil War if you think about it, why? People don't ask that question, but why was there the Civil War? Why could that one not have been worked out?

Andrew Jackson had died 16 years before the Civil War started, so he could not have been very helpful. He was also very pugnacious, meaning that someone like him would still have fought the Civil War.

MattShizzle · Post by **MattShizzle** » Mon May 01, 2017 7:00 pm

He also committed genocide against the Cherokee...

JamesBannon · Post by **JamesBannon** » Mon May 01, 2017 7:05 pm

America seriously needs to get rid of Donald Trump. His brain seems to be missing in action.

Politesse · Post by **Politesse** » Mon May 01, 2017 7:30 pm

[quote=""MattShizzle""]He also committed genocide against the Cherokee...[/quote]

Not just the Cherokee, every person of Native race who attempted to remain in the Southeast, including four other major nations and numerous smaller ones. Jackson was no respector of persons.

Copernicus · Post by **Copernicus** » Mon May 01, 2017 7:38 pm

[quote=""Politesse""]

MattShizzle;670266 wrote:He also committed genocide against the Cherokee...

Not just the Cherokee, every person of Native race who attempted to remain in the Southeast, including four other major nations and numerous smaller ones. Jackson was no respector of persons.[/QUOTE]
And that explains his appeal to Donald Trump.

Politesse · Post by **Politesse** » Mon May 01, 2017 8:01 pm

[quote=""Copernicus""]

Politesse;670269 wrote:
MattShizzle;670266 wrote:He also committed genocide against the Cherokee...
Not just the Cherokee, every person of Native race who attempted to remain in the Southeast, including four other major nations and numerous smaller ones. Jackson was no respector of persons.

And that explains his appeal to Donald Trump.[/QUOTE]

In fairness, I do think it is a little deeper than that. I suspect Trump's choice is based less on his personal feelings, if he has any, and more on what will play well with his voters. Jackson is hardly an object of universal derision. He should be, but he is not. With Trump's voters, his legacy is a noble one, the very figure of a trouble-making outsider going in and shaking up the White House establishment, a southern Plantationer and pioneer, a pirate and a war hero. And yes, among the last of the unashamed and unsecretive white supremacists to occupy that office.

Politesse · Post by **Politesse** » Mon May 01, 2017 8:05 pm

[quote=""Copernicus""]

Politesse;670269 wrote:
MattShizzle;670266 wrote:He also committed genocide against the Cherokee...
Not just the Cherokee, every person of Native race who attempted to remain in the Southeast, including four other major nations and numerous smaller ones. Jackson was no respector of persons.

And that explains his appeal to Donald Trump.[/QUOTE]

In fairness, I do think it is a little deeper than that. I suspect Trump's choice is based less on his personal feelings, if he has any, and more on what will play well with his voters. Jackson is hardly an object of universal derision. He should be, but he is not. With Trump's voters, his legacy is a noble one, the very figure of a trouble-making outsider going in and shaking up the White House establishment, a southern Plantationer and pioneer, a war hero. And yes, among the last of the unashamed and unsecretive white supremacists to occupy that office and achieve greatness in national memory. His face is still stamped on our currency; there is nothing like a consensus negative opinion of the man.

MattShizzle · Post by **MattShizzle** » Mon May 01, 2017 8:43 pm

[quote=""Politesse""] His face is still stamped on our currency[/quote]

As I understand at some point he's being replaced by Harriet Tubman. This is a good thing. As the song by Corporate Avenger goes, "how would the Jews feel if Hitler was on the $20 bill?" The most commonly seen denomination, since that is what ATMs give out.

Politesse · Post by **Politesse** » Mon May 01, 2017 9:27 pm

[quote=""MattShizzle""]

Politesse;670276 wrote: His face is still stamped on our currency

As I understand at some point he's being replaced by Harriet Tubman. This is a good thing. As the song by Corporate Avenger goes, "how would the Jews feel if Hitler was on the $20 bill?" The most commonly seen denomination, since that is what ATMs give out.[/QUOTE]

In 2020. And given the current administration and its views...

Copernicus · Post by **Copernicus** » Mon May 01, 2017 9:39 pm

[quote=""Politesse""]

Copernicus;670270 wrote:
Politesse;670269 wrote:
MattShizzle;670266 wrote:He also committed genocide against the Cherokee...
Not just the Cherokee, every person of Native race who attempted to remain in the Southeast, including four other major nations and numerous smaller ones. Jackson was no respector of persons.
And that explains his appeal to Donald Trump.

In fairness, I do think it is a little deeper than that. I suspect Trump's choice is based less on his personal feelings, if he has any, and more on what will play well with his voters. Jackson is hardly an object of universal derision. He should be, but he is not. With Trump's voters, his legacy is a noble one, the very figure of a trouble-making outsider going in and shaking up the White House establishment, a southern Plantationer and pioneer, a war hero. And yes, among the last of the unashamed and unsecretive white supremacists to occupy that office and achieve greatness in national memory. His face is still stamped on our currency; there is nothing like a consensus negative opinion of the man.[/QUOTE]
Actually, Trump's constant harping on the greatness of Andrew Jackson may have more to do with the Harriet Tubman controversy regarding the 20-dollar bill. Trump has opposed that change in the currency, and it is still unclear whether it will go through or be blocked by his administration. This has great dog whistle potential for a large segment of his supporters.

dancer_rnb · Post by **dancer_rnb** » Tue May 02, 2017 12:02 am

[quote=""lpetrich""]Trump’s totally bizarre claim about avoiding the Civil War - The Washington Post

TRUMP: [Jackson] was a swashbuckler. But when his wife died, did you know he visited her grave every day? I visited her grave actually, because I was in Tennessee.

ZITO: Oh, that's right. You were in Tennessee.

TRUMP: And it was amazing. The people of Tennessee are amazing people. They love Andrew Jackson. They love Andrew Jackson in Tennessee.

ZITO: Yeah, he's a fascinating...

TRUMP: I mean, had Andrew Jackson been a little later, you wouldn't have had the Civil War. He was a very tough person, but he had a big heart. And he was really angry that -- he saw what was happening with regard to the Civil War. He said, “There's no reason for this.” People don't realize, you know, the Civil War — if you think about it, why? People don't ask that question, but why was there the Civil War? Why could that one not have been worked out?

Andrew Jackson had died 16 years before the Civil War started, so he could not have been very helpful. He was also very pugnacious, meaning that someone like him would still have fought the Civil War.[/quote]

Jackson faced down South Carolina over tariffs, willing to even use force.

On May 1, 1833 Jackson wrote, "the tariff was only a pretext, and disunion and southern confederacy the real object. The next pretext will be the negro, or slavery question."[

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nullification_Crisis

lpetrich · Post by **lpetrich** » Tue May 02, 2017 6:19 pm

He just seemed to go crazy: Senior GOP aides stunned by Trumps bizarre behavior in last 24 hours

The president claimed that President Andrew Jackson was very angry about the Civil War and could have prevented it, even though Jackson died 16 years prior. Trump said that he was considering breaking up the banks and establishing a gas tax. He said that he would be honored to meet with North Korea dictator Kim Jong-Un, and then said that nobodys safe from North Koreas nuclear weapons. And to top things off, Trump praised the high approval ratings of Philippines strongman President Rodrigo Duterte.

???

Breaking up the banks? That makes him seem like Bernie Sanders.

There's already a Federal gasoline tax.

What he said about North Korea leaves me *very* confused.

Politesse · Post by **Politesse** » Tue May 02, 2017 6:24 pm

[quote=""dancer_rnb""]Jackson faced down South Carolina over tariffs, willing to even use force.[/quote]
Which would have prevented war, how?

MattShizzle · Post by **MattShizzle** » Tue May 02, 2017 9:10 pm

Hermit · Post by **Hermit** » Wed May 10, 2017 12:48 am

James Comey has outlived his usefulness.