Jump to content

The Impeachment of Trump?


Airbrush
 Share

Recommended Posts

20 minutes ago, Area54 said:

I am British but I would not object to a statue of Field Marshal Erwin Rommel being erected in the UK, though I do object to the one of Sir Arthur "Bomber" Harris in London. There is much to admire about the former, and much to decry about the latter.

I suspect you would be in a tiny minority and at risk from vilification(if you were voicing support for such a statue) .  I could be wrong but I am not aware of any reason Rommel (I feel no inclination to give him his title) would  even be deserving of recognition  in the UK regardless of his having participated in the Nazi war machine.

Other "German" statues might be more welcome (and deserving) I imagine. 

Edited by geordief
Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 hours ago, StringJunky said:

I agree. You can't and mustn't whitewash history. Lest we forget... Every nation should carry it's symbols of pride and shame in equal view. It's the bad parts as well as the good parts that makes them what they are today. 

There is a difference between a memorial and a monument. After the civil war a number of memorials were erected as symbols of mourning (often in graveyards. The next wave, however, were tributes to the confederacy and often intended to be a symbol of white supremacy placed half a century after the civil war. Historians have argued that especially placements of theses statues in front of court houses was a clear declaration of the power (im)balance. The equivalent would be to erect statues of prominent German WWII generals near synagogues in the year 2000.

And, using a logic of another poster here, especially republicans should be keen to get rid of them. After all many of those, I assume, were built by then-democrats.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Area54 said:

I am British but I would not object to a statue of Field Marshal Erwin Rommel being erected in the UK, though I do object to the one of Sir Arthur "Bomber" Harris in London. There is much to admire about the former, and much to decry about the latter.

Had you said, Rudolf Hess I'd be more inclined to agree.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

23 minutes ago, CharonY said:

There is a difference between a memorial and a monument. After the civil war a number of memorials were erected as symbols of mourning (often in graveyards. The next wave, however, were tributes to the confederacy and often intended to be a symbol of white supremacy placed half a century after the civil war. Historians have argued that especially placements of theses statues in front of court houses was a clear declaration of the power (im)balance. The equivalent would be to erect statues of prominent German WWII generals near synagogues in the year 2000.

And, using a logic of another poster here, especially republicans should be keen to get rid of them. After all many of those, I assume, were built by then-democrats.

They are symbols of historic racism and I think they should remain as tangible reminders of those dark days in US history.

Edited by StringJunky
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, StringJunky said:

They are symbols of historic racism and I think they should remain as tangible reminders of those dark days in US history.

So replace each statue of a Confederate general with a statue of an enslaved person, or marchers being sprayed with fire hoses. 

If you really want to memorialize a dark period of history, memorialize the consequences, not the perpetrators.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

4 minutes ago, Delta1212 said:

So replace each statue of a Confederate general with a statue of an enslaved person, or marchers being sprayed with fire hoses. 

If you really want to memorialize a dark period of history, memorialize the consequences, not the perpetrators.

Another sanitiser. You just don't see where I'm coming from do you.?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, StringJunky said:

By removing pieces of history that is found unpalatable.

How is encouraging the depiction of the victims of a dark time instead of the people who victimized them "removing" those unpalatable events from history. It's not like these statues have been standing since the time of the Civil War. They aren't historic sites. Most of them were specifically put up as a middle finger to black people.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Area54 said:

I am British but I would not object to a statue of Field Marshal Erwin Rommel being erected in the UK, though I do object to the one of Sir Arthur "Bomber" Harris in London. There is much to admire about the former, and much to decry about the latter.

Blame the politicians not the members of the armed forces; Harris was a puppet of the politicians.  The German people were instrumental in  Hitler's accession to power and were not innocent and were considered viable targets, just as the Germans viewed UK civilians as viable targets. I'm assuming you are railing against such 'atrocities' as the 'Thousand Bomber Raid'.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

32 minutes ago, StringJunky said:

They are symbols of historic racism and I think they should remain as tangible reminders of those dark days in US history.

It would only work if one added a plaque or something to contextualize it. You don't think that putting up a swastika in Germany as a reminder of dark times would be giving the wrong idea?

Edit: I realize that perhaps, you think, that there is enough distance so that people clearly see what the statues actually represent. As a counter I will remind you what the President said and the fact that he is echoing a non-trivial part of the population. The divide caused by racism is far from healed. Unless, of course you mean that it is a good symbolism for ongoing racism, which would be an extremely convoluted train of thought.

Edited by CharonY
Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, Delta1212 said:

How is encouraging the depiction of the victims of a dark time instead of the people who victimized them "removing" those unpalatable events from history. It's not like these statues have been standing since the time of the Civil War. They aren't historic sites. Most of them were specifically put up as a middle finger to black people.

it's a bit too late to be depicting and memorialising the misery of those people now. Who's alive now that can share and depict it in its true light? Anything done now would just be the product of imagination.

2 minutes ago, CharonY said:

It would only work if one added a plaque or something to contextualize it. You don't think that putting up a swastika in Germany as a reminder of dark times would be giving the wrong idea?

Yeah, by all means, that would be a good idea and it would indicate that it does  not represent modern thinking. If the Swastikas had been left then yes but not after the fact... that would belong housed in an appropriate museum.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 minutes ago, StringJunky said:

it's a bit too late to be depicting and memorialising the misery of those people now. Who's alive now that can share and depict it in its true light? Anything done now would just be the product of imagination.

Considering that we're talking about statues that were also put up long after the people depicted and everyone involved with them were already dead, this seems like a rather disingenuous argument to be making.

Edited by Delta1212
Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 minutes ago, StringJunky said:

By removing pieces of history that is found unpalatable.

The Civil War ended in 1865. The Robert E. Lee statue in Charlottesville was built in 1924. That is nearly 60yrs after the war ended. It is not a relic from the Civil War itself. It isn't a historical piece. The Statue way donated by a wealthy stockbroker. Same guy paid for the Stonewall Jackson sculpture in Charlottesville. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

6 minutes ago, StringJunky said:

it's a bit too late to be depicting and memorialising the misery of those people now. Who's alive now that can share and depict it in its true light? Anything done now would just be the product of imagination.

Yeah, by all means, that would be a good idea and it would indicate that it does  not represent modern thinking. If the Swastikas had been left then yes but not after the fact... that would belong housed in an appropriate museum.

So why not move the statues or some of them into a museum to depict the Jim Crow era? At least that would contextualize their symbolism. And what do you mean with a good idea in that context? Not bringing down the swastikas and Hitler statues after the war would be a good idea? Do you really think a swastika on the Reichstag would send the wrong message? Or do you mean putting them up 50 years later and then keep it? 

I am thoroughly confused by your comments but I will say this: If your point is that they should be a reminder of the civil war: they were never intended as such and they were put in half a century later for the new (white) generation to glorify their past and forward looking to put blacks in their place. 

If your point is that they should be kept as shameful symbols of the Jim Crow era, they need proper contextualization as they were designed to do the former. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

12 minutes ago, StringJunky said:

Yeah, by all means, that would be a good idea and it would indicate that it does  not represent modern thinking. If the Swastikas had been left then yes but not after the fact... that would belong housed in an appropriate museum.

If someone did go ahead and, against your advice, put up a swastika now, would you oppose taking it down on historical grounds once it was up?

Edited by Delta1212
Link to comment
Share on other sites

38 minutes ago, StringJunky said:

By removing pieces of history that is found unpalatable.

I think you're wrong about statues being pieces of history, and that's why the rest of your stance seems arguable. "Sanitizing history" is a bad thing, and you've mistakenly grouped the removal of statues in that category. Statues aren't a plaque teaching history, they're objects of veneration, bigger than life and placed to inspire.

Our societies and the reasons for our veneration change. It's not changing history to remove a statue. What changed was the veneration of that history due to how society views the actions currently. If a former hero on his horse who fought a brave battle back then is later found to have tortured the prisoners to death, you can still commemorate the brave battle without venerating the monster.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It seems Trump's impeachment may not be necessary.  According the The Hill, Trump's "Art of the Deal" co-author, Tony Schwartz, is predicting Donald's resignation before the end of this year saying:

Quote

The circle is closing at blinding speed. Trump is going to resign and declare victory before Mueller and Congress leave him no choice

Whether Trump is impeached or he resigns, a Pence presidency is just as concerning because he's a polished politician who would likely be more adept at pushing the GOP agenda through Congress.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, DrmDoc said:

It seems Trump's impeachment may not be necessary.  According the The Hill, Trump's "Art of the Deal" co-author, Tony Schwartz, is predicting Donald's resignation before the end of this year saying:

Whether Trump is impeached or he resigns, a Pence presidency is just as concerning because he's a polished politician who would likely be more adept at pushing the GOP agenda through Congress.  

I don't think an impeachment would necessarily lead to  Trump's removal from office.:(

One man's prediction ,while welcome is just one man's forecast I would feel.

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 minutes ago, geordief said:

I don't think an impeachment would necessarily lead to  Trump's removal from office.:(

One man's prediction ,while welcome is just one man's forecast I would feel.

 

 

It is going to be very strange times once Mueller's investigation starts making its recommendations. Pending on what those recommendation are it is possible Trump may fire Sessions and Mueller then claim a vast conspiracy against him. If Congress were to hold heirings on impeachment Trump potentially matter might do who knows what. I don't see Trump going quietly or peacefully.  With that point 2018 might be wild. I honestly would not be surprised if on election night Trump declared a state of emergency and ordered armed troops to man polling places to ensure the millions of illegal voters he carries on about won't swing elections. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, StringJunky said:

Another sanitiser

Perhaps it would help to think of it less as "sanitization" and more as "fumigation?"

Here's another good primer on the history of the statues: https://www.vox.com/the-big-idea/2017/8/18/16165160/confederate-monuments-history-charlottesville-white-supremacy

 

-----------------------------------------

On 8/15/2017 at 8:48 PM, iNow said:

My prediction: The next big act to distract us / pretend to be resetting race relations will be the firing of Steve Bannon.

And now, two and a half days later, it's already happened:

http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/steve-bannon-white-house-chief-strategist/story?id=49295772

"Bannon is the latest high-profile aide to leave the White House. On July 21, press secretary Sean Spicer resigned, followed by Chief of Staff Reince Priebus. White House communications director Anthony Scaramucci was fired a few days later, serving just 11 days in that role."

 

Edited by iNow
Link to comment
Share on other sites

15 minutes ago, iNow said:

Perhaps it would help to think of it less as "sanitization" and more as "fumigation?"

 

No. "Fumigation" is what they will have to do to the WH after the Trump creature leaves.

Edited by Manticore
Link to comment
Share on other sites

52 minutes ago, iNow said:

Perhaps it would help to think of it less as "sanitization" and more as "fumigation?"

Here's another good primer on the history of the statues: https://www.vox.com/the-big-idea/2017/8/18/16165160/confederate-monuments-history-charlottesville-white-supremacy

 

-----------------------------------------

And now, two and a half days later, it's already happened:

http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/steve-bannon-white-house-chief-strategist/story?id=49295772

"Bannon is the latest high-profile aide to leave the White House. On July 21, press secretary Sean Spicer resigned, followed by Chief of Staff Reince Priebus. White House communications director Anthony Scaramucci was fired a few days later, serving just 11 days in that role."

 

Saw that  post of yours. Didn't think it would happen. Thought this one was a joke till I looked at the the fake news.

Edited by geordief
Link to comment
Share on other sites

47 minutes ago, iNow said:

Perhaps it would help to think of it less as "sanitization" and more as "fumigation?"

Here's another good primer on the history of the statues: https://www.vox.com/the-big-idea/2017/8/18/16165160/confederate-monuments-history-charlottesville-white-supremacy

 

-----------------------------------------

And now, two and a half days later, it's already happened:

http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/steve-bannon-white-house-chief-strategist/story?id=49295772

"Bannon is the latest high-profile aide to leave the White House. On July 21, press secretary Sean Spicer resigned, followed by Chief of Staff Reince Priebus. White House communications director Anthony Scaramucci was fired a few days later, serving just 11 days in that role."

 

Wow! The upheaval in Trump's administration may soon rival Nixon's--if it hasn't already.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 minutes ago, DrmDoc said:

Wow! The upheaval in Trump's administration may soon rival Nixon's--if it hasn't already.

Trump has already, in less than seven months, changed White House Communications Director more times than any previous President has in a single term. The only President that has changed that position more times than Trump already has in their entire time in office was Reagan, who changed six times in eight years, to the four times that Trump has so far this year.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
 Share

×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.