I wonder what the country would be like if HRC had won.

I bet all those confederate statues would still be standing. And not even a blip in the radar.

The economy would probably be growing.

How would she handle North Korea? Better or worse? I imagine worse. But maybe not. Maybe she would have more juice to get China on board.

The big negative from both the Obama presidency and this one, is how divided the country has become. But maybe it is just the times and not the presidents. but I think the presidents have something to do with it.

Great sentiment. But how do you define right and wrong? That is a subjective thing.

Maybe the problem is we are trying to be objective in a subjective world.

I think the division is more of an inevitability because of the shifting nature of the US political landscape. The country is slowly shifting more to moderate left from the moderate right position it's held for an eternity. With that you have young people that would have struggled to have a voice in previous generations that now have the internet as an outlet. More voices from more generations during changing times. That's a recipe for division.

I don't believe any moderate left or right president is going to make much of a difference with North Korea. Even Trump, with all of his threats, hasn't changed a thing with them. Every threat from the country is a bluff. We know that, they know that, the world knows that. We can ignore them and continue sanctioning them or threaten them and continue sanctioning them. The only thing that's going to change that is if we attack them or they feel backed so far into a corner that they feel it's necessary to attack.

My personal problem with threatening North Korea with nukes or military action is that our threats are just as empty as theirs are and it there's a chance it emboldens them when they realize that.

A coupe of questions.

1. tarcone, what did Obama do that divided the country? Was it his speeches and policies? To me, the division wasn't getting worse until 2-3 years ago. Otherwise, that part was getting slowly better. It's much better than it was 10-15 years ago.

2. What is causing the big movement to remove the statues? There are items all over the country and all over the world that represent something extremely negative to some sizable group of people. Does that mean we need to destroy all of those items? Or are we only destroying a subset based on the attitude of the time? I must admit, I didn't know we had so many monuments erected to the confederacy...and don't care.

Over the past 6-12 months, the country, or at least the small part of the country that I read about on social media and the news, has amplified the extremes. While most of the noise comes from the extremes, most of the people seem to live in the middle. If the middle can come together, be civil and have constructive discussions, and denounce both extremes, maybe we can get things back on track.

His policies. His membership in his church (even though he denounced the pastor and got out). His perceived birthplace and religion.

But the division isnt just in the public, it is in the legislative branch as well. Will that arm of the government do anything? Can they? Will they? I dont know. It sure doesnt seem like it.

Seems like the Judicial branch has made more laws lately than the legislative branch. I know Im exaggerating. But it feels like it.

The division in the legislative branch isn't anything new. The reason it seems magnified right now is the focus on passing things that dems and conservatives fundamentally disagree on.

So a guy who wasn't born in Kenya and who wasn't a Muslim should be blamed because people thought he was?

I hate, hate playing the race card. But let's call it for what it is - you are saying the president shouldn't be black at this point.

Whoa there skippy. You are putting words in my mouth. I said perceived. And I dont believe that. Never did.

And there isnt blame. I think it is what it is. When people have a perception about something, it becomes their reality.

I never said a President shouldnt be black.

Democrats suck at local politics lately and thats allowed fringe and rural positions to have far more bearing on policy than they merit. Congressional districts are so poorly drawn that 50/50 states end up at 66/33 R to D in the US house. Which causes even greater division than there should be.

The policies part, I get. Makes sense. The church aspect does as well, but he distanced himself from that very early and doesn't seem like a part of Obama that would divide the nation to the current perceived level.

And isn't his religion some denomination of Christian? Isn't his name more in line with his father's heritage?

Can you expand a bit on the birthplace portion? The country is divided because his father was Kenyan so part of the country feels he is Kenyan and not American, even though he was born in Hawaii? If Obama wasn't born here, that would've been vetted out when he was running for office. Or, do people feel there's a conspiracy and a cover up to hide his origin of birth? (Yes, I now that's the case, but is that really the reason the country is divided?)

So is the Bannon firing not really a "firing" but more of a way for someone who is "no longer on the team" to voice opinions for Trump without the political backlash?

I mean all Trump has to do is say "I fired they guy, don't associate what Brietbart/Bannon has to say with me." The "fake news" will undoubtedly try to correlate what Bannon spews from the outside as what is going on inside the WH. The loyal base will eat it up and the cycle continues.

Perceived birthplace and religion. There are people in this country that cling to the belief that Obama is a Muslim from Kenya. Sadly, while it's not anything close to a majority it is a sizable number of people.

Bannon was fired because Kelly seems determined to get the nutjobs out of Trump's ear.

What I expect you'll see from Bannon is praise for Trump when he can, but mostly attacks on Kelly, Kushner, Ryan, ect. They'll be blamed for Trump changing stances or backing off his pledges.

Yeah, I'm a NW yankee, so the civil war and the confederacy have literally no cultural influence on me, and I've been mildly surprised to see how many confederate monuments exist, let alone get removed. I don't know if I'd say I care, but I do think there's an interesting discussion in there somewhere about why these monuments are suddenly being removed. Particularly at this point in time and at locations where you'd think that confederate sentiment is actually at it's highest, and at a rate that makes me question why nobody had noticed/remarked that there were so many of them in the previous 100 years (which I'm sure millions of folks did, but it didn't trickled up to me in the NW much).

tarcone, I am usually of the exact opposite opinion on every political subject I've ever payed attention to, sometimes to the extent that I get angry and/or offended, but I can also honestly say that I think you consider other folks' thoughts and are open to changing your mind more than anybody I've ever seen on the internet, which deserves some recognition.

This.

Thanks.
As I mature I find myself more open to others ideas and values. And this is a board that is full of very intelligent individuals.
I like the discussions here. 99% of them are very thought provoking.

Honestly, I didn't think people were still clinging to that theory so vehemently. If I believed that, that would make me think Obama's presidency was invalid and stolen by the Dems, and would piss me off. With no proof that it's true after 9-10 years, though, I can't say I would continue to believe it.

I have had the discussion every now and then with my wife (and now son) for a few years now. She's from the South, says it's "Heritage," and I question her to think about why that particular part of her family background is so important to connect with. Being proud to be from the South, fine. But why does that have to be specifically represented by the Confederacy?

I mean, from MY standpoint, having come from a family of immigrants (not sure I had any family here before the 1900s) from a northern city, I just don't get it. The Confederacy was the losing side of a seditious war. One that was primarily over slavery (sorry, states rights is revisionist bullshit IMO). How in the hell is this a source of pride? Oh, right - it was white pride. Got it.

"As regards the erection of such a monument as is contemplated," Lee wrote in December 1866 about another proposed Confederate monument, "my conviction is, that however grateful it would be to the feelings of the South, the attempt in the present condition of the Country, would have the effect of retarding, instead of accelerating its accomplishment; [and] of continuing, if not adding to, the difficulties under which the Southern people labour."

Interesting stuff about Lee. He was truly a great american. Best General the Union had. But had allegiance to Virginia, so joined Confederacy.

Some his quotes are outstanding. And he realized that after the war, reconciliation and acceptance was the raod to follow.

I can understand how over the years those confederate monuments could be culturally assimilated to represent traditional Southern values like gun ownership, rebellion, and religion without necessarily assuming the weight of the war or it's causes. But yeah, at some point you should face & wrestle with the fact that it's largely/only other white folk sharing that simplification.

The Myth of the Kindly General Lee - The Atlantic


Yeah, great guy.

Never mind.


Thanks for posting the article Cuervo. Sure changed my thoughts.

Here's a rebuttal to that piece, fwiw:

Was Robert E. Lee A Hero or A Villain? | National Review

But...Atlantic vs National Review, that's to be expected.

Maybe this is more balanced? http://www.smithsonianmag.com/histor...-lee-85017563/

There's probably a million articles about Lee. I'm not sure he's as saintly as some make out. Some say that about Lincoln too, of course.

Its hard to know. We are relying on people with their own biases tapping into our biases and hoping what ever they throw at the wall sticks.

Some of those quotes by Lee are great. But it sounds like he really felt that Blacks were not capable of doing anything without whites showing them the way.

He seems to have many layers as many important historical figures do.

That's true of many figures of the era. "Social justice" is a pretty recent concept, really. Those in the North who supported abolition weren't necessarily on board with 'make blacks equal to whites.' They just saw slavery and slaveowning as an injustice.

I mean, Lincoln wanted slavery gone - that whole "house divided" thing - but he wasn't super-keen on the idea of the freedmen hanging around. He supported the American Colonization Society's goal of repatriating freed blacks to Liberia. And even he wrote that he was completely willing to preserve slavery, despite his personal predilections, if it would preserve the Union.

That's the dirty little secret about the "Party of Lincoln." It's an idealized view of the Republican Party of the late 19th century, and the reality and the idealization don't really match up. Yes, Republicans freed the slaves with the Thirteenth, Fourteenth, and Fifteenth Amendments, but the end of slavery wasn't the casus belli. Lincoln didn't go to war to free the slaves; he sought to restore the Union. He didn't issue the Emancipation Proclamation to change the moral authority of the war; he issued it as a threat to the South that their great fear on secession - the eradication of slavery in the Confederate states - would become a reality if they didn't cease their rebellion within three months. The requirement that the South adopt those Amendments as a prerequisite to regaining full statehood following the war was the stick behind the threat that document asserted.

Even after the war ended, the Republicans sold out the cause of black political freedom for political advantage - they traded the end of Reconstruction (and the concomitant disenfranchisement of black politics in the South for almost a century) in exchange for Southern Democrats agreeing to drop their contest of Hayes' election in 1876.

The modern GOP is less enthused about bringing up that bit when they remind folks that it was Republicans who freed the slaves, naturally.

TL;DR - freedom and equality were separate concepts even for many abolitionists of the era. It's not at all surprising that somebody might advocate the end of slavery and still hold views in line with the "White Man's Burden" Kipling would write about a generation later.

That's no less true of Lee than of Lincoln than of any other 19th century American politician.

Well articulated.

Yes. Very well written. Thanks.

While this is very well-written and Lincoln isn't quite the absolute saint most make him out to be, his political actions do not necessarily reflect his actual beliefs. He understood the political machine better than nearly anyone of his time, and used it brilliantly - the underlying theme is that he would go to any lengths to save the Union. The American Colonization Society thing (his support of repatriating freed blacks to Liberia) was a great example of this. His public support of it was a huge political mis-step that opened his eyes - while he may have initially supported it, his writings after the public reaction to his initial support heavily indicate that he realized that he misread the room with regard to the opinion of actual black people, and had him rethinking his beliefs on the issue. His relationship to Frederick Douglass in particular helped to shape his beliefs. Many of his private papers indicate that he himself was occasionally frustrated that the political climate necessitated aiming for a lesser goal because of how it would be received/reacted to. A strong example was how reluctant/cautious Lincoln had to be with that 'stick' of his because he could not afford to scare off the border states into seceding with the south.

If anyone is at all interested in the time period, or Lincoln in general, A Team of Rivals is an incredible read.

Thanks for the book suggestion. I recently read The U.S. Civil War by Bruce Catton. But that is more about the war itself. But it does touch on the politics.
Lincoln should be considered the greatest President we have had. The political mine field he had to traverse was incredible.
He was in a lose-lose position and he managed to get the Union to come out together. And, honestly, in a win position.

Seeing all this talk about history during the time of Lincoln (especially the American Colonization Society) makes this African-American/African history teacher proud :)

Lot of speculation that two collisions of the same class ship within two months may not be accidental. The possibility of GPS spoofing is being thrown out.

As in ships masking their GPS signal to show up in a place they are not?

That or the navy just spent billions of dollars on shit that doesn't work very well

The first collision ended with the captain and several crew being fired for negligence so I doubt that is the case ... that and y'know ships down move all that fast so regardless of whether that occurred old fashioned eyes and radar should be able to cope.

GPS is apparently vulnerable to outside signals confusing the satellites so that ships are told incorrect locations. Apparently there was a recent incident where numerous ships in the Black Sea all had their GPS spoofed simultaneously.

Maybe thats why my GPS takes me on back roads instead of interstates. Damn spoofing. :)

If reports are accurate Trump is going to call for 4000 more troops for Afghanistan. That doesn't seem like a number high enough to make a difference.

I don't understand why he is having a major national television address on this? Am I the only one?

Gotta look like the Presidump.

Because Paul Ryan was scheduled to have a town hall on CNN at 9.

Seriously, that's probably the reason.

Hopefully to explain why

IIRC, he was against this type of action. If that is the case, there probably needs to be an explanation for the reversal.

I think Obama would have done the same. Explaining why he's sending more American troops over to possibly die is probably a good, more Presidential, move on his part.

I agree. Will never have an issue with a President addressing the public on changes to our military stance.

But like usual, there is a tweet for this one too. I swear he does the opposite of everything he has ever said.

Let’s get out of Afghanistan. Our troops are being killed by the Afghanis we train and we waste billions there. Nonsense! Rebuild the USA.

— Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) January 11, 2013

I'd be interested in any book suggestions too. Especially ones in audio format (I've got an hour each morning when I workout to listen to stuff). Or even podcasts. I feel like I've learned a ton on WW1 from Hardcore History. Would be cool if something like that existed for the Civil War.

I'm torn on the statues. For the most part I just didn't care. It was just a statue of an American figure. Sure he can be classified as a traitor but he was still a figure in American history. But I was also white and I would definitely feel differently if I was a black man growing up in a city that honored someone who fought so passionately to maintain the enslavement of my ancestors.

My feelings on the topic did change a few month months back when I read a speech by the Mayor of New Orleans (who is white) about the removal of Confederate monuments). It had talked about it from a perspective I had never thought of and I think is worthy of a read for anyone in the thread.

Transcript of New Orleans Mayor Landrieu’s address on Confederate monuments | The Pulse

1776 and A Team of Rivals are hands down the best American History books I have ever read. 1776 is a little lighter on facts/sources/analysis than I'd like, so it reads a little more like a story than a historical account, but it is excellent nonetheless.

I've read 1776. McCullough is one of my favorites.

I will suggest The US Civil War by Catton. I mentioned it earlier. Great read. Not sure if on audio. But I really enjoyed it. The Civil War is not one of my most favored time periods, but I really got into this book.

Doesn't seem that much to me either.

There are alot of military minds at Camp David so they should know what they are doing, have access to all the intel/projections etc., and a president that is very pro military. I'm willing to give them the benefit of the doubt with whatever they come up with.

There was also talk about this being a regional strategy (not just Afghanistan) so will be interesting to see what is being proposed.

It's on audio. Will definitely listen. I should probably watch the old Ed Burns documentary on it too. Been a long time and it's on Netflix.