The current President of the United States does not know it's history

[RockstarChris]

The President of the United States musing on the U.S. civil war:

http://www.cbc.ca/news/world/trump-jackson-civil-war-1.4093515



What a weird guy.

People certainly *do* ask why there was a civil war in the United States. The whole "War of Northern Aggression" vs "The War to Free the Slaves" argument still goes on, and on, and on.... it might be the most popular debate-subject in American history...and on American history...

Of course, all the little "Trump whisperers" will come out and "interpret" his statements... or they'll yell about Obama...

Andrew Jackson did see what was happening leading up to the civil war. The civil war didn't start overnight.

Everything Trump said is accurate, it is liberals like you that are looking too far into it. Just put your bias aside and just read it for what it is instead of looking for something that you can be mad about.

 

[jefferz]

So he's kind of dumb, we knew that.

To be fair I wonder how many Presidents, or for that matter, government officials would fail a high school senior level US history test.

 

[Aegon Spengler]

well he didnt say anything wrong and you have "interpreted" his words, im straightening it out

the left "interpreted" his words from "andrew jackson may have been able to prevent a war by negotiating with both sides, but it happened after his time" to "DRUMPF DOESNT KNOW ANYTHING ABOUT HISTORY"

Jesus Christ. You're that brainwashed that you'll just say he said things he didn't actually say, but might have meant, and then go into a little caps lock rant about "the left"

You have some real problems buddy. It's like you're in a cult. Of course now you'll just cycle into "argh i'm mad at the *left*" again, instead of coming out of your strange little bubble

Andrew Jackson did see what was happening leading up to the civil war. The civil war didn't start overnight.

Everything Trump said is accurate, it is liberals like you that are looking too far into it. Just put your bias aside and just read it for what it is instead of looking for something that you can be mad about.

Yeah, except Trump didn't say that, you seem to have read that, but that's not at all what was said. Was was said was a rambling train of thought and you figure that's what Trump was trying, and failing, to get at. But it might not have been his point at all, until one of his advisers pointed out how dumb he looked, and then of course he took to twitter to try and save a little face

 

[AviatorShades]

Perhaps in your disturbed mind. On Earth Prime we all saw what was said.

No you didn't. You skimmed the title.

 

[AviatorShades]

Jesus Christ. You're that brainwashed that you'll just say he said things he didn't actually say, but might have meant, and then go into a little caps lock rant about "the left"

You have some real problems buddy. It's like you're in a cult. Of course now you'll just cycle into "argh i'm mad at the *left*" again, instead of coming out of your strange little bubble

You're having a bit of difficulty here.

Lets rewind to this part: "he said things he didn't actually say, but might have meant"

Exactly. There is nothing outlandish or factually wrong in the quoted portions of that article. Rather, it is implied what Trump may have been thinking then they attack the interpretation they just created on his behalf. This is a very standard "journalistic" tactic nowadays.

This whole thing is completely unimportant but I guess I just want some of you to develop critical reading skills.

Reread the article; this time subtract all of the fluff and concentrate only on the actual quotations attributed to Trump. Does anything there actually imply that he believed Jackson was alive during the Civil War? No not remotely. In fact he makes it pretty clear that he's saying the exact opposite.

Lets forget this is even Trump or about right and left. I find the lack of critical reading quite scary. Anything in a title or in the journalist's overall slant is treated as gospel even when its plainly complete nonsense.

 

[Limbo Pete]

 

[Aegon Spengler]

You're having a bit of difficulty here.

Lets rewind to this part: "he said things he didn't actually say, but might have meant"

Exactly. There is nothing outlandish or factually wrong in the quoted portions of that article. Rather, it is implied what Trump may have been thinking then they attack the interpretation they just created on his behalf. This is a very standard "journalistic" tactic nowadays.

This whole thing is completely unimportant but I guess I just want some of you to develop critical reading skills.

What's interesting is that Mr. Trump will come out time and time again with little gaffs like these, displaying a lack of knowledge about what he's talking about in the moment, or at the very least a profound inability to articulate what might be on his mind, and yet people just hear whatever they want to hear - then, after the fact, Trump will come out and say "uh, yeah, that's what I meant" - and his supporters lap it up, as though they don't notice what seems obvious to everyone else. This is just one small example.

 

[AviatorShades]

What's interesting is that Mr. Trump will come out time and time again with little gaffs like these, displaying a lack of knowledge about what he's talking about in the moment, or at the very least a profound inability to articulate what might be on his mind, and yet people just hear whatever they want to hear - then, after the fact, Trump will come out and say "uh, yeah, that's what I meant" - and his supporters lap it up, as though they don't notice what seems obvious to everyone else. This is just one small example.

But there is no gaff here. Nothing in the Trump quotes implies that he believed Jackson was alive during the civil war. The journalist just debunks the extremely remote possibility that Trump meant something he never actually said.

The faux-gaffs have a cumulative effect and that's the precise intent. He's a crazy unhinged retarded man who just stumbled into the presidency on valium. The same sheer quantity tactic was used on Bush II. I hated that presidency but the constant stream of faux/micro-gaffs made me loathe the media far more than the president.

 

[MicroBrew]

Of course, all the little "Trump whisperers" will come out and "interpret" his statements... or they'll yell about Obama...

Exactly. The die-hard Trumpers will find excuses and deploy mental gymnastics to defend him no matter what. A favorite seems to be to call anything "fake news" . Now there is some media misleading regarding some of Trump's statements but Trumpers feel the urge to defend him all the time.

 

[Deleted member 196663]

PLAYBOY: Wasn't the Civil War fought to decide whether this nation could, in the words of Lincoln, "endure permanently half slave and half free"?


MALCOLM X: Sir, many, many people are completely misinformed about Lincoln and the Negro. That war involved two thieves, the North and the South, fighting over the spoils. The further we get away from the actual incident, the more they are trying to make it sound as though the battle was over the black man. Lincoln said that if he could save the Union without freeing the slaves, he would. But after two years of killing and carnage he found out he would have to free the slaves. He wasn't interested in the slaves but in the Union.

http://www.malcolm-x.org/docs/int_playb.htm

 

[lecter]

*its

 

[KaNesDeath]

"People don't realize, you know, the Civil War, if you think about it, why?"

Saw this quote yesterday and it still blows my mind people voted for him. Its the equivalent to that ICP song everyone made fun of.

 

[PolishHeadlock]

THREAD TITLE IS #FAKENEWS

He was saying that people dont realize the civil war was actually about state rights vs federal, (people have rewritten it as about abolishing the slaves, but that was only one of many disputes) which was something that jackson himself was greatly concerned with. he was suggesting that jackson couldve come up with some compromise regarding the division of powers

and he was right that jackson was president too early to deal the civil war because he was president 24 years before the civil war, but the building tension obviously happened before

The civil war was about the states rights.

The south wanted the right to own slaves and didn't want the northern states to have rights to combat the fugitive slave act.

So they were fighting for their rights and against the rights of other states and black people in general

 

[KONG-D'SNT-TAP]

No you didn't. You skimmed the title.

Nah I actually watched it from different sources.

Perhaps on Earth 2, where you live, we all heard somethitn different.

Trump does this on many issues though. He says up and down or left and right at the same time.

Examples

Pre existing conditions. He wants both.


He's a globalist and a nationalist

His willingness to reach out to the North Korean leader

Now this civil war thing. He's unclear on everything because he has no real stances and you imbeciles love it.

 

[PolishHeadlock]

There are something like 80k books written about the civil war as it stands now
Edit: honestly, it's probably way more than that

Lol this is crazy stuff. The Civil War is about as well documented an event as therequested could possibly be. We have first hand accounts from every state government written down in declarations of independence and constitutionsee along with speeches and voting records and we have people that still argue "No, actually"...

It goes as far as @Al Gorithm going "yeah but what we're Northerners really fighting for?"

At the end of the day the South seceded over slavery. That's it. They did everything they could to protect the institution of slavery and the North bent over backwards for years to protect the union.

And once there was a whiff that slavery could eventually be on the outside they picked up there ball and went home.

And now we have people going "well the North didn't care about slavery" because some poor people didn't want to get drafted and likely die for a war that didn't immediately impact them?

As if the North didn't elect in a party that was partly founded on emancipation.

Mental gymnastics at its finest

 

[MiniCraque]

Andrew Jackson did see what was happening leading up to the civil war. The civil war didn't start overnight.

Everything Trump said is accurate, it is liberals like you that are looking too far into it. Just put your bias aside and just read it for what it is instead of looking for something that you can be mad about.

Nobody disputes the fact that Jackson antecipated a future conflict. In fact:

Therefore the tariff was only the pretext, and disunion and a Southern confederacy the real object. The next pretext will be the negro, or slavery, question.

Straight from the horse's mouth. The Civil War didn't come out of nowhere and a few presidents who came before it were well aware that it was a distinct possibility. But this imaginary "there's no reason for this" quote implies that he was some kind of pacificist bystander and mischaracterizes his view on treason. Jackson understood perfectly well why it could happen and was anything but soft on secessionists. Earlier in the same latter he wrote:

I have had a laborious task here; but nullification is dead, and its actors and courtiers will only be remembered by the people to be execrated for their wicked designs to sever and destroy the only good government on the globe, and that prosperity and happiness we enjoy over every other portion of the world. Haman's gallows ought to be the fate of all such ambitious men, who would involve the country in civil war, and all the evils in its train, that they might reign and ride on its whirlwinds, and direct the storm. The free people of these United States have spoken, and consigned these demagogues to their proper doom. Take care of your nullifiers you have amongst you. Let them meet the indignant frowns of every man who loves his country.

 

[Limbo Pete]

Lol this is crazy stuff. The Civil War is about as well documented an event as therequested could possibly be. We have first hand accounts from every state government written down in declarations of independence and constitutionsee along with speeches and voting records and we have people that still argue "No, actually"...

It goes as far as @Al Gorithm going "yeah but what we're Northerners really fighting for?"

At the end of the day the South seceded over slavery. That's it. They did everything they could to protect the institution of slavery and the North bent over backwards for years to protect the union.

And once there was a whiff that slavery could eventually be on the outside they picked up there ball and went home.

And now we have people going "well the North didn't care about slavery" because some poor people didn't want to get drafted and likely die for a war that didn't immediately impact them?

As if the North didn't elect in a party that was partly founded on emancipation.

Mental gymnastics at its finest

Yeah, the most face palming thing about all this for me wasn't Trump seeming to not have ever learned about the Civil War, but rather him implying other people don't think about it.

 

[PolishHeadlock]

Yeah, the most face palming thing about all this for me wasn't Trump seeming to not have ever learned about the Civil War, but rather him implying other people don't think about it.

It's fucking crazy. There are how many museums dedicated to it? Like you said thousands of books and hundreds of thousands of dissertations on the subject.

The only 2 topics that might be as covered on American history are WW2 and the Revolutionary war.

 

[Limbo Pete]

It's fucking crazy. There are how many museums dedicated to it? Like you said thousands of books and hundreds of thousands of dissertations on the subject.

The only 2 topics that might be as covered on American history are WW2 and the Revolutionary war.

Civil war has em both beat at the Library of Congress iirc

 

[Deleted member 409801]

Lol this is crazy stuff. The Civil War is about as well documented an event as therequested could possibly be. We have first hand accounts from every state government written down in declarations of independence and constitutionsee along with speeches and voting records and we have people that still argue "No, actually"...

It goes as far as @Al Gorithm going "yeah but what we're Northerners really fighting for?"

At the end of the day the South seceded over slavery. That's it. They did everything they could to protect the institution of slavery and the North bent over backwards for years to protect the union.

And once there was a whiff that slavery could eventually be on the outside they picked up there ball and went home.

And now we have people going "well the North didn't care about slavery" because some poor people didn't want to get drafted and likely die for a war that didn't immediately impact them?

As if the North didn't elect in a party that was partly founded on emancipation.

Mental gymnastics at its finest

My only point was that the average peon and his motivations do not rate much. This whole exchange started because someone insinuated that basics you were either john brown or a klans man depending on which side you happened to fall on .

What were you fighting In Iraq 2.0 ? You elected the government that started that fiasco, correct ? If there was a draft and that had been a major war , your fatass wouldve been over there also , does that mean you own it ? It means you're a cog....a peasant and you do what youre fucking told , like most people. There arent many John Brown's out there.

What the hell did you tag me for anyway.....exactly ? What mental gymnastics do you propose I'm doing anyhow? If your notion is that there was some wide and fundamental gap in morality between the average motherfucker from PA and NC in 1861 than yeah.....Im not going to agree with that. It wasn't some populist grassroots movement that freed the slaves.