The Rose Garden and White House happenings: Listening to voters’ concerns

The impact of the absence of grown-ups in the White House sinks in deeply. I can find no words for the feeling of being globally mortified. Well, yes, I can but it's a family friendly forum.  I'll let the gentleman express it for me.* 

The Guardian: Trump:  "Friends, you're going to love Greenland.  I was there on 9/11." 

https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2019/aug/17/donald-trump-greenland-purchase-denmark

Donald Trump tweeted today he had purchased Greenland from the Kingdom of Denmark for $15bn plus Kanye West and the state of Massachusetts.  Still, the announcement has been questioned abroad.  Prime minister of Greenland, Kim Kielsen, reached this morning before the sun set for the winter, commented: "Clearly, the president's mind is melting faster than our ice sheet."

Danish prime minister Mette Frederiksen tried to strike a diplomatic note, saying: “May God deliver us from this delusional maniac.” 

*

DottyParker said:

https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2019/aug/17/donald-trump-greenland-purchase-denmark

That's a funny article

The NYT launches a huge journalistic endeavor in its Sunday Magazine today: a rewrite of America’s founding. 

https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2019/08/14/magazine/1619-america-slavery.html

America's founding is America's founding.  People just choose which parts they want to ignore and which parts they don't.

Do you feel that this history of slavery should be overlooked?

I have a General Complaint. Why is "Politics" frequently exiled?

What is more important to discuss on a Community Forum in a community such as ours?

STANV said:

I have a General Complaint. Why is "Politics" frequently exiled?

What is more important to discuss on a Community Forum in a community such as ours?

 It lets other topics show up on the MOL homepage.

mtierney said:

The NYT launches a huge journalistic endeavor in its Sunday Magazine today: a rewrite of America’s founding. 

https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2019/08/14/magazine/1619-america-slavery.html

It's not a "rewrite".

"Rewrite" is what the Trump Administration has been trying to do lately with respect to the history of immigration (not to mention the poem on the Statue of Liberty).

Thanks for helping to prove my point.

STANV said:

Thanks for helping to prove my point.

 If this was directed to my prior post - No, I disagree that it "proves" any point that "All Politics" must be kept up front.

[Edited to add] Many members use the handy blocking function to avoid seeing any "All Politics" thread titles when they read the Message Board.

It doesn't bother me.

STANV said:

I have a General Complaint. Why is "Politics" frequently exiled?

What is more important to discuss on a Community Forum in a community such as ours?

Yes, I don't quite understand that either. If there was ever a time when we should be engaged in political discussions it would be now, given the sorry state of the republic.

The KTM crowd immediately took umbrage over my use of the word “rewrite”. Most likely no one read the article. Because, the contention that America has need incorrectly been observing 1776 is being discounted in favor of  the year 1619. That’s a rewrite in my book.

With no form of government in place, is it correct to say a nation has been established?

Nation and state are not synonyms.

Klinker said:

Nation and state are not synonyms.

 oh stop - you're interrupting her racism.

mtierney said:

The KTM crowd immediately took umbrage over my use of the word “rewrite”. Most likely no one read the article. Because, the contention that America has need incorrectly been observing 1776 is being discounted in favor of  the year 1619. That’s a rewrite in my book.

With no form of government in place, is it correct to say a nation has been established?

That's not a "rewrite".  Let's see what the Declaration of Independence says:

"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.--That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, --That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness. Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shewn, that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security.--Such has been the patient sufferance of these Colonies; and such is now the necessity which constrains them to alter their former Systems of Government."

It appears that the American people were "established" on the North American continent before 1776.  They did change their form of government, however.

[Edited to add]  And Mr. Thomas Jefferson, in his Notes on the State of Virginia, gave as full an accounting as he could of its inhabitants beginning in 1607.  

Link

"The following table shews the number of persons imported for the establishment of our colony in its infant state, and the census of inhabitants at different periods, extracted from our historians and public records, as particularly as I have had opportunities and leisure to examine them. Successive lines in the same year shew successive periods of time in that year. I have stated the census in two different columns, the whole inhabitants having been sometimes numbered, and sometimes the tythes only. This term, with us, includes the free males above 16 years of age, and slaves above that age of both sexes."

But speaking of 1776 and Thomas Jefferson:

Jefferson did draft a passage for the Declaration that addressed the slave trade:

"He has waged cruel war against human nature itself, violating its most sacred rights of life and liberty in the persons of a distant people who never offended him, captivating & carrying them into slavery in another hemisphere or to incur miserable death in their transportation thither. This piratical warfare, the opprobrium of infidel powers, is the warfare of the Christian King of Great Britain. Determined to keep open a market where Men should be bought & sold, he has prostituted his negative for suppressing every legislative attempt to prohibit or restrain this execrable commerce."

It was deleted; they didn't want to talk about slavery.  Which is an American tradition to this day, as can be seen with the conservative reaction to the NY Times "1619 Project".

Socialism appears to be the proper direction. Sanders/Warren ticket is the deal! 

And Warren can support Native Americans who were here long before 1619 and had tribes (states) and chiefs (presidents) and fought for their territories.

mtierney said:

Most likely no one read the article. 

There were several articles. Which ones did you find the most engaging?

As you know, the stories ran from the very distance past, 1619, to the present success stories of Black Americans, graduates of America’s best universities. I would say the present day success stories were “the most engaging” (your phrase). It is the American Success Story! 

We can only learn from the past, we cannot change it. 

The back cover quote by Lonnie G. Bunch III from the Smithsonian expresses the ultimate goal:

“Let us use history to inspire us to push a country forward, to help us believe that all things are possible and to demand a country lives up to its stated ideals.”

That the Times viewed a traffic jam in Atlanta “related” to slavery was overreaching. 

Overreaching: The statement “American democracy has never shed an undemocratic assumption present at its founding: that some people are inherently entitled to more power than others.” 

mtierney said:

That the Times viewed a traffic jam in Atlanta “related” to slavery was overreaching. 

What part of the body of that article do you take issue with? 

mtierney said:

Overreaching: The statement “American democracy has never shed an undemocratic assumption present at its founding: that some people are inherently entitled to more power than others.” 

So, why does one voter in Wyoming have the same electoral power as sixty eight Californians?
 

Klinker said:

mtierney said:

Overreaching: The statement “American democracy has never shed an undemocratic assumption present at its founding: that some people are inherently entitled to more power than others.” 

So, why does one voter in Wyoming have the same electoral power as sixty eight Californians?
 

 Why do US Senators and US representatives have to be whole people (AKA integers)?

If we used fractional people for US Senators and US representatives (or, perhaps, have their voting power be fractional) then we could have every voter in the US elect virtually the same number of US Senators and US representatives.  When the Constitution was drafted there was a compromise made, called the  Connecticut Compromise, which we continue to live with today regarding the number of US Senators and US Representatives.  See link and one paragraph excerpt below.

============================================

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

The Connecticut Compromise (also known as the Great Compromise of 1787 or Sherman Compromise) was an agreement that large and small states reached during the Constitutional Convention of 1787 that in part defined the legislative structure and representation that each state would have under the United States Constitution. It retained the bicameral legislature as proposed by Roger Sherman, along with proportional representation of the states in the lower house, but required the upper house to be weighted equally among the states. Each state would have two representatives in the upper house.

proeasdf said:

When the Constitution was drafted there was a compromise made, called the  Connecticut Compromise, which we continue to live with today regarding the number of US Senators and US Representatives. 

 

nice mansplaining

ml1 said:

proeasdf said:

When the Constitution was drafted there was a compromise made, called the  Connecticut Compromise, which we continue to live with today regarding the number of US Senators and US Representatives. 

 

nice mansplaining

Is the definition of "mansplaining" set forth below what you were trying to convey?

If not, let me know what you were trying to convey (or what your definition of "mansplaining" is).

=====================================================

https://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=Mansplaining

Mansplaining - Stating accurate, verifiable facts. Especially when these facts are inconvenient to the feminist worldview, or contradict feminist talking points.

It is often used by a feminists who makes an incorrect claim in support of their narrative, and someone responds with something refuting the feminist’s claim, which she (usually it’s a she) cannot counter.

By claiming “mansplaining,” she tries to pretend to have invalidated her opponents claim, even though she has not addressed it at all.

Factual Person: No, they don't. That statistic is just for overall median pay of full time workers, and does not account for overtime hours worked, location, experience, degree earned, or even the field someone is working in. Women make less on average because men and women make different career choices, because believe it or not, men and women are different.

Feminist: Stop mansplaining to me! Facts and logic are just oppressive constructs to keep women down!#misandry#social justice warrior#pseudo-intellectualism#facts#logic

proeasdf said:

Is the definition of "mansplaining" set forth below what you were trying to convey?

If not, let me know what you were trying to convey (or what your definition of "mansplaining" is).

=====================================================

https://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=Mansplaining

Mansplaining - Stating accurate, verifiable facts. Especially when these facts are inconvenient to the feminist worldview, or contradict feminist talking points.

It is often used by a feminists who makes an incorrect claim in support of their narrative, and someone responds with something refuting the feminist’s claim, which she (usually it’s a she) cannot counter.

By claiming “mansplaining,” she tries to pretend to have invalidated her opponents claim, even though she has not addressed it at all.

Factual Person: No, they don't. That statistic is just for overall median pay of full time workers, and does not account for overtime hours worked, location, experience, degree earned, or even the field someone is working in. Women make less on average because men and women make different career choices, because believe it or not, men and women are different.

Feminist: Stop mansplaining to me! Facts and logic are just oppressive constructs to keep women down!#misandry#social justice warrior#pseudo-intellectualism#facts#logic

Mansplain. Mansplain means to explain something in a condescending fashion, usually a man explaining something in a condescending fashion to a woman. Mansplain is a blending of the words man and explain, also known as a portmanteau.  

in the case of your last post, it could also have taken the form of comparing you to this guy:

ml1 said:

ml1 said:

proeasdf said:

Is the definition of "mansplaining" set forth below what you were trying to convey?

If not, let me know what you were trying to convey (or what your definition of "mansplaining" is).

=====================================================

https://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=Mansplaining

Mansplaining - Stating accurate, verifiable facts. Especially when these facts are inconvenient to the feminist worldview, or contradict feminist talking points.

It is often used by a feminists who makes an incorrect claim in support of their narrative, and someone responds with something refuting the feminist’s claim, which she (usually it’s a she) cannot counter.

By claiming “mansplaining,” she tries to pretend to have invalidated her opponents claim, even though she has not addressed it at all.

Factual Person: No, they don't. That statistic is just for overall median pay of full time workers, and does not account for overtime hours worked, location, experience, degree earned, or even the field someone is working in. Women make less on average because men and women make different career choices, because believe it or not, men and women are different.

Feminist: Stop mansplaining to me! Facts and logic are just oppressive constructs to keep women down!#misandry#social justice warrior#pseudo-intellectualism#facts#logic

Is the definition of "mansplaining" set forth below what you were trying to convey?

 I have no idea of whose picture this is.

PS Your definition of "mansplaining" (namely, Mansplain. Mansplain means to explain something in a condescending fashion, usually a man explaining something in a condescending fashion to a woman. Mansplain is a blending of the words man and explain, also known as a portmanteau.) does NOT agree at all with the urban dictionary definition.

proeasdf said:

I have no idea of whose picture this is.

Identifying him couldn’t be easier. Like Urban Dictionary, we’ll simply crowd-source a few possibilities and see which one gets the most upvotes.

A. Smeagol

B. Joe Feagin

C. Captain Obvious

D. An integer

proeasdf said:

 I have no idea of whose picture this is.

PS Your definition of "mansplaining" (namely, Mansplain. Mansplain means to explain something in a condescending fashion, usually a man explaining something in a condescending fashion to a woman. Mansplain is a blending of the words man and explain, also known as a portmanteau.) does NOT agree at all with the urban dictionary definition.

I can't even

ml1 said:

I can't even

ml1 said:

proeasdf said:

When the Constitution was drafted there was a compromise made, called the  Connecticut Compromise, which we continue to live with today regarding the number of US Senators and US Representatives. 

 

nice mansplaining

 More like just plain old trolling.  Why you guys play with this dope I do not understand.