They are saying the quiet part out loud now

[Scooter]

Trump is angling to be president for life.

[Crackpot]

I’m pretty sure he will be. I think natural causes will catch up with him before the end of his current term (not that it will stop the conspiracies)

[BoSoxGal]

That motherfucker can’t die soon enough. I fucking hate that the first thing I think when I wake up in the morning is a prayer for breaking news that he is fucking dead.

I bawled yesterday after seeing WH photographer Pete Souza showing photos and sharing memories of presidential families and visitors enjoying the East Wing of the WH. So many awful things have happened, but I am stuck in grief over the rubble he’s made of our history.

I hate this motherfucking timeline. And I don’t honestly see how it can be repaired within my lifetime. I guess I have to let go of all other dreams and aspirations and just get motivated to burn some shit down and wreak justice on some traitors.

[liberty]

Since the White House was built by slaves and is therefore a symbol of slavery, why wouldn't A good leftist want the entire building torn down?

[eddieq]

"Don't close the book on Trump"

Like DJT or Tommy there has ever cracked a book before. Besides Mein Kampf, maybe.

[Big RR]

Liberty is such an expert on what the left thinks...

And since the east wing was built in the 20th century, what slaves were used? Slavery was still legal then?

[MajGenl.Meade]

Liberty is such an expert on what the left thinks... And since the east wing was built in the 20th century, what slaves were used? Slavery was still legal then?

Be fair there, big guy. Lib's question is valid. He's not addressing the current vandalism of the East Wing - so the 20th century construction is irrelevant. Nor is he declaring what the "left" is or even should be thinking.

His premise is based upon "left" pressures to remove symbols of slavery as such are offense to all/many/most black persons as well as some non-black persons. Well, that's a fact. And the White House main building was indeed constructed partly by black forced labor. That's a fact.

Is it not inconsistent (he wants to know) for people of the left (among others) to decry the demolition of a non-slave built portion and yet not be calling for the demolition of the slave-built structure?

Well . . . is it?

Practically and aesthetically we can't go about pulling down everything that was or may have been created with slave labor. Way too many monuments and beautiful buildings were so created and we would be all the poorer for losing them. And I think lib is perhaps missing the point that statues honoring slave-holders and those who fought to uphold slavery (whether or not that was their actual motivation) differ significantly from buildings which are neutral in regard to any individual or practice (neither praising nor condemning the system). However, his question is not unreasonable - maybe it would be better aimed at the Washington Monument . . .

[Big RR]

Meade--you can be "fair" if you want, I am just holding him to what he said; but face it, the "monuments that some are demanding to be torn down are far from neutral while, as you say, buildings like the WH may well be. And I am pretty sure he understands this and is just using his "Who ME?" artifice to derail the discussion. Additionally, I am also addressing his penchant of always stating what "the left" thinks--which is basically anything opposed to his way of thinking. "The left" (to the extent it exists), is hardly monolithic on any issue, and there are some who oppose the tearing down our history, while others are on the other side. But Lib purports to know what this fabled left thinks on any issue.

But the point is, this thread is based on a discussion of what happened to the East Wing, and it had nothing to do with slavery. If anyone wants to discuss the destruction of the WH in a serious discussion, it can be raised in another thread; and I do not think it "fair" to derail this thread with that discussion. You can continue along that line if you choose to, but I will not participate.. I do think it far more important to discuss the actions of our current president in ignoring laws and destroying history than to discuss what some supposed group Lib calls "the left" believe or whether they are hypocritical in those beliefs.

[Sue U]

Is it not inconsistent (he wants to know) for people of the left (among others) to decry the demolition of a non-slave built portion and yet not be calling for the demolition of the slave-built structure?

Well . . . is it?

Practically and aesthetically we can't go about pulling down everything that was or may have been created with slave labor. Way too many monuments and beautiful buildings were so created and we would be all the poorer for losing them. And I think lib is perhaps missing the point that statues honoring slave-holders and those who fought to uphold slavery (whether or not that was their actual motivation) differ significantly from buildings which are neutral in regard to any individual or practice (neither praising nor condemning the system). However, his question is not unreasonable - maybe it would be better aimed at the Washington Monument . . .

The "liberals'" point is of course not to tear down everything built with slave labor (we'd have to tear down the U.S. of A.), but to recognize the forced contributions of enslaved people in building this nation and what that means for a country whose founding principles declare 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." It is also perfectly reasonable to tear down monuments venerating Confederate traitors who waged war on the United States to preserve and expand slaveholding -- monuments that were erected specifically to further racism, segregation and cultural division beneath a manufactured veneer of "states' rights" heroism.

Given the timeline, it is probable that the initial phases of the Washington Monument were constructed at least in part with slave labor, and Washington himself was known to be a harsh slaveholder, although later in life (at the urging of Lafayette and others) he came to favor abolition, but believed it had to be accomplished gradually through legislation. He did he free his slaves on his death, though -- the only one of the slaveholding Founders to do so, I believe. Fellow Virginians and Founders Jefferson and Madison also held slaves despite being the greatest proponents of civil liberties, and while professing slaveholding to be a moral evil nevertheless persisted in it. Benjamin Franklin also had slaves but later became president of the Pennsylvania Society for the Abolition of Slavery -- the first abolitionist society in America -- and petitioned Congress for abolition. These apparent contradictions of principle, their context and their problematic effects in the development of American society and institutions need to be recognized so that we can understand where we came from, how we have evolved and why this history is relevant to issues we face today.

As to the OP, Tommy Tuberville is quite possibly the stupidest man ever to be elected Senator, and every day he holds that office is a threat to U.S. the Constitution.

[liberty]

To that I say: huge piles of bovine fertilizer. Some on the right can be just as bad as some on the left. The Constitution doesn't say what you want it to say. It's the voice of the American people, and it says what it says: no one can serve more than two terms as President, and no one who has served two terms can run for Vice President. There's no way around it—Trump cannot run a third time for President or Vice President unless we change the Constitution, and I'm definitely against such an idea. I'm with George Washington when he said no man should serve more than two terms. More than two terms as President gives one person too much power.

Even if a two-term President were elected Vice President, they would still be unable to fulfill their primary obligation—which is to become President if the sitting President becomes ineligible. Since they are constitutionally barred from being elected President again, they cannot serve in that role. That makes them ineligible to be Vice President in the first place.

I realize I'm using some literary license here concerning what George Washington said and what the Constitution, the 22nd Amendment, and the 12th Amendment say—but that's the way it is.

[MajGenl.Meade]

To that I say: huge piles of bovine fertilizer.

An appropriate response to the Tommyrot Tubercule. But you're wrong in one aspect. Given a packed and corrupt SCOTUS (check), any Fat Asshole Stupid Clown Instigating State Terror (check) may succeed in having said arbiter of what is and is not Constitutional (see first check) decide running for a 3rd term is entirely consistent with the written document.

Which (in case you needed reminding) was once ruled by a SCOTUS as inapplicable to people of African descent who "are not included, and were not intended to be included, under the word 'citizens' in the Constitution, and can therefore claim none of the rights and privileges which that instrument provides for and secures to citizens of the United States" and were not entitled to "full liberty of speech ... to hold public meetings ... and to keep and carry arms" along with other constitutionally protected rights and privileges.

Didn't need no danged amendment to reach that conclusion, did they?

[Burning Petard]

I refer you to Emergency, as described by Sweet honey In the Rock, back in 1987: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kLO5_Lr ... rt_radio=1

Remember January 6? That was a rehearsal. As Trump 2.0 as already told you, you don't need to vote any more. He is placing armed soldiers all over the country to provoke a response that can be called an Emergency. Under such widespread disruption, he can use his unlimited and undefined emergency powers to continue as Our Great Leader for the rest of his life.

A man living in a temporary domicile for only another two years does not knock down a wall and add a huge expensive new room.

Now he is distracting us with the biggest fireworks show ever. We must resume testing unthinkable weapons of mass destruction because other countries are doing it. Now I want to watch the movie "A House of Dynamite"

snailgate

[Big RR]

I hope you're wrong; if not, the best we can say is we had a good run before him. And the ensuing chaos will be catastrophic.

As for the ballroom, I don't think he cares if he uses it or not; just so long as hs name is plastered on it somewhere. t/hat's what he lives for--well that and screwing contractors out of their money.

[Burning Petard]

My apology to all the atheists out there, but I must post a rebuttal to my pessimistic post above.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=huXrTXn ... rt_radio=1

snailgate