Is Donald Trump mentaly \ morally fit for the presidency?

[fkizz]

No Portugal was among the last to do it.
Ireland was the first that did it I think, then Iceland. Portugal abolished all slavery in 1869, so no. They were quite late to the party, one of the very few that did it after the USA.
Now, after clearing up that confusion over something as important as slavery abolition... you can see that most of the west was moving towards abolition of slavery while Jackson was president. Congress of Vienna in 1815, world antislavery convention in London in 1840, abolition of slavery except in colonies, abolition of slave trade etc.
Jackson was pro-slavery in an era that slavery was collapsing while Plato was indifferent to it in an era that slavery was the norm.

To be fair, depends on the honesty of written intent. Charlesmagne had already "ended" Slavery in VIII Century, replacing it with Serfdom instead. Slavery formerly was as a tradeoff to let go of death penalty and become a slave in replacement of being executed. This is much earlier than any abolition in the XIX centuries.
Source:https://books.google.pt/books?id=mcw...lavery&f=false

Slavery was then re-instated later because legally speaking colonial folks were not often subject to such laws.

If someone had a debt or penalty unpaid, he could become a lifelong slave instead of being killed, but charlemagne removed such so that it would be as relevant until the debt was paid. Some of the technical terms here sound eerily similiar to today.

Point being, on a longer timespan, slavery abolition and its revival seems to follow a cyclical pattern, rather than a moral or mental health one.

[Heathen Hammer]

Given Trump's shaky grasp on history, I don't think he was referring to the Nullification Crisis of 1832. This is someone who claimed a great Civil War battle took place on the grounds of his Virginia golf course. When historians called him on it, he lashed out with, "how would you know? Were you there?" Typical Trump.

http://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-39723586

Meanwhile, Civil War historians strenuously disagree with Trump. When my colleagues in the department heard about his latest bout of verbal diarrhea, the reaction was a mix of eyerolls and chuckles. The sad thing is millions of Oxy-snorting bumpkins believe the guy.

Trump seems to know more about history then people who claim to be "historians" do. Funny how the article failed to mention the fact that Lincoln was, in fact, extremely racist and abolished slavery to racially cleanse US and not out of some inane humanitarian reasons that such pseudo-historians attribute to him. But then again, are we surprised that BBC produces nothing but pro-establishment propaganda?

[alhoon]

Point being, on a longer timespan, slavery abolition and its revival seems to follow a cyclical pattern, rather than a moral or mental health one.

Wait, I never said Trump was pro-slavery! I talked about him thinking that the civil war would have been averted if a pro-slavery president was still in office.

Trump seems to know more about history then people who claim to be "historians" do. Funny how the article failed to mention the fact that Lincoln was, in fact, extremely racist and abolished slavery to racially cleanse US and not out of some inane humanitarian reasons that such pseudo-historians attribute to him. But then again, are we surprised that BBC produces nothing but pro-establishment propaganda?

The Hard core of the Trump fans is still in full support of Trump I see despite his failures and losses in the first 100 days. Some things never change. I wonder how many of them still wait for him to send Washington spinning after it was made apparent that the president alone can't do much without support from his party.

Care to show us the sources that Lincoln abolished slavery out of racism?

[ggsimmonds]

Wait, I never said Trump was pro-slavery! I talked about him thinking that the civil war would have been averted if a pro-slavery president was still in office.




The Hard core of the Trump fans is still in full support of Trump I see despite his failures and losses in the first 100 days. Some things never change. I wonder how many of them still wait for him to send Washington spinning after it was made apparent that the president alone can't do much without support from his party.

Care to show us the sources that Lincoln abolished slavery out of racism?

Not merely out of racism, but as part of a stratagem to racially purify the country.

I too am eagerly awaiting the source.

[BatGoat]

The Hard core of the Trump fans is still in full support of Trump I see despite his failures and losses in the first 100 days.

So they're supposed to give up on Trump after three months in office? Maybe they recognise the hard slog ahead for the Trump Administration and are willing to roll up their collective sleeves and dig in.

[Heathen Hammer]

Yet, this is hardly the case. In March of 1861, Lincoln rendered the following words: “The War is waged by the government of the United States not in the spirit of conquest or subjugation, nor for the purpose of overthrowing or interfering with the rights or institutions of the states, but to defend and protect the Union.”

http://atlantablackstar.com/2015/05/...-black-people/

Lincoln did eventually advocate emancipation. However, he did so to preserve the Union, and not to render a moral decision. He once wrote, “My paramount object in this struggle is to save the Union, and is not either to save or destroy slavery.”

Lincoln was no supporter of racial equality. In fact, while debating Douglas in 1858, Lincoln declared the following: “I will say then that I am not, nor ever have been in favor of bringing about in any way the social and political equality of the white and black races.”

Lincoln believed that Black people living in close proximity to white people would ruin the image of the pure white family that he found ideal. He felt the birth of mixed race children would cause family life to “collapse.” He said, “Our republican system was meant for a homogeneous people. As long as blacks continue to live with the whites they constitute a threat to the national life. Family life may also collapse and the increase of mixed breed bastards may some day challenge the supremacy of the white man.”

Lincoln was a white supremacist.
Then again, the hardcore anti-Trump crowd will reject anything Trump says, regardless of the validity. If Trump was to say that Earth isn't flat, we'd have CNN, Buzzfeed and BBC write articles about whoever doesn't believe earth isn't flat is a racist and is probably a Russian spy as well.

[IronBrig4]

Lincoln was a white supremacist.

https://quod.lib.umich.edu/j/jala/26...;view=fulltext

You're assuming that Lincoln's view stayed static from 1858 until his death. What we can see here is a constantly evolving statesman. Here's something from an actual historian, and not a Trump University graduate or an angry "black power" activist.

Your quotes are also suspect because they're either assigned to the wrong person or completely taken out of context.

http://quod.lib.umich.edu/a/alajourn...ew=text&seq=40

Lincoln never said that about "mixed breed bastards" or the republican system being meant for a homogenous people. It was the Reverend James Mitchell of Indiana.

Again, it's the Trumpkins dismissing experts (scientists, doctors, and now historians) because, through the haze of whisky and opioids, they desperately believe their Mango Messiah will restore their towns and get their cousins off heroin.

[Maiar93]

Trump seems to know more about history then people who claim to be "historians" do. Funny how the article failed to mention the fact that Lincoln was, in fact, extremely racist and abolished slavery to racially cleanse US and not out of some inane humanitarian reasons that such pseudo-historians attribute to him. But then again, are we surprised that BBC produces nothing but pro-establishment propaganda?

Any sane person knows that this is a lie. You are sane. You know it is a lie.

It would explain your other opinions, though.

[Roma_Victrix]

The Hard core of the Trump fans is still in full support of Trump I see despite his failures and losses in the first 100 days. Some things never change. I wonder how many of them still wait for him to send Washington spinning after it was made apparent that the president alone can't do much without support from his party.

Care to show us the sources that Lincoln abolished slavery out of racism?

Heathen Hammer is only presenting half the facts here, since his suggested programs of colonizing an island near Haiti, territories in Panama, and the British West Indies with consenting African American freedmen were unfulfilled projects of his first term as president. Obviously in his second term as president Lincoln advocated for the voting rights and citizenship of African American freedmen. In 1862 Lincoln even proposed to Congress that the slaves should be emancipated yet the slaveholders should all be compensated with a large amount of money doled out by the US Treasury. This proposal also never came to fruition and Congress never bothered to vote on it.

If you'd like more info on all of this stuff, see:

Magness, Philip W. "James Mitchell and the Mystery of the Emigration Office Papers." Journal of the Abraham Lincoln Association. Volume 32, Issue 2, September 2011, pp. 50-62.

[alhoon]

http://atlantablackstar.com/2015/05/...-black-people/



Lincoln was a white supremacist.
Then again, the hardcore anti-Trump crowd will reject anything Trump says, regardless of the validity.

Yes, he was and that was not rare for the time. The above quotes and sentiments are far from:

Funny how the article failed to mention the fact that Lincoln was, in fact, extremely racist and abolished slavery to racially cleanse US

His main interest was the Union. He was not pro- or anti-slavery in the 50s. He was not for equality probably till the end of his life, but he supported emancipation and passed it. He was against mixed weddings.
That's far from being for racial cleansing and extreme racism.

Now, Andrew Jackson on the other hand, Trump's idol, is a different story.

[Lord Oda Nobunaga]

Off topic thread is off topic...

But Lincoln was known for his advocacy of abolition and at the very least an end to the creation of slave states, which happened in the 1850's and culminated with things like Bleeding Kansas. This was a sentiment shared almost universally by many Americans. For example Stonewall Jackson, Robert E. Lee, Ulysses Grant, Sherman etc all shared the sentiment that while Blacks should be freed they were inferior to Whites and largely benefited from Christianity and Anglo-American culture which was introduced to them via slavery. Despite the fact that Lincoln, Sherman and Grant owned no slaves where as Jackson owned about 3 and Lee owned at least 20. Now Lincoln would not have freed the slaves and at best would have not paid to have escaped slaves returned south. But he found himself compromising to keep Presidential authority. His main goal of course was to preserve the Union. Ultimately he decided to go on with the Proclamation, years after the war had started, but the general consensus was that Blacks should have the responsibility to fight for their own freedom and all of the consequences that came as a result of that freedom. That said the majority of individuals could not be summed as either pro-slavery or anti-slavery since the only ones who really cared were plantation owners and abolitionists. The vast majority of people were neither of those.

[Love Mountain]

Off topic thread is off topic...

But Lincoln was known for his advocacy of abolition and at the very least an end to the creation of slave states, which happened in the 1850's and culminated with things like Bleeding Kansas. This was a sentiment shared almost universally by many Americans. For example Stonewall Jackson, Robert E. Lee, Ulysses Grant, Sherman etc all shared the sentiment that while Blacks should be freed they were inferior to Whites and largely benefited from Christianity and Anglo-American culture which was introduced to them via slavery. Despite the fact that Lincoln, Sherman and Grant owned no slaves where as Jackson owned about 3 and Lee owned at least 20. Now Lincoln would not have freed the slaves and at best would have not paid to have escaped slaves returned south. But he found himself compromising to keep Presidential authority. His main goal of course was to preserve the Union. Ultimately he decided to go on with the Proclamation, years after the war had started, but the general consensus was that Blacks should have the responsibility to fight for their own freedom and all of the consequences that came as a result of that freedom. That said the majority of individuals could not be summed as either pro-slavery or anti-slavery since the only ones who really cared were plantation owners and abolitionists. The vast majority of people were neither of those.

A sentiment I can agree with. I would be one of those hated "Moderates" as labeled by MLK in his Birmingham letters. Yes, I would be and I would embrace it. Why? Because I'll take disenfranchisement of millions over death of hundreds of thousands any day of the week. People should strive to be better, attempt to be better, but that stops at potentially killing millions.

[Heathen Hammer]

https://quod.lib.umich.edu/j/jala/26...;view=fulltext

You're assuming that Lincoln's view stayed static from 1858 until his death. What we can see here is a constantly evolving statesman. Here's something from an actual historian, and not a Trump University graduate or an angry "black power" activist.

Your quotes are also suspect because they're either assigned to the wrong person or completely taken out of context.

No they are not.
A brief google search yields multiple sourced quotes of Lincoln, where he expressed openly racist views.
Lincoln himself said that Civil War was fought not to free the slaves, but to preserve the Union.
Therefore Trump was correct, while mass media is having another hysterical fit.

Again, it's the Trumpkins dismissing experts (scientists, doctors, and now historians) because, through the haze of whisky and opioids, they desperately believe their Mango Messiah will restore their towns and get their cousins off heroin.

Anti-Trump crowd tends to reject facts, because they contradict globalist ideology. Hence the attempts to sweep Lincoln's white supremacist views under the rug.
It is rather ironic how anti-intellectual pro-establishment anti-Trump crowd really is.

Any sane person knows that this is a lie. You are sane. You know it is a lie.

It would explain your other opinions, though.

All the quotes I posted are real. But I can see how you don't like how I just destroyed another liberal myth.

No amount of mental acrobatics would change the fact that Lincoln was a white supremacists and openly stated that civil war was fought not for abolition of slavery, but for preservation of Union.
Therefore, Trump's statement regarding Civil War is absolutely correct.

Yes, he was and that was not rare for the time. The above quotes and sentiments are far from:



His main interest was the Union. He was not pro- or anti-slavery in the 50s. He was not for equality probably till the end of his life, but he supported emancipation and passed it. He was against mixed weddings.
That's far from being for racial cleansing and extreme racism.

Now, Andrew Jackson on the other hand, Trump's idol, is a different story.

He wasn't pro-equality in any point of his entire life, as his statements show us. American political establishment had white supremacy as a part of its core values up until late XX century.
Hell, even previous Democrat candidate had strong ties to KKK.

I'm not even talking about her husband, who had a more hardcore stance on immigration that Trump does:

[alhoon]

HeathenHammer: All these don't change the fact that:
1. You're wrong about Lincoln which is a topic for a VV thread I hope someone opens
2. Andrew Jackson was a hardcore racist owing 120 slaves unlike Lincoln that wasn't egalitarian, but wasn't pro-slavery either and ended slavery after he preserved the Union
3. Andrew Jackson was dead and buried when the civil war started, thus he wasn't very disappointed it happened like Trump said
4. Since Andrew Jackson was pro-slavery, yes, the civil war would not have started if Jackon was alive and president in 1860s. There wouldn't have been any natives left probably either.

Still, I have to applaud the poster that said the Trump supporter answer to the whole debacle would include factual inaccuracies easily disproved and "but Hillary... ! ! ! ".
Bravo whomever predicted that...

[fkizz]

I doubt modern higher ups are deeply concerned about slavery stories.

What creates confusion in their head was how Andrew Jackson fought the idea of a Central Bank settling in America so viciously to the point of resisting assassination attempts and even in one case personally killing one of the assassins headed for him.

Thomas Jefferson was part of the Central Bank scepticism too. The idea of people who were sucessful in their anti-Central Bank attempts becoming pop signs scares some higher ups. This was formerly neutralized by having Jackson printed in US dollar bill.

Though I wouldn't be surprised if said resistance had a political component, and Central Bank back then was seen as an infiltration tool/trojan horse of the British Empire to regain control of the ex-Colony. Central banking was accepted in US when British Empire was in strong decline. So there's an historical context..

That said, one of big fears nowadays is the possibility of resentment towards the institution of Central Banking. And economic history is often presented as if Central Banking is the most normal thing ever, rather than a XIX century thing going viral.

Regardless unless you have Von Mises Institute covering your back and really know what you're doing it's dangerous to even dream of making opposition to such Juggernaut-like institutions.

But it's not proven or demonstrated in anyway if they are seriously amoral or "evil". What can honestly be said with a consensus is the amount of centralized power such institutions have.

[ggsimmonds]

No they are not.
A brief google search yields multiple sourced quotes of Lincoln, where he expressed openly racist views.
Lincoln himself said that Civil War was fought not to free the slaves, but to preserve the Union.
Therefore Trump was correct, while mass media is having another hysterical fit.



Anti-Trump crowd tends to reject facts, because they contradict globalist ideology. Hence the attempts to sweep Lincoln's white supremacist views under the rug.
It is rather ironic how anti-intellectual pro-establishment anti-Trump crowd really is.



All the quotes I posted are real. But I can see how you don't like how I just destroyed another liberal myth.

No amount of mental acrobatics would change the fact that Lincoln was a white supremacists and openly stated that civil war was fought not for abolition of slavery, but for preservation of Union.
Therefore, Trump's statement regarding Civil War is absolutely correct.



He wasn't pro-equality in any point of his entire life, as his statements show us. American political establishment had white supremacy as a part of its core values up until late XX century.
Hell, even previous Democrat candidate had strong ties to KKK.

I'm not even talking about her husband, who had a more hardcore stance on immigration that Trump does:

Trump's comments:

Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

"I mean, had Andrew Jackson been a little later you wouldn't have had the Civil War. He was a very tough person, but he had a big heart. He was really angry that he saw what was happening with regard to the Civil War, he said, 'There's no reason for this,'" Trump said. "People don't realize, you know, the Civil War, if you think about it, why? People don't ask that question, but why was there the Civil War? Why could that one not have been worked out?"

Then you come up with:
"Lincoln himself said that Civil War was fought not to free the slaves, but to preserve the Union.
Therefore Trump was correct, while mass media is having another hysterical fit. "

How in the blue hell is that a logical conclusion?

Further you state, "No amount of mental acrobatics would change the fact that Lincoln was a white supremacists and openly stated that civil war was fought not for abolition of slavery, but for preservation of Union.
Therefore, Trump's statement regarding Civil War is absolutely correct."

Yet earlier you asserted that Lincoln abolished slavery to racially purify the US. First, again we have a disconnect between your conclusions and Trump's comments. Second in what realm is preservation of union=racially purify the country? Where in Trump's comments can any of this be found?

[God-Emperor of Mankind]

Personally yes, he is mentally fit but he is not competent enough for it nor was there ever any sign that he was anything but incompetent.
You should instead argue wether the american people or the system is mentally fit for a proper democracy.
All the signs were there that Trump doesn't understand how things works, has no idea how the world works really, poor understanding of history.
He is a adequate businessman but that's all there is to him and yet he still won.
So would rather argue that the fault doesn't lie with Trump but instead the people voted him in and the system that failed to weed him out really.

[IronBrig4]

Here's a verbatim interview with The Economist. http://www.economist.com/Trumptransc...ithdonaldtrump

Apparently he now thinks he invented a common phrase used by economists since the 1930s. Oy vey...

[alhoon]

Big article... what's the phrase?

[Geronimo2006]

I like his ideas on protectionism (as do many in the Democratic party who voted for the Trade Representative today) and immigration control, and would like a similar political agenda in my country (which is unlikely).

However he has a tendency towards egotism and provocation especially through twitter. He is too impulsive in his public pronouncements, and seems to take decisions before putting his team in the loop (perhaps out of fear of leaks). On the other hand it probably helped get the AHCA through the House, and it seems he did a lot of negotiating over the phones according to Ryan. So maybe the "art of the deal" can work in Congress after all - but the real test will come if the Democrats retake Congress which I think is likely next year.

When you're a billionaire businessman, the concept of accepting limits on your power is probably a hard sell. Bluntness is fine in moderation but you need to be subtle too in order to be capable of flexibility (ie plausible deniability when you make policy U-Turns), and also to keep relations at a level where cooperation is possible.