[Pete Svarrior]

Trump claimed that the start of the Civil War was an undiscussed or unquestioned subject

He did not do that - that's where the forced misinterpretation comes in. He claimed that the question of "Could the Civil War have been prevented through dialogue and compromise?" is not asked or discussed. I am not trying to defend this as a true statement - I don't know whether it's true. But it's a different claim and it merits a very different response.

I'll grant that the part about the slave trade was a nitpick, but come on, do you really think that the Frederick Douglass incident was just media spin?

Absolutely. I find it much more likely that Trump simply meant that Frederick Douglass is becoming an increasingly known figure. I can only hypothesise here, but I think it's sensible to say that this would have happened in his lifetime - a change in awareness from pre-Black History Month to nowadays. His entire speech was empty and practically devoid of content - it takes some true media talent to try and fill it with meaning.

[rooster]

That there are even articles and people having a negative reaction says everything about how poor his communication skills. He could very well have meant "Could the Civil War have been prevented through dialogue and compromise?" And let me say, this is usually a topic talked about when learning about the Civil War - at least in my educational experience. One of the major points in learning history is to see if there are ways to prevent similar situations in the future.

He could have meant that Frederick Douglass is becoming an increasingly known figure in our current time. But we're only having this discussion because he is so terrible at conveying what he actually means in clear and concise ways.

[Pete Svarrior]

But we're only having this discussion because he is so terrible at conveying what he actually means in clear and concise ways.

I disagree. We're having this discussion because there are several media outlets who think it's a good idea to wage war on Trump. But, ultimately, it doesn't even matter why it's happening. Either it stops happening (i.e. the media get their shit in gear), or the Democrats are well and truly dead for the foreseeable future. The choice belongs to the American people.

[Lord Dave]

But we're only having this discussion because he is so terrible at conveying what he actually means in clear and concise ways.

I disagree. We're having this discussion because there are several media outlets who think it's a good idea to wage war on Trump. But, ultimately, it doesn't even matter why it's happening. Either it stops happening (i.e. the media get their shit in gear), or the Democrats are well and truly dead for the foreseeable future. The choice belongs to the American people.

Let them die.
And from their ashes a new power shall rise, more left wing than before.  And within a generation, there shall another civil war.

[rooster]

I'd say the Republican party is well on its way out also. People liked the Republicans because they were more fiscally conservative and pro small government, which is not really the case anymore. They're big government, just with religious values.

And good riddance. The two party system fucking sucks. They both have their generic liberal and conservative platforms but are both bought out by lobbyists.

[Pete Svarrior]

My worry is that you're about to replace a 2-party system with a 1-party system (possibly split between the different Republican caucuses). I sincerely hope I'm wrong, but that's the current trend from my point of view.

[rooster]

I don't think that would happen. Especially after this bullshit healthcare bill. Like I said, I see the collapse of both parties, not a movement to Republican.

I think people are going to be way more interested in third party choices.

[Roundy]

I don't think that would happen. Especially after this bullshit healthcare bill. Like I said, I see the collapse of both parties, not a movement to Republican.

I think people are going to be way more interested in third party choices.

Oh, to be young again!

[rooster]

Oh, to be young again!

To be realistic - people ARE showing a lot more interest in third parties recently.

And do you honestly see it going to the Republicans? Major cities are staunchly Democrat, regardless of harping mainstream media. And I've seen more Republicans say "I'll never vote GOP again," than ever before. Maybe factions will break from both parties, but I'm not imaginative enough to know what will really happen. I don't honestly see our government making any good progress. I believe it's probably going to continue to be a downward spiral.

[honk]

No, rooster, the media is intrinsically linked to the Democratic Party, and there is ample evidence that people have rejected them in favor of Trump all across the country. The future is Trump.

[Roundy]

I don't know what is going to happen. I doubt the Democratic Party will die because it does have the support of the cities, and I don't think anything that happens now will be truly catastrophic. But if they continue on the path of disillusionment they appear to currently be on, I think it could be a while before they regain the trust of the general electorate... and that could mean a stalling, if not outright reversal, of progressive ideals having an impact on government.

I wish this bothered more people.

Also third parties lol

[rooster]

Also third parties lol

I don't know why that's so funny to you. Interest has been steadily inclining.

I'm not saying a huge shift is in the cards soon. I'm only saying that people are looking for different options outside of Dems and Reps. So if hypothetically, the Democrat party just ceased to exist - then I think it's totally possible people would shift towards other options rather than all Republican choices.

And I don't think people will become disillusioned and turn Republican. I think there will be a lot of hard-left socialists coming out of this.

[Pete Svarrior]

I don't know what is going to happen. I doubt the Democratic Party will die because it does have the support of the cities, and I don't think anything that happens now will be truly catastrophic. But if they continue on the path of disillusionment they appear to currently be on, I think it could be a while before they regain the trust of the general electorate... and that could mean a stalling, if not outright reversal, of progressive ideals having an impact on government.

Oh, I agree. I doubt the Democratic Party would outright stop existing, but it's well on its way towards becoming irrelevant for a loooong time. I think we're on the same page about this, just communicating our thoughts differently.

No, rooster, the media is intrinsically linked to the Democratic Party

No, it's just that a particular branch of pro-Democratic media is hurting the Democratic party. Big league.

and there is ample evidence that people have rejected them in favor of Trump all across the country.

This is correct and simple to verify, if a bit John Oliver'd on your part.

[garygreen]

I'm going to pick "whatever else". The part that most successfully created a false narrative (successfully enough to get Trekky and Saddam supporting it - make of that what you will) is of course the implication that Trump somehow showed a lack of understanding of American history. He simply did not - a new meaning was forced onto his words, and so far it backfired on the media that tried it.

The article is off to a fantastic start with 'Remarks by Donald Trump, aired Monday, showed presidential uncertainty about the origin and necessity of the Civil War, a defining event in U.S. history with slavery at its core.' The Daily Progress (lol, that name) attempts to conflate the idea that the Civil War may have been preventable with uncertainty about why it happened in the first place. It's a cheap attempt at manipulating Trump's actual message.

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?

i genuinely don't understand how it's unreasonable to characterize this remark as expressing uncertainty about why the civil war happened and why it could not have been prevented; or, "uncertainty about the origin and necessity of the civil war."

1) "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?"  <- uncertainty about the origin

2) "Why could that one not have been worked out?"  <- uncertainty about necessity

not even trying to be snide here.  am i missing something?  this all seems like textbook journalism to me.

ninja edit: are you interpreting trump as saying "People don't realize, you know, the Civil War, if you think about it, why [couldn't it have been worked out peacefully]?  People don't ask that question, but why was there [a violent civil war instead of a political arbitration]? Why could that one not have been worked out?"

'"People don't ask that question, but why was there the Civil War? Why could that one not have been worked out?"

In fact, the causes of the Civil War are frequently discussed, from middle school classrooms to university lecture halls and in countless books. Immigrants seeking to become naturalized are sometimes asked to name a cause of the war in their citizenship tests .'

Again, we go from "People don't really talk about why this couldn't have been worked out" (regardless of whether this statement is true or not) to "lol he thinks history isn't taught in schools and also IMMIGRANTS KNOW THIS DU-UH".

he doesn't say people don't talk about why it couldn't have been worked out; he says people don't really talk about why it happened.  both statements are categorically false.  lots of people have spent a great deal of time talking about both.  it's an odd statement for the president of the united states to make.

why the civil war happened, and why it couldn't be worked out, are questions that historians and political science have been asking themselves, and teaching in americans schools, since it happened.

it seems like what you want media outlets to do is not take the president's words at face value and instead try to come up with the most charitable possible interpretation of what he says so as not to embarrass him.  i don't get how that's avoiding false narratives.  that sounds like agitprop.

i guess ultimately i again agree with rooster: being shitty at communicating his thoughts isn't on anyone but him.  it's not the media's job to be his friend and parse his words into whatever makes him look the least stupid.

[Rama Set]

  this all seems like textbook journalism to me.

Textbook journalism would have endeavored to get multiple viewpoints on the story. This was a hit piece.

ninja edit: are you interpreting trump as saying "People don't realize, you know, the Civil War, if you think about it, why [couldn't it have been worked out peacefully]?  People don't ask that question, but why was there [a violent civil war instead of a political arbitration]? Why could that one not have been worked out?"

Kind of. I can see where you are coming from, but the first thing that jumped out at me was that the real thrust of his oh so deep pondering centered around why it couldn't be averted. Maybe I'm over emphasizing that portion of it, but I'm not sure why he would have brought up that question after he had made a more over-arching statement. That he pinpointed the issue of aversion, says to me that that was the real focus of his statements. That this interpretation, while easily justified, was not even proposed, seems a clear sign of the media bias in reporting.

[garygreen]

let's suppose y'all are right that basically no one could rationally believe that "why was there the civil war" expresses uncertainty about why there was the civil war (srsly lol).  the other interpretation is still a really, really dumb thing for the president to say.  people have been asking how the civil war could have been prevented for as long as people have been studying the civil war.

i also genuinely don't want the media to rationalize anything that any president says.  i want them to report on what he did say.  if he meant something else, then that's on him.

[Rama Set]

When someone goes from a general comment to a specific one, why would you dismiss that the general comment was a way of getting to the specific? 

If I were to say, "Why did we drop the A-Bomb? Why couldn't WW2 have ended differently?" Would you think that displays ignorance of why the a-bomb was dropped?

Pretty much every article is trying to add insight in to his comments so I guess that desire of yours is squashed.

[Roundy]

let's suppose y'all are right that basically no one could rationally believe that "why was there the civil war" expresses uncertainty about why there was the civil war (srsly lol).  the other interpretation is still a really, really dumb thing for the president to say.  people have been asking how the civil war could have been prevented for as long as people have been studying the civil war.

i also genuinely don't want the media to rationalize anything that any president says.  i want them to report on what he did say.  if he meant something else, then that's on him.

If people have been asking how the Civil War could have been prevented for as long as people have been studying the Civil War, why is it suddenly so retarded for Trump to ask it now? I'm perplexed that you genuinely don't see the double standard you're applying.

[garygreen]

if trump said, "People don't realize, you know, Hiroshima and Nagasaki, if you think about it, why?  People don't ask that question, but why were atomic bombs dropped on Hiroshima and Nagasaki? Why could that one not have been worked out?" i would absolutely think he was expressing uncertainty about why those events happened.

i think y'all are making a mountain of a molehill.  in the most charitable interpretation, trump is saying that people don't think to ask if the causes of the civil war could have been averted or mitigated.  referring to that as "uncertainty about the origin and necessity of the civil war" is not only pretty accurate, but also a more neutral characterization of his profound ignorance than you're giving credit.

fwiw i agree that that's what he probably meant.  i just don't think that makes the article any less accurate.  or trump any less dumb.

If people have been asking how the Civil War could have been prevented for as long as people have been studying the Civil War, why is it suddenly so retarded for Trump to ask it now? I'm perplexed that you genuinely don't see the double standard you're applying.

i don't think it's a dumb question to ask.  on the contrary, it's an insightful and interesting question.

my opinion of trump's remark is that it's outrageous to assert that no one thinks to ask it.  one of the things i've hated about trump from the get-go is that his platform can be reduced to "everyone is incompetent.  governing is easy.  all of your problems have simple solutions.  this is so simple."  i think this rhetoric is an extension of that.  i hate it.

my opinion of the article is just that it's uncharitable at worst (but hardly inaccurate), and i don't think it's the job of a newspaper to be charitable to the president.  newspapers have been skewering presidents for as long as there have been newspapers and presidents.  to whatever extent you think this article is unfair, none of it is new.

on a side note, it's definitely not going to kill the democratic party.  for one thing, their errors are way more systemic (like lacking a unifying ideology); for another, does no one remember everyone saying the exact same thing about the gop in 2008?

[Rama Set]

if trump said, "People don't realize, you know, Hiroshima and Nagasaki, if you think about it, why?  People don't ask that question, but why were atomic bombs dropped on Hiroshima and Nagasaki? Why could that one not have been worked out?" i would absolutely think he was expressing uncertainty about why those events happened.

i think y'all are making a mountain of a molehill.  in the most charitable interpretation, trump is saying that people don't think to ask if the causes of the civil war could have been averted or mitigated.  referring to that as "uncertainty about the origin and necessity of the civil war" is not only pretty accurate, but also a more neutral characterization of his profound ignorance than you're giving credit.

fwiw i agree that that's what he probably meant.  i just don't think that makes the article any less accurate.  or trump any less dumb.

I think, to be fair, it is the media that is making a mountain out of a molehill.  Let's spend more time critiquing his policy then his musings on a war that ended 140 years ago.