2020 Elections - Trump FIRED

[MDlaxfan76]

I'm only guessing, but are you referring to Hancock's suspected smuggling, which many merchants had taken to doing to avoid the taxes?
This is definitely not my area of highest attention, so feel free to illuminate further.

On today's Tea Party, those who claimed to be incensed by profligate spending sure as heck have fallen silent now. Hypocrites.

True detective episode about you still forthcoming....too bad.


John had tea to sell. Tri-Cross design had tea. Johns tea was "illegal". Tri-cross design encompassing the letter E.I.C. was not. Johns margin was higher than EIC's. Especially AFTER the US government (at the time) gave North America's first welfare for the rich bailout. Or, rather tax relief. A tax REPEAL made EIC's tea now cheaper than Johns. Dump the tea, in the name of liberty. Nothing to do with "business", at all.

Deductive of dugginess.......run run duck go, rather learning new things, is why we are here, isn't it?

You mentioned that on the old site.

Why teach.....ever?

Thank goodness you're not anyone's 'teacher', they'd need to first learn to read doggerel.

"Deductive of dugginess"???? what?

On this one, how about sharing a citation so maybe we can figure out what the heck you are trying to say in between burps. It might actually be something we don't know. As I said, this isn't my area of highest attention in history. Glad to learn something new.

[6ftstick]

I've read the initial articles and everything online.

So which essays did you read? And your thoughts on those were what?

So far, all I've heard is you repeating what can be gleaned from Red State and FNC.

I read the essay on the AA wealth gap. I learned two things I didn't know before:

1. Sherman issued an order in 1865 granting 40 acres of land to freed slaves. After Lincoln was killed, Andrew Johnson revoked Sherman's order and the land grants were never made. I never learned that in school. Did you?

2. The Feds administered the GI Bill in a discriminatory way after WWII. All Vets (like my Dad and all my uncles) were eligible for govt guaranteed mortgages with no money down. But while white and black Vets were eligible, the VA wouldn't lend in "risky" areas. Which meant, as a practical matter, that black Vets couldn't get mortgages under the GI Bill. I'd never heard that before either.

Interesting reporting, imho, by the NY Times.

So what did you learn Six?

Here is something else 6ft didn't read: https://www.americanprogress.org/press/ ... k-farmers/

What do these people have to complain about. The past is the past.

This NYTimes article is 30 years old but it indicates the decline in farm population

In 1920 30% of the US population lived on farms

By 1988 only 2.2% lived on farms.

https://www.nytimes.com/1988/07/20/us/f ... 850-s.html

My point isn't that there was never racism in the country. My POINT is that this is a concerted effort to use racism to defeat Trump. The left has nothing else to run on. And the MSM led by the NYTimes will say and do anything to beat Trump in 2020. Including prediction a recession 12 months from now.

[foreverlax]

I've read the initial articles and everything online.

So which essays did you read? And your thoughts on those were what?

So far, all I've heard is you repeating what can be gleaned from Red State and FNC.

I read the essay on the AA wealth gap. I learned two things I didn't know before:

1. Sherman issued an order in 1865 granting 40 acres of land to freed slaves. After Lincoln was killed, Andrew Johnson revoked Sherman's order and the land grants were never made. I never learned that in school. Did you?

2. The Feds administered the GI Bill in a discriminatory way after WWII. All Vets (like my Dad and all my uncles) were eligible for govt guaranteed mortgages with no money down. But while white and black Vets were eligible, the VA wouldn't lend in "risky" areas. Which meant, as a practical matter, that black Vets couldn't get mortgages under the GI Bill. I'd never heard that before either.

Interesting reporting, imho, by the NY Times.

So what did you learn Six?

Here is something else 6ft didn't read: https://www.americanprogress.org/press/ ... k-farmers/

What do these people have to complain about. The past is the past.

This NYTimes article is 30 years old but it indicates the decline in farm population

In 1920 30% of the US population lived on farms

By 1988 only 2.2% lived on farms.

https://www.nytimes.com/1988/07/20/us/f ... 850-s.html

My point isn't that there was never racism in the country. My POINT is that this is a concerted effort to use racism to defeat Trump. The left has nothing else to run on. And the MSM led by the NYTimes will say and do anything to beat Trump in 2020. Including prediction a recession 12 months from now.

Trump predicts a depression if he loses...seems he will say anything to win.

[6ftstick]

I've read the initial articles and everything online.

So which essays did you read? And your thoughts on those were what?

So far, all I've heard is you repeating what can be gleaned from Red State and FNC.

I read the essay on the AA wealth gap. I learned two things I didn't know before:

1. Sherman issued an order in 1865 granting 40 acres of land to freed slaves. After Lincoln was killed, Andrew Johnson revoked Sherman's order and the land grants were never made. I never learned that in school. Did you?

2. The Feds administered the GI Bill in a discriminatory way after WWII. All Vets (like my Dad and all my uncles) were eligible for govt guaranteed mortgages with no money down. But while white and black Vets were eligible, the VA wouldn't lend in "risky" areas. Which meant, as a practical matter, that black Vets couldn't get mortgages under the GI Bill. I'd never heard that before either.

Interesting reporting, imho, by the NY Times.

So what did you learn Six?

Here is something else 6ft didn't read: https://www.americanprogress.org/press/ ... k-farmers/

What do these people have to complain about. The past is the past.

This NYTimes article is 30 years old but it indicates the decline in farm population

In 1920 30% of the US population lived on farms

By 1988 only 2.2% lived on farms.

https://www.nytimes.com/1988/07/20/us/f ... 850-s.html

My point isn't that there was never racism in the country. My POINT is that this is a concerted effort to use racism to defeat Trump. The left has nothing else to run on. And the MSM led by the NYTimes will say and do anything to beat Trump in 2020. Including prediction a recession 12 months from now.

Trump predicts a depression if he loses...seems he will say anything to win.

Jesus. The candidates from the democratic party will raise taxes, reinstate restrictive regulations, give away healthcare and open the borders.

Probably will stall the economy put people out of work and create a recession. REAL effects of stupid policies.

Trumps economy is booming no such probability. Theres no comparison. Your attempt at moral equivalency is pure BS

[foreverlax]

I've read the initial articles and everything online.

So which essays did you read? And your thoughts on those were what?

So far, all I've heard is you repeating what can be gleaned from Red State and FNC.

I read the essay on the AA wealth gap. I learned two things I didn't know before:

1. Sherman issued an order in 1865 granting 40 acres of land to freed slaves. After Lincoln was killed, Andrew Johnson revoked Sherman's order and the land grants were never made. I never learned that in school. Did you?

2. The Feds administered the GI Bill in a discriminatory way after WWII. All Vets (like my Dad and all my uncles) were eligible for govt guaranteed mortgages with no money down. But while white and black Vets were eligible, the VA wouldn't lend in "risky" areas. Which meant, as a practical matter, that black Vets couldn't get mortgages under the GI Bill. I'd never heard that before either.

Interesting reporting, imho, by the NY Times.

So what did you learn Six?

Here is something else 6ft didn't read: https://www.americanprogress.org/press/ ... k-farmers/

What do these people have to complain about. The past is the past.

This NYTimes article is 30 years old but it indicates the decline in farm population

In 1920 30% of the US population lived on farms

By 1988 only 2.2% lived on farms.

https://www.nytimes.com/1988/07/20/us/f ... 850-s.html

My point isn't that there was never racism in the country. My POINT is that this is a concerted effort to use racism to defeat Trump. The left has nothing else to run on. And the MSM led by the NYTimes will say and do anything to beat Trump in 2020. Including prediction a recession 12 months from now.

Trump predicts a depression if he loses...seems he will say anything to win.

Jesus. The candidates from the democratic party will raise taxes, reinstate restrictive regulations, give away healthcare and open the borders.

Probably will stall the economy put people out of work and create a recession. REAL effects of stupid policies.

Trumps economy is booming no such probability. Theres no comparison. Your attempt at moral equivalency is pure BS

Kudlow promises 4%+ GDP....make sure to post a link.

[Typical Lax Dad]

I've read the initial articles and everything online.

So which essays did you read? And your thoughts on those were what?

So far, all I've heard is you repeating what can be gleaned from Red State and FNC.

I read the essay on the AA wealth gap. I learned two things I didn't know before:

1. Sherman issued an order in 1865 granting 40 acres of land to freed slaves. After Lincoln was killed, Andrew Johnson revoked Sherman's order and the land grants were never made. I never learned that in school. Did you?

2. The Feds administered the GI Bill in a discriminatory way after WWII. All Vets (like my Dad and all my uncles) were eligible for govt guaranteed mortgages with no money down. But while white and black Vets were eligible, the VA wouldn't lend in "risky" areas. Which meant, as a practical matter, that black Vets couldn't get mortgages under the GI Bill. I'd never heard that before either.

Interesting reporting, imho, by the NY Times.

So what did you learn Six?

Here is something else 6ft didn't read: https://www.americanprogress.org/press/ ... k-farmers/

What do these people have to complain about. The past is the past.

This NYTimes article is 30 years old but it indicates the decline in farm population

In 1920 30% of the US population lived on farms

By 1988 only 2.2% lived on farms.

https://www.nytimes.com/1988/07/20/us/f ... 850-s.html

My point isn't that there was never racism in the country. My POINT is that this is a concerted effort to use racism to defeat Trump. The left has nothing else to run on. And the MSM led by the NYTimes will say and do anything to beat Trump in 2020. Including prediction a recession 12 months from now.

I don’t know if Trump is racist. The fact that racists believe he is good for them is enough for me. You see the Nazi kids in California this morning? You willing to bet they don’t favor Trump?

[runrussellrun]

I've read the initial articles and everything online.

So which essays did you read? And your thoughts on those were what?

So far, all I've heard is you repeating what can be gleaned from Red State and FNC.

I read the essay on the AA wealth gap. I learned two things I didn't know before:

1. Sherman issued an order in 1865 granting 40 acres of land to freed slaves. After Lincoln was killed, Andrew Johnson revoked Sherman's order and the land grants were never made. I never learned that in school. Did you?

2. The Feds administered the GI Bill in a discriminatory way after WWII. All Vets (like my Dad and all my uncles) were eligible for govt guaranteed mortgages with no money down. But while white and black Vets were eligible, the VA wouldn't lend in "risky" areas. Which meant, as a practical matter, that black Vets couldn't get mortgages under the GI Bill. I'd never heard that before either.

Interesting reporting, imho, by the NY Times.

So what did you learn Six?

Here is something else 6ft didn't read: https://www.americanprogress.org/press/ ... k-farmers/

What do these people have to complain about. The past is the past.

This NYTimes article is 30 years old but it indicates the decline in farm population

In 1920 30% of the US population lived on farms

By 1988 only 2.2% lived on farms.

https://www.nytimes.com/1988/07/20/us/f ... 850-s.html

My point isn't that there was never racism in the country. My POINT is that this is a concerted effort to use racism to defeat Trump. The left has nothing else to run on. And the MSM led by the NYTimes will say and do anything to beat Trump in 2020. Including prediction a recession 12 months from now.

Nay, the Ny times LOVES having tRump in the white house. Best distraction ever. tRump that HUGE spending bill yet? You know, the one passed by Congress before they went on yet another vacation. It just doesn't seem to be a news worthy item, tRump signing , yet again, the largest spending bill in US history. Above the fold of the washPost, for sure. Right?

TAATS will see to it that tRump wins again. Great FREE college. for what? So you can join all the other white people , pretty much 100%, at all these pretend liberal rags. Mother Jones? Two AA authors. New Yorker? Hillaryous, you've GOT to be kidding.

[runrussellrun]

I don’t know if Trump is racist. The fact that racists believe he is good for them is enough for me. You see the Nazi kids in California this morning? You willing to bet they don’t favor Trump?

Who does charles Manson support for President?

[Trinity]

China is Q. Epoch Times is Falun Gong. Carry on.

[Typical Lax Dad]

I don’t know if Trump is racist. The fact that racists believe he is good for them is enough for me. You see the Nazi kids in California this morning? You willing to bet they don’t favor Trump?

Who does charles Manson support for President?

No sure. Did he leave a manifesto? Did he kill Tate because she was a “lib”?

[wahoomurf]

182.88 CM: Jesus. The candidates from the democratic party will raise taxes, reinstate restrictive regulations, give away healthcare and open the borders.

Probably will stall the economy put people out of work and create a recession. REAL effects of stupid policies.

Trumps economy is booming no such probability. Theres no comparison. Your attempt at moral equivalency is pure BS

Heed '"the risen one". I guess Jesus visited 182.88---in a dream perhaps(?). "The Son", gave 2 YARDS the G-2 on what will happen if ANY candidate from the democratic (Democrat) party, slithers into the White House in 2021.

And Jesus further complimented 182.88 on his zeal to warn Americans that the if a candidate from the "democratic party" defeats the scholar, currently occupying the White House, will insist American MUST use apostrophes.

OH, THE HORROR! Adverbs, gerunds and most verbs may be next.

[ggait]

My POINT is that this is a concerted effort to use racism to defeat Trump. The left has nothing else to run on.

Let's not forget that pretty much the entire GOP said/did the same thing in 2016. They just don't say it now.

Lindsey Graham: "He's a race-baiting, xenophobic, religious bigot."

Mitt Romney: "Today, there is a contest between Trumpism and Republicanism. Through the calculated statements of its leader, Trumpism has become associated with racism, misogyny, bigotry, xenophobia, vulgarity and, most recently, threats and violence. I am repulsed by each and every one of these."

McCain, Flake, Corker, Paul Ryan ("textbook racism"), Rubio, Jeb, Kasich, Bill Weld, Ted Cruz, Mike Pompeo and so many others all said the same things.

May not be a winning political strategy, but pretty much everyone running against Trump sees it the exact same way. It isn't a coincidence.

[foreverlax]

My POINT is that this is a concerted effort to use racism to defeat Trump. The left has nothing else to run on.

Let's not forget that pretty much the entire GOP said/did the same thing in 2016. They just don't say it now.

Lindsey Graham: "He's a race-baiting, xenophobic, religious bigot."

Mitt Romney: "Today, there is a contest between Trumpism and Republicanism. Through the calculated statements of its leader, Trumpism has become associated with racism, misogyny, bigotry, xenophobia, vulgarity and, most recently, threats and violence. I am repulsed by each and every one of these."

McCain, Flake, Corker, Paul Ryan ("textbook racism"), Rubio, Jeb, Kasich, Bill Weld, Ted Cruz, Mike Pompeo and so many others all said the same things.

May not be a winning political strategy, but pretty much everyone running against Trump sees it the exact same way. It isn't a coincidence.

Yup

Pompeo cited Trump’s boast that if he ordered a soldier to commit a war crime the soldier would “go do it.”

Pompeo warned that Trump—like Barack Obama—would be “an authoritarian President who ignored our Constitution.”

American soldiers “don’t swear an allegiance to President Trump or any other President,” Pompeo declared.

“They take an oath to defend our Constitution, as Kansans, as conservatives, as Republicans, as Americans. Marco Rubio will never demean our soldiers by saying that he will order them to do things that are inconsistent with our Constitution.”

A few minutes later, Pompeo concluded, “It’s time to turn down the lights on the circus.”

Still, Pompeo had told the Topeka Capital-Journal, in April, that Trump was “not a conservative believer,” and, a few weeks later, he said, on CNN, “A lot of his policies don’t comport with my vision for how I represent Kansas.”

At that point, Pompeo had never met Trump. Like many Republicans who called Trump a “kook,” a “cancer,” and a threat to democracy before ultimately supporting him, Pompeo disagreed with much of Trump’s platform. He took issue in particular with Trump’s “America First” skepticism about the United States’ role in the world. Pompeo was a conservative internationalist who had been shaped by his Cold War-era military service, and he remained a believer in American power as the guarantor of global stability.

Shocking how Pompeo was able to set aside all of the things that so outraged him during the election, to be able to "serve".

[MDlaxfan76]

My POINT is that this is a concerted effort to use racism to defeat Trump. The left has nothing else to run on.

Let's not forget that pretty much the entire GOP said/did the same thing in 2016. They just don't say it now.

Lindsey Graham: "He's a race-baiting, xenophobic, religious bigot."

Mitt Romney: "Today, there is a contest between Trumpism and Republicanism. Through the calculated statements of its leader, Trumpism has become associated with racism, misogyny, bigotry, xenophobia, vulgarity and, most recently, threats and violence. I am repulsed by each and every one of these."

McCain, Flake, Corker, Paul Ryan ("textbook racism"), Rubio, Jeb, Kasich, Bill Weld, Ted Cruz, Mike Pompeo and so many others all said the same things.

May not be a winning political strategy, but pretty much everyone running against Trump sees it the exact same way. It isn't a coincidence.

Unfortunately it's the simple truth staring us in the face.

I read the reporting on what the NYT's editor "said". Sure seems to me that he's acknowledged that the dominant journalistic 'story' of the past couple of years was the Russia investigation. They competed hard to get the story, to track down the connections and to report on them. They 'built the newsroom' to 'get' that story and did quite solid work, with deep, long form examinations of the Russian effort.

But post Mueller Report, now the "story" is being shaped by the most resonant current events. These too are wrapped up in Trump, his tweets, his policies. He's the President and he's the biggest elephant in the room every day...and he insists on that being the case. And those current events are all thematically tied to race relations, whether fear of demographic change, the rise of violence tied to race, to brown kids in cages, to "send her back".

The editor is acknowledging that the newsroom will need to shift resources to work on this theme, one which he acknowledges they have not been built to do as well. But he's committing those resources. That means long form examinations of the history of race relations and their implications today.

There's no escaping Trump and his being intertwined in this topic. It's his own core theme, from the birther myth, to Mexican rapists and criminals, to the Muslim Ban, it's how he introduced himself and his themes to the American people. And at every turn he's fanned the flames of racial division. He misses no opportunity to weigh in divisively. And it's building into something of a crescendo.

Some folks like that.
In fact, a heck of a lot do.

Most of the Republican politicians are now cowed by how large and active that group of Trump supporters actually is, and their willingness to primary and defeat any GOP pol who dares speak up anymore on this issue. The Trumpists demand complete obeisance to Der Leader. Nothing less will do.

[ggait]

Trumps economy is booming no such probability. Theres no comparison.

No comparison? Really?

Here's a comparison for you in 15 charts.

TL/DR version: Trump economy pretty much the same as Obama economy. Mostly, the Obama trends have just continued under Trump.

But note that Obama had lower govt debt/GDP levels, lower trade deficits, higher numbers of people with health insurance, and higher business investment.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/business ... edirect=on

#facts

[old salt]

1. Sherman issued an order in 1865 granting 40 acres of land to freed slaves. After Lincoln was killed, Andrew Johnson revoked Sherman's order and the land grants were never made. I never learned that in school. Did you?

I learned that from reading VDH's The Soul of Battle. His description of Sherman's march & Sherman as a ruthless social warrior are enlightening & extend well beyond military tactics.

I don't think this includes that specific detail, but it's a taste of VDH on Sherman :
http://victorhanson.com/wordpress/shermans-war/

[Typical Lax Dad]

A high water mark was the 44th Congress of 1875-1877 which saw 1 black senator and 7 congressmen. By the 46th congress in 1879 there was 1 congressman, when the rug was pulled out from underneath. The numbers were nominal, 1 or 2 until 1955 and then 4 or 5 until the 60s which saw participation increase. Had the right thing been done and agreements kept, this country would be further along. A lot of sub optimization has been going on for over 100 years. The natives had it even worse.

[old salt]

1. Sherman issued an order in 1865 granting 40 acres of land to freed slaves. After Lincoln was killed, Andrew Johnson revoked Sherman's order and the land grants were never made. I never learned that in school. Did you?

I learned that from reading VDH's The Soul of Battle. His description of Sherman's march & Sherman as a ruthless social warrior are enlightening & extend well beyond military tactics.

I don't think this includes that specific detail, but it's a taste of VDH on Sherman :
http://victorhanson.com/wordpress/shermans-war/

VDH touches on it in this excerpt from the above link :

It is true that Sherman did not welcome very young, female, or aged freed slaves to join his march. He was interested primarily in taking on fit young male exslaves to serve in his engineering and pioneering corps–the thousands of impressive black troopers who would later carve a path through the Carolinas and march so proudly in review in Washington at war’s end.

As events turned out, Sherman still had thousands of blacks in his army when it was all over; he had freed thousands more during his march–best estimates put them at more than twenty-five thousand, or almost a third of the size of his own force–and his efforts at destroying the plantation culture of the South had accelerated the general emancipation in the mere six months left after he cut through Georgia. Later he would put it succinctly: “My aim then was, to whip the rebels, to humble their pride, to follow them to their inmost recesses, and make them fear and dread us. `Fear of the Lord is the beginning of wisdom.’ I did not want them to cast in our teeth what General Hood had once done in Atlanta, that we had to call on their slaves to help us to subdue them. But, as regards kindness to the race, encouraging them to patience and forbearance, procuring them food and clothing, and providing them with land whereon to labor, I assert that no army ever did more for that race than the one I commanded in Savannah.”

Thankfully, Sherman's statue hasn't been pulled down yet :

Sherman, who fought on the winning side, who promised in the abstract death and terror, who was unkempt, garrulous, and blunt, is usually criticized; Lee, who embodies the Lost Cause, who wrote of honor and sacrifice, and who was dapper, genteel, and mannered, is canonized. Historians would do better to assess each on what he did, not on what he professed.

Sherman’s most impressive statue, a forty-three-foot-high equestrian rendition of the general on the march, still towers in Washington, D.C., in a beautiful, small park at Fifteenth Street and Pennsylvania Avenue, between the Treasury Department and the Ellipse. Few Washingtonians know where the statue is, and fewer still of those who lunch in the park seem ever to approach the monument itself. If they did, they would discover, on the north side of the granite base, beneath the mounted general, Sherman’s own declaration that the proper purpose of battle was to make society right: “War’s Legitimate Object Is More Perfect Peace.”

Here's Sherman's implementing Field Orders.

[old salt]

1. Sherman issued an order in 1865 granting 40 acres of land to freed slaves. After Lincoln was killed, Andrew Johnson revoked Sherman's order and the land grants were never made. I never learned that in school. Did you?

I learned that from reading VDH's The Soul of Battle. His description of Sherman's march & Sherman as a ruthless social warrior are enlightening & extend well beyond military tactics.

I don't think this includes that specific detail, but it's a taste of VDH on Sherman :
http://victorhanson.com/wordpress/shermans-war/

VDH touches on it in this excerpt from the above link :

It is true that Sherman did not welcome very young, female, or aged freed slaves to join his march. He was interested primarily in taking on fit young male exslaves to serve in his engineering and pioneering corps–the thousands of impressive black troopers who would later carve a path through the Carolinas and march so proudly in review in Washington at war’s end.

As events turned out, Sherman still had thousands of blacks in his army when it was all over; he had freed thousands more during his march–best estimates put them at more than twenty-five thousand, or almost a third of the size of his own force–and his efforts at destroying the plantation culture of the South had accelerated the general emancipation in the mere six months left after he cut through Georgia. Later he would put it succinctly: “My aim then was, to whip the rebels, to humble their pride, to follow them to their inmost recesses, and make them fear and dread us. `Fear of the Lord is the beginning of wisdom.’ I did not want them to cast in our teeth what General Hood had once done in Atlanta, that we had to call on their slaves to help us to subdue them. But, as regards kindness to the race, encouraging them to patience and forbearance, procuring them food and clothing, and providing them with land whereon to labor, I assert that no army ever did more for that race than the one I commanded in Savannah.”

Thankfully, Sherman's statue hasn't been pulled down yet :

Sherman, who fought on the winning side, who promised in the abstract death and terror, who was unkempt, garrulous, and blunt, is usually criticized; Lee, who embodies the Lost Cause, who wrote of honor and sacrifice, and who was dapper, genteel, and mannered, is canonized. Historians would do better to assess each on what he did, not on what he professed.

Sherman’s most impressive statue, a forty-three-foot-high equestrian rendition of the general on the march, still towers in Washington, D.C., in a beautiful, small park at Fifteenth Street and Pennsylvania Avenue, between the Treasury Department and the Ellipse. Few Washingtonians know where the statue is, and fewer still of those who lunch in the park seem ever to approach the monument itself. If they did, they would discover, on the north side of the granite base, beneath the mounted general, Sherman’s own declaration that the proper purpose of battle was to make society right: “War’s Legitimate Object Is More Perfect Peace.”

Here's Sherman's implementing Field Orders.

More from VDH on Sherman - the avenging angel :

http://victorhanson.com/wordpress/sherman-at-150/

...there was a method to Sherman’s mad five-week march. He burned plantations, freed slaves, destroyed factories, and tore up railroads—but more or less left alone the farms and small towns of ordinary Southerners. His purposes were threefold: to punish the plantation class, the small minority of Confederates who owned slaves, as the culprits for the war; to destroy the Southern economy and remind the general population, as Sherman put it, “that war and individual ruin were now to be synonymous”; and to humiliate the Confederate military, especially what he called the cavalier classes that boasted of their martial audacity but would not dare confront such a huge army of battle-hardened troopers from Illinois, Indiana, Iowa, Michigan, and other Midwestern states. In this context, the message was not lost: Unionists were not just New England Yankee manufacturers, but farmers who did their own hard work in harsh, cold lands more challenging than temperate Georgia; material advantages and repeating rifles were not antithetical to martial audacity, as a Michigan farmer with a Sharps rifle was more than a match for a plumed Southern cavalryman who boasted of killing Yankees.

Sherman was hated not so much because he killed Southerners: in comparison to Grant’s bloodbath in northern Virginia, probably less than 1,000 Confederates were killed during the March to the Sea. Rather, he humiliated the South by having supposedly less-audacious Northerners taunting the South to attack them on their own turf, and exposing the plantation class as hollow, showing them more willing to flee their rich and hitherto untouched plantations than to die while protecting them.

Sherman felt that it made no sense to kill young Southerners who did not own slaves when it was possible to destroy the livelihoods of those who did. He waged, instead, a sort of psychological terrorism, in which he sought to remind the Southern population that war was no romance, fought in far off places in glorious battle, but a dirty, nasty slog in which those who supported an amoral war would themselves have to pay some of its costs by the general impoverishment that followed the destruction of their leadership class.

Sherman believed that a martial, if not tribal, society was especially prone to humiliation, especially those cadres who bragged that material disproportionality did not matter given the supposed superiority of their own individual warriors. Sherman was quite eager to disabuse Confederates of that myth...

The South hated Sherman in a way it never quite did Grant, the grim reaper of Southern youth. Sherman was unapologetic after the war; he welcomed controversy and kept reminding his critics that the Confederacy was mostly hollow, prone to bluff but — on examination — weak. It was his duty, he continued, to remind both the North and the South of that paradox in ways that were hardly subtle.

Sherman would say to us that the way to destroy a martially audacious enemy is to enter his homeland, to separate the rhetoric from reality, to destroy things that aid the war, and to remind the population why most of their own houses and homes survive and why those of the most prominent usually do not—and why the general chaos that follows is somehow connected to their own blind support to those who have misled them.

Sherman is still hated for that, or, as Machiavelli put it, “men forget more easily the death of their father than the loss of their patrimony.”

[6ftstick]

My POINT is that this is a concerted effort to use racism to defeat Trump. The left has nothing else to run on.

Let's not forget that pretty much the entire GOP said/did the same thing in 2016. They just don't say it now.

Lindsey Graham: "He's a race-baiting, xenophobic, religious bigot."

Mitt Romney: "Today, there is a contest between Trumpism and Republicanism. Through the calculated statements of its leader, Trumpism has become associated with racism, misogyny, bigotry, xenophobia, vulgarity and, most recently, threats and violence. I am repulsed by each and every one of these."

McCain, Flake, Corker, Paul Ryan ("textbook racism"), Rubio, Jeb, Kasich, Bill Weld, Ted Cruz, Mike Pompeo and so many others all said the same things.

May not be a winning political strategy, but pretty much everyone running against Trump sees it the exact same way. It isn't a coincidence.

Unfortunately it's the simple truth staring us in the face.

I read the reporting on what the NYT's editor "said". Sure seems to me that he's acknowledged that the dominant journalistic 'story' of the past couple of years was the Russia investigation. They competed hard to get the story, to track down the connections and to report on them. They 'built the newsroom' to 'get' that story and did quite solid work, with deep, long form examinations of the Russian effort.

But post Mueller Report, now the "story" is being shaped by the most resonant current events. These too are wrapped up in Trump, his tweets, his policies. He's the President and he's the biggest elephant in the room every day...and he insists on that being the case. And those current events are all thematically tied to race relations, whether fear of demographic change, the rise of violence tied to race, to brown kids in cages, to "send her back".

The editor is acknowledging that the newsroom will need to shift resources to work on this theme, one which he acknowledges they have not been built to do as well. But he's committing those resources. That means long form examinations of the history of race relations and their implications today.

There's no escaping Trump and his being intertwined in this topic. It's his own core theme, from the birther myth, to Mexican rapists and criminals, to the Muslim Ban, it's how he introduced himself and his themes to the American people. And at every turn he's fanned the flames of racial division. He misses no opportunity to weigh in divisively. And it's building into something of a crescendo.

Some folks like that.
In fact, a heck of a lot do.

Most of the Republican politicians are now cowed by how large and active that group of Trump supporters actually is, and their willingness to primary and defeat any GOP pol who dares speak up anymore on this issue. The Trumpists demand complete obeisance to Der Leader. Nothing less will do.

The Times didn't "report" the Russian collusion/Russian agent/Obstruction of Justice Hoax. They were at the forefront of driving that narrative in an effort to unseat am elected President. Didn't work cause there was nothing there. Every "unattributed accusation" they've tried to hang on Trump has failed to stick. All they have left is the tired fallback for the left and the MSM —Republicans are Racists. They roll it out every 4 years to solidify the permanent underclass they've created. t's so tired they have to label it "White supremacy" and go back 400 years to throw slave mud on Trump supporters. Country be damned.