Barron Trump to step into the political arena as a Florida delegate at the Republican convention
Barron Trump to step into the political arena as a Florida delegate at the Republican convention
The position as an at-large delegate for the Florida Republican Party will be the highest-profile political role thus far for Barron, former President Donald Trump's youngest son.
The position as an at-large delegate for the Florida Republican Party will be the highest-profile political role thus far for Barron, former President Donald Trump's youngest son.
It will soon be Barron Trump’s time to step into the political spotlight.
Trump, former President Donald Trump’s youngest child, who will graduate from high school next week and has largely been kept out of the political spotlight, was picked by the Republican Party of Florida on Wednesday night as one of the state’s at-large delegates to the Republican National Convention, according to a list of delegates obtained by NBC News.
...
In a family full of politically involved children, Barron Trump, who turned 18 in March, has retained much more of a private life than his older brothers, Eric Trump and Donald Trump Jr., both of whom will also be Florida at-large RNC delegates, along with Trump’s daughter Tiffany.
You're viewing a single thread.
“We have a great delegation of grassroots leaders, elected officials and even Trump family members,” Florida GOP chairman Evan Power said.
This is absolutely disgusting. What a bunch of cucks.
Your founding fathers would be sick.
Your founding fathers would be sick.
No, actually I'm pretty sure the guys who only wanted white, land-owning men to vote would probably be okay with this.
I mean, they purposefully designed this system to be broken and easily corruptible to begin with. Many of them owned slaves and had zero issues with slave ownership. Pretty sure Jefferson fucked a bunch of his slaves and had kids with them that grew up as slaves, too.
Let's stop pretending they didn't know what they were doing. They knew exactly what they were doing. This system was set up like this on purpose.
This land was populated by people who "escaped" Europe because of "religious persecution" which actually meant Europe was getting all progressive and deeply philosophical so you couldn't just shove your bullshit religion down other people's throats anymore with impunity.
Are we really shocked this is the very kind of people who populate the USA today? Let's stop pretending the founding fathers were any better, or that they didn't make the constitution easily corruptible on purpose so they could hold on to their positions in society.
The reverence we give for these mere mortal men, who were as corruptible as any, is fucking absurd. Stop placing these dickweeds on a pedestal.
Not that I don't agree with the general sentiment, or want to condone slave-owning in any way, but Thomas Jefferson only had children with one of his slaves, and from the historical record it appears to have been a consensual romantic relationship, insofar as one can have one with such a vast power difference (you cannot, really). He did oppose slavery privately, however he owned slaves, himself. Although, again from the record, it appears that they were more a part of his household, and treated (relatively) well, rather than how we typically imagine slaves in the South. Again, still not right, but compared to his contemporaries, you would call Jefferson a good owner. Still fucked up to say. A further disappointing fact is that, despite the fact that he deemed slavery reprehensible, he also deemed it to be political suicide to try to change the status quo. He brought the issue up a few times during his very long political career, but quickly abandoned the efforts. Additionally troubling is that, like many other in opposition to slavery at the time, he thought the solution was to ship black people to an island in the Caribbean so that they could form their own nation. This was not an uncommon opinion during that era -- I believe even Lincoln bought into this "solution," at one point. Also fucked up, but somehow better than the at-the-time alternative of continuing slavery.
Anyways, I don't mean to undermine your point that many of the individuals who established this country did so with the idea that black and brown people, women, and the lower-class, were less-than, and established it in such a way that made it difficult or impossible for them to participate. However, I think your specific examples aren't super accurate, and since I just read a pretty fair biography of Jefferson recently called Jefferson: Architect of American Liberty by John B Boles, I figured I would chime in. Really interesting and very much puts a great (in terms of historical stature) and flawed (in terms of our modern sense of morals) man in the context of his time and place.
"he only raped ONE slave"
-you
The amount of mental gymnastics people will do to suck off the image of dead dudes from 200 years ago who designed a dogshit system is too god damned high.
Like, what do you get out of sucking off dead dudes?
I thought they did a decent job of providing historical context while refraining from condoning Jefferson’s actions.
I personally feel you have him too much leniency. My first thought was to get angry because we constantly defy the founding men of the US (in not calling them fathers) and the idea of treating his slaves well and romantically dating a slave are the same talking points confederate apologists use.
I know you pointed this out in your original comment but the only way you can treat a slave well is to free them and you can't have consensual sex with someone considered your property.
Considering Jefferson considered slavery morally questionable and deciding it was a necessary evil because of the political consequences (while making money off of slavery) he was either a hypocrite or a coward. Especially since John Adams was an abolitionist.
Jefferson was a slaver regardless of his thoughts on it at the end of the day. Let's call a spade a spade
That is all true
I'm not really doing any mental gymnastics, nor am I sucking him off. I'm just pointing out that you weren't historically accurate in your comment, despite the sentiment being correct. I also happen to think that history is interesting (despite most of it being about rich white men -- lots of credit to People's History of the United States by Howard Zinn) and that its important not to always paint over it with a wide brush soaked with our own modern sense of ethics and politics.
Edit: Also, I'm literally a socialist. You could be less reductive.
Read the post or shut up
Sorry I read it and came to a different conclusion than you. I guess it's not a shocker this place is also full of conservatives that just want people who disagree with them to "just shut up."
You should just pack up and go home if you're going to call Fediverse conservative. It's the furthest thing from it.
Lemmy.world is literally where all the fucking enlightened centrists hang out. This is a lemmy.world thread. It is well known as the fucking ex-redditor instance. The rest of the Fediverse, by comparison, is deeply leftist, yeah.
Calling this place full of conservatives is one of the most laughably stupid things I've read all week. One of my biggest issues with Lemmy is how I rarely see differing viewpoints, since it's mostly liberals here. The biggest differences in opinions is how liberal are the viewpoints. Hell, the person you're arguing with basically agrees with you and is just saying there is nuance and context to looking at history.
this place is also full of conservatives
😦
You know how we can't fix the system today because no one agrees?
Yeah... they had the same problem then. That's why the system sucks. Learn some history ffs.
Are you vegan? Because with the lab grown meat tech we have now, future generations are going to say shit like "HE ONLY MASS MURDERED ONE TYPE OF ANIMAL BECAUSE HE LIKED THE TASTE"
Can we stop pretending the world in the past had the same knowledge, ethics, and standards as we do now? Everyone is a product of their time, even us, and if we are successful in making the world a better place, future generations are going to judge the fuck out of us for things we think are normal right now, that are atrocious in the future, the way people now judge past historical figures
His slave, Sally, also almost freed herself in France and he convinced her not to (I think she was 16 or 17 by then?). The relationship couldnt have been consensual not only because she (& her whole family) was literally owned by him, but also because she was significantly younger/a minor. He kept his own children with her enslaved during his life. That he did this for political reasons isn't a good or acceptable look. Being a slave isn't a chill situation. Back then, we knew people killed themselves rather than be a slave. People knew then how harmful it was. Can't believe you're defending that relationship at any level.
I mean, it's not defendable on any level, except that the prevailing notion of the time was that black people were inferior to whites. Obviously that doesn't make it right, and by today's standards Thomas Jefferson is a monster.
I'm not trying to defend Jefferson as being a good person, but expound upon the (what I consider) false assertion that Jefferson had no issue with slavery whatsoever (from his private letters, he held views against slavery) and that he fucked a bunch of his slaves. I agree with the point of the individual above that the US was built by white men for white men. But, as I said earlier, if you're going to invoke history in your argument, it's best to do it with some level of accuracy.
Since I recently read that John B Bole's biography on Jefferson, I figured I'd chime in. The biography tries hard to put Jefferson in his time and place, establishes him as somewhat of a renaissance man (which, again, shouldn't be praised much due to his privilege and use of slave labor on his projects), and also highlights out his hypocrisy and disappointing refusal to support anti-slavery movement publicly.
You should double check usernames. I never stated those things.
I have been to Monticello. I know quite a bit about Jefferson myself. It would also behoove you to think about whether what you read contained any propaganda or attempts to sanitizes this country's history by making Jefferson appear better.
Back in even Columbus's times, there were people who staunchly disagreed with slavery. Which also existed for natives, including the Taino. Antonio de Montesinos and Bartolomé de las Casas (both wrote extensively about how bad slavery was) were alive 200 years before Jefferson and the latter was extremely well known especially in the academic circles Jefferson was in.
For perspective, 200 years ago would be when Mexico signed their constitution. 200 years is a long time ago in terms of collective consciousness. He knew it was wrong, he just benefitted from it so he was fine with it. Which is like, the entire basis for morals and ethics.
I didn't say you stated them. The person above did -- the person I originally responded to. When I say "If you're going to invoke history..." I mean, "If a person is going to invoke history." Maybe I should have been clearer there.
I personally don't believe Boles sanitized Jefferson's biography. Again, I think he did a good job of outlining his life without letting him off the hook. It's cool you've been to Monticello, and that you know about Jefferson. But if a person is looking for a fair depiction of Jefferson, is that really the place to go? I mean, certainly slaves were the ones who built up that place. I've never been, so I can't say for sure that they (the curators) don't condemn Jefferson in the way that you'd like, so doesn't that point kind of undermine your argument? Hey, I've never been, so I don't know. I'd guess Monticello is just as likely or more to have sanitized Jefferson's life than Boles' book.
And sure, there were people that opposed slavery centuries before Jefferson. But I'd wager to guess they were in the minority (ie, not the prevailing notion) considering there was an entire industry revolving around the slave trade during Jefferson's time, consisting of more than just two individuals.
Edit: Sorry, this doesnt really cover your entire comment because of your edits, but yeah I think the general jist is that we disagree about the level of Jefferson's "alrightness" with slavery. I mean, yeah he's totally a hypocrite, and you could argue it makes him worse that he acknowledge slavery was wrong, but still perpetuated it. I'm hesitant to do that, because of the time and place that he lived.
I'd very very VERY softly compare it to the fact that today, we know Nike has bad labor practices. Am I going to condemn everyone I know who wears a Nike product? Probably not.
Where we disagree is the "because of the time and place he lived, it's okay he had slaves." Also having separate private/public opinions makes him a coward, not a radical.
With your Nike analogy - 1) it's no where near the level of evil of slavery 2) I do condemn people who own shitty companies, eg blackrock 3) plenty of people during that time wore cotton and other products made with slave labor, and many today still do so. I'm not condemning the consumer. I'm condemning the owner, who had extreme power politically to end slavery. I'm condemning Jefferson, a coward rapist.
I mean, I never said it was okay he had slaves. It's obviously monstrous. And yes, it was cowardly not to be public with his private opinions on the matter. My whole point is Jefferson was not completely okay with slavery, although evidently he was okay enough to own slaves (depending on your viewpoint, that make your opinion of him either better or worse), and that he didn't fuck a bunch of his slaves.
Edit: And i suppose that contradicts my Nike comparison (hence why I emphasized "softly" there). Still, I'd say Jefferson was a product of his time and place, for the worse.
Edit2: actually no, it doesn't really. My point was that a person can be uncomfortable with a thing (Nike's labor practices) and still perpetuate it because of the just vast vast acceptance during the time
When you say "he was a product of his time and place," you are saying it's okay he had slaves because of the time/place he was in. FYI. Maybe you're genuinely unaware that's a dog whistle for excusing racism?
I'm unaware of anything significant Nike has done controversy-wise. So I will use Johnson&Johnson as an example instead, and their practice of having asbestos in their baby powder. If you are the owner of J&J, and you knowingly sold a product to babies with asbestos in it, but privately you think that's a bad thing to do, but publicly you did it because all the other businesses sell shitty products - should you not be jailed? If you are in charge of something, does that not indicate MORE responsibility?
Your analogy sucks because you are ignoring the power Jefferson had.
Jefferson was a founding father. Of our laws. He wasn't some no name consumer or worker. He was the equivalent (in terms of power) of a business owner. He is 100% responsible for his actions which affected millions.
I didn't think about it as a dog whistle, but I'm sure it is. That is me being ignorant. I'm not trying to use it in that fashion. It's not right he owned slaves. Once again, my main point is that he was not completely okay with slavery, as the original person I responded to was asserting.
You're getting into his role in drafting laws, which I havent commented on because I simply don't know, off the top of my head, what is attributed to him besides much of the original Constitution. I can only guess in regards to that, and I would guess that, being a white man, he considered and heavily favored the interests of other white men in the drafting of laws, and is responsible for much of the inequity we still see today.
By the way, Nike has been accused of utilizing forced labor in the past.
While I agree, I also see the other guys POV...the Founding Fathers wanting to break from kings and royal lines, while Trump&Fam look like their doing their best to start a royal family of America (I'll be damned before that ever happens)
the Founding Fathers wanting to break from kings and royal lines
They wanted to keep aristocracy, they just wanted it to be rich men, but not to strictly have a "king."
They wanted their cake and to eat it, too.
They're not good people for wanting to take power from the king so they could have it for themselves and keep it from everyone else.
Women's suffrage and civil rights for minorities were hard fought for in a system that didn't and still doesn't want them to have those rights. These things were literally fought for not at the ballot box, but in the fucking streets (black liberation literally took a fucking civil war). Tell me how that jives with "no kings."
I'm sick as living fuck of these power hungry dickweeds being presented as "good" because "they wanted no kings," no they just wanted an equally convoluted system that amounts to the same fucking thing, but just for the chosen in-group, because the chosen in-group wrote the fucking founding documents. One king or two hundred kings makes no difference, if the system treats power differently, (and it always has) the system is broken to begin with and treats those with power as though power alone deserves deference. Sounds like the same shit to me, just distributed over a slightly larger group of people.
In other words "That's just having a King with extra steps."
That's why they called it a "more perfect" union. They knew it was flawed which is why they gave us the ability to improve the system.
The fact that we haven't isn't on them it's on us.
Yeah I don't think being unable to fight against a system designed to be anti-democratic (like the Senate and the Electoral College, both anti-democratic institutions) is on us, buddy. But you do you and keep making excuses for violent, misogynistic, aristocracy-preserving, rapist dead men.
There is a direct line from them to Trump, if you can't see it you're naive or don't want to see it.
We'd literally still be under a king without them. You should see a doctor about that myopia.
Unable or unwilling?
I've voted Democrat straight ticket for 25 fucking years. What has it gotten me, chucklefuck?
Those anti-democratic institutions still exist and we literally have conservative states just choosing to ignore Federal law now. But what do I know, I guess I'm not voting hard enough.
Oh goodie, you did the bare minimum and voted.
Have you involved yourself in actually improving the process?
Tell me please how I am supposed to be able to improve the process when I can't make a dent in national politics? Once again, why is it our fault when the fucking system was designed that you can only get shit done with supermajorities, and that almost never happens?
I've done phone banking, I've been involved, and what I've seen is an uphill battle every step of the way and I'm not sure how an endless uphill battle is supposed to be viewed as "democracy."
Maybe, just maybe, our democracy was designed to be dogshit from the get-go.
The electoral college system was actually designed to PREVENT people like Convicted Sex Offender Treason Trump from getting elected. But it failed spectacularly and instead was the cause of this neofascist getting elected.
I think another important consideration is that the founding fathers were no more unified than today's political leaders. We talk about how divisive the tone of discourse has become, but those old guys knew how to sling mud. They had intense disagreements about how to build the country, and no single design or designer had enough influence to get exactly what he wanted. When people start a sentence like "The founding fathers never wanted..." some probably did. They imagined all kinds of scenarios and eventualities. Some of them were fascists, some of them were abolitionists, some of them were hedonists, some of them were religious zealots. There weren't many issues where all of the founders were of one mind, if any existed.
They had intense disagreements about how to build the country, and no single design or designer had enough influence to get exactly what he wanted.
The difference is they were willing to give-and-take to eventually come to a mutually tolerable compromise solution.
Contrast that with today's "if you are from the other party, I will thwart you even if it is a good idea"
https://www.senate.gov/artandhistory/history/minute/The_Caning_of_Senator_Charles_Sumner.htm
I dunno, we've always had dogshit people in congress.
While your general thought is true, that example is from almost 100 years after the founding fathers era and in the leadup to the Civil War.
Ok, but Burr shot a Hamilton.
The founding fathers probably would have thought of him as a weak leader regardless.
Hegel remarks somewhere that all great world-historic facts and personages appear, so to speak, twice. He forgot to add: the first time as tragedy, the second time as farce.
https://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1852/18th-brumaire/ch01.htm
Everybody in the US should check out 18 Brumaire, it's fantastic and incredibly relevant.