Trump posts racist video depicting the Obamas as monkeys

FenderTL5 said:

Has the low-level White House grunt who posted the vile racist meme been fired yet, or is he still President?

Click to expand...

The Barbarian said:

The key here, is the post was done late at night. During the day, Trump's staff keeps an eye on him. At night, he's free to do this kind of stuff. I bet, if you went over the craziest stuff he's put out on social media, most of it was done after work hours.

Click to expand...

JSRG said:

While there is a whole lot wrong with Dred Scott v. Sandford, this isn't what happened in the case. They never declared that Negros "were only 3/5" human. First, the whole 3/5 thing was in the Constitution itself, but even then the claim that "Negros were only 3/5 human" is misrepresenting it. What the Constitution said was:

"Representatives and direct Taxes shall be apportioned among the several States which may be included within this Union, according to their respective Numbers, which shall be determined by adding to the whole Number of free Persons, including those bound to Service for a Term of Years, and excluding Indians not taxed, three fifths of all other Persons".

The only people who weren't "free persons, including those bound to service for a term of years" or "Indians not taxed" are slaves. So for the purpose of determining the population of a state, it meant that you'd take the slave population, multiply it by 3/5, and add that. This was done as a compromise between factions who wanted to count slaves fully in the population and those who didn't want them counted at all, so the compromise was to count 3/5 of them, and is called the 3/5 Compromise.

So this 3/5 was in reference only to numerically determining the population and thus did not mean anyone was actually "3/5 human" and more importantly, did not apply to all blacks, only the slaves. Thus this did not say that "Negros were only 3/5 human".

This brings us to what Dred Scott actually said. In the first place, the case wasn't at all about whether blacks could be owned by the White man--slavery was longstanding practice and while there was a lot of controversy over whether it should be legal, there wasn't much controversy over whether it was legal. The fact slavery was constitutional was not in dispute.

What Dred Scott did decide was the following two things:
1) People of African descent were forbidden by the Constitution to become citizens of the United States
2) The federal government was not allowed to ban slavery in the territories (i.e. areas part of the United States but not a formal state)

These conclusions and their reasoning have gotten a lot of criticism, back then and now, and Dred Scott is generally considered one of the worst decisions the Supreme Court ever issued. Regardless, that was what Dred Scott decided. It wasn't about whether blacks were 3/5 of a person (I don't think the opinion even mentions the 3/5 compromise), whether they could be owned (they obviously could be), but whether they could be citizens and the question of territories.

Click to expand...

Chesterton said:

The only problem with the video is for people who are seeing it through the lens of "blacks really are like monkeys". So you're all racist.

Click to expand...

ThatRobGuy said:

You think he's still awake at 11:30pm at night? The dude's 80.

Click to expand...

Bradskii said:

Yet no apology.

Click to expand...

JSRG said:

RDRKirk somewhat abbreviated and paraphrased the quote from Dred Scott v. Sandford (1857). Here it is in larger paragraph; the brackets are my own (the full majority opinion can be found here):

They [those of African descent] had for more than a century before [the Constitution] been regarded as beings of an inferior order, and altogether unfit to associate with the white race, either in social or political relations; and so far inferior, that they had no rights which the white man was bound to respect; and that the negro might justly and lawfully be reduced to slavery for his benefit. He was bought and sold, and treated as an ordinary article of merchandise and traffic, whenever a profit could be made by it. This opinion was at that time fixed and universal in the civilized portion of the white race. It was regarded as an axiom in morals as well as in politics, which no one thought of disputing, or supposed to be open to dispute; and men in every grade and position in society daily and habitually acted upon it in their private pursuits, as well as in matters of public concern, without doubting for a moment the correctness of this opinion.

So strictly speaking, it isn't say that blacks have no rights a white man is obliged to observe, but rather asserts that for more than a century prior to the Constitution, they were regarded as having "no rights which the white man was bound to respect." If it is asked "what is behind that mindset", the answer is history is behind that mindset. It's really not a controversial assertion. The error of Dred Scott--well, one of the errors, at least--was jumping from this to supposing the Constitution didn't allow them to be citizens. Various criticisms of Dred Scott have pointed out the problems in the claim blacks couldn't become citizens (including the dissents at the time available here and here), pointing out historical errors in the majority opinion or the simple fact the Constitution simply doesn't say that.

But Dred Scott v. Sandford, for its considerable errors (and this is not even getting into its probleamtic assertions that bannning slavery in territories was unconstitutional), did not actually assert that "a black man has no rights a white man is obliged to observe" or "they had no rights which the white man was bound to respect" but rather said they were regarded as such and used that as a major basis for its ultimate declarations in that blacks couldn't get citizenship under the Constitution.

Click to expand...

FreeinChrist said:

Yep.
Older folks experience sundowning.

My mom was 96 when she would be up all night and all the next day as confused as can be. She wanted to go out in the snow in her nightgown.

Click to expand...

Landon Caeli said:

One time, a person said that nothing makes him angrier than someone flipping him the bird... Guess what somebody did to him immediately after he said that.

...Such is life. We create our own destiny.

Click to expand...

Pommer said:

Trump’s been around for decades and you’re still expecting for him to act like a decent human being, from time-to-time?
I’ve never been that optimistic!

Click to expand...

Bradskii said:

'The person who posted that awful video is now no longer working for this administration. I can't countenance such a blatant example of racism. I called President Obama earlier and personally apologised to him and his wife for any embarrasment they had experienced. This incident does not represent me or the Republican party. This is not who we are.'

A statement that we'd like to see. But which we know would never, ever be made.

Click to expand...

RDKirk said:

Continuous sleep gets hard to maintain. For one thing, an enlarged prostate reduces bladder capacity. The old joke about old men always in the bathroom isn't a joke when you're an old man.

When I was younger driving to work at 0-dark-thirty, I'd drive by a donut shop. Through the window, I'd always see a bunch of old men just sitting. I wondered why.

Now I know.

Click to expand...

MrMoe said:

Your statement is a overgeneralization. It treats aging as uniform. It centers one medical condition (enlarged prostate) as if it’s a near-universal outcome of aging in men, when in reality many older men never develop significant prostate enlargement and others manage it effectively with lifestyle changes or treatment.

Plus there is no proof Trump has an enlarged prostate.

Click to expand...

FreeinChrist said:

that "a black man has no rights a white man is obliged to observe."
THAT is okay? What is behind that mindset?

Click to expand...

JSRG said:

But Dred Scott v. Sandford, for its considerable errors (and this is not even getting into its probleamtic assertions that bannning slavery in territories was unconstitutional), did not actually assert that "a black man has no rights a white man is obliged to observe" or "they had no rights which the white man was bound to respect" but rather said they were regarded as such and used that as a major basis for its ultimate declarations in that blacks couldn't get citizenship under the Constitution.

Click to expand...