|
estebanana -> RE: labor day (May 6 2017 1:35:49)
|
I read Putin gave Mr. D. a tax amnesty from nasty old France expecting him to pay taxes. I could be wrong, but I believe Putin conferred Russian citizenship on Big Dep.
Baldwin's send up's of Trump are still interesting, I don't howl with laughter,but seeing Trump gut punched in his thoughtless paunch makes me feel less hopeless.
It would be wise if someone on his team of numbskulls alerts him to the fact that the Underground Railroad is not a long, long Amtrack tunnel in New Jersey. The Harriet Tubman paper currency will begin to circulate during his reign of stupidity, so I hope he gets it right.
Amtrack might cease to exist by the time Trump finishes, the Republican Congress wants to kill the US Postal Service and Amtrack. Nothing could be dumber, except perhaps when Trump said Fredrick Douglass was "doing a fabulous job" - he'd been dead for a century... If only he would have consulted the Pullmans Union for the actual story.
The latest gaff "Andrew Jackson would have prevented the Civil War" makes me angry, not because Trump does not know history, which is a heinous oversight for a US president, but because he presumes to speak for a dead president. Did he and Lord Vader-Bannon have a Jackson calling seance' the previous night? It's as if Tony Blair or the May, whatever her name is, lady were to say: "Churchill did a poor job protecting England during WWII, Lord Chamberlain was very, very angry and could have prevented WWII." It would cause a furor, but Trump says the equivalent and his followers nod in agreement. Or if TeeMay were to say: "Those Indians were a dreadful of pack of trouble. Lord Mountbatten should have handled himself better and put down the small rebellion."
And I won't even start on Afghanistan, the grave yard of empires. Trump's empire has bought its burial plot ahead of time I hear. Near the golf course.
Historians do not presume to understand what a historical figure would have done. Well, not real historians. They may after protracted study of a figure propose alternate scenarios to make a point of contrast that helps one understand a piece of history. Trump is not at that level by any stretch of the imagination. And his conflation of Jackson's legacy is meant to underscore his administrations subtext of white supremacy. What other reason to offer an alternate version of history wherein a white conservative anti- emancipation slave owning president saves the country from a war about slavery? The only reason is to put forward a false narrative that could be plausible, but is really in service of a white supremacist fantasy of revised history. It's white empowerment after the fact, which indulges in a deluded racist intention.
For now Alec Baldwin making fun of him is still fun, or lightly cathartic. I expect the Trump gaffs to incite more scholars to speak out about how history really happens and not the White House -white -wash -alt version. We have a virulent pack of white nationalist revisionists advising a mentally crippled sock puppet president. What really I wonder, to amuse myself, is what Gore Vidal in his prime, or Hunter Thomson in his 1972 days would have written about Herr Trump?
Vidal I expect would be scathing and erudite in his intellectually bitchy way. He might school him on Abe Lincoln and the Civil War. And Thompson I imagine would come up with colorful language about a clutch of poisonous frogs sitting at the presidents feet. I'm no Donald Trump, and I certainly don't possess his visionary gift of being able to read Andrew Jackson's mind after he has been dead for a century and a half, so I'll refrain from total speculation.
|
|
|
|
