Trump says he would require schools to teach patriotism

[Hawkeye10]

SINGED??? Yeah I could see how anyone who believes a single word emanating from the Trumpster has been "SINGED" :skull:

That was intentionally funny, come on now, give me my props.....

 

[Kobie]

Hitler said the same thing..................could there be something here to be concerned about?

I'll let you know when Trump invades Poland.

 

[Hawkeye10]

I'll let you know when Trump invades Poland.

So you are beginning to believe in THE DON, I see.....

I am not there yet, but I like his chances.

 

[FluffyNinja]

I don't feel like we're at risk of Trump conquering Europe.

When the German unionists and working classes rallied behind the Nazi party during the early 1930's, I don't think they foresaw authoritarian dictatorship, wars of conquest, perpetual world-wide conflict, the Axis Alliance, the Holocaust, and inevitably widespread destruction, defeat, economic collapse, and the Berlin Wall either..........but we all know how it played out.

 

[Hawkeye10]

When the German unionists and working classes rallied behind the Nazi party during the early 1930's, I don't think they foresaw authoritarian dictatorship, wars of conquest, perpetual world-wide conflict, the Axis Alliance, the Holocaust, and inevitably widespread destruction, defeat, economic collapse, and the Berlin Wall either..........but we all know how it played out.

We are going in the opposite direction, pulling back from the world to lick our wounds.

The rise of The Rebellion will not change that.

 

[FluffyNinja]

We are going in the opposite direction, pulling back from the world to lick our wounds.

The rise of The Rebellion will not change that.

We are going in the opposite direction? Since when? And Trump's ideas of imposing his(our) cultural and economic will upon other nations, religions, and ethnic groups is "pulling back"? Hmmm, that doesn't seem to add up.

 

[Hawkeye10]

We are going in the opposite direction? Since when? And Trump's ideas of imposing his(our) cultural and economic will upon other nations, religions, and ethnic groups is "pulling back"? Hmmm, that doesn't seem to add up.

Since the Middle East Debacle.

 

[Gaztopian]

Why is patriotism NOT a good thing to teach?

The drive toward the better and more noble existence for all is what the country was originally founded to achieve.

When the direction of the country drifts from the ideal, if there is no shared, understood ideal to which the actual can be held, how will people know, as a society, if the good path has been lost?

My objection isn't to patriotism, but to the banality of teaching it. You can't have a country with massive income inequality, grave and persistent injustices against certain demographics, and a long history of unapologetic belligerence against other peoples attempting to replenish its eroding patriotism by teaching it in class, for patriotism is an organic construct that subliminally draws from processes on every level of public life and both domestic and foreign policy. For better or worse, an American was proud in the Cold War era to be a citizen of a country that appeared to champion human dignity and liberty for all. After the wars and aggression of the past two decades, many Americans find themselves ashamed as they bear witness to the aftermath of their country's actions. If you think a patriotism class taught by a demoralized and underpaid teacher is going to redress the situation, you ought to brace yourself for the utter failure of such idiocy.

 

[Gaztopian]

So...

You have no examples?

You seem to be solidly against both Trump and anyone who listens to what he is saying.

What is he saying that you find to be abrasive.

Compare and contrast that with the opposition's words to show that he is worse than they are.

I simply refuse to engage in that debate, as it legitimates Trump and his movement. No offense to you personally, but I know filth when I see it, and I make it a habit not to engage it or aggrandize it. There's one thing due to trash: disdain.

 

[Patrickt]

Didn't say I liked him. Just say he's better than Hillary.


Which isn't saying much.

That's really all that Donald Trump has going for him. He's not Hillary Clinton. The only think more pitiful are the suckers who actually believe what Donald Trump says.

 

[code1211]

How do you teach love?

That's a good enough parallel.

One way to NOT teach love is to demonstrate that those who say they love you are actually deceptive and conniving hypocrites who will do and say anything to rob you of your wealth and welfare in order to grasp and steal what is valued by you.

THAT is the parallel of teaching that our founders in general and the Declaration's author in particular are hypocritical swindlers who always told lies and deceived to gain power.

Thus instructed, how would the students feel about love?

 

[Thoreau72]

Not that I'd expect Trump to have an answer to this, but what does it even mean to "teach patriotism in schools"?

It means "teach people to submit to authority", in short.

Faux patriotism is what Trump proposes, and we already have enough of that. To paraphrase another, the refuge of the scoundrel is wrapping himself in the flag and proclaiming himself to be a patriot.

 

[Thoreau72]

My objection isn't to patriotism, but to the banality of teaching it. You can't have a country with massive income inequality, grave and persistent injustices against certain demographics, and a long history of unapologetic belligerence against other peoples attempting to replenish its eroding patriotism by teaching it in class, for patriotism is an organic construct that subliminally draws from processes on every level of public life and both domestic and foreign policy. For better or worse, an American was proud in the Cold War era to be a citizen of a country that appeared to champion human dignity and liberty for all. After the wars and aggression of the past two decades, many Americans find themselves ashamed as they bear witness to the aftermath of their country's actions. If you think a patriotism class taught by a demoralized and underpaid teacher is going to redress the situation, you ought to brace yourself for the utter failure of such idiocy.

I agree completely, but I think it is important at this stage to be very clear that a country and its government are 2 distinct entities.

The country created this government in 1787 for all the reasons mentioned in the Preamble to the USC.

The country existed before the government.

 

[code1211]

My objection isn't to patriotism, but to the banality of teaching it. You can't have a country with massive income inequality, grave and persistent injustices against certain demographics, and a long history of unapologetic belligerence against other peoples attempting to replenish its eroding patriotism by teaching it in class, for patriotism is an organic construct that subliminally draws from processes on every level of public life and both domestic and foreign policy. For better or worse, an American was proud in the Cold War era to be a citizen of a country that appeared to champion human dignity and liberty for all. After the wars and aggression of the past two decades, many Americans find themselves ashamed as they bear witness to the aftermath of their country's actions. If you think a patriotism class taught by a demoralized and underpaid teacher is going to redress the situation, you ought to brace yourself for the utter failure of such idiocy.

You demonstrate my point by opposing it.

Patriotism, taught properly would definitely have helped to avoid the the Iraq invasion. The congress would have been forced by the educated public to either declare war or not do so. Instead they reneged on their responsibility and the rest is literally history.

Specific emphasis on the advice of Washington to avoid foreign entanglements would be a strong deterrent to the international adventurism of the American Military. This advice from one of our patriots is routinely shunned by modern day leaders.

"A demoralized and underpaid teacher"... What a picture. On a different day in a different thread, there was a debate on the recall election on the Wisconsin Governor. The notion that teachers were underpaid was brought up. In the real world, the Wisconsin teachers earn almost twice the annual pay of the students they have taught. They are not underpaid.

If they are demoralized, they really need to get the hell out and sell insurance, dig ditches find or something else they can do with passion.

What would the world map look like if the soldiers of America were not buried in so many of the countries shown?

Does Patriotism mean "Love it or leave it" or does it mean, "Aspiration to the ideals as defined in the Declaration and the Constitution"? the American Dream has always be one of aspiration. Isn't that what all dreams are?

Part of Patriotism instruction would be, obviously, the instruction in how and why the ideals were specified and defined. What was the historical context and why did the men involved pledge their lives and honor to implement them.

Following that would be how those ideals are stable and finally, how the actions of the current iteration of the country either follow or depart from the ideal.

If the notion of Liberty and Justice for all was employed when written, there would have been no slavery. Obviously, even when penned, those words were aspirational. They still are.

Patriotism would encourage the ongoing aspiration toward the ideal.

 

[code1211]

I simply refuse to engage in that debate, as it legitimates Trump and his movement. No offense to you personally, but I know filth when I see it, and I make it a habit not to engage it or aggrandize it. There's one thing due to trash: disdain.

Every candidate runs in the primaries to the extreme and returns to the middle during the campaign as Trump is currently doing. If I'm not mistaken, Hillary is doing this as well.

Unique to Trump's campaign using modern politics as the backdrop is that EVERYONE in both party establishments opposes him.

This screams that everyone in the political establishment doesn't want Trump to win. He has promised to be the outsider and attack the current failed system THAT BOTH PARTIES WORK TOGETHER TO MAINTAIN. BOTH parties oppose him and are actively working to undermine his candidacy. Judging anyone by their enemies helps to define that person. He is opposed by the most deceptive and manipulative vipers ever to walk the Earth.

What is it that trump has said that you find to more objectionable than allowing Americans to die in a war zone without sending them any aid and then lying about it?

He is certainly different. He is certainly less than delicate in his words. He hasn't had 40 years of instruction in political speak as have most of the political liars we hear.

In Washington, it is accurately said that a gaff is anytime a politician tells the truth.

 

[jmotivator]

When was the last time you were in school? Did your teacher stand up and say "Thomas Jefferson was a racist, slave owning hate filled old white man?"

Chances are that if you are older than 30 you didn't hear it ion school, but times have changed. Attacking Thomas Jefferson is a new leftist sport like loving Che Guevara defending communism.

 

[FluffyNinja]

Since the Middle East Debacle.

So you are saying that the US is NOT still actively meddling in the Middle East??

Wow! The degree of ignorance and misinformation which is being exposed in this election season is simply astounding. :doh

 

[FluffyNinja]

That's really all that Donald Trump has going for him. He's not Hillary Clinton. The only think more pitiful are the suckers who actually believe what Donald Trump says.

I'm not even sure that he has that going for him if we throw out all the media hype and truly take an honest and rational look at both candidates. Both are equally offensive and equally horrible candidates but for glaringly different reasons. What if, in this case, there is no LESSER of "two evils" to choose from?

 

[Fiddytree]

I'm not even sure that he has that going for him if we throw out all the media hype and truly take an honest and rational look at both candidates. Both are equally offensive and equally horrible candidates but for glaringly different reasons. What if, in this case, there is no LESSER of "two evils" to choose from?

I reject the relativism of the right this season. Choose the greater amount of experience and competence. Clinton, an unremarkable politician who has accomplished next to nothing in roughly a quarter century, nevertheless ends up looking like John Quincy Adams in comparison to Donald Trump.

 

[FluffyNinja]

I reject the relativism of the right this season. Choose the greater amount of experience and competence. Clinton, an unremarkable politician who has accomplished next to nothing in roughly a quarter century, nevertheless ends up looking like John Quincy Adams in comparison to Donald Trump.

Meh. She's carrying so much baggage.....declining health, Bill's social life, Benghazi, Email-gate, extreme left positions on too many issues.........she'll spend most of her term neck deep in Congressional hearings, gridlock, and partisan hackery. She will be 100% ineffective in promoting social unity, economic growth, or national security and likely 25% detrimental to those goals.

The only advantage I'd give her is that her positions/proposals are perhaps a bit "less dangerous" than Trump's. It's going to be a long four years regardless of who wins. Way to go 'Merica!

 

[imyoda]

I'll let you know when Trump invades Poland.

So you are concerned..............and rightfully so.

BTW

Can you explain what Trump's policy on immigration is?

 

[trouble13]

I think some of you are way to jaded about this.

Celebrating the good things this.nation has accomplished is a good thing and is as important as acknowledging its mistakes.

Teaching the revolutionary war history should be a mandatory part of our criculum

Sent from my SM-G920P using Tapatalk

 

[Fiddytree]

Meh. She's carrying so much baggage.....declining health, Bill's social life, Benghazi, Email-gate, extreme left positions on too many issues.........she'll spend most of her term neck deep in Congressional hearings, gridlock, and partisan hackery. She will be 100% ineffective in promoting social unity, economic growth, or national security and likely 25% detrimental to those goals.

The only advantage I'd give her is that her positions/proposals are perhaps a bit "less dangerous" than Trump's. It's going to be a long four years regardless of who wins. Way to go 'Merica!

She was a liberal to me before she got in the race against Sanders and now she's caught between being Obama-plus and "Forget Obama," thanks to Sanders, she's incapable of staying away from trouble, and she's going to be an ineffective President. Ordinarily this should tank her, but it hasn't. Why? Trump: the single-most inexperienced, one of the most divisive major party nominee in American history.

We could have had a President that would accomplish mediocre or potentially good things, but we elected not to. We chose a nominee that can only spell trouble for the U.S. and its way of life. Given that, does Clinton look appealing? Yes, but only because we know how damn rank the stench is from her opponent. If it's the choice between an ineffective and ordinarily controversial President that knows the ropes, and a President that stirs controversy for breakfast and then throws gasoline on it before sunset and has no earthly idea what the hell he is doing, I choose the former every. single. time.

 

[FluffyNinja]

She was a liberal to me before she got in the race against Sanders and now she's caught between being Obama-plus and "Forget Obama," thanks to Sanders, she's incapable of staying away from trouble, and she's going to be an ineffective President. Ordinarily this should tank her, but it hasn't. Why? Trump: the single-most inexperienced, one of the most divisive major party nominee in American history.

We could have had a President that would accomplish mediocre or potentially good things, but we elected not to. We chose a nominee that can only spell trouble for the U.S. and its way of life. Given that, does Clinton look appealing? Yes, but only because we know how damn rank the stench is from her opponent. If it's the choice between an ineffective and ordinarily controversial President that knows the ropes, and a President that stirs controversy for breakfast and then throws gasoline on it before sunset and has no earthly idea what the hell he is doing, I choose the former every. single. time.

What a choice. I suppose it's going to be death of the Republic by one means or the other......slow. like an embedded tick spreading Lyme disease or a quick, suicide bomber-style ending. :lol:

 

[Fiddytree]

What a choice. I suppose it's going to be death of the Republic by one means or the other......slow. like an embedded tick spreading Lyme disease or a quick, suicide bomber-style ending. :lol:

I think that stagnation is an undesirable political balance and I think that ought I be changed. But I didn't think someone like Trump could waltz on in.

I don't think Clinton is the death of the Republic so much as the continuation of stagnation. Revolution v stagnation or that Thucydides passage about the circle of governments. I'm not a revolutionary and I vastly prefer stagnation to revolution or accelerated descent.