Trump: "The Smithsonian is OUT OF CONTROL where everything that is discussed is how horrible our Country is, how bad slavery was..."

[CaughtInThe]

Complex questions require complex answers. Like I said, stick to something simple enough for you to handle.

Was slavery good or bad?

 

[Master Debator]

If you're arbitrarily excluding a portion of the population to get to your desired numbers, may as well make the numbers up altogether. I mean think about it: if the United States had outlawed slave ownership from the beginning in all but one special district that had a population of 100 people, and all of them owned slaves while the rest of the country (30 million people let's say) didn't, they'd actually be even worse perpetrators of slavery according to your calculation method which would yield 100%.

Yes, that's how utterly retarded your calculation is!

Again, that's not what arbitrary means. I'm purposely excluding women and children and slaves from the calculation of slave owners because they didn't have the ability to be slave owners just like I'd exclude children from the calculation of potential car owners because they can't own cars. Keep expressing how this notion is confusing to you.

 

[Cosmo]

Again, that's not what arbitrary means. I'm purposely excluding women and children and slaves from the calculation of slave owners

You're also excluding ALL the people from non-slave States.

because they didn't have the ability to be slave owners just like I'd exclude children from the calculation of potential car owners because they can't own cars. Keep expressing how this notion is confusing to you.

The key word being potential. In the above calculation, you claim to be calculating slave owners, not potential slave owners.

So now you're lying to rationalize your comically absurd attempt at statistics.

 

[Master Debator]

You're also excluding ALL the people from non-slave States.

Yep. So we can get a better understanding of how prevalent slavery was in the places it was allowed.

The key word being potential. In the above calculation, you claim to be calculating slave owners, not potential slave owners.

So now you're lying to rationalize your comically absurd attempt at statistics.

Its an easy rationale to understand. I'm happy to watch you admit failing to understand it.

 

[Cosmo]

Yep. So we can get a better understanding of how prevalent slavery was in the places it was allowed.

Its an easy rationale to understand. I'm happy to watch you admit failing to understand it.

You were not discussing how prevalent slavery was in specific subdivisions of the US where it was allowed. You were discussing its unqualified prevalence among Americans per your post #78:

The vast majority of Americans didn't own anything at all. Typically property was owned by the head of the household. Its pretty silly to do a calculation of slave ownership by including people who couldn't own property at the time or who were property at the time in your calculation. You'd have some basic understanding of this if you were actually educated. If you eliminate the non slave owning states and do the calculation by how many white families in the south owned at least one slave then you get a much different picture of the pervasiveness of slave ownership.

Then you moved the goalposts to discussing it among property owners in post #145:

My reasons again for not including people who couldn't own property or where property into the calculation of how pervasive slavery was among property owners is because those people couldn't own property.

Then you went the other way in post #167 to discussing unqualified pervasiveness of slave ownership:

the calculation of the pervasivness of slave ownership

Then in #198 it went to calculating only families owning slaves and only in slave owning states:

I'm calculating by how many families in slave owning states owned slaves.

Yes, watching you flail around helplessly attempting to rescue your utterly retarded argument is hilarious! Keep up the good work!

 

[Master Debator]

You were not discussing how prevalent slavery was in specific subdivisions of the US where it was allowed. You were discussing its unqualified prevalence among Americans per your post #78:

I always was always doing that while laughing at the people calculating children and the slaves themselves in their numbers.

And to be clear I'm not saying the 2% number is wrong, I'm just asking the simple question of why are you calculating children and slaves themselves in your numbers?

Then you moved the goalposts to discussing it among property owners in post #145:

There's no moving of goal posts. I'm asking the same question I do in that post as I do above in this one.

Then you went the other way in post #167 to discussing unqualified pervasiveness of slave ownership:


Then in #198 it went to calculating only families owning slaves and only in slave owning states:


Yes, watching you flail around helplessly attempting to rescue your utterly retarded argument is hilarious! Keep up the good work!

Are my numbers wrong? What are you even crying about? I can accept, with much amusement, that only 2% of the entire population of America owned slaves when you're calculating children and women and slaves. What's making you so frail about the fact that when you calculate how many white families in the south owned slaves the answer is 1 in every 4. Both of these numbers are true.

 

[Cosmo]

I always was always doing

No, you weren't, and I proved it with your own posts. Until you're at least willing to accept those basic facts of reality, there's no point in talking to you.

that while laughing at the people calculating children and the slaves themselves in their numbers.

And to be clear I'm not saying the 2% number is wrong, I'm just asking the simple question of why are you calculating children and slaves themselves in your numbers?

There's no moving of goal posts. I'm asking the same question I do in that post as I do above in this one.

Are my numbers wrong? What are you even crying about? I can accept, with much amusement, that only 2% of the entire population of America owned slaves when you're calculating children and women and slaves. What's making you so frail about the fact that when you calculate how many white families in the south owned slaves the answer is 1 in every 4. Both of these numbers are true.

 

[Roadvirus]

60 percent say government should not control museum content: Poll​

A majority of Americans say the federal government should not control the content of exhibits in museums that get taxpayer funding, according to a survey published Tuesday.

The latest the Economist/YouGov poll found only 18 percent of respondents saying the government should control the content of exhibits in federally funded museums, compared to 60 percent who disagreed. Another 22 percent were unsure.

https://thehill.com/homenews/administration/5472903-trump-smithsonian-museums-government-control/

 

[Cosmo]

60 percent say government should not control museum content: Poll​

A majority of Americans say the federal government should not control the content of exhibits in museums that get taxpayer funding, according to a survey published Tuesday.

The latest the Economist/YouGov poll found only 18 percent of respondents saying the government should control the content of exhibits in federally funded museums, compared to 60 percent who disagreed. Another 22 percent were unsure.

https://thehill.com/homenews/administration/5472903-trump-smithsonian-museums-government-control/

That makes no sense. If they get federal funding (especially if it's a big chunk of their total funding), then in a way, they implicitly control the museum content.

 

[Gimmesometruth]

That makes no sense. If they get federal funding (especially if it's a big chunk of their total funding), then in a way, they implicitly control the museum content.

But this is not a govt of the people making this call, this is being attempted by the potus, the potus does not control funding ......oh shit.....i was making sense, Constitution and all. Lets forget that, lets just go with what you say cuz Donny said so......thats not authoritarian at all.

PS...did they get rid of teh GAY plane yet? I don't want GAY planes in the museum.

 

[Cosmo]

But this is not a govt of the people making this call,

Uh...what? How did you determine that? Are liberals still lying to themselves that Kamala was likeable?

this is being attempted by the potus, the potus does not control funding ......oh shit.....i was making sense, Constitution and all. Lets forget that, lets just go with what you say cuz Donny said so......thats not authoritarian at all.

PS...did they get rid of teh GAY plane yet? I don't want GAY planes in the museum.

 

[Gimmesometruth]

Uh...what? How did you determine that?

Um, Congress, the direct reps of the people and who holds the purse, did not make this call for the Museum to remove "content" or have funding held up. I determined that by reading news reports. You should try it some time.

Are liberals still lying to themselves that Kamala was likeable?

What a weird, unrelated blurt. She lost by 1.5%. What does that have to do with Drumpf removing museum info on Black US military achievements and slavery? Blacks aren't "likable" and should be erased from history?

 

[Cosmo]

Um, Congress, the direct reps of the people and who holds the purse, did not make this call for the Museum to remove "content" or have funding held up. I determined that by reading news reports. You should try it some time.

What a weird, unrelated blurt. She lost by 1.5%. What does that have to do with Drumpf removing museum info on Black US military achievements and slavery? Blacks aren't "likable" and should be erased from history?

If the President has no authority over it, then what are you worried about?

 

[Mr Person]

Why are people conversing with someone whose avatar is Elon Musk giving a Nazi salute, but with Trollface meme pasted over Elon's face? He's telling you straight-up that he's just trying to piss you off with stupid MAGA bullshit, not actually debate.

 

[Gimmesometruth]

If the President has no authority over it, then what are you worried about?

Why be worried about a lawless POTUS? You are creating moronically stupid blurts, consistently now.

 

[Cosmo]

Why be worried about a lawless POTUS? You are creating moronically stupid blurts, consistently now.

So you're melting down over nothing as liberals tend to?

 

[Gimmesometruth]

So you're melting down over nothing as liberals tend to?

If it is nothing, why is the potus getting involved? What Black exhibits at the museum requires micromanagement by Herr Drumpf? Can your posts get more moronic?

 

[Cosmo]

If it is nothing, why is the potus getting involved? What Black exhibits at the museum requires micromanagement by Herr Drumpf? Can your posts get more moronic?

So now you don't actually know why you're melting down (other than that the MSM told you to, but you won't admit) and you're asking me to figure it out for you.

 

[Roadvirus]

That makes no sense. If they get federal funding (especially if it's a big chunk of their total funding), then in a way, they implicitly control the museum content.

Presidents should not be ordering museums to get rid of something they don't like.

I assume Americans have a right to petition museums over some sort of complaint about exhibits.

 

[Roadvirus]

If the President has no authority over it, then what are you worried about?

Seriously?

Emperor Trumpatine thinks he has the power to do it....and he's exercising that pretend power.

 

[Cosmo]

Presidents should not be ordering museums to get rid of something they don't like.

I assume Americans have a right to petition museums over some sort of complaint about exhibits.

Seriously?

Emperor Trumpatine thinks he has the power to do it....and he's exercising that pretend power.

It says he's reaching out to his attorneys to see what can be done.

Sure sounds like some emperor-level power he's exercising!