|
Lightning Knight posted:Chelsea Manning is a woman. Ah, sorry, I haven't really kept up with the gender drama. If Bradley wishes to be referred to as female, I've no problem with doing so. But while I agree entirely with her positions, and consider her a Hero, I do lean toward the minority position of "she can't win the primary nor the general" so i understand where the critics are coming from. What I can never accept is that the enemy of the good is the perfect - primaries are the best time to challenge the status quo.
|
#
?
Jan 18, 2018 23:47
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 26, 2024 02:29 |
|
|
Hentai Bill posted:Ah, sorry, I haven't really kept up with the gender drama. If Bradley wishes to be referred to as female, I've no problem with doing so. But while I agree entirely with her positions, and consider her a Hero, I do lean toward the minority position of "she can't win the primary nor the general" so i understand where the critics are coming from. What I can never accept is that the enemy of the good is the perfect - primaries are the best time to challenge the status quo. It’s not nice to minimize people’s struggles with gender identity nor is it polite to refer to a transgender person by their birth name over their chosen name. You should refer to her as Chelsea and with the appropriate female pronouns, because that is the kind thing to do.
|
|
#
?
Jan 18, 2018 23:51
|
|
|
JeffersonClay posted:Are you intending to provide data that proves that running nonviable candidates in primaries has any tangible effect on bringing attention to their ideas? Your “common sense” that they might do so isn’t sufficient. It is just as possible that a non viable candidate will actually harm public support for those ideas when she is inevitably destroyed in the primary election. I've said before that I don't need to provide proof, because I'm not the one arguing against doing something. You are correct that I haven't proved that politicians expressing ideas helps to increase awareness of those ideas*, but that claim is not necessary to my argument. It's just a possible upside. My core argument is the default "there's nothing wrong with Manning running until shown otherwise." But your argument relies entirely upon the idea that Manning running would be harmful (or that the chance of it being harmful is greater than the chance of it being helpful in some way). My only claim is that your argument isn't adequate and relies on assumptions that, if applied more broadly, could be used to silence literally all criticism of Democratic candidates. (By the way, the reason I mentioned the possible upside of her running is just to illustrate that there are possible positives that you need to show are smaller than the negatives of her running.) The issue is that you don't seem to understand what claims require what kind of proof/evidence. You're almost always the one arguing against doing things on the basis of their outcomes in these threads, and the people you're arguing against are usually supporting things for ideological reasons. Someone saying "I support Manning (or whoever) because I agree with them" doesn't really need to supply evidence of anything other than the person's ideology being similar to their own (or whatever reasons they give for supporting them being true). But you're arguing that supporting this person could have harmful outcomes, which is a claim that is much harder to prove (but it was your choice to go that route, so you're stuck with having to supply that proof). To put it another way, you're arguing "if people do X, this bad thing will/might happen (with the implication that the bad thing in question is worse than the outcome of preventing people from doing X)" which is a specific claim that requires evidence. "I like/agree with this politician and want to vote for them" does not require evidence in the same way. * Though it's kind of trivially true that it's possible for them to increase awareness and/or support of ideas - see Bernie Sanders Josef bugman posted:If you make the first postulate "this will harm the Democratic candidate" then surely it is up to you to prove that? This basically. The initial claim that an action would have a particular outcome was made by JC. Prior to that people were just saying "I like Manning and want to vote for her" which doesn't really require any proof/evidence (unless they specifically say they like Manning for some reason that is demonstrably untrue). JeffersonClay posted:This article cites six studies. edit: I wrote a response to this that gave it too much credit. This article seems to be specifically referring to close races, and you're claiming that it wouldn't even be close in Manning's case. So this doesn't even really help you. (And if it were close, that means Manning had a chance, in which case it makes sense for people who like Manning more than her competitors to still support her.) Ytlaya fucked around with this message at 00:19 on Jan 19, 2018 |
|
#
?
Jan 18, 2018 23:56
|
|
|
reminds me of this sad episode https://www.npr.org/2014/04/13/302019921/statue-of-a-homeless-jesus-startles-a-wealthy-community quote:A new religious statue in the town of Davidson, N.C., is unlike anything you might see in church.
|
|
#
?
Jan 19, 2018 00:06
|
|
|
Lightning Knight posted:It’s not nice to minimize people’s struggles with gender identity nor is it polite to refer to a transgender person by their birth name over their chosen name. You should refer to her as Chelsea and with the appropriate female pronouns, because that is the kind thing to do. Again, sorry. I'm not familiar with transsexual issues and I don't mean to offend. However, I don't understand how I am minimizing anyone's struggles with my ignorance. I definitely agree that CHELSEA was poorly treated by the US government and in all likelihood actually tortured. That is an insane problem and one that needs to be addresssed. However like the guy you all hate I think realpolitik concerns that she can't win are justified, although I disagree that her merely running causes any damage.
|
|
#
?
Jan 19, 2018 00:07
|
|
|
Hentai Bill posted:Again, sorry. I'm not familiar with transsexual issues and I don't mean to offend. However, I don't understand how I am minimizing anyone's struggles with my ignorance. I definitely agree that CHELSEA was poorly treated by the US government and in all likelihood actually tortured. That is an insane problem and one that needs to be addresssed. However like the guy you all hate I think realpolitik concerns that she can't win are justified, although I disagree that her merely running causes any damage. What I’m saying is that it’s not “gender drama,” it’s a meaningful, significant struggle for millions of people, Manning included. You wouldn’t call a gay person’s struggles to come out, experiencing bullying and alienation from family, as “gay drama,” I should hope. Likewise, “transsexual” is generally an outdated and frowned upon term. The appropriate term is transgender. It’s ok to not know these things, as long as you’re open to learning. 
|
|
#
?
Jan 19, 2018 00:15
|
|
|
Lightning Knight posted:What I’m saying is that it’s not “gender drama,” it’s a meaningful, significant struggle for millions of people, Manning included. You wouldn’t call a gay person’s struggles to come out, experiencing bullying and alienation from family, as “gay drama,” I should hope. That's what I describe my own coming out struggles as, but I see your point. As a gay person in the south I'm a bit behind the times but I assure you I mean well. Why isn't transsexual an accepted term? The GLAAD website echoes what you say but doesn't give any good justifications. Seems like the same thing to my idiot brain. Thanks for your patients.
|
|
#
?
Jan 19, 2018 00:30
|
|
|
Hentai Bill posted:That's what I describe my own coming out struggles as, but I see your point. As a gay person in the south I'm a bit behind the times but I assure you I mean well. Why isn't transsexual an accepted term? The GLAAD website echoes what you say but doesn't give any good justifications. Seems like the same thing to my idiot brain. Thanks for your patients. To be honest, I don’t specifically know. I think it has to do with historical, cultural connotations and association with stereotypes, but someone else who knows more would be better to answer that. In general though, I don’t feel like you lose anything by referring to people by what they’d like to be called when it comes to gender and sexual identity.
|
|
#
?
Jan 19, 2018 00:36
|
|
|
Hentai Bill posted:Why isn't transsexual an accepted term? To quote Christine Jorgensen from a 1979 newspaper article: quote:As a young man, Jorgensen experienced strong emotional attachments to two male friends, but she says those feelings were never expressed. She admits now that she wasn’t entirely candid in the book. She did have "a couple" of homosexual experiences before she went to Europe to seek a medical solution to her problem, but they only reinforced the feeling that she wanted to relate to men as a woman, not as another man. "If you understand trans-genders," she says, (the word she prefers to transsexuals), "then you understand that gender doesn’t have to do with bed partners, it has to do with identity."
|
|
#
?
Jan 19, 2018 00:37
|
|
|
The single best reason for Manning to run is that on the off chance she wins, it's going to be loving hilarious to see death squads roaming Maryland in the aftermath. It's a reflex at this point, I don't think the IC is going to be able to resist overthrowing the democratically elected representative and installing a dictator. Edit Might help on the diplomatic front too, if we can get Oliver North to sell some more weapons to Iran. Rockopolis fucked around with this message at 00:56 on Jan 19, 2018 |
|
#
?
Jan 19, 2018 00:53
|
|
|
Manning has every right to rub if she wishes, but theres like a 95% chance she gets crushed
|
|
#
?
Jan 19, 2018 00:59
|
|
|
https://twitter.com/crushingbort/status/954144262576328704
|
|
#
?
Jan 19, 2018 01:21
|
|
|
Marketing New Brain posted:As a lifetime Maryland resident and voter, thought I might chime in here about Manning running in the primary. I'm personally glad lovely dems like Cardin are being challenged, but it is more important to view her as way to bring attention, on a national scale, to the problems with the democratic party than as a serious challenger to this seat. This, alongside what I mentioned. There is no way in hell she beats Cardin. I'm pretty sure that Cardin will in fact beat her like a red headed step child. He's just got too many advantages. And even if he does end up screwing himself over in the long run I question who will get Cardin's seat down the line given how people are steadily starting to delude themselves that the Republicans are going to treat them like human beings. Which is an ongoing thing that's occurring alongside folks electing a Republican governor that tried to make it legal to deny employee's owed sick leave. Parts of the state are like a case study in how people end up tricking themselves into thinking voting Republican is good for their quality of life and financial well being right now. The difference between me and the above poster though is that i'd rather she run for a position she stands a chance of winning. The redneck "protest" groups are going to be out in droves no matter what if she runs, and that's going to endanger plenty of people who are trans. So she had might as well go for a position where she can win and effect actual change for the better. The governorship is super vulnerable and is going to be all the way up to the election. Everyone seems to hate Hogan, and rightfully so. The guy's a scumbag that can't even get Republican support on the whole since he's too cowardly to go all in on being a shithead to blue collar workers and LGBT minorities. Hell, her being trans actually becomes an advantage there given that one of his first acts was to try and stonewall a civil rights bill for people who are trans that had already been passed and just needed him to sign it on coming into the office. Rockopolis posted:The single best reason for Manning to run is that on the off chance she wins, it's going to be loving hilarious to see death squads roaming Maryland in the aftermath. It's a reflex at this point, I don't think the IC is going to be able to resist overthrowing the democratically elected representative and installing a dictator. ...Though I have to admit, seeing the intelligence community lose it's poo poo over Cardin getting the boot and a figure that some treat as a damned near mythical arch-nemesis being installed in his place would be preeeeettty amazing. On the poo poo storm front, that is. That's the point where political voyeurs start breaking out the popcorn and counting down the time until someone's email server gets mysteriously hacked in an effort to air dirty laundry. Archonex fucked around with this message at 01:49 on Jan 19, 2018 |
|
#
?
Jan 19, 2018 01:26
|
|
|
JeffersonClay posted:^^^Please quote those hilarious posts!^^ GlyphGryph posted:They insisted democratic neoliberals dont exist most recently, but there were people who insisting neoliberals didnt exist at all in modern politics and it was just a boogeyman term previous to that as well. Its a regular thing. im guessing it was pretty much jc and other neolibs moving the goalposts arguing against any definition of neoliberalism so that it couldnt be used against people like them
|
|
#
?
Jan 19, 2018 01:58
|
|
|
Allow me to give you the cliff notes of neoliberalism: https://twitter.com/SenatorDurbin/status/954118788521316359
|
|
#
?
Jan 19, 2018 01:59
|
|
|
Megaman's Jockstrap posted:Allow me to give you the cliff notes of neoliberalism: reading that tweet made me cough a little bit of vomit up in the back of my mouth, does anyone have advice for getting the taste out of my mouth? thx in advance
|
|
#
?
Jan 19, 2018 02:35
|
|
|
Kanine posted:reading that tweet made me cough a little bit of vomit up in the back of my mouth, does anyone have advice for getting the taste out of my mouth? thx in advance Gargle and spit water until the flavor goes away, then brush your teeth.
|
|
#
?
Jan 19, 2018 02:55
|
|
|
Kanine posted:reading that tweet made me cough a little bit of vomit up in the back of my mouth, does anyone have advice for getting the taste out of my mouth? thx in advance https://twitter.com/sahilkapur/status/954167239208562689
|
|
#
?
Jan 19, 2018 03:04
|
|
|
So the Democrats are actually accomplishing something? I can't imagine any of that other business would be very good.
|
|
#
?
Jan 19, 2018 03:23
|
|
|
oh hey btw 129 more of the j20 protestors (people who were who were arrested for organizing and attending the inauguration protests last january who faced many bullshit charges from the trump admin) have had their charges dropped. there are still 59 facing these bullshit charges including a lot of members of the industrial workers of the world, i personally know some of these people as well and it's loving disgusting to watch them treated like this
|
|
#
?
Jan 19, 2018 03:30
|
|
|
Hentai Bill posted:Again, sorry. I'm not familiar with transsexual issues and I don't mean to offend. However, I don't understand how I am minimizing anyone's struggles with my ignorance. I definitely agree that CHELSEA was poorly treated by the US government and in all likelihood actually tortured. That is an insane problem and one that needs to be addresssed. However like the guy you all hate I think realpolitik concerns that she can't win are justified, although I disagree that her merely running causes any damage. I doubt that anyone in this thread would put Chelsea's chances in the primary at anything better than "huge underdog", the problem we have with JeffersonClay is that their supposed "realpolitik concerns" are actually a cover for him wishing ill on her candidacy (or that of any other leftist) on ideological grounds. This pretense is because he doesn't want it to be completely obvious that his claim that leftists and liberals should compromise with each other politically in order to resist the far-right actually means "leftists should vote for center-right Democrats in perpetuity and stop complaining about it." e: That's the funniest thing about the whole derail, all the Chelsea Manning posts could have been kept to one page if only people like JeffersonClay could bring themselves to say "well, I don't think she has a chance but good luck to her" but the idea of a candidate that leftists get excited about is so anathema to him that he has to twist himself in knots and say that democracy is morally wrong. Mornacale fucked around with this message at 04:31 on Jan 19, 2018 |
|
#
?
Jan 19, 2018 04:21
|
|
|
Mornacale posted:I doubt that anyone in this thread would put Chelsea's chances in the primary at anything better than "huge underdog", the problem we have with JeffersonClay is that their supposed "realpolitik concerns" are actually a cover for him wishing ill on her candidacy (or that of any other leftist) on ideological grounds. This pretense is because he doesn't want it to be completely obvious that his claim that leftists and liberals should compromise with each other politically in order to resist the far-right actually means "leftists should vote for center-right Democrats in perpetuity and stop complaining about it." well, it is morally wrong, though it produced the wrong result. those idiot loving voters and their idiot loving concerns failed to recognize with their idiot loving brains that a platform of "gently caress you, vote for me" should have earned their votes in perpetuity
|
|
#
?
Jan 19, 2018 04:38
|
|
|
Megaman's Jockstrap posted:Allow me to give you the cliff notes of neoliberalism:  that isn't even how compromise works how are you so bad at this?
|
|
#
?
Jan 19, 2018 04:43
|
|
|
HootTheOwl posted:Oh, well if you can't prove it in a court of law then I guess it never happened. Learn to comint or get hosed. Hey I'm not asking for proof beyond a reasonable doubt standard, or even preponderance of the evidence standard. I'd like to see any evidence, at all, that doesn't immediately fall apart under the most basic cross-examination. The Penatagon couldn't even provide that, do you have it? Please share. HootTheOwl posted:It's not a direct line. By revealing sources and methods people using those sources and methods will use different sources and methods and inhibits the ability to collect using those sources and methods. It's like pointing to an individual hurricane and saying "climate change". No individual death is provably the result of bad intelligence but growing lack of intelligence results in deaths. This isn't it. As others have pointed out, this vague donrumsfeld.txt handwaving can be used to defend anything the IC wants to do regardless of legality or morality because those things also get in the way of the sources and methods the IC wants to use and forces them to use different sources and methods. It is an argument against absolutely any proposal or action to rein in the police state, and was of course used so by batshit neocons in the Bush era and their liberal allies then and now. HootTheOwl posted:You sure told off the imaginary me whose doing that. Unlike the real me who isn't doing that. Revealing comint sources hampers comint collection. This isn't propaganda but really basic stuff. Okay but why should I care about that, no one died, no one got hurt. The best you've got is that it "may" make winning our endless unwinnable war a little harder and take a little longer than the infinite time it otherwise would have. If you're so concerned about the casualties and the horror of our endless militarism and imperialism, the quickest and most humane way to bring these atrocities to an end is to elect antiwar antimilitarist anti-imperialist people to the US Congress, you know people like Chelsea Manning. VitalSigns fucked around with this message at 04:58 on Jan 19, 2018 |
|
#
?
Jan 19, 2018 04:56
|
|
|
Ytlaya posted:The initial claim that an action would have a particular outcome was made by JC. Prior to that people were just saying "I like Manning and want to vote for her" which doesn't really require any proof/evidence (unless they specifically say they like Manning for some reason that is demonstrably untrue). This is false. Here are quotes from people arguing that manning's candidacy would have particular outcomes, posted before I made any claims about Manning's candidacy. Lightning Knight posted:I don’t know if we have to primary Cardin because I know nothing about him but I don’t see any harm in having primary challenges in general. If there’s no pressure on sitting Dems they inevitably start drifting right. MooselanderII posted:The guy is a fuckin' dinosaur and is 74 years old. NSA poo poo aside, he needs a good primary. Not holding these people accountable for so long lets them get to the age of 74 in a safe, easy seat and lose their understanding of what words mean. So I didn't somehow break the seal of prediction in this thread, and the onus of providing all evidence cannot be placed at my feet, as convenient for you as that might be. This certainly isn't the first time you've selectively demanded evidence in a discussion. But it's only half of the lazy strategy you seem to have with evidence. quote:edit: I wrote a response to this that gave it too much credit. This article seems to be specifically referring to close races, and you're claiming that it wouldn't even be close in Manning's case. So this doesn't even really help you. (And if it were close, that means Manning had a chance, in which case it makes sense for people who like Manning more than her competitors to still support her.) This is a solid example of the evidence-free dismissals you commonly give when presented with the data you ask for. The article cites five studies. Are all of them perfect analogues to the situation in Maryland? No. Are social science comparisons ever perfect analogues? No. Rather than attempt to refute the evidence provided with more evidence, or better evidence, you simply assert that the evidence provided does not meet whatever arbitrary threshold of relevance is convenient for you in the debate and assert that it can be ignored. It's tedious and transparent. If you'd like to find evidence that refutes the assertion that contentious primaries tend to disadvantage the winner in the general, go right ahead! This evidence exists. This is a topic with a lot of scholarship in political science on both sides. What you can't do is dismiss the argument with the kind of lazy special pleading-- "your arguments require evidence (which is never good enough), my arguments are powered by the strength of my moral convictions"-- that defines your posting.
|
|
#
?
Jan 19, 2018 05:13
|
|
|
Mornacale posted:I doubt that anyone in this thread would put Chelsea's chances in the primary at anything better than "huge underdog", the problem we have with JeffersonClay is that their supposed "realpolitik concerns" are actually a cover for him wishing ill on her candidacy (or that of any other leftist) on ideological grounds. This pretense is because he doesn't want it to be completely obvious that his claim that leftists and liberals should compromise with each other politically in order to resist the far-right actually means "leftists should vote for center-right Democrats in perpetuity and stop complaining about it." I've suggested multiple times that a leftist candidate with a plausible path to victory would be worth whatever risks come from a divisive primary because they might be more likely to win in the general. But all Manning offers is a downside risk. We know she's not going to win. We know she's not going to make people more enthusiastic to vote for Cardin. The best case scenario is that she doesn't hurt Cardin. The worst case scenario is that she does. It probably won't matter, Cardin's seat is almost certainly safe. Then there are the other issues, like "why can't y'all find someone with an actual chance to win this seat?" and "are you sure that enthusiasm for your ideas won't dip when Manning gets annihilated after running on them?" and "wouldn't your resources be better spent on supporting ideologically acceptable local candidates that might one day be capable of taking a senate seat?" I'd support Manning's candidacy wholeheartedly if I thought her inevitable defeat could serve as some sort of object lesson to the political gurus in this thread about the purported grassroots popularity of their agenda, or the need to consider how their arguments are framed and presented to the large number of moderates in the party, but we all know that's not going to happen. The learning, that is. She's gonna lose. JeffersonClay fucked around with this message at 05:31 on Jan 19, 2018 |
|
#
?
Jan 19, 2018 05:28
|
|
|
OK dude we get it, you admire the Iranian Revolutionary Council and you wish we had something like that here to keep
|
|
#
?
Jan 19, 2018 05:30
|
|
|
Oh no how will I ever respond to that intensely clever strawman? I am undone. Tell Chelsea I'm sorry. I have an abiding faith that through education, mockery and decades of abject failure the left can learn not to get excited about hopeless candidates without the need for the guiding hand of the government.
|
|
#
?
Jan 19, 2018 05:38
|
|
|
Which ideology lost 1k+ seats, as well as all levels of government over two decades and an open goal Presidential campaign now?
|
|
#
?
Jan 19, 2018 05:40
|
|
|
JeffersonClay posted:I'd support Manning's candidacy wholeheartedly if I thought her inevitable defeat could serve as some sort of object lesson to the political gurus in this thread about the purported grassroots popularity of their agenda, or the need to consider how their arguments are framed and presented to the large number of moderates in the party, but we all know that's not going to happen. The learning, that is. She's gonna lose. "I would only support a progressive candidate to troll my forum rivals" says JC, clearly indicating his willingness to engage in good faith debate on this website. JeffersonClay posted:I have an abiding faith that through education, mockery and decades of abject failure the left can learn not to get excited about hopeless candidates without the need for the guiding hand of the government. Hopeless candidates like Hillary Clinton?
|
|
#
?
Jan 19, 2018 05:43
|
|
|
WampaLord posted:"I would only support a progressive candidate to troll my forum rivals" says JC, clearly indicating his willingness to engage in good faith debate on this website. It's not even that, it's "I would only support a progressive candidate if it led to leftists abandoning their ideology to suck the dick of conservatives like me."
|
|
#
?
Jan 19, 2018 05:48
|
|
|
WampaLord posted:"I would only support a progressive candidate to troll my forum rivals" says JC, clearly indicating his willingness to engage in good faith debate on this website. "Any argument which suggests my particular strain leftism is not infallible must be trolling" says WampaLord before quickly reburying his head in a pile of stale doritos. quote:Hopeless candidates like Hillary Clinton? If Chelsea Manning could win more votes than her opponent while simultaneously running a terrible campaign and getting hosed by the FBI and the Russians simultaneously I wouldn't be describing her chances as hopeless. Mornacale posted:It's not even that, it's "I would only support a progressive candidate if it led to leftists abandoning their ideology to suck the dick of conservatives like me." If I'm a conservative you've got massive problems with your electoral strategy, friend, because my politics are to the left of, conservatively, 80% of the electorate. I don't need you to abandon your ideology. I want you to abandon the self-serving and frankly boring assertions that it cannot fail.
|
|
#
?
Jan 19, 2018 05:58
|
|
|
JeffersonClay posted:If Chelsea Manning could win more votes than her opponent while simultaneously running a terrible campaign and getting hosed by the FBI and the Russians simultaneously I wouldn't be describing her chances as hopeless. Hillary lost because she was bad hth
|
|
#
?
Jan 19, 2018 06:05
|
|
|
I am still unsure how the Democrat's Russia narrative can still exist in a world in which the said Democrats have given the supposed Manchurian candidate full access to domestic, expanded spying networks and data collection thoroughly against the constitution.
Kokoro Wish fucked around with this message at 06:25 on Jan 19, 2018 |
|
#
?
Jan 19, 2018 06:09
|
|
|
Our friends the NSA and the FBI are going to take down Trump any day now and make Hillary president, and she'll need an intrusive security state to protect America from Trump and Putin and Saddam.
|
|
#
?
Jan 19, 2018 06:20
|
|
|
Kokoro Wish posted:Which ideology lost 1k+ seats, as well as all levels of government over two decades and an open goal Presidential campaign now? minor correction: it was less than a decade
|
|
#
?
Jan 19, 2018 06:32
|
|
|
Fluffdaddy posted:Lincoln kinda had his hand forced on ending slavery with the whole war thing though, so I don't think this is the comparison you are looking for. This actually isn't true at all by the way.
|
|
#
?
Jan 19, 2018 06:41
|
|
|
Kokoro Wish posted:I am still unsure how the Democrat's Russia narrative can still exist in a world in which the said Democrats have given the supposed Manchurian candidate full access to domestic, expanded spying networks and data collection thoroughly against the constitution. What is "Russia narrative" even supposed to mean? Like, do you believe the libertarian conspiracy theories which say Russia didn't influence the election, and the establishment is just making everything up? treasured8elief fucked around with this message at 06:54 on Jan 19, 2018 |
|
#
?
Jan 19, 2018 06:43
|
|
|
Ogmius815 posted:This actually isn't true at all by the way. Yes, it is? Lincoln did not run on ending slavery and kept his political movement against slavery limited to what could be justified by military necessity until the end of the war, where he sought political cover from Congress to end slavery in conjunction with moves from the Radical Republicans. It is objectively true that Lincoln was not an aggressive anti-slavery advocate, and in fact was the compromise candidate in that regard in the lead up to 1860. Seward, his secretary of state, was the aggressive anti-slavery candidate. That isn't even a value judgement against Lincoln, you could argue that his careful handling of the issue was militarily necessary to deal with the border states and had he been more aggressive in pushing the end of slavery he might have lost the war. Edit: when I say "value judgement," I mean in terms of leadership, military strategy, etc. Obviously it would've been best from a moral perspective had Lincoln come out swinging against slavery and had every slave owner executed after the fact so he could distribute their stuff to the slaves, but alas. Lightning Knight fucked around with this message at 07:06 on Jan 19, 2018 |
|
#
?
Jan 19, 2018 06:49
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 26, 2024 02:29 |
|
|
tentative8e8op posted:What is "Russia narrative" even supposed to mean? Like, do you believe the libertarian conspiracy theories which say Russia didn't influence the election, and the establishment is just making everything up? in a surprise twist, the whole business with suspected Russian interference was a smokescreen to delay recognition of the Uruguayan nanotech program until it was too late by which I mean, until Wednesday next week
|
|
#
?
Jan 19, 2018 06:53
|
|
