|
Lightning Knight posted: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. It's fair to say the emancipation proclamation was driven by military necessity, but the emancipation proclamation didn't end slavery. There was no military necessity to ending slavery forever and lots of people didn't want to do it. But it was the right thing to do for reasons both pragmatic and moral.
|
#
?
Jan 19, 2018 07:07
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 25, 2024 19:27 |
|
|
Ogmius815 posted:It's fair to say the emancipation proclamation was driven by military necessity, but the emancipation proclamation didn't end slavery. There was no military necessity to ending slavery forever and lots of people didn't want to do it. But it was the right thing to do for reasons both pragmatic and moral. Yes, but it was only possible and inevitable because of the war that had occurred and the weakened state of slavery politically and culturally. It's very likely that in a hypothetical world where Lincoln doesn't come into the presidency with the Civil War in his lap, and the South had not seceded, that he would not have pushed to end slavery in a time of peace. That was the point, and I agree, in a world where the Civil War doesn't happen I don't think Lincoln was invested enough in the idea of abolition to fight for it.
|
|
#
?
Jan 19, 2018 07:09
|
|
|
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? Im pretty sure that poster was saying: "I don't understand why Democrats would expand Trump's warrantless wiretapping capabilities if they still believe and assert that Trump worked with Russia to steal the election and we must #RESIST him."
|
|
#
?
Jan 19, 2018 07:20
|
|
|
https://twitter.com/keithellison/status/954086192777191425 Which one of you is Keith Ellison's parachute account?
|
|
#
?
Jan 19, 2018 07:24
|
|
|
Lightning Knight posted:Yes, but it was only possible and inevitable because of the war that had occurred and the weakened state of slavery politically and culturally. It's very likely that in a hypothetical world where Lincoln doesn't come into the presidency with the Civil War in his lap, and the South had not seceded, that he would not have pushed to end slavery in a time of peace. That was the point, and I agree, in a world where the Civil War doesn't happen I don't think Lincoln was invested enough in the idea of abolition to fight for it. If the point is just "in a world without the civil war Lincoln probably wouldn't have freed the slaves" I guess I sort of agree (although obviously no one can be sure). But the post I quoted made it sound like abolishing slavery was just a natural consequence of the war and Lincoln doesn't deserve any credit. That's wrong.
|
|
#
?
Jan 19, 2018 07:29
|
|
|
nah
|
|
#
?
Jan 19, 2018 07:39
|
|
|
https://twitter.com/oppenfailer/status/954098880710262784 https://twitter.com/oppenfailer/status/954100519932379136 never forget that the democrats have way more in common with eachother than they will ever have with 90% of the people that actually have to live and work in this capitalist hellscape that is america Kanine fucked around with this message at 08:18 on Jan 19, 2018 |
|
#
?
Jan 19, 2018 08:16
|
|
|
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? "Russia narrative" = the mainstream Democratic explanation of the 2016 election's outcome as largely due to Russia's interference, Trump is a Russian Manchurian candidate, etc. When leftists are dismissive of the Russia narrative, it doesn't mean that we don't believe Russia interfered at all. Clearly they did. We just don't think it was as decisive as, say, the Democrats' incompetent messaging and campaign management. e: Plus, yeah, if Trump's a Russian Manchurian candidate, pretty stupid to increase his domestic survellaince powers. Majorian fucked around with this message at 08:32 on Jan 19, 2018 |
|
#
?
Jan 19, 2018 08:28
|
|
|
Majorian posted:"Russia narrative" = the mainstream Democratic explanation of the 2016 election's outcome as largely due to Russia's interference, Trump is a Russian Manchurian candidate, etc. When leftists are dismissive of the Russia narrative, it doesn't mean that we don't believe Russia interfered at all. Clearly they did. We just don't think it was as decisive as, say, the Democrats' incompetent messaging and campaign management. i feel like i'm not quite in the same universe as everybody else when i hear this attribution of the the mainstream Democratic explanation then again, i feel like our timeline is in general malfunctioning what with the whole Trump thing in general, so maybe it's just an overall spatiotemporal dysphoria in times like these, i just count to twelve on my fingers and calm down
|
|
#
?
Jan 19, 2018 08:49
|
|
|
GreyjoyBastard posted:i feel like i'm not quite in the same universe as everybody else when i hear this attribution of the the mainstream Democratic explanation you haven't watched enough primetime msnbc programming then 
|
|
#
?
Jan 19, 2018 09:45
|
|
|
It's literally all Rachel Maddow talks about these days.
|
|
#
?
Jan 19, 2018 10:09
|
|
|
So this memo all the far-right Republicans on Twitter are freaking out about... https://twitter.com/SteveKingIA/status/954194729511636992 https://twitter.com/dbongino/status/954185641629290497 What's it gonna be? turnip kid fucked around with this message at 11:29 on Jan 19, 2018 |
|
#
?
Jan 19, 2018 11:27
|
|
|
Obama got pineapple on his celebratory pizza on inauguration day.
|
|
#
?
Jan 19, 2018 11:31
|
|
|
Gut feeling is that it’s going to be the extremely scandalous revelation that Obama wanted Hillary to win and didn’t want Trump to win, but there’s some paper memo of him saying this to somebody related to the FBI so therefore it was a conspiracy and blah blah blah.
|
|
#
?
Jan 19, 2018 11:37
|
|
|
turnip kid posted:So this memo all the far-right Republicans on Twitter are freaking out about... Isn't this the memo written by Nunes? If so this is just outright corrupt. Complain that the party that has no control over the functions of congress and the senate at the moment is withholding a memo so that the GOP has a long-standing thing they can try to point at in typical whataboutism from the Republicans in regards to the investigation. Best part is, if Nunes wrote it then it's literally a manufactured scandal. Archonex fucked around with this message at 11:56 on Jan 19, 2018 |
|
#
?
Jan 19, 2018 11:54
|
|
|
Archonex posted:Isn't this the memo written by Nunes? Yep. It’s another desperate attempt to deflect and distract from Trump’s Russia problems. Probably a scrambling reaction to the incredibly damning testimony by Simpson that was just released.
|
|
#
?
Jan 19, 2018 11:57
|
|
|
RasperFat posted:Yep. It’s another desperate attempt to deflect and distract from Trump’s Russia problems. Probably a scrambling reaction to the incredibly damning testimony by Simpson that was just released. That really is the shittiest, most scum sucking thing I can think of doing in this situation outside of just firing Mueller and having the GOP support it. It's a catch 22. The Democrats can't release the memo that the GOP keep saying to release since they A: Don't have a memo that fits the qualifications the Republicans describe and B: Have no power to release the actual memo. So the Republicans can just keep going "Where's the memo?" and referencing posts like Steve King's to justify ignoring the investigation. They're literally, literally, subverting the tenets of a democracy by doing this poo poo. They need to get the gently caress out of politics and never be allowed back in. Edit: Goddamn, that makes me so angry. Archonex fucked around with this message at 12:08 on Jan 19, 2018 |
|
#
?
Jan 19, 2018 12:05
|
|
|
Archonex posted:That really is the shittiest, most scum sucking thing I can think of doing in this situation outside of just firing Mueller and having the GOP support it.
|
|
#
?
Jan 19, 2018 12:12
|
|
|
But then who would the Democrats compromise with?
|
|
#
?
Jan 19, 2018 12:16
|
|
|
Argas posted:But then who would the Democrats compromise with?
|
|
#
?
Jan 19, 2018 12:18
|
|
|
"We've reached an agreement with the General Secretary whereby only half of the Democratic caucus will be sent to the gulag!" Chuck Schumer's Twitter in my alternate-universe headcanon.
|
|
#
?
Jan 19, 2018 12:26
|
|
|
Kilroy posted:"We've reached an agreement with the General Secretary whereby only half of the Democratic caucus will be sent to the gulag!" Chuck Schumer's Twitter in my alternate-universe headcanon. We need more female and minority representation in the gulags.
|
|
#
?
Jan 19, 2018 12:32
|
|
|
JeffersonClay posted: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. Why are you quoting me to prove your assertion? My point was that continual pressure from primary challenges keeps these guys from becoming clueless, out of touch, fart huffing, dinosaurs. I didn't speak to Manning at all. Perhaps someone needs to work on his reading comprehension! To be honest, I don't think she has a chance in hell, but at least her candidacy promotes discussion about US war crimes, incarceration, and treatment of leakers in a unique way that others can't. You on the other hand are so blindly fixated on stomping any challenge from the left because of the COSTS!!! it might have in the general election, you enable the party atrophy that put the country in this position to begin with (and allow people like Cardin to feel comfortable not even knowing what single payer really means). Also, given that you earlier ate an extended probation for dog whistle transphobia in a Manning discussion from a few months back, I am sure that issue is also at play as well.
|
|
#
?
Jan 19, 2018 13:23
|
|
|
Kanine posted: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. I literally didn't hear about this case until yesterday and god it's insanely hosed up. While talking heads were disappearing up their rear end about Trump's inauguration speech being a slide towards fascism, a story about people facing down over 60 years in prison for being in proximity to a trash fire and five broken windows got completely buried. https://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/j20-felony-charges_us_5a6122b4e4b074ce7a06d638 Edit - Like, it would have been nice if while the media was making GBS threads on these people for insufficient  and not wearing a pussy hat in some state sanctioned parade, they mentioned they were facing down life sentences on felony rioting charges cause someone threw a rock at a window.
Iron Twinkie fucked around with this message at 14:35 on Jan 19, 2018 |
|
#
?
Jan 19, 2018 14:24
|
|
|
Lightning Knight posted:Yes, but it was only possible and inevitable because of the war that had occurred and the weakened state of slavery politically and culturally. Lincoln only did it because the war made it politically feasible does not mean the war forced his hand. Another President may well have allowed slavery to continue - and Lincoln was clear that while without the war he would not have up and declared emancipation, he still had every intent of working towards eventual abolition. Casting it as his hand being forced is a pretty weird way to describe it. The civil war made it easy, but it did not leave him with any sort of abolition obligation, at least not any he couldnt have easily ignored. And there were plenty of folks pushing him to preserve the institution GlyphGryph fucked around with this message at 14:42 on Jan 19, 2018 |
|
#
?
Jan 19, 2018 14:29
|
|
|
GlyphGryph posted:Lincoln only did it because the war made it politically feasible does not mean the war forced his hand. Another President may well have allowed slavery to continue - and Lincoln was clear that while without the war he would not have up and declared emancipation, he still had every intent of working towards eventual abolition. From what I recall from earlier discussions on this subject, some Union commanders were moving towards confiscating escaped slaves as war materiel, so universal emancipation was by no means inevitable.
|
|
#
?
Jan 19, 2018 14:32
|
|
|
https://twitter.com/anncoulter/status/954140502059872257 Political mastermind right here
|
|
#
?
Jan 19, 2018 15:01
|
|
|
Chomskyan posted:https://twitter.com/anncoulter/status/954140502059872257 Yeah, Ann, and then maybe they could demand that we sell poor kids to zoos for meat. She's such a goddamn attention whore.
|
|
#
?
Jan 19, 2018 15:04
|
|
|
Ann Coulter of today would be kinda adorable in an old person trying to keep up with today's youth kinda way, except that the people she's trying to keep up with are loving nazis.
|
|
#
?
Jan 19, 2018 15:30
|
|
|
Why do the democrats have Any say in the release of this memo? Any republican could just read it into the record if he so chose
|
|
#
?
Jan 19, 2018 15:48
|
|
|
Ron Jeremy posted:Why do the democrats have Any say in the release of this memo? Any republican could just read it into the record if he so chose That is the game.
|
|
#
?
Jan 19, 2018 16:04
|
|
|
I am shocked, shocked that the outgoing Democratic President would want the Democrat to win. Scandalous.
|
|
#
?
Jan 19, 2018 16:11
|
|
|
not that this is new but https://twitter.com/ndrew_lawrence/status/954160068848685056
|
|
#
?
Jan 19, 2018 16:21
|
|
|
Ron Jeremy posted:Why do the democrats have Any say in the release of this memo? Any republican could just read it into the record if he so chose Kind of the point. The Democrats aren't releasing the memo because they can't release it. They have no authority to do so. The Republicans have pretty much total control of stuff like that at this point. This is kind of a regular thing now that the Republicans have majority control over the senate and congress. Even what we've gotten of the Fusion GPS interview logs required a Democrat to go over the committee's head and give it to the public after it became apparent that the Republicans were holding the interview logs back to avoid the political shitstorm it's release would cause for them/it's release would blow all their claims of Fusion GPS and the Steele dossier being a partisan thing and completely false out of the water. So them talking about a memo Nunes wrote up and how it needs to be released is just them starting yet another fire and then gesturing vaguely at the Democrats in an effort to blame it on them. This is extra scummy since even sorting out the lie in the public and media sphere is liable to require the Democrats breaking the law in some way if the memo in any way contains a reference to classified information. Never mind pointing out that the memo itself is full of bullshit. And if the track record of Republicans like Nunes says anything it's almost certainly complete bunk filled with bullshit designed to stir up the base. And that's if it even exists. Which itself is not really known at the moment. All we have is a bunch of really scummy Republicans that'd happily lie about stuff like that (like Steve King) claiming that they've totally read it and it totally makes (insert political enemy here) look like they're worse than Watergate. So even if it's released the Republicans can claim that whatever is in it must be true since it was held back by the TL;DR:, By all accounts it's an attempt at instilling confusion and selling lies on every level and they ought to be voted straight out of their positions for even trying something that underhanded and utterly anti-democratic. Archonex fucked around with this message at 16:47 on Jan 19, 2018 |
|
#
?
Jan 19, 2018 16:22
|
|
|
I for one think it's good that the political party that controls the most powerful nation in world history is openly embracing the tactics of conspiracy theorists to suppress its political opponents.
|
|
#
?
Jan 19, 2018 17:47
|
|
|
Chomskyan posted:https://twitter.com/anncoulter/status/954140502059872257 love too have federal rape laws
|
|
#
?
Jan 19, 2018 18:09
|
|
|
JeffersonClay posted: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. You're not wrong that they haven't supported those claims (though the idea that being primaried puts more pressure on a candidate than not being primaried is sort of trivially true), but those claims also aren't necessary to defend supporting Manning's campaign. Even if they're wrong, it doesn't disprove the general idea that there's nothing wrong with supporting Manning. Your claim (or at least the one I'm arguing with) is specifically that Manning's campaign would be harmful. This actually requires some sort of evidence, since it obviously isn't the default position that political campaigns should be opposed. As I said before, the problem is that your claim is completely dependent upon evidence that supporting Manning causes harm. The people supporting Manning do not need to provide any sort of evidence to justify doing so. They can make arguments about why supporting Manning is helpful, and maybe those arguments are wrong or not adequately supported, but even if they're wrong it still doesn't imply that there's anything wrong with supporting her. JeffersonClay posted:Are all of them perfect analogues to the situation in Maryland? No. This is all that's needed (except replace "not perfect" with "not useful at all"). The studies in question being about close and bitter races is a pretty huge difference*! Manning would have to be at least fairly competitive in the race (which is the specific thing you're claiming won't be the case) and the campaign would also have to end up pretty negative. The presidential race aspect is also important, since media contributes greatly to the sorts of bitter arguments that cause the problems in question (see the 2016 primary for example). Some posters have mentioned not knowing whether Manning's campaign would be successful, and I actually kinda disagree with that; as you say, she probably doesn't stand a chance. So I'm not going to try to defend that claim since it's not one I really agree with. I'm just arguing that there's no evidence that Manning's campaign would cause any net harm. * It's also worth mentioning that you would need to compare the downsides of close/bitter primaries with the downsides of preventing such primaries. If the only way to stop a thing from happening is worse than the thing itself (in this case presumably taking some action to stop candidates who might create conflict/controversy), it isn't really clear that doing so is a good idea. Ytlaya fucked around with this message at 18:35 on Jan 19, 2018 |
|
#
?
Jan 19, 2018 18:30
|
|
|
Edit, That was too mean even for Coulter Spun Dog fucked around with this message at 18:44 on Jan 19, 2018 |
|
#
?
Jan 19, 2018 18:41
|
|
|
I'm going to post something I've started noticing/figured out/stumbled upon in the last couple of years: every centrist I know (both IRL and online) thinks that politics, in part, is a game of obfuscation of intention. Like "oh Person X thinks they got the better deal but in fact I did" or "My policies are actually unpopular, so I'll disguise them by making this very complicated and then describing it on a technicality while disguising the real intent". If you believe in this kind of political calculus - that people shouldn't actually know what you're scheming at, that politics is actually in part a game of hoodwinking people into accepting something they wouldn't otherwise - then you say things like Hillary Clinton did, "you need to have a public and private position", or you start thinking that the out-and-proud transperson plainly speaking their (correct) moral beliefs under the banner of your party is a problem.
|
|
#
?
Jan 19, 2018 19:43
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 25, 2024 19:27 |
|
|
For my entire lifetime, the Republicans have always been crypto-fascists. Why is this surprising to anyone?
|
|
#
?
Jan 19, 2018 20:02
|
|