|
Later: "at least Trump hasn't used the Oval Office for any sexcapades with fat chicks or Hollyweird types, just porn stars like a respectable gentleman"
|
#
?
Aug 22, 2018 05:23
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 10, 2024 10:31 |
|
|
VitalSigns posted:Later: "at least Trump hasn't used the Oval Office for any sexcapades with fat chicks or Hollyweird types, just porn stars like a respectable gentleman" Too late: https://twitter.com/Yamiche/status/1032019588026978306
|
|
#
?
Aug 22, 2018 05:43
|
|
|
Slick Willie had to settle for free sex like a poor
|
|
#
?
Aug 22, 2018 05:52
|
|
|
I just poked into the QAnon Reddit and it's as hilarious as you think, full of messages to "Trust the plan" and spinning it how this could all be about Hilary or Bill or someone else.
|
|
#
?
Aug 22, 2018 14:53
|
|
|
We just need to figure out who else became POTUS in 2017. Could be anyone really.
|
|
#
?
Aug 22, 2018 17:53
|
|
|
Zanzibar Ham posted:We just need to figure out who else became POTUS in 2017. Could be anyone really. 15 clones of trump, each dumber than the last
|
|
#
?
Aug 22, 2018 18:01
|
|
|
Idk why I love that freep post so much. The only one that made me laugh harder was "heterosexual gays"
|
|
#
?
Aug 22, 2018 18:22
|
|
|
We Are All Mollie Tibbetts Today — Our Country Mourns This Senseless Murder (by Undoc'd Democrat) So the latest outrage is a white woman who got killed by a migrant worker. There's just one problem with this for Freep... quote:To: E. Pluribus Unum quote:To: E. Pluribus Unum There is no situation that Trump cannot exploit to score points! quote:To: E. Pluribus Unum I mean, it's not like anything else has been going on, right? quote:To: E. Pluribus Unum quote:To: E. Pluribus Unum quote:To: E. Pluribus Unum quote:To: E. Pluribus Unum Ha ha ha. quote:To: ronniesgal quote:To: E. Pluribus Unum Welcome to freerepublic.com, I hope you enjoy your stay. quote:To: beergarden  quote:To: beergarden MAGA WWG1WGA MOLON LABE 3% LOCK HER UP DRAIN THE SWAMP  NOT HATEquote:To: E. Pluribus Unum quote:To: House Atreides We never should have let these females think they have any agency in their lives... quote:To: Hot Tabasco quote:To: VanDeKoik gently caress you, Freep! quote:To: Sarah Barracuda quote:To: humblegunner
|
|
#
?
Aug 22, 2018 23:52
|
|
|
I found something new to me, not a flat earther, a 'earth-isn't-actually-spinninger' quote:The earth does not move (rotate.) They are pretty nuts. https://www.freerepublic.com/tag/by:truthinthoughtwordan/index?tab=comments;brevity=full;options=no-change You can read his back and forth with other posters on that NASA to the Moon thread.
|
|
#
?
Aug 23, 2018 01:48
|
|
|
Plinkey posted:I found something new to me, not a flat earther, a 'earth-isn't-actually-spinninger' We know the earth rotates because the loving Foucault pendulum experiment was created back in 1851. I know freepers wanted to go back to the 50s, I just assumed it was the 50s from this century. Also airplane gyroscopes use a stabilizer to deal with any interference from the earth’s rotation and any mechanical gyroscope this idiot had access too would be way too small and lovely to show the effects of earth’s rotation Dr. VooDoo fucked around with this message at 02:38 on Aug 23, 2018 |
|
#
?
Aug 23, 2018 02:36
|
|
|
Dr. VooDoo posted:We know the earth rotates because the loving Foucault pendulum experiment was created back in 1851. I know freepers wanted to go back to the 50s, I just assumed it was the 50s from this century. Also airplane gyroscopes use a stabilizer to deal with any interference from the earth’s rotation and any mechanical gyroscope this idiot had access too would be way too small and lovely to show the effects of earth’s rotation Why would you assume they’d want to go to the 50’s that doesn’t let them own slaves?
|
|
#
?
Aug 23, 2018 03:33
|
|
|
Is Q a prophet or Messiah for them? I thought he was just supposed to be leaking, so he would not, himself, be in the position to "drop the hammer." I'm expecting them to make too much sense, I know.
|
|
#
?
Aug 23, 2018 04:15
|
|
|
It's merged with all the other idiot Boomer religious apocalyptic end times conspiracy theory stuff from the 80s now
|
|
#
?
Aug 23, 2018 04:26
|
|
|
I love max americana's increasingly insane tagline. I've been watching him develop this fake tough guy image for literally years at this point. I remember when he fired his first liberal, directly after being the go to guy who greenlit Ironman all by himself as a successful Hollywood Conservative. Good times. Good times.
|
|
#
?
Aug 23, 2018 04:50
|
|
|
Farchanter posted:Is Q a prophet or Messiah for them? I thought he was just supposed to be leaking, so he would not, himself, be in the position to "drop the hammer." Remember: Most of these Facebook Dads going around talking about they believe "Q" have never even seen the original 4chan/8chan posts, or even the first few layers of reddit posts and facebook groups that "analyze" the posts to tell you what they say. They get 8th hand reposts from the same patrioteagle.facebook page Aunt Edna shares and there's something called "Q" attached. And you're supposed to say Q is good so they say Q is good and don't think of there being an actual Q in charge or something. It's just a name attached like you'd find famous people's names attached to fake inspiring quotes.
|
|
#
?
Aug 23, 2018 05:10
|
|
|
Captain Monkey posted:I love max americana's increasingly insane tagline. I've been watching him develop this fake tough guy image for literally years at this point. I remember when he fired his first liberal, directly after being the go to guy who greenlit Ironman all by himself as a successful Hollywood Conservative. 2. Ironman 2. He was the brave and prescient soul that green-lit the sequel to a blockbuster movie.
|
|
#
?
Aug 23, 2018 05:43
|
|
|
Corsair Pool Boy posted:2. Ironman 2. He was the brave and prescient soul that green-lit the sequel to a blockbuster movie. In fairness, it was a bold movie to greenlight a movie without a plot.
|
|
#
?
Aug 23, 2018 05:48
|
|
|
Plinkey posted:I found something new to me, not a flat earther, a 'earth-isn't-actually-spinninger' Sorry to disappoint, this is also part of flat earth dogma. They don't realize the gyroscope in a plane autocorrects at about one degree per 3 seconds.
|
|
#
?
Aug 23, 2018 07:55
|
|
|
Captain Monkey posted:I love max americana's increasingly insane tagline. I've been watching him develop this fake tough guy image for literally years at this point. I remember when he fired his first liberal, directly after being the go to guy who greenlit Ironman all by himself as a successful Hollywood Conservative.  Thought it was just me. He went from firing liberals after the election to I guess, constantly hiring liberals every year just to fire them? Does he screen them to specifically be liberals at the interview and what does he make of their job performance prior to each yearly round of "firing all the libs?"
|
|
#
?
Aug 23, 2018 11:35
|
|
|
Plinkey posted:To: yesthatjallen Because we certainly don't have scores of books and movies about it, or these places called museums, or even the battlefields themselves. Nooo, the true bastions of history are statues erected by sore losers and racists in places none of this poo poo happened to honor a bunch of loving traitors. Corsair Pool Boy posted:Yeah, you guys started losing in the east as soon as you encountered a general that didn't give up and go in home when his attack didn't work, to say nothing of what was done out west. I'm sure if only Virginia, whose son you worship, had been as steadfast as North Carolina that Grant and Sherman would not have destroyed your way of life. Yeah, I'm pretty sure that war was lost for the south the second it started. They didn't have the resources, supplies, manpower, and manufacturing to do poo poo. They had to import most everything and far before Grant took charge southerners were using wallpaper to write letters, foreign nations would only accept gold since the confederate dollar was worthless, and the army, not to mention citizenry were on loving meager rations while the north pretty much sat back and laughed. And if it still hadn't dawned on them by then, the second Vicksberg fell, the war was done. The north had the free will to roflstomp across the south and there was hardly dick they could do about it F_Shit_Fitzgerald posted:Considering all the news that dropped today, it seems to me like this guy's prayer was already answered. You know if there was a real god he'd be saying "drat these people are loving retarded. I think I'll send another level 5 hurricane their way" VitalSigns posted:Lol that their red line for personal sexual morality is "okay but was the illicit adulterous sex profaning the Oval Office, anywhere else is ok" That rule sure didn't apply to Bill or hillary. They were dredging everything they could up from 50 years prior. What the gently caress? I'd swear that was satire. Jesus these people are broken Random rear end in a top hat posted:Why would you assume they’d want to go to the 50’s that doesn’t let them own slaves? Well, both would work really. While 1950 they wouldn't be able to brag about how many they owned, they could still brag about how many the beat/lynched and got away free SocketWrench fucked around with this message at 12:33 on Aug 23, 2018 |
|
#
?
Aug 23, 2018 12:13
|
|
|
Jagged Jim posted:Mollie Tibbetts  right there. Though this is freep, so it's not like it's surprising. What was surprising to me was how many Rs are apparently comfortable with saying out loud that they're using a dead girl to further their agenda. Absolute scum.
|
|
#
?
Aug 23, 2018 14:23
|
|
|
SocketWrench posted:Yeah, I'm pretty sure that war was lost for the south the second it started. They didn't have the resources, supplies, manpower, and manufacturing to do poo poo. They had to import most everything and far before Grant took charge southerners were using wallpaper to write letters, foreign nations would only accept gold since the confederate dollar was worthless, and the army, not to mention citizenry were on loving meager rations while the north pretty much sat back and laughed. And if it still hadn't dawned on them by then, the second Vicksberg fell, the war was done. The north had the free will to roflstomp across the south and there was hardly dick they could do about it Remember that a large portion of what they were after in attacking at Gettysburg was loving shoes, because their soldiers largely didn't have them at that point. And that's when things were still going sort of well. Then of course they got bodied and the faint wisps of foreign recognition vanished forever.
|
|
#
?
Aug 23, 2018 15:56
|
|
|
I think foreign advisors (British?) in the Civil War estimated that by the end of the war, the Confederacy had managed to equip 70% to 75% of its force with rifles, up from the low 40s when the war started. Even at the end of the war, a full quarter or more of their army was using obsolete smoothbore muskets or even shotguns. At least one Brown Bess from revolutionary days is known to have shown up. There's no real way to overstate how incredibly hosed the Confederacy was. The only thing that even gave them a small chance of victory was that a lot of politicians in the north were advocating a peace treaty instead of forcing the United States back together, including the entire Democrat (at the time, the right-wing party) party line in 1864. If Lincoln had lost reelection, there's a possibility that the new presidency could have tried to end the war and let the Confederacy exist right as they had victory in their grasp.
|
|
#
?
Aug 23, 2018 16:30
|
|
|
The problem for the Confederacy is that they'd already lost the war by the 1864 election and everyone knew it. There's simply no way Americans would have thrown away all the gains in Nov 1864 when victory was close at hand, even the counterfactual of Lincoln losing reelection still requires an alternate Confederacy that wasn't totally hosed from day 1 so it could actually carry on a stalemate for 4 years.
|
|
#
?
Aug 23, 2018 16:56
|
|
|
Pfft all this recorded history mumbo jumbo has some decent points at face value, but the fraction of shoeless Confederates suffering from elemental exposure with good modern weapons were really good shooters! Probably. And all those salt-of-the-earth belles and debutantes clapped at the promenade for Johnny Reb! And window candles, they didn't have window candles or hound dogs up north I bet ... Edit: sorry, a gentleman would never bet. They didn't have window candles or hound dogs up north, I reckon sweart gliwere fucked around with this message at 17:31 on Aug 23, 2018 |
|
#
?
Aug 23, 2018 17:29
|
|
|
VitalSigns posted:The problem for the Confederacy is that they'd already lost the war by the 1864 election and everyone knew it. Eh, there was a window there, where if Gettysburg doesn't happen the way it did and they held on a bit longer in Tennessee/Georgia that the 64 election was at least a lot closer than it was. Hood didn't manage things well, and if they'd managed to hold the walls up a bit longer a negotiated peace would have been on the table. That's the best they were hoping for; without massive foreign intervention, the idea of destroying the AotP and dictating terms outside of DC was a pipe dream, especially after 1863. Saying it was totally hosed from day 1 doesn't take public opinion into account - even with the Mississippi gone, another year of stalemate in Virginia while delaying the collapse in the center might been enough to elect McClellan. In a world where the war goes on until it's militarily over yeah, they were never going to win.
|
|
#
?
Aug 23, 2018 17:38
|
|
|
Corsair Pool Boy posted:Eh, there was a window there, where if Gettysburg doesn't happen the way it did and they held on a bit longer in Tennessee/Georgia that the 64 election was at least a lot closer than it was. Hood didn't manage things well, and if they'd managed to hold the walls up a bit longer a negotiated peace would have been on the table. That's the best they were hoping for; without massive foreign intervention, the idea of destroying the AotP and dictating terms outside of DC was a pipe dream, especially after 1863. The problem McClellan faced is that he personally wanted to fight the war to its conclusion and reunite the United States, while the Democrat party line was that they would negotiate a settlement and allow the two nations to exist separately. Had he been elected, he would have had the choice to go against his own party or acquiesce to their demands.
|
|
#
?
Aug 23, 2018 17:47
|
|
|
Back then the new president wasn't sworn in until March, so a hypothetical peace Democrat would have only a month to give up on fighting the war before Grant won it anyways. Post war attempts to extend Constitutional Rights to freed slaves would have been stonewalled harder and earlier than they were in our reality. You probably wouldn't get a 14th or 15th Amendment.
|
|
#
?
Aug 23, 2018 18:45
|
|
|
Corsair Pool Boy posted:Eh, there was a window there, where if Gettysburg doesn't happen the way it did and they held on a bit longer in Tennessee/Georgia that the 64 election was at least a lot closer than it was. Hood didn't manage things well, and if they'd managed to hold the walls up a bit longer a negotiated peace would have been on the table. That's the best they were hoping for; without massive foreign intervention, the idea of destroying the AotP and dictating terms outside of DC was a pipe dream, especially after 1863. Atlanta fell on September 2, and that would've happened whether Lee avoided Gettysburg or not, and there's no way public opinion was going to be defeatist after a victory like that. Even the Democratic candidate supported carrying on the war until the end. While obviously you're right that the war was won on public opinion because the ultimate military outcome was a foregone conclusion, just changing one or two things in the Confederacy's favor wouldn't have been enough to make the people of the north ready to give up on election day in November 1864. It would have to be an entirely different war fought by an entirely ahistorical Confederacy for that to happen. Maybe if the election had been in 1863 or 1862 (when Republicans got owned and had to form a coalition with War Democrats to keep control of the house despite all the Democrats from Confederate states not even being present in the chamber anymore) Lincoln would have lost, but after another year of inevitable Southern defeats, nah E: Mantis42 posted:Back then the new president wasn't sworn in until March, so a hypothetical peace Democrat would have only a month to give up on fighting the war before Grant won it anyways. I mean who knows, a world where Lincoln loses would almost definitely have to be one where the Atlanta campaign failed (or at least was stalled for another two months), once you assume that it's anyone's guess how long the war would have continued after McClellan's inauguration. It'd be an entirely different war with an entirely different Confederacy. VitalSigns fucked around with this message at 20:15 on Aug 23, 2018 |
|
#
?
Aug 23, 2018 20:03
|
|
|
Despite the massive discrepancy between the resources and war fighting capability of the Union and Confederacy, the Confederacy had a real chance at secession and independence, i.e. accomplishing their political goals, because war is a violent means to achieve political ends. If war was a cage match for survival, the Union wins every time. But it’s a contest between the political goals of the two sides, their resources and how skillfully those resources are managed into won or lost battles, the time frame those wins and losses happen in, and the political will of the populations supporting each side. If the Confederacy had to contend with Mclellan or the like for another year or so they could easily have won, i.e. achieved their goals. If the Vietnam War was viewed as truly vital to the survival of the United States by its people the U.S. would not have left the field after enduring a year’s worth of highway deaths versus millions by the Vietnamese people.
|
|
#
?
Aug 23, 2018 20:36
|
|
|
When you reach the point of assuming Lincoln is just like "eh whatever who cares if we win battles or not" and keeps McClellan in command for the entire war you might as well just assume Lincoln shrugs and lets the secessionists go without a fight in the first place. Like yeah if the South had won they would have won, how realistic was that though: not very
|
|
#
?
Aug 23, 2018 21:03
|
|
|
VitalSigns posted:When you reach the point of assuming Lincoln is just like "eh whatever who cares if we win battles or not" and keeps McClellan in command for the entire war you might as well just assume Lincoln shrugs and lets the secessionists go without a fight in the first place. Eh, this type of deterministic thinking isn’t very useful when viewing history. Yes, the confederacy had a small chance of achieving their political goals, but they had a chance nevertheless. And more specifically it’s not too absurd to imagine Lincoln keeping on a well-respected general by both enlisted and officers who was genuinely gifted at logistics, which the ACW is one of the earlier ‘total war between industrial nations’ where logistical stuff really matters.
|
|
#
?
Aug 24, 2018 07:26
|
|
|
It's not deterministic thinking, plenty of historical events could have easily played out differently, this just isn't one of them. It's not deterministic to say so, any more than it's deterministic to say Japan had no chance of achieving its political goals in attacking the United States (could Roosevelt have given up immediately, sure it's physically possible, but it wasn't gonna happen) Keeping McClellan in charge of the Army of the Potomac the entire war is a good example of a completely absurd counterfactual. Lincoln didn't just get a wild hair up his rear end and fire him one day: his cabinet was pressuring him to do it long before he actually did, McClellan was slammed in official reports after Antietam, he even suffered public condemnation for abandoning the field in several instances. Assuming Lincoln just ignored all the defeats and missed opportunities for another 3 years is equivalient to assuming Lincoln was a totally different man who didn't care if the Union won or not.
|
|
#
?
Aug 24, 2018 08:04
|
|
|
Feinne posted:Remember that a large portion of what they were after in attacking at Gettysburg was loving shoes, because their soldiers largely didn't have them at that point. And that's when things were still going sort of well. Then of course they got bodied and the faint wisps of foreign recognition vanished forever. Stepping back and looking at it though, the moment Lincoln made his Emancipation Proclamation foreign recognition hopes started to dry up fast. European powers could support the south if they did the whole slavery stuff under their breaths, but once it became a dominating factor for both sides there's no way anyone was going to recognize a country born strictly for the purpose of slavery This doesn't mean they had the slightest qualm about southern gold for supplies though
|
|
#
?
Aug 24, 2018 09:47
|
|
|
Pontius Pilate posted:Eh, this type of deterministic thinking isn’t very useful when viewing history. Yes, the confederacy had a small chance of achieving their political goals, but they had a chance nevertheless. And more specifically it’s not too absurd to imagine Lincoln keeping on a well-respected general by both enlisted and officers who was genuinely gifted at logistics, which the ACW is one of the earlier ‘total war between industrial nations’ where logistical stuff really matters. But this still requires Lincoln to bite his tongue because for all of this he stayed informed and was more than willing to sack a general when he determined they hosed up
|
|
#
?
Aug 24, 2018 10:01
|
|
|
SocketWrench posted:Stepping back and looking at it though, the moment Lincoln made his Emancipation Proclamation foreign recognition hopes started to dry up fast. European powers could support the south if they did the whole slavery stuff under their breaths, but once it became a dominating factor for both sides there's no way anyone was going to recognize a country born strictly for the purpose of slavery Was the South ever doing it under their breath, though? The Confederate Constitution was almost identical to the United States one except for a clause specifying that slavery was legal forever and the Confederate Vice President gave a speech shortly before the war started explaining very carefully how the secession was about slavery and shouldn't be mistaken for having any other cause.
|
|
#
?
Aug 24, 2018 14:06
|
|
|
chitoryu12 posted:Was the South ever doing it under their breath, though? The opposite actually. Only near the end of the war did the administration start talking about abolishing slavery under their breath where no one else could hear. They dispatched an envoy to Europe to tell the French and British "name your demands in exchange for recognition, we'll do anything and I mean anything if-you-know-what-I-mean" but he still couldn't say "we'll give up slavery" outright and his mission had to be kept a secret so the Confederate Congress didn't hear about it, freak out about losing their slaves, and stop it. To me that's the second-funniest aspect of the whole thing, whenever some rare true believer spoke up "hey this war is for our freedom from Yankee domination right, that's what we're always saying, well slavery is clearly a crippling diplomatic obstacle to getting the foreign help we need, surely it's worth giving up slavery if it's the only way to preserve our liberty and independence" and the elite planters dominating the Confederacy were like "you just don't get it do you, son". The funniest part was of course the Confederacy thinking it was a smart strategy to open the war by voluntarily embargoing their own import-dependent economy before the Union Navy even got started on the blockade. It's like they got a copy of the Anaconda Plan, said "pssh the Yankees don't have the ships to pull this off yet, let's show 'em how a real Southernor strangles the South"
|
|
#
?
Aug 24, 2018 17:14
|
|
|
chitoryu12 posted:Was the South ever doing it under their breath, though? The Confederate Constitution was almost identical to the United States one except for a clause specifying that slavery was legal forever and the Confederate Vice President gave a speech shortly before the war started explaining very carefully how the secession was about slavery and shouldn't be mistaken for having any other cause. Well, maybe under their breath was the wrong phrase. So long as the war could be pushed as seeking independence rather than abolishing slavery
|
|
#
?
Aug 24, 2018 17:40
|
|
|
VitalSigns posted:The funniest part was of course the Confederacy thinking it was a smart strategy to open the war by voluntarily embargoing their own import-dependent economy before the Union Navy even got started on the blockade. It's like they got a copy of the Anaconda Plan, said "pssh the Yankees don't have the ships to pull this off yet, let's show 'em how a real Southernor strangles the South" Yeah, that definitely goes down as one of the all-time blunders. There was already a bit of a cotton supply glut and they embargoed it just as other nations were getting their own cotton production ramped up too, so the price never really spiked enough to make running the blockade worth it on a large scale, Europe just got their cotton from Egypt and other places without risking ships, lives, or profits on the blockade. It may not have mattered in the long run, but even selling the cotton below market value in '61 would have brought in a lot of modern supplies and foreign currency; they never made up that difference, instead most of the cotton gradually rotted away in warehouses. It did help turn Egypt into a major cotton supplier though!
|
|
#
?
Aug 24, 2018 17:42
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 10, 2024 10:31 |
|
|
How do South stay separate country thouh? Is not result of South "win" that they dictate terms to rejoin? The land they inhabit and river and route they are blocking by that surely would mean even win of war means new war within short time if Confederate stay seperate. Union needs mississippi river for export and import into the plainslands, Union needs many thing and Confederate system of government is not suit well to cooperation of state in meantime. Confedrate constitution is not just of adding many provisions of "slavery is great" and "slavery is always legal" but it also impose heavy restriction on federal government to use tax, bond, other mean to raise money and make difficult to build infrastructure between of states. Not just this is bad for economy in long term, it is also bad for preparing military and defense. I am sure it is not of coincidence that many of these other change to Confederate government are parrot by Republican now.
|
|
#
?
Aug 24, 2018 21:21
|
|
