Jump to content

Political Discussion Thread (With Rules)


Recommended Posts

20 hours ago, Old Man said:

 

Lincoln wouldn't be there either.

 

I don't know about that. Lincoln had a very broad coalition that sought to unite Radical Abolitionists with more moderate members. At the outset of the Civil War, he continued to countenance slavery. He started a steep escalation of genocide against Native Americans. He suspended habeas corpus, and expanded emergency powers in ways unprecedented in the USA. He had legislators from rebel states arrested and removed from Congress in order to create the majorities he needed to pass legislation.

As much as I admire Lincoln as a skilled statesman, and accepting that he may have done the best he could with the situation as he saw it as the time, in the fullness of history, I have to count him among the white supremacists, of which Trump is one scion. In saving the Union, Lincoln did vast damage to democracy, from which we are still feeling the reverberations.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Replies 16.9k
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Posts

I feel this needs to be shared.  

I applaud the ten Republican Representatives who voted to impeach Mr. Trump, as well as the seven Republican Senators who voted to convict. I know it was a difficult decision that will probably come b

Posted Images

 

1 hour ago, unclevlad said:

Oh, come now.  McConnell is entirely devoted to his convictions.  

 

What you have to recognize is what they are...by his actions.  His words?  They're worth the paper they're written on.

 

I concur. But my point was, in previous years he'd be more devious in hiding his venality.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, Lord Liaden said:

 

 

I concur. But my point was, in previous years he'd be more devious in hiding his venality.

Have to disagree there.  The only difference with Barrett was the timing of the opportunity.  Blocking Garland was equally blatant and venal.

Link to post
Share on other sites
37 minutes ago, pawsplay said:

 

I don't know about that. Lincoln had a very broad coalition that sought to unite Radical Abolitionists with more moderate members. At the outset of the Civil War, he continued to countenance slavery. He started a steep escalation of genocide against Native Americans. He suspended habeas corpus, and expanded emergency powers in ways unprecedented in the USA. He had legislators from rebel states arrested and removed from Congress in order to create the majorities he needed to pass legislation.

As much as I admire Lincoln as a skilled statesman, and accepting that he may have done the best he could with the situation as he saw it as the time, in the fullness of history, I have to count him among the white supremacists, of which Trump is one scion. In saving the Union, Lincoln did vast damage to democracy, from which we are still feeling the reverberations.

 

It's an arguable case. But I'm confident Lincoln did what he believed was needed for the greater good of the country. Donald Trump does nothing unless it benefits himself, and everything else be damned. Trump embodies one of Abraham Lincoln's more famous statements: "Nearly all men can stand adversity, but if you want to test a man's character, give him power." In that regard I expect Lincoln would have held Trump in contempt.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I had a lengthy response but will just say, I cannot accept the use of modern standards for behavior applied retroactively to Abraham Lincoln. That strikes me as a revisionist standard that no human being of any era would withstand the scrutiny of. Particularly any human being in a leadership role. But really anyone.

 

 Anyway, carry on. I will continue to consider him one of the few truly great Presidents and a champion of his time for human liberty. Errors and all.

Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Iuz the Evil said:

I had a lengthy response but will just say, I cannot accept the use of modern standards for behavior applied retroactively to Abraham Lincoln. That strikes me as a revisionist standard that no human being of any era would withstand the scrutiny of. Particularly any human being in a leadership role. But really anyone.

 

 Anyway, carry on. I will continue to consider him one of the few truly great Presidents and a champion of his time for human liberty. Errors and all.

 

Ok but can he withstand the criticism of his contemporaries?

 

Quote

Mr. Lincoln… while admitting the right to hold men as slaves in the States already existing, regards such property as peculiar, exceptional, local, generally an evil, and not to be extended beyond the limits of the States where it is established by what is called positive law.  Whoever live through the next four years will see Mr. Lincoln and his Administration attacked more bitterly for their pro-slavery truckling, than for doing any anti-slavery work. - F. Douglass

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

The important part is ". . . and not to be extended beyond the limits of the States where it is established . . ."

 

The other important part is the date. Was it pre-war? Maybe . . .  and this is a crazy idea . . . maybe that whole banning slavery in newer states thing was a first step designed to eventually eliminate slavery while avoiding a civil war.

 

If that was a post-war quote, it might be more damning.

 

The innertubes put the date at 1860 for that quote.

 

The war started in 1861.

Link to post
Share on other sites

The historical research that I've read asserts that Lincoln didn't start out as an abolitionist. His thinking and position on that subject evolved over time. Slavery at that time was an institution entrenched in American law, and a significant part of the economy. Abolishing it would have been a daunting task for any politician to undertake, even the most courageous and enlightened.

 

As for some of the tactics Lincoln used to advance his program, records indicate that he could indeed be politically ruthless. But you have to look at the realities he was dealing with. I mean, would you allow the representatives of states which are openly rebelling against your government, to participate in votes on your government's conduct?

Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, Lord Liaden said:

The historical research that I've read asserts that Lincoln didn't start out as an abolitionist.

 

I think that while his position wasn't as strong as an abolitionist's, he didn't like the practice and wanted to curb it,  but acknowledged that it was legal at the time. And he was a politician operating in a cut throat (or shoot head in his case) environment, so not exactly an angel, either. He did support not expanding the number of slave states, and at the end the day that was the "states rights" issue driving the war.

Link to post
Share on other sites

And he signed the Emancipation Proclamation. Anyone want to propose a greater single impact on civil rights then ending the legal practice of slavery? Love to hear it.

 

 You can say “yeah but” or “if only he’d” but he arguably did more for that cause than any American before or since with that action.

Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Iuz the Evil said:

And he signed the Emancipation Proclamation. Anyone want to propose a greater single impact on civil rights then ending the legal practice of slavery? Love to hear it.

 

 You can say “yeah but” or “if only he’d” but he arguably did more for that cause than any American before or since with that action.

 

Lincoln didn't end the practice of slavery. He condoned it for years during the war. The Emancipation Proclamation affected only rebels. Lincoln was okay with letting Black people pay the price with their bodies and freedoms to maintain the Union.

Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, pawsplay said:

 

Lincoln didn't end the practice of slavery. He condoned it for years during the war. The Emancipation Proclamation affected only rebels. Lincoln was okay with letting Black people pay the price with their bodies and freedoms to maintain the Union.

It’s best at this point to merely agree to disagree, as I find so many problems with the lack of moral insight present in this argument as to lose interest in the discussion. 
 

Clearly you see the scope and impact of this action differently than I. Fortunately, we live in a nation which endorsed such disagreement.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I think before we talk about moral insight, we should talk about facts. Lincoln did not set out to end slavery, Lincoln did not end slavery at the beginning of the Civil War, Lincoln did not end slavery with the Emancipation proclamation. He wrote a letter to Horace Greeley stating that slaves could wait indefinitely to be freed if it preserved the Union. If you can't grapple with these facts, it is you who aren't ready to have this discussion.

Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, pawsplay said:

I think before we talk about moral insight, we should talk about facts. Lincoln did not set out to end slavery, Lincoln did not end slavery at the beginning of the Civil War, Lincoln did not end slavery with the Emancipation proclamation. He wrote a letter to Horace Greeley stating that slaves could wait indefinitely to be freed if it preserved the Union. If you can't grapple with these facts, it is you who aren't ready to have this discussion.

Cute. I accept that you provide no credit to the man for his accomplishments in this area, the changing of moral compass for the nation on this issue in establishing the legal position taken by the federal government abolishing slavery, or any other matter aside from being an accomplished politician. You clearly have strong feelings about Lincoln, which in my opinion impair your judgment.

 

Have a nice day, I have better ways to spend my time. It’s apparent that no human in this framework can be moral, just or accomplished. Evaluating Lincoln as a man of his era, I disagree with your conclusions. 

Link to post
Share on other sites

“It's my estimation that every man ever got a statue made of him was one kind of sumbitch or another. -- Malcolm Reynolds

 

Personally, I'm sure that Lincoln (along with every single other human what came cryin' into the world) had his accomplishments, his mistakes, his merits, and his flaws.  He was neither angel nor demon, just human.

Link to post
Share on other sites

https://www.gov.ca.gov/2021/04/06/governor-newsom-outlines-the-states-next-step-in-the-covid-19-pandemic-recovery-moving-beyond-the-blueprint/
 

Ends the California Blueprint for a Safer Economy effective June 15. "All sectors listed in the current Blueprint for a Safer Economy grid may return to usual operations in compliance with Cal/OSHA requirements and with common-sense public health policies in place, such as required masking, testing and with vaccinations encouraged.”

 

 Further it will allow for large scale public gatherings:

 

“Large-scale indoor events, such as conventions, will be allowed to occur with testing or vaccination verification requirements.”
 

Conditions are enough vaccine for ages 16+ and hospitalization rates that are “stable and low” (whatever that last one means). So there’s that.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Two elderly brothers report a crime. The police show up, tell the people they refuse to investigate.

 

One guy slams his hand on the hood of his own car and tries to go inside.

 

The police snaps the (already) disabled guy's arm and slams him in the face with the butt of his pistol so hard that the guy's dentures fly out.

 

The policemen are saying that they could see Star Trek paraphernalia displayed inside the home, which made them think the two elderly men were a violent threat.

 

I have no words:

 

https://thehill.com/homenews/state-watch/547062-fort-lauderdale-police-mistook-star-trek-memorabilia-for-weapons-lawsuit

Link to post
Share on other sites
19 minutes ago, archer said:

 

Quote

Pohorence has been with the force for four years and has been reviewed by the department’s internal affairs unit for use of force 79 times.

 

I have words.  Many words.

Link to post
Share on other sites

One of the most straightforward reforms for me, is that disciplinary records should be...maybe not completely public, but far more transparent.  Being the subject of a review 79 times???  And from the sound of it, no one outside internal affairs knew squat.  It also sounds like the department probably violated its own policies by not contacting the outside review board.  In a case like this, for some time, ALL disciplinary investigations need to be overseen.  

 

I would also love to see impartial studies as to whether the police unions make the disciplinary process overly onerous.  That is, if an impartial study was possible, of course;  that can't be considered a given.
 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...