Why are Republicans so weird about slavery or the Holocaust?

[OddBeMe]

Their base is racist

Other wrong thing

Updates

+1 y

https://youtu.be/wMbqJHRrgnw?si=yJ0PGas4FwAU5JHp

Updates

+1 y

I expected a bit of civil war debates…but not this many, Jesus fucking Christ.

[Anonymous]

People are obsessed with the idea of insisting that the Civil war was about slavery when in fact it did not start over slavery. Slavery was simply a keystone issue like guns today that helped define the vast economic and cultural gap between the North and the South that had developed since industrialization of the north.

1: When the war started there was slavery on both sides and the north quite explicitly promised the war was not over slavery even offering an amendment to protect it perpetually.

2: On the southern side slavery was only one of many, many different grievances the South had with the North.

Linclin didn't even try to reframe the war as about slavery until January 1st 1863 2 whole years after the war had started, when the war was already half way over.

How is that honest, re-framing a event years after it started in contradiction for your original argument for getting people to start that fight?

The popular narrative about the Civil war simply being a bout slavery is in fact supremely dishonest, but go ahead. I trust that means you will have no problem with us leaving now that we have no slaves.

[OddBeMe]

Nope it was slavery. But thanks for proving my point.

[goaded]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wMbqJHRrgnw

[goaded]

Guess who disagrees with you? Nikki Haley! "Of course the civil war was about slavery..."

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jizxqRXSkMk

[Opinion Owner]

@oddbeme I take it from your one liner you can't or won't make your case and rebuttable any point I made.
Therefore we will agree that you don't care about history or the reasoning used to justify the conflict you just want to stick with a tagline.

That's fine with me as long as you remember we still have the inalienable right to withdraw from your influence. We don't have any slaves for you to crusade on so I trust you will leave us alone in peace this time.

[Opinion Owner]

@goaded As pointed out, I really don't care what Nikki Haley has to say.
She lost my support about a decade ago based upon her wanton destruction of defining state historical monuments. Monuments to the most traumatic event in South Carolina history. History we are well on our way to repeating.

I never expected her to give a good answer in the first place, less she would not have done what she did and I will not support her because of it. Indeed Nikki's backstabbing history since has only gone to prove time and time again she can't be trusted.

When given power she consistently puts a knife in the back of conservatives which really only makes her a step above Mittens who is really more of a democrat than a republican.
Nikki is just puppet of the left.

[Jdic8rjfnelsodjfb]

Very good answer

[D_Bone_Steak]

They only want to take our guns away to enslave us. Every dictator did it before... now they're coming for us. That's all I wanted to say on that subject.

[goaded]

"That's fine with me as long as you remember we still have the inalienable right to withdraw from your influence. We don't have any slaves for you to crusade on so I trust you will leave us alone in peace this time. "
No, you don't, the civil war proved that. What you could do is support a constitutional amendment to make it legal for a state to secede, then follow the rules that lays down.

It's hilarious that the people saying Trump shouldn't be disqualified from the ballot for engaging in insurrection because that was about the civil war carry traitor's flags and talk about insurrection.

Odd doesn't have to make much of a case against your claims, since they're full of inaccuracies and lies. (Like saying states left the union before Lincoln was elected.)

[Opinion Owner]

@goaded If the Civil war was about secession rather than Slavery, then it only proved we are not legitimately independent of the British empire for the same reason.

The right of revolution and self-government is one of if not the single most critical of all inalienable rights. No people anywhere can have any hope of remaining free if they don't have the right to walk away.

I'm afraid war will never settle this issue, as we will rise and fight again and again until there are no more of us left to yern to be free.

This is not a negotiation, you don't get to demand a free people's unconditional loyalty like a slave master. The British tried that in 1770's, and were even good enough as to pass a written law to that effect, as did countless other empires in history.

Our Federal Constitution is to the contrary quite deliberately silent on the issue for a good reason. Its very existence depends upon this right being inalienable, and as such there is NO point adding any clause to this effect.

Indeed even if we were to do as you suggest in amend the constitution to provide a path way out, short of acknowledge the natural right to leave unilaterally without any consent from anyone else that clause would be illegitimate.

[exitseven]

@goaded Nikki Haley is folding under the backlash of the fake news. She is just as weak and feckless as a Democrat. At least with President Trump, you know what his position is. He hardly ever has to back peddle and he is in nobody's back pocket. Why do you think that people from both parties are pulling out all the stops to keep him out of the White House?

[goaded]

You're independent of the British Empire because you won. Both the colonies that became the United States and the Confederacy were traitors to their country.

The difference is that the Confederacy could have democratically worked out a system where they could legally leave the union without a war. The US constitution is amendable for a reason.

Your Federal Constitution is not at all silent, deliberately or otherwise, on the issue. One of the explicit powers of congress is the right "To provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions".

You're a seditionist. We get it. You're allowed under the laws of the United States to talk about it, just not to try it.

[DARKCLOUD1945X]

This is another person who rewrites history to what they think they know U can have everything you could ask for to prove a point and they will say your wrong. History was proven right about the major cause of The Civil War his history is what his uneducated mind thinks is right

[Opinion Owner]

@exitseven I actually really liked Nikki until she did what she did in South Carolina on the account of 1 nutcase. That kind of demonstrated she was a weak RINO, a fact she has re-demonstrated many times since with her backstabbing of Donald Trump even after he forgave her and gave her, her dream job as UN Ambassador.
Which again tells you everything about the woman that UN ambassador would be a dream job. E

The only reason a southern American conservative would want that job is to spend the entire time degrading the institution and cussing out the rest of the world.

Nikki has proven she can't be trusted

[Opinion Owner]

@goaded There we go again with you miss-understanding what an insurrection is. When a State Goverment votes to withdraw the same way it voted to join that is NOT an insurrection. Indeed the qualifications of an insurrection is in Article 4 section 4 requiring the acknowledgment of the state leglsator when possable and governor when not.

We know this because this constitution as a whole including the clause in question was largely a reaction (thou incorrect) to Shays' Rebellion:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shays'_Rebellion

Which was an insurrection against the State of Massachusetts.

We know the constitutional response is and Hamilton interpretation was entirely incorrect because Hamltion once given similar powers promptly ended up provoking the whisky rebellion against the federal goverment for and Pennsylvania which was also an insurrection.

We also know this because even congress's law at the time acknowledged the need for the State's to request aid to suppress an insurrection.

Its worth looking into what Hamilton and the Massachusetts state goverment actually did provoking both rebellions with arrogant and unworkable tax policy.

[goaded]

There we go again with you making stuff up. Next, you'll be claiming that Article IV's Republican Form of Government Clause means only the Republican party is eligible to be elected.

Quote the part that talks about insurrection. The full text is here: en.wikisource.org/.../Constitution_of_the_United_States_of_America

Hint: Section 8: "To provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions;" (Ironic, since it's the seditionists calling themselves militia calling for insurrection.)

And the currently popular 14th Amendment:
"Section 3

No person shall be a Senator or Representative in Congress, or elector of President and Vice-President, or hold any office, civil or military, under the United States, or under any State, who, having previously taken an oath, as a member of Congress, or as an officer of the United States, or as a member of any State legislature, or as an executive or judicial officer of any State, to support the Constitution of the United States, shall have engaged in insurrection or rebellion against the same, or given aid or comfort to the enemies thereof. But Congress may by a vote of two-thirds of each House, remove such disability.
Section 4

The validity of the public debt of the United States, authorized by law, including debts incurred for payment of pensions and bounties for services in suppressing insurrection or rebellion, shall not be questioned. But neither the United States nor any State shall assume or pay any debt or obligation incurred in aid of insurrection or rebellion against the United States, or any claim for the loss or emancipation of any slave. But all such debts, obligations and claims shall be held illegal and void. "

[normalice]

It was slavery
https://youtu.be/pKc4s2-Ai1Q?si=eJx3LhJYzptL1to2

[goaded]

@normalice Excellent video, thanks.

[goaded]

I'm still waiting for @monorprise to show me what the constitution says about insurrection. I'm always willing to be corrected.

[normalice]

@goaded monoprise seems like he wants a world where the articles on the confederacy are enshrined into law but schools aren't allowed to teach them.

[Opinion Owner]

@goaded The only insurrection reference is in relation to Article 1 Section 8 claused 15 the Militia clause:
"To provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions;"

www.archives.gov/.../constitution-transcript
by the way when quoting the constitution don't reference a wiki copy.

The placement of this power as a propose of the State's Militia is actually very important as Clause 16 helps make clear in defining the limits of Congress's power over the State Militia, by reserving to the state the practical control of the officers and training.

Your problem of course is exactly what constitutes an Insurrection in a constitutional sense, and the State Governments and because people like you will abuse it, the practical control of the militia must remain with the States, who actually initiate the process with Article 4 section 4. As an insurrection is a subset of domestic violence. All of which is more or less in line with what happened during the first 2 such insurrections.

For your information @goaded you have to reference me or I will have no way of knowing you responded.

[Opinion Owner]

@goaded Regarding your speculation about my opinion on what is a Republican form of Goverment I have many times stated unambiguously what that achdent word Republican means.

The names political parties choose for themselfs typical are just lies and political slogans to get support having little to do with their actual positions if not the opposite there of intentionally to mislead people.

This is not to say modern day Republicans were against a Republic but the original Federalist were certantly more against federalism than the anti-federalist, and the first Republicans arguably were in fact more against a republic than their opposition in the democratic-republican party at the time.

Names and political slogans are choose for political reasons not the truth.

[Opinion Owner]

@normalice Are you talking about the Constitution of the Southern Confederacy of 11 states 1861-1865 or the Articles of Confederation of the American Confederacy of 13 states 1781-1789?

If the 2nd they are unfortunately history now, I won't deny that in retrospect I agree with Thomas Jefferson that they were a more prefect system than what we got thereafter.

The fact that the opponents anti-federalist made far better predictions than the Federalist on how the Federalist Constitution would actually play out kind of demonstrates the people who wrote the Constitutions of 1787 were not nearly so wise.
Althou even they, or at least a large share of them were far better informed of the nature of men then almost anyone born in the lap of liberty, luxury, and secure Their systems of limited power afforded sense.

Hard times do indeed breed better people just as easy times breed arrogant, ignorant, and niece people. Having access to all the information in the world will not tell you what of it is really true and what of it is a lie someone wants you to beleive for their own reasons. Hard times do that.

[goaded]

LOL, you think Wikipedia can't be trusted to quote the US constitution correctly?

I quoted that already, with the comment: Ironic, since it's the seditionists calling themselves militia calling for insurrection.

And it's not the only place, because amendments are part of the constitution, and I quoted the 14th, too.

Remember saying "Indeed the qualifications of an insurrection is in Article 4 section 4 requiring the acknowledgment of the state leglsator when possable and governor when not."? Oh, you did it again. And claimed I "have to reference me or I will have no way of knowing you responded", although it's your opinion, so you get a notification for every response.

[goaded]

Just to be clear :"Section. 4.

The United States shall guarantee to every State in this Union a Republican Form of Government, and shall protect each of them against Invasion; and on Application of the Legislature, or of the Executive (when the Legislature cannot be convened) against domestic Violence. "
Is clearly talking about insurrection in the states, not against the federal government.

[normalice]

@monorprise in life the most advantaged species is always the most adaptable, not whatever vague standard you are applying.

[Opinion Owner]

@goaded There are far more reliable places to quite constitutional text that are less likely to be altered than Wikipedia like the national Archives.

Technically your are a Militia if your a male American adult of fighting age which is defined differently in different times and states. I am sure in a population of hundreds of millions of such people there are more than a few actually calling for insurrection I once again clarify that requires calling for armed revolt against their state, not a vote for independence.

We can disagree on the legitimacy of the 14th amendment itself, however to presuppose there is no inalienable right of the people to throw off bad government is to invalidate the legitimacy of these united States as well thus making the issue of the legitimacy of independence form an non-legitimacy existing government moot. All of that of course is only a modern day the 14th amendment was not even proposed during the War for Southern Independence much less supposedly 'ratified' by the same states under the gun.

[Opinion Owner]

@goaded Section 4 is talking about domestic violence a superset of insurrection that also includes things like Riots and any other civil disturbance.

[goaded]

If you think a wikipedia page misquoting the US constitution would last two minutes, you're crazy. The text is the text. Address the argument.

"The United States shall guarantee to every State in this Union a Republican Form of Government, and shall protect each of them against Invasion; and on Application of the Legislature, or of the Executive (when the Legislature cannot be convened) against domestic Violence."
Obviously means that the federal government will protect the states against invasion and domestic violence (insurrection), the latter only on request.

If you're a "male American adult of fighting age", then you're part of the militia, but the militia is only legal when called up by your civilian state government. Otherwise you're a bunch of cosplayers with guns.

[Opinion Owner]

@goaded The fact that Wikipedia can be corrected quickly if someone alters a word does not mean someone has noticed and corrected it before you quoted it.

In practice Wikipedia is unreliable precisely because people don't notice and those who care will just as quickly put it in error again. Documents like the Constitutions are significant and well known enough as to have other more stable sources.
Some more reliable and honest than others Sadly our own congress has gotten into the game and provided a annotated copy which is to save reworded it to reflect their own opinion, much as slave masters and the catholic church uses to do for the bible and for the same reasons.

Glad you understand the States have to request aid against domestic violence (including insurrection) for a very good reason. Put simply no set of politicians can ever be trusted to honestly define such on their own.

As for militia, the fact that the state or federal government has called you into service does not make you a militia. You had to be a militia before hand.

[goaded]

Utter bullshit. Show me a congressional page that misquotes the constitution. Or show me any version that backs up your claim that "Indeed the qualifications of an insurrection is in Article 4 section 4 requiring the acknowledgment of the state leglsator when possable and governor when not.", when that section is talking about the federal government coming to the aid of a state experiencing an insurrection (which would be in the opinion of the state government).

If you shoot someone without being told to by the civil government, you're a killer, not a soldier.

[Opinion Owner]

@goaded The fact that something can happen does not mean that it will happen or is now happening. My issue with congress publishing its own annotate version of the constitutions was exactly as I told you.
That is like a slave owner giving a 'guided' reading of the bible to his slaves to "explain"/skip over the terrible things s/he has done. People should read the document in its original form and if they have any questions consult contemporary (written around the same place and time) references.

Congress being the primary subject of the limits of the Constitution has no reasonable expectation of being honest about the same limits.

As for Article 4 Section 4 I must admit i am a bit confused as you seem to be restating the very position I was making.

[goaded]

Your position, AFAICT was that the states decide what makes an insurrection (and call for aid from the federal government), which is true, when it's an insurrection against that state's government. Then you twist that to mean that a state seceding gets to pretend their insurrection against the federal government isn't an insurrection, which is bullshit.

"When a State Goverment votes to withdraw the same way it voted to join that is NOT an insurrection.", you said. "Indeed the qualifications of an insurrection is in Article 4 section 4 requiring the acknowledgment of the state leglsator when possable and governor when not." [sic]

There is a legal and democratic mechanism for a state to secede:

1. Propose a constitutional amendment that sets out a mechanism for a state to vote to secede
2. Get the amendment ratified
3. Follow the mechanism.

Any other approach is illegal and an insurrection.

[Opinion Owner]

@goaded Peaceful secession is no more an insurrection against any government than you choosing to immigrate to anther country. An insurrection is a form of domestic violence against the established goverment.

The 11 Southern States all held conventions to vote to leave the federal union the same way they voted to join it 70+ years earlier. This was their inalienable (Cannot be surrendered/ceded) right as declared in the foundational deceleration of independence and NEVER anywhere was it even attempted to ceded this right to the federal goverment.

Here you go again broadening the definition of insurrection to include any question of your absolute power to the point of despotism.

[Opinion Owner]

@goaded "There is a legal and democratic mechanism for a state to secede:"

I hear imperialist point this out as if it were somehow a requirement that we cede aspect of our inalienable unilateral right to agree to a set of rules controlled by the only oppressors we would exersize said right against to be free of...

There are of course 2 problems with this argument that make it frankly absurd.

1: It is foundational to our country that we cannot cede such a right as it would invariably put the oppressors into a position to deny us said right and hold us in effective slavery regardless of our consent to be governed.

2: Even if we could cede aspects of this right to a particular process. We would have to have all agreed to follow that process in a written law prior to joining.
Not only did this NOT happen on account of problem #1. The whole structure of that Common Constitution which we did agree to was quite explicitly designed to reserve all rights not explicitly ceded therein to the people or their states. Naturally that must includes the inalienable rights such as the right to self-determination, which is no where ceded.

This is an absurd deliberate non-existent requirement, that was naturaly entirely rejected naturaly entirely rejected

[goaded]

"This was their inalienable (Cannot be surrendered/ceded) right as declared in the foundational deceleration of independence" Show me.

For that matter, find a state that's dumb enough to vote for secession in this day and age. No more federal money, no more free trade with the US. Just look at how well Britain's doing.

[goaded]

Oh, and guess who agrees with me: "In the United States Abraham Lincoln acknowledged that secession might be possible through amending the United States Constitution."

[Opinion Owner]

@goaded One does not vote for independence for light or temporary reasons. This is a very long term choice made for long term benefit that invariably comes with short term costs and recovery.

The fact that the Brutish goverment drag its feet and sabotages their own Brexit in which they were consistently against. Does not mean in the long run the united Kingdom if it ever get rid of said betrayer will not be better off outside of the geriatric Europe.

What the United Kingdom needs is a goverment actually willing to engage in free trade and deregulation. They have the freedom to do that now, but until that happens they might as well have never given up their old masters.

[Opinion Owner]

@goaded Nobody disputes the position taken by the tyrant Abraham Lincoln once in office, anymore than that of King George in 1776. In Lincoln's case however hypocritically this however was not his opinion prior to taking power as his speech in 1848 proves, nor is it the legally or historically correct position with respect to the nature of our rights and the terms of the Federal Constituiton.

[D_Bone_Steak]

Most of these right-wing people are just as bad as the left-wing.

At the same time they're being accused of being Nazi's or KKK even though the KKK was dems... and Nazis were socialist. They have to be weird about it because their opposite party took a 180 at least with words and now claim to be non-racist or even worse... anti-racist. But they still racist AF when you take a deep dive into their opposition.

I blame the right though... they play along with their (the left) games and wordplay. They are their own knee knockers. College no longer makes the smarter people now, so I think only old people have a grasp... along with the few of us, of what's really going on.

They call the right the reactionaries for a reason though. They seem to sit around with their thumbs up their asses more than do anything to help. I mean for fucks sake..."Trusted News Initiative" swayed people in an election and with COVID... Yet nobody is really doing shit about that.

Thumbs up their asses and not doing shit.

[OddBeMe]

You should really study right wing Socialism and the demographic shift of political parties in America. Because you sound like an idiot. Nazis and KKK were conservative fucks. Mao and Stalin were left wing, we’ll take. Though they were crazy tyrants.

[D_Bone_Steak]

KKK was complete Democrats dumbfuck. The whole anti-guns thing with them started because they feared blacks having guns. Nazis were conservative... lolz... yet they were trying to change everything just like progressives... have fun with that logic. Do you need some Legos to play with when I get back from the capitalist store? You hungry... Need a $13 sandwich that was only $5 before your hero Biden got in?

[OddBeMe]

You’re like a child seeing two similar names and thinking they’re the same. I can’t teach dumb,

Hindenburg was right wing, he appointed Hitler.
Liberals weren’t the KKK, shithed.

[Anonymous]

the real racist trying to point the finger. liberals and democrats so cringe. I'm not even a republican, I have no party, just the more I see how things were as they developed as they are today, you can clearly see Democratic Party is the most racist of all and yet has all these mainstream media propaganda desperately trying to point the finger it's another who is the "real" racist. 🤯🥴🤡 I think overall the most ignorant people are those minorities who fall for the propaganda and become victims of real racists, the democrats. 🤯

[OddBeMe]

How so? I’m no real fan of the Dems though I’ve voted for them last 20 years. Because GOP are freaking crazy.

While Dems are corporate shills, I don’t see the racism that I do on the right wing.

[Opinion Owner]

democrats are the ones that wanted to keep slavery well and alive. Republicans are the ones that voted for the abolishment of slavery and not just that there's a whole list of things. but they brainwash people into thinking they want what's best for you. like giving you free stuff and becoming dependent on the government and many think that's good as it will never allow you to even progress. eating off their hand. like chicken feed.

[OddBeMe]

And what about before that when it was the Democratic-Republicans vs the Whigs?

Political parties change. Dumbness doesn’t.

[D_Bone_Steak]

."Trusted News Initiative" ... they decide, and then you are supposed to abide.

[OddBeMe]

@D_Bone_Steak I don’t know what the fuck that means. It’s right wingers that keep regurgitating Trump Speak.

[exitseven]

The GOP are not the ones telling us there are 72 genders and that criminals are just like e eryone else except they are misunderstood.

[Opinion Owner]

@exitseven agreed! 100%

[D_Bone_Steak]

@OddBeMe "Trusted News Initiative" is what your Dems used to "fortify" the election and to tell everyone to get the shots, or not admit that it came from a Wuhan lab... sure af not Trump Speak and most Trumpsters would have no fucking clue as to what it is.
Participants
Members of the Trusted News Initiative include:[21]

Agence France-Presse (AFP)
Associated Press
Australian Broadcasting Corporation (ABC)
BBC
CBC/Radio-Canada
Dawn Pakistan
Deutsche Presse-Agentur
European Broadcasting Union
Facebook
Financial Times
First Draft News
Google
The Hindu
Indian Express
Information Futures Lab at the Brown University School of Public Health
Kompas
Meta Platforms
Microsoft
Nation Media Group
NDTV
New York Times
NHK
Reuters Institute for the Study of Journalism
Special Broadcasting Service (SBS)
Thomson Reuters
Twitter (Not any more ha ha ha)
Wall Street Journal
Washington Post
YouTube

It's why you see shit like this...
https://youtu.be/ZggCipbiHwE?si=8cA64fQBqY-46ZG_

See basically the elites get together and decide what messages will be pushed and which people will get shut down, and then media, politicians, platforms, and so on will do its bidding. Read for yourself --> en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trusted_News_Initiative

Since you seem to be calling me a Trumpster, I'll assume this is your team that is all about this... or at least the team that has you suffering from TDS (is he literally Hitler OddBeMe? 😂🤣).

[OddBeMe]

@exitseven we don’t say Trump’s sex assault is like everyone else. And we say social genders can be whatever the fuck you want. Who would care?

[OddBeMe]

@D_Bone_Steak yeah that clip has been shared a lot. It was after the right wing media group Sinclair bought out like 100 stations. So that’s more in your wheelhouse dummy.

[D_Bone_Steak]

@OddBeMe Upgraded to name calling I see.

Well yes... There are TDS sufferers on the right as well if you've noticed, and Fox is a part of it. So is the likes of CNN and the left in general as well. But just like your side has the likes of Robert F. Kennedy Jr., or the right has the America first Republicans, not all get to be in this "cool kid's club" called the 'Trusted News Initiative.'

You can keep being all pissy about it if you want, call me names and act like a little pink pussy bitch, but facts are facts.

But I don't think you care... you're brainwashed by them already as far as I can see. Thus I assume you have some BLM and trans rights stuff to simp to, while you practice your pronouns and verbally abuse anyone you think didn't get the Covid shots or likes Trump.

[OddBeMe]

@D_Bone_Steak you right wing nut jobs can dish it but not take it. Just a bunch of pansies. And yes America First, the American fascist movement against WW2 should never be uttered again.

As for RFK, he’s been debunked enough by actual scientists.

[D_Bone_Steak]

Yup, brainwashed.

Or you're just really high and/or drunk... you can't even make sense at this point. Try again later.

Test: How do you feel about being told not to wear masks, and then told we have to use them? While the use of them was known to be ineffective by both parties the entire time. Do you have any feelings about that or are you still wearing a mask like some kind of fucking weirdo? (You still believe they worked, don't you)<-- That's the power of TNI. A lot of people still do.

[OddBeMe]

@D_Bone_Steak fine. Back in the days of Covid rage before vaxxes it helped. Or sure why you pansies freaked out about it. Social distancing and isolation was key to getting a head of Covid. If this were Ebola with blood oozing from your eyes you’d be locked up in your cellar.

Funny how movies in the 90s seemed to get it.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Z6t97_j4KO8

[D_Bone_Steak]

It was just a flu though... but I'm not a pussy that's freaked out from the brainwashing.

Do you hop on their dicks about everything? Like, I joked earlier about you simp-ing out to BLM and the trans rights (pronouns and all that) lolz. But now I'm not joking... do you? Do you eat up all their bullshit?

[D_Bone_Steak]

Also very fitting that you used an example created by the likes of TNI.

[OddBeMe]

@D_Bone_Steak yet a million Americans died.

[wiltingrosepetal]

oh my lord, this comment section is just people shouting angry buzz words at each other- I feel like I've walked into a minefield 😭

[DARKCLOUD1945X]

What WE all have forgotten is a very true old statement We are following down that garden path at light speed and it will most probably lead to this country's demise. It roughly goes like THOSE WHO FORGET HISTORY ARE BOUND TO REPEAT IT

[wiltingrosepetal]

Yep. That's why my country acknowledges the awful things we put our aboriginal people through. And why the Germans are raised, from birth, to know what the holocaust was. If people refuse to put the blame on themselves there is no room for growth

[DARKCLOUD1945X]

We all hear and recognize the holocaust. But nobody says a thing about the over 20 million other people murdered by the Nazi. Party over the course of Hitlers rise to power and his death. People only refer to murder of over 6 million Jews and forget the rest murdered souls.

[goaded]

@DARKCLOUD1945X And yet you'll trivialize it by pretending it was a general Nazi nastiness, and not an effort to totally wipe out the Jewish population.

[DARKCLOUD1945X]

@goaded As per usual you are trying to make an ant hill into Mount Everest.. You trivialize it by saying I was trivializing what the Nazis did. I put the murder of six million Jews. Thats right six million Jews. This is where your little mind goes off the tracks. I said SIX MILLION JEWS, that is six million of one population only. THE 20 MILLION other souls murdered were from wherever the NAZIS touched in Europe Every country where they conquered the population, they murdered millions. But I guess that is too much for your pea sized brain to grasp that concept. This group is usually left out of the conversation, We know that the NAZIS wanted the systematic destruction of the JEWS simply by the murder of six million of one particular population. But this to you is trivialization buy the mention of millions of others murdered by the NAZIS

[goaded]

@DARKCLOUD1945X According to https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Holocaust_victims there were 17 million in total, taking a ridiculously broad definition (including millions of Russian PoWs - soldiers - and civilians, for example). The Jews made up more than a third of the total, and you are trivialising the fact that they went after Jews for being Jews, not for fighting against them. Your claim of 26 million murders is an attempt to trivialise the murders of the real targets of the Nazis.

The Jewish population of Germany was about half a million when Hitler came to power.

[OddBeMe]

@goaded does the Holocaust include Soviet civilians, Polish, as well as Jewish? We’re probably not even talking about the 5 million POW Red Army soldiers they starved to death.

[goaded]

I don't think so, I think it was always predominently the Jews, with Romani, Homosexuals, Disabled, etc. thrown in for good measure. They wanted them all gone, and made a serious go of it. There was no "final solution to the Soviet problem".

[DARKCLOUD1945X]

@goaded I am glad YOU know the total amount of people murdered by the NAZI s because your estimate is low because of the inaccurate records of the day the thousands buried and never recovered from bombing, total villages and towns wiped of the map as if they never existed. Those murdered in concentration camps are estimates the records of the camp were inaccurate because. of the sheer volume. But even if my numbers are wrong, you trivialized the murder of [your count ] 17 million human souls as if they were nothing.

[goaded]

@DARKCLOUD1945X I hope you had a nice holiday. No, there is a difference between killing people fighting you and setting out to exterminate entire groups of people.

[Avicenna]

Why are you so utterly clueless about EVERYTHING?

Leftists have shown recently for anyone who's breathing how much most of them really hate Jews. And most anti-Semites are leftists.

As a descendant of Holocaust survivors, I know better than to trust Democrats to protect me from anti-Semitism.

[monorprise]

@Avicenna
Always shocking how much antisemitism there is on the left, its almost a kind of self-loathing combined with greed for their money and envy for their success as it was for the NAZI leftist.

You would only expect antisemitism on the right to come in the form of religious rivery but there really isn't much of that today. Believers of all kinds are together in being threatens by lawless goverment at the hands of militant Atheist.

[Avicenna]

@monorprise: Yeah, I was shocked when I first experienced it three decades ago, not now.
Leftists really hate all people, they just pit some groups against each other. And they'll throw anyone under the bus in a heartbeat.

No one, regardless of how trendy they think their group currently is with leftists should trust them at all.

[Avicenna]

But you are correct about the leftists' hostility towards any believers. If they're smart, Muslims won't trust leftists either...

[monorprise]

@Avicenna
Muslims already hate leftist even their terrorist really hate us because of what leftist are trying to shove down their throats with cultural degeneracy.

What a lot of them don't realize is how many of us hate them for the same reason.

[Avicenna]

@monorprise: I think they know, but are willing to cooperate with leftists anyway on a lot of issues.

[OddBeMe]

You two are like a folie a deux of stupidity.

And Nazis were and are right wingers.

[Avicenna]

Only in your arrogant and simple world. Are you familiar with the quote from Hitler where he says he's a socialist? Totalitarianism requires state control and abuses, which is why all totalitarian ideologies are leftist. "Far right" is libertarian.

And even your dumb Marxist ass can't deny the massive hatred toward Jews that your fellow Marxists are now displaying.

[Anonymous]

I mean it's kind of funny that people on the left are talking about antisemitism when lefties are literally calling for holocaust 2.0. Also if the civil war was about slavery why was slavery 100% legal in some northern states and the emancipation proclamation only effected slaves in the south. If you were a slave in the north when that came out you'd probably be really pissed, but please go on and talk about how civil war was about slavery and not about Lincoln getting elected even tho he wasn't on the ballot in certain states

[OddBeMe]

Dems are calling for that? Or could that be a big overstatement?

College kids are being stupid about it. But their kids. Republicans can’t even keep their adults in line.

[DARKCLOUD1945X]

Thank God someone who knows their history

[OddBeMe]

You think Lincoln was a conservative? Seriously?

[OddBeMe]

And no northern states outlawed slavery but dress Scott made them respect southern laws and hand over runaway slaves.

[monorprise]

@OddBeMe Actually they agreed to respect southern laws and hand over runaway slaves when they ratified the original Constitution of 1787 Article 4 Section 2 clause 3:
"No Person held to Service or Labour in one State, under the Laws thereof, escaping into another, shall, in Consequence of any Law or Regulation therein, be discharged from such Service or Labour, but shall be delivered up on Claim of the Party to whom such Service or Labour may be due."

Dred Scott was a case on a completely different and frankly pre-arraged issue concerning the last clause of the Federal 5th Amendment:

"nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation. "

You see Dred Scott was bought in St Louis and taken by his master to live in the free State of Illinois for many year. Technically at that point his master had effectively freed him by the laws of Illinois (not subject to the federal 5th amendment) at the time.
Regardless Dred Scott proceeded to act as a free man for deades thereafter even marrying later in the free Federal Territory before returning to the St Louis Area where his former Masters heirs (one of which was associated with abolitionist) choose to challenge Dredd's Scott status claiming he was still a slave. Rather than simply go across the river to Illinois or claim he had been given his freedom by the laws of the State of Illinois where his master choose to take him and live.

Dred Scott tried to claim he was freed by the federal laws of the territory which of course required congress take his masters property without compensation violating the 5th amendment. That is what the case was really about it had nothing to do with a runaway slave, as Dredd Scott was not a runaway.

[OddBeMe]

@monorprise it scares me how much you’re willing to argue about this. Are you on the slaveholders’ side? You wanna try to make the confederacy NOT about slavery when every secession document and peace offer demanded it upfront?

[monorprise]

@OddBeMe
Why are you obsessed with the idea of guilt by association? The logical world is not 1 dimensional, Just because someone has an undesirable position on one issue does not make them undesirable in all others or even just most.

I can be against the idea of slavery and in agreement with many of the other things Confederacy stood for. My position on the Civil war is one that very much changed overtime When I was a kid like everyone else I was very much pro-union and pro-Lincoln.

That fact only changed slowly as I finally started reading the laws, and history of why they existed that I understood Lincoln and the union whom my ancestors did fight for were in fact logically and legally in the wrong.

I don't have to Like any of the racism or negative aspects of the confederacy to acknowledge they had every right to do what they did. And that in fact these rights were absolute indispensable to a free people.

For example I defiantly don't agree with How the all democrat Colorado Supreme court decided to throw Trump off the ballot claiming he somehow staged an insurrections President. I think that is an absurd and frankly dangerous abuse of power and redefinition of the term insurrection in Colorado. The consequence of such abuse will be a significant loss of political freedom in that state.

Even Still I acknowledge that the State of Colorado under the Constitution has every right to choose who is on their ballot.

[OddBeMe]

@monorprise what did the confederacy stand for?

And while the CO courts had some evidence of the most corrupt president in history, I agree with you about the ballot. Dont think that will grow beyond Maine either, they haven’t been received well.

[monorprise]

@OddBeMe
I have even better evidence on tape regarding many democrats who just as much urged protest, some like Maxine even suggested violence. Your opinion on Trump's corruption is in fact yours and not shared by half the country like them I find your 'evidence' laughable.
Regardless none of it has anything to do with being part of a non-existent "insurrection" .

As for what the confederacy stood for you could put many things in that box, But i generals agreed more with them on self-government, many of the positions associated with States rights, and trade policy. Obviously during the war they had to take more and more extreme measures to maintain their ability to govern themselves upon which everything else depended.

[OddBeMe]

@monorprise Ironic that the confederacy became a massive fascist “country” during the war. Especially after it started losing.

[OddBeMe]

Please link to Dems calling for violence. Double dog dare. Cuz…
www.youtube.com/watch

[monorprise]

@OddBeMe
When your country is about to collapse you tend to take desperate measures to save it. The Confederacy did not start that way nor is there any reason to believe they would ever have gotten there if they were not facing certain defeat without them. Remember Confederate lands were actively being raided, its citizens raped and cities being burned by occupying armies.

Even still there were practical limits of what the Confederacy could do, many people blame some of theses limits as contributing factors to their defeat. For example the Central confederate government couldn't get as much support from the States as it needed.

Here is a few examples you asked for:
www.washingtonexaminer.com/.../

Keep in mind the bar is rather low as Trump told people to only peacefully protest.

[Drewtate]

Slavery wasn't the cause of the civil war. Trumps daughter & grandchildren are Jewish, not once did he deny the holocaust and has been recognised Jerusalem. These are nonsense hit pieces.

Imagine if Fox news had a story about how Obama refused to confirm whether he was a member of Alqueda or the Taliban.

[monorprise]

@drewtate
Indeed its kind of silly the popular demand that we all beleive a war that was quite explicitly started to "preserve the union" was really just about "slavery" as Linclin retroactively tried to re-frame when it was already half way over 2 years.

Yes the Southern States had slavery and a desire to retain it but soo did the northern states and the Southern states had a great many other things they wanted to retain and reclaim as well.

At no part in this conflict was slavery the only issue or even the key issue behind the fighting.

If you want to get down to brass tax the ONLY reason behind the war was as the North Originally proclaimed they wanted to force the Southern states that had voted to become independent to remain bound to their union as a kind of empire.
The north Out numbering the South as much as 4 to 1 eventually had their way after 4 bloodiest years in American history. Ending as much as 800 thousand American lives in a federation of only 31 million.

That's like 4 years from now after fighting 8 million people dead and half the country in ruins. That was the price of Lincoln's empire.

[Drewtate]

@monorprise when you consider what the federal government did to the native Americans after slavery really wasn't an issue

[OddBeMe]

4 million blacks on line 1

[Drewtate]

6 million native Americans wiped out

[OddBeMe]

What was the cause stated in each of the secession declaration back in 1865?

Thank you for proving my point.
www.battlefields.org/.../reasons-secession

[Drewtate]

The primary reason for the North to reject secession was to preserve the Union, a cause based on American nationalism.

[monorprise]

@OddBeMe Session took place in 1860 and 1861 not 1865. Counting the words in each independence declaration and your arbitrary association with slavery does not prove slavery is the only reason for their desire to be independent much-less that said desire to assert their Inalienable right to self-determination was itself the cause of the war.

Your still just as far logically from that conclusion as you were before.

[monorprise]

@drewtate There was nothing in the 'national' interest to turn the voluntary American constitutional republic into an empire. This was Northern Imperialism which they no doubt confused for nationalism as that is how their imperial leaders sold the idea of their unconditional hold on power without the consent of the governed.

It was nonetheless an insult to the original idea of American nationalism the one we were founded on to call this imported imperial idea by the same name

[OddBeMe]

@monorprise it’s not arbitrary dumbass. Each goddamn state declared separately there single reason for seceding: Slavery. Look it up.

[monorprise]

@OddBeMe

Calling me names does not lend any more weight to your non-argument. I have read their declarations and the point is slavery is NOT the only issue on them.

[OddBeMe]

@monorprise ahh I hurt your feelings…snowflake. All these were in the first fucking paragraphs.

Georgia: For the last ten years we have had numerous and serious causes of complaint against our non-slave-holding confederate States with reference to the subject of African slavery.

Mississippi: Our position is thoroughly identified with the institution of slavery

South Carolina: fully justified this State in then withdrawing from the Federal Union; but in deference to the opinions and wishes of the other slaveholding States, she forbore at that time to exercise this right.

Virginia: having perverted said powers, not only to the injury of the people of Virginia, but to the oppression of the Southern Slaveholding States.

Texas was a bit murkier, more to do with following their southern brethren. But it does mention slavery pretty grotesquely:
“They demand the abolition of N**** slavery throughout the confederacy, the recognition of political equality between the white and N**** races, and avow their determination to press on their crusade against us, so long as a N**** slave remains in these States.“

[Drewtate]

The American revolution was not too different from the civil war. States wanting to be independent and the right to self determination.

[monorprise]

@OddBeMe Cherry picking phrases from their respective deceleration does not change the fact that the same contained other reasons and even spoke broadly in a list of frankly southern economic and cultural issues they generally associated with having the institution of slavery this fact is clear even in those few words you choose.

Your only reinforcing the point I made Slavery was not the only reason.

[monorprise]

@drewtate From the Southern point of view the Civil war was a revolution just as from British point of view the American revolution was a civil war. Technically as Civil war a conflict for control over a given goverment. Given the Southern States had no interest and made no attempt to control Washington D. C. After the 1860 election.

The war that followed regardless being called a "Civil War" was really just a failed bid for independence, or war of conquest of you beleive in the natural rights upon which we Americans claimed our independence from the British empire.

Indeed this hypocrisy was not lost of the British in the 1860's who nearly joined the war on the side of the Confederacy because of it were not their economic and political interest not ultimately in conflict.

[Tomisworthless]

Well to be fair Trumps daughter converted for her marriage to Jared who is a Jew.

[OddBeMe]

@monorprise I’m not cherry picking sentences from their declarations of secessions. As I said it was their opening fucking lines.

Your “failed war for independence” jargon would be better heard if the “state right” they were fighting for wasn’t SLAVERY.

@drewtate I do agree, the civil war was in fact an outgrowth of the Revolution. Like WW2 and WW1. So what? The south wanted slavery, the union wanted union- secondarily to also marginalize slavery.

[monorprise]

@OddBeMe If the northern States wanted to fight a war over slavery they would have actually ended slavery prior to the war rather than be the last to have it. They also would not have argued against that being the cause to get all of their factions on board with joining the war.

Unless of course they were simply dishonest and abusive of their power which really just delegitimizes everything they say as that too is just a lie to have their way.

[OddBeMe]

@monorprise The north practically had slavery demolished. There were a few “neutral” border states. But Lincoln campaigned on marginalizing slavery, he was elected, the south seceded. And their opening fucking lines of their declarations prove their issue was slavery.

Just because the Union army were more concerned about union that slavery doesn’t change why the south seceded.

[monorprise]

@OddBeMe
I am not disputing that the South wanted to preserve the institution of slavery but that is not the same thing as slavery being the only or even driving (given it was not threaten) issue.

There are 2 things you have to prove for the war to be about slavery:
1: The war was nessarly inevitable because the south left.
2: The Souths only motivation for leaving was slavery.

Your not proving either so far with your claims and references, nor addressing my counter examples.

1: The Deceleration of independence declared inalienable right and the Federal Constitution's lack of any rule against secession prove that not only was there no compelling reason for the north to go to war it was as The 15th president pointed out in refusing to do anything unlawful. Regardless of their reasoning the Southern States had a inalienable right to leave.

To make this case you need to show me a clause in the U. S. Constitution prior to 1860 which specifically banned secession. To even before you can challenge the Inalienable right concept foundational to American self-government.

Otherwise the rules for reading that document under the 9th and 10th amendments clearly reserve that inalienable right to the States and their people who voted to leave in 1860 and 1861.

2: For your slavery argument to be valid here it would have to be the ONLY issue in all state declarations and behind the support of those who voted for them. Clearly that is not the case, they had a great many reasons. Indeed the fact that slavery wasn't even threaten makes the issue even less creditable as the sole motivation.

To make that case you need to show me that the declarations provided exclude all other issues to even just show that the States themselfs may have been interested in nothing else. Then you would need to connect their motivation to their choice. You would need to do likewise for the majority of the electorate that voted to leave. (Most of whom did not have slaves)

[Drewtate]

Yeah the South wanted slavery and the North wanted genocide against the native Americans

[OddBeMe]

@monorprise I don’t have to prove a goddamn thing. Each southern state told us why they seceded. Why don’t you believe them? Because you DONT WANT TO.

[monorprise]

@OddBeMe I do beleive they had a list of different reasons mostly related to their differences with the north. I've read many of theses lists.

I don't however agree your at a point where those lists are even relevant as you have yet to establish the involuntary connection between them exercising their inalienable right and the start of the war.

So while we can discuss their reasoning for desiring independence, and I can go back 3+ decades on that issue. But ultimately it is still besides the point.

[Drewtate]

... and the federal government told us why they refused to recognise democracy

[OddBeMe]

@monorprise Ok dude, serisouly, each state wrote out their reason for seceding. First second and third paragraphs were about slavery. They may bitch about tariffs or states rights…but even those were about slavery. The north and liberal politicians were marginalizing slavery for decades before.

[OddBeMe]

I mean…I thank you both for proving my overall point with this post. Like immigration it’s seeds of racism.

[monorprise]

@drewtate
Technically both north and South wanted slavery and conquest of the native American lands. Fact that puts them ideological inline with nearly everyone else before them.

[OddBeMe]

@monorprise then why did most northern states outlaw slavery and invite freed or runaway slaves?

[monorprise]

@OddBeMe I suppose if your dishonestly obsessed with the idea of dogwisle you think everything is connected only to that which you condemn.

States rights is a broad term for a wide range of issues, soo too in practice was technically the institution of slavery which reflected a subset of shared policy and economic interest among the states that so maintained such an institution as much as the institution itself.

Yes Tariffs were a major issue for the south which was an export driven economy as tariffs led to tariffs against their exports by others and were only supported by the north to both get them cheaper raw materials form the south and force the south to buy their more expensive goods.

On that issue alone the South had already demonstrated a willingness to go to war decades earlier in the 1830's nullification crisis.

[OddBeMe]

@monorprise So the south’s entire economy was based on slavery in some part. And the states rights they were demanding, ironically, was the right to tell Kansas what to do (Bleeding Kansas).

Lol…”obsessed with the idea of dogwisle”…that’s you bro. You can’t settle the idea of slavery and that we do owe a debt to black Americans.

[Drewtate]

The federal government needed settlers and new immigrants to exploit. Not much changed for us black people after the civil war, we were still basically slaves even in North.

[monorprise]

You are aware of the history of Kansas and the fact that there was a State civil war there between competing territorial governments?

That conflict @oddbeme was in fact a real civil war unlike the war between the States in 1861-1865 where only one side had any interest in ruling the other.

Both sides were fighting for control of the State goverment

[OddBeMe]

@monorprise “war between the states”…do you dress like colonel sanders? Lol

Where’s the cut off? My small town wants to secede from my county. My county wants to secede from my state. Any issues there?

[Drewtate]

Sounds like that Jonestown movie.

[OddBeMe]

Why they went to Guyana. Please…. in your own time, don’t have to rush.

[monorprise]

@OddBeMe Many Northern states outlawed slavery, primarily because industrialization made the institution no longer cost effective and thus they could afford to run a political campaign against it.

New England in particular has a long history of "moral" crusades to force their values on other people. Slavery was just a particularity economically consequential result of one such moral crusade not the first nor the last.

Many states didn't care others actively resisted and refused compliance with frankly some rather draconian Federal laws. Technically such efforts really illustrated the fact that the North had no intention of honoring the terms of the limits of the Constitutional contract.

Again not a new problem, this isn't the first such crusade nor the last, in the 160+ years of subsequent crusades New England's leftist crusading cutlure has continued to piss off the rest of the country, while destroying their own native industry.

[monorprise]

@OddBeMe The "war between the States" is the southern term for the "civil war", technically its more correct as mentioned above.

We didn't actually have a 'civil war' because only one side had any interest in ruling the other.

As for Colonel Sanders your mixing up centuries and wars. Colonel Sanders was only made a Colonel in the Kentucky Militia in 1950 an honorable title in refection to his contribution to that state.

[OddBeMe]

@monorprise you do you do. But it makes you sound like a plantation owner. Sorry liberal abolitionists ruined your birth right.

[monorprise]

@OddBeMe
Slavery was in my judgement a great evil and a failure to respect the rights of men. Its ending is no loss to mankind.

However the lawless force used to end it unnaturally via a northern crusade rather than naturally via economic replacement as it had been in the north, and would have been in the south with just anther 80 years at most.
Only served to create an even bigger problem with that lawless power to force such a change. A lawless power that has in the forgoing 160 years been likewise progressively enslaving all mankind.

For what is slavery but the FORCE to other men to serve you, that is the essence of enslavement. To lack the freedom to work for yourself but instead be bound to the service of other men by force.

A lawless nanny-state is no less a slave master than any other, for even if you have 1/100,000,000 a votes you are by such an unlimited body of laws and taxes no less a slave to the service of other men.

In practice your slavery is even more repressive as the majority of said 'votes' even if they can be trusted to come from the people alone will always be against you in nearly every respect. In a system where you don't even vote on every single issue with unlimited options all but a few of said 'choices' won't even reflect that of the majorities but rather the highest bidder.

This is the lawless slavery that the crusaders created in their haste to end the form of slavery they already knew would die on its own as it had in their states.

[OddBeMe]

@monorprise only another 80 years? How many slaves would have suffered during that time?

[OddBeMe]

and the essence of slavery is de-humanizing and turning a person into a tool. They have no rights as a person. Slave owners could mutilate, rape, kill at will. Like you did with your dolls as a kid.

Slavery is NOT servants.

[Drewtate]

As an African American I'd rather be a slave in America than in Africa or the Middle east or south America or Central America or the Caribbean. At least in America you were treated like valuable expensive well fed cattle. In Muslim countries you were gelded for instance

[OddBeMe]

@drewtate No ones stopping you from being a slave. You and @monorprise be at my place tomorrow at 5am. Start light with some lawn stuff. Go til midnight cleaning out the garage. If one of you dies, it’s just a tool to me. I’ll get another slave.

[Drewtate]

Obviously you are a democrat wanting free or cheap labor

[OddBeMe]

I’m actually not. I’m a Dem who reads math and sees 40% of Americans who are unskilled. And we wonder why our economy is so freakin slow.

[monorprise]

@OddBeMe said: "Where’s the cut off? My small town wants to secede from my county. My county wants to secede from my state. Any issues there? "

I kind of agree with pre-president Lincon when in 1848 he said: "“Any people anywhere, being inclined and having the power, have the right to rise up, and shake off the existing government, and for a new one that suits them better. This is a most valuable, – a most sacred right – a right, which we hope and believe, is to liberate the world. Nor is this right confined to cases in which the whole people of an existing government, may choose to exercise it. Any portion of such people that can, may revolutionize, and make their own, of so much of the territory as they inhabit. More than this, a majority of any portion of such people may revolutionize, putting down a minority, intermingled with, or near about them, who may oppose their movement.”

I would add to this emphases on power section. A single house may make itself independent from its surrounding government but that also makes it a prisoner of its tiny plot of land without relations thereof.

If a people wish to be independent they must in practice have the economic and resource power to exist independently. This is for example also why tiny cities like D. C. cannot be a state as they lack any such resources and are entirely depended upon the surrounding states who's relations are not guaranteed. They lack the power of independence just as you and your one house does.

However a rural community in say eastern Wyoming or Alaska who practices subsistence farming does have such power reflecting the practical fact that they need no relations with anyone. That said

This of course is a mere practical consideration, The right regardless of how undesirable, unwise, or unsustainable it is, is inalienable.

[monorprise]

@OddBeMe Slavery is one of the oldest institutions in human civilization having been around for 10s of thousands of years and still around today, anther 80 in various states isn't going to make a difference.
I mean aside from avoiding the creation of the power of the state to enslave all men not to mention killing as many as 800,000 people to enforce such new power.

Ultimately the war's results were the initial intentions of the north to create an empire freed from the need to have the consent of the governed. In doing so you doomed all people not just the ones then held captive to a doom institution to a progressive slavery.

Per Lincoln's intention he really didn't free anyone.

[monorprise]

@OddBeMe Just because 40% of Americans didn't waste their time and money in collage does not mean they are unskilled. Indeed a large share of those who had now find themself unemployed or otherwise not utilizing any of that over priced 'education' they allegedly got.

What makes knowledge an ability useful is not the proclamation of people who's income depends primarily upon the gullibility of children but the utility of such knowledge and ability in the market place. The one thing most teachers have little to no experience with.

Which really just underscore the corruption our big Ed, whereas they should be employing only those who had retired they instead predominately employ those who never worked.

No wonder so little of what they teach amounts to actual 'skill' in practice.

[OddBeMe]

@monorprise lots said here…

1) Lincoln did say that referring to Texas’ independence. And you’re right it gets murky.
2) Your reasoning of “economic power” when defending states vs cities seceding falls flat when most Red States have a 10:1 welfare gap of needing federal money.
3 ) Lincoln did free the slaves by proclamation then kept them free with the amendment. If he weren’t assassinated, Reconstruction would have gone a lot differently. Instead his southern supporting VP Johnson allowed Jim Crow and other shit to occur.

So you’re right, in the abstract…not much changed other than black Americans were considered people and not objects to own. Right?

[monorprise]

@OddBeMe

1: Lincoln was always a lying lawyer and politician. He was aware of our natural rights but choose to ignore them when and where there existence didn't suit him. His willingness to wage war upon the States killing hundreds of thousands of people to enforce his claim power without the consent of the governed made him a murderous tyrant. That he 2 years later tried to re-frame his war to be about slavery instead only again demonstrated if not a bit of regret about what he had done then his dishonest nature. In other words he was a lawyer.

2: There is a difference between taking federal handouts (which are really political bribes) and needing them to survive. Most red states produce all the food and resources in the country actually required to live. You don't "need" the 401k and welfare payments to survive, you can get a job and live on less, particularly if we are no longer selling the things you do need like food at inflated prices blue states pay for them.
Said states will be buying a great deal less if they should decide to cut off trade and we will have far less competition driving up prices for what we can't live without. While the people of blue states who can't afford the higher prices slowly starve.

3: Lincoln claim to free the slaves was not unlike that of King George's and contingent upon him winning and taking the slaves as war booty. Which of course doesn't apply to any slave not being used against him in war including those union slaves.

If that is legitimate the 13th amendment had little to do with keeping them free having already been freed. The 13th amendment merely outlawed slavery in Delaware and Kentucky.

Most people believe if Lincoln had survived "reconstruction" would have been even more moderate. Without Democrat Johnson in charge the radical republican super majority would not have been able to rally against him support for soo many of their extreme measures.

Regardless in practice those measures failed

[OddBeMe]

@monorprise you keep going to the north about the cause of the war. And I won’t go into your use of “natural rights” which sounds pro slavery…

But the SOUTH seceded over slavery. It’s in EVERY secession declaration and peace offer. You can’t get around that.

[monorprise]

@OddBeMe
How could the idea of Natural rights have anything to do with slaves? Natural rights are simply the subset (really original set) of rights which exist as a product of nature.

Slavery would not be among such natural right as slavery requires other people and thus if anything slavery is a artificial 'right' constructed in contract under 'law' just like your 'right' to any other form of property you yourself did not create.

[monorprise]

@OddBeMe Regarding the subject of the North being the cause of the war I already explained that in part to you. However to address that specific, it always takes 2 sides to fight, and while the south was forced by the north to defend themselves and their own lands.

The North By contrast was not threaten, their armies could have remained in their own states and left the south alone and their people would be fine as the South made no claim to impose upon the north. Therefore literally speaking the North was the aggressor.

They were trying to impose their control over the south against the will of the southern people without their consent to be governed.

The South had no such option.

[OddBeMe]

@monorprise So again…if my city declares it seceded, does Texas have a right to crush that rebellion?

[monorprise]

@OddBeMe If the majority voted themself out formally, No, not really. They can however refuse any relations with you and later even go to war against you as they can any other nation of the world.

A rebellion is against an established government not a vote of an established government.

That said I should clarify States are not federations in most cases their divisions are in fact sub-divisions of the the State Government not members units. City's for example are in most states incorporation of the State not independent creations of the people thereof.

This fact doesn't in printable change your underlying right, but it does effect what you can do with the city.

Regardless I don't understand why someone like you would want to live in Texas.

[OddBeMe]

@monorprise states are united under the federal govt which most former confederate states are getting vookoo welfare money.

[monorprise]

@OddBeMe
It is true that over the last 150+ years of lawless federal expansion in congress. Dirty politicians have with endless amounts of money we don't have perched the vote of various states for their systems of control over that time.

That we now maintain a dept 129% of our GDP 8th highest in the world, with ever dwindling capability to ever repay these depts much-less anything else only underscores how temporary this kind of power really is.
The interest payments alone on this dept are becoming ever more prohibitive further accelerating the rate of dept expansion.

Whats really going to kill this financial mess is when the rest of the world realizes just how unstable those dollars they are holding and starts to dump them in favor of something we can't make them pay our bills with. Then your looking at a tidal wave of inflation and fairly quickly.

This is in fact why Joe Biden's policy towards inflation and our competitors with sending the dollar to war over the Ukraine was soo dangerous and only hasten the point where that day come.

Regardless it will come, and when it does those vookoo welfare money your buying votes with won't be worth too much. Which frankly will drive theses regions already with near majorities supporting independent in-spite of said bribes into crisis.

[OddBeMe]

@monorprise Ukraine is a teaspoon. Why don’t you tell us what to do about the big ticket items or the budget: Defense, Social Security and Medicare.

[monorprise]

@OddBeMe
As much as Ukraine may be relatively low cost to us, its a big deal to others, regardless my ukraining example was about how Joe Weaponized the U. S. Dollar to fight that war NOT how much he spent.

This is using access to the dollar in trade as a means to force countries to bend to our will political.

This makes using the dollar internationals not only a financial threat in terms of financing our dept, but a threat to the sovereignty and independence of every such nation. That is why they are accelerating their efforts to replace and move away from the Dollar.

All they need to do is create a viable alternative for people to go and every country on earth will have 2 reasons to dump half of all U. S. dollars.

[OddBeMe]

@monorprise yet they haven’t ever since WW2. We’ve been hearing the arguments against QE and globalism for decades and yet it’s over half our economy.

If you’re serious about our deficit, you’ll want to figure out to cut back on defense, Medicare and SS. And look at raising taxes. I’d be willing to pay more in tax for a better healthcare system.

[monorprise]

@OddBeMe I already support and advocate for enormous cuts to all of those things. As for healthcare I could never consent to you heaving any vote on how I payoff much less what Healthcare services I am allowed to buy. That is madness given how different you are than me not only in life style but priorities and possibly even biology.
All of which have enormous effects upon the nature of Healthcare desired putting us into repressive conflict.

Put simply the trade offs I would make for healthcare services being affordable would be a very repressive prison to you and likewise to me simply because we make such different choices, live in such different environments, and have such different priorities. All of theses differences are in play to a greater degree then most any country on earth.

So if you want a better system embrace freedom so that you can make the trade offs that reflect whom you are, rather than trying to squeeze into a poorly designed compromise between hundreds of millions of very different people with very diff rent lifestyles, environments and biological predispositions.

[OddBeMe]

@monorprise ok. I disagree. But that’s 70+% of the budget. Ukraine is like.001%.

[monorprise]

@OddBeMe The fact that you disagree is only more evidence of why we should never be forced to agree on anythings so important in different ways to both.

As for The Ukraine, they send more of our money than that, however as illustrated the real problem with the Ukraine conflict isn't the dollars we give to the Ukraine but the dollars we send to war on their behalf.

The other major casualty is the implied NATO protection of non-NATO states thus devaluing the commitment to NATO itself and putting NATO members into a dangerous position adding to the cost..

Both of theses are just bad policy choices in how to conduct a conflict. Presumably chosen out of a desire to simply hurt Russia at any cost, because that is all they had and ever could have accomplished.

At great strategic cost to the west and these untied states. Not to mention the bloody toll the Ukraine has faced in this unwinnable conflict.

[OddBeMe]

@monorprise the real point is that compromise was the founders plan for America. And we lost that. You wanna rid the welfare state, I don’t. I think it’s needed for your grandma and mine.

As for Ukraine, it’s an ROI of checking Putin who is a hostile power hacking elections, assassinating denouncers abroad and invades democratically elected countries.

As for US bases worldwide, tough one. But if we aren’t the world’s police, we start an arms race. Which Trump already did- a bit. Europe has started growing their armies in case we pull our bases. How’d that go early last century?

[monorprise]

@OddBeMe The founders wanted compromise for constitutionally authorized functions, but no compromise at all on the domain of powers not given to the Federal goverment. They called that non-compromising position checks and balances, the idea that every party had to agree it was permitted and cooperate.

Unfortunately the perhaps necessary but nonetheless warned about flaw of partisan politics and standing armies proved to destroy those checks and balances allowing the central goverment to claim whatever power it wanted regardless of any constitutional limit.

You see in the electoral war against each-other for control over those few powers given we were made blind to our leaders own faults in overthrowing that constitution power by power.

Regardless to fix this situation is very much to tear down that goverment and now as it becomes ever more crippled by its own dept and corruption is a good time to start doing that.

[monorprise]

@OddBeMe
Police are not cheap, as many American City's regularly struggle with it is difficult to find enough officers and pay what is required. The fact that they are all of them competing with the Federal military and it's government's printing press for men & women with those same skill sets isn't helping either. (This is why we would be vastly better off returning to a more decentralized military model of the founders with far more off the army and reserve in their respective national guards so that the same valuable personal can be useful to our domestic security. )

Not running around the world trying to be everyone else's police force. Which brings us to your point, our politicians ego and fear about what nations do ungoverned has led them to expend vast amounts of our resources uncompensated acting as a kind of world Government by being their police force.

Before the enormous welfare state and its exploding costs the American people could for a time afford to foot this bill, but as our dept explodes soo too does the inflationary taxes and/or interest rates which now squeeze every other expense.

blog.independent.org/.../

The sad fact is we can't afford to be world police anymore precisely because we have such dept from such a welfare state. Nor is it frankly fair that Americans should be paying for the policing services of the rest of the world. Not only is that extremely costly it undermines our own policing services at home.

From a financial point of view fear of a 3rd world war resulting form nations being free to do as they wish is nonsense. Our dept level just trying to supposedly prevent it is already very near what it was at the end of the last world war, and this dept isn't a 1 time thing that can be paid off.
Those welfare and defense bills keep exploding.

[OddBeMe]

@monorprise well that’s…an opinion, man…. but not one that will limit world strife and keep old people from starving to death. Being the world’s super power does have perks, like valuing their currency against the dollar.

[monorprise]

@OddBeMe It has never been our responsibility to provide uncompensated security for the whole world.
A cost Increasingly unaffordable thanks to theses same welfare programs own cost as well as their effects on demographics resulting in soo many of those "old people" (not having previously invested in families to support them, relying upon the "commons" of the much reduced supply produced by those who did.

Thus forcing everyone to pay more to compete for that ever dwindling labor. The same labor we are very much short on in the areas of Civil defense Police/military as well making them practically even more difficult as well.

Its no exaggeration to say that theses welfare programs are themselves responsible for poisoning our sociality in creating this 'tragedy' of the commons.

To the point where we are now in the position where we simply can't afford to do all theses things for both want of people and money to pay them, a situation math tells us is only going to get dramatically worse.

[OddBeMe]

@monorprise again, I can only point to smarter people like General Marshall. He saw past the emotion of other Allied leaders who wanted revenge in WW2 and knew a vibrant secure Europe is the best defense. And the less arms per country the better.

But sure we’ll look at your plan. Lol

[monorprise]

Not really sure how General Marshall is soo notable to you @OddBeMe, looking at his history I don't find anything particularity impressive about his record.

I presume you like the fact he advocated for the historic American practice of rebuilding a defeated enemy. Although disarming Europe was less a goal of peace than something needed for raw materials and regardless quickly proved disadvantageous towards the need to contain the threat of the USSR.

The Threat of which, combined with the advent of Nuclear weapons and the reality that the next war would be the last is what really kept Europe from returning to war.

[OddBeMe]

@monorprise no, the EU is what kept Europe from returning to war. Business.

[monorprise]

@OddBeMe Its rather difficult to tell how much the EU made a difference, historically countries ceased going to war when they had a common ever present enemy as we did in the form of the USSR. Regardless this has little to do with the topic

[Drewtate]

@monorprise you know you guys have been commenting here for 3 weeks

[monorprise]

@drewtate
True, its a important and fascinating topic

[OddBeMe]

@monorprise that I’m annoying Drew is just a perk, now. Let’s go another 3 weeks.

[normalice]

Mostly, they just don't want to agree that racism exists or that it might put black people at a disadvantage.

[OddBeMe]

Yes and this seems to be scarily working. At least in their side.

[hahahmm]

If Democrats are okay with Palestinians killing Jews, I don't think it's a big deal if Republicans wanted to show respect for all of the different groups that Jewish people themselves say were killed in the Holocaust by not focusing exclusively on Jews.

[goaded]

[monorprise]

@goaded I am not a fan of Nikki ever since what she did as Govern of South Carolina she is only a few grades above mittens.
But her answer half baked as it is isn't wrong.
If slavery were ever THE cause of the civil war the Norther states would have tried to end it prior to the war not tell everyone they were fighting only to 'preserve the union not end slavery'.

Nor tolerate slavery's existence in the union States 2 of which were the only states where slavery was actually ended by the 13th amendment.
Instead ending slavery was only ever proclaimed to be a 'war measure' after 2 years of fighting the war in 1863 when the war was already half over.

What the North was really quite explicitly fighting for was to create an empire, which is to say an involuntary union to allow them to dominate and subjugate their political rivals.

The South was fighting to preserve their independent right to govern themselfs. You have to psychoanalyses their motivations and presume they had no such right COMPELLING the north to fight. In order to presume both the cause of such desire and it being the cause of the war.

Both assumptions are patently dishonest as someone who governed South Carolina SHOULD have known. We had an inalienable natural right to govern ourselfs as proclaimed in 1776 deceleration of independence making the original union even possable. Therefore the south did not compel the north to fight.

Slavery was not the only reason South Carolina withdrew but one of a great many reasons mostly likewise pertaining to their vast economic and cultural differences with the north. Differences that didn't simply go away after the war or slavery.

I would hope that Nikki Haley would have learn that one lesson from South Carolina and her atrocious assault on history there. However I don't think she was prepared to discuss the answer.

[OddBeMe]

https://youtu.be/wMbqJHRrgnw?si=yJ0PGas4FwAU5JHp

[goaded]

@monorprise Do you know the text of what South Carolina voted for in a convention on 26th April, 1852? I can't find it. Regardless, the Northern states wanted to at least limit slavery to existing states and not allow it in new territories. They had been willing to allow it to continue where it already was in order to preserve the union. The slave states didn't give newly elected Abraham Lincoln a chance to do anything about slavery before they seceded.

The only state out of Georgia, Mississippi, South Carolina, Texas, and Virginia that didn't say slavery was at least part of the reason for seceding seems to have been Virginia that only said "not only to the injury of the people of Virginia, but to the oppression of the Southern Slaveholding States".

www.battlefields.org/.../declaration-causes-seceding-states

"What the North was really quite explicitly fighting for was to create an empire, which is to say an involuntary union to allow them to dominate and subjugate their political rivals."
There was already a voluntary union. Where in the constitution of that union does it describe a way for states to legally secede?

If they couldn't legally secede, it follows that seceding was illegal. Should the union (of how many states at the time?) have just let the five states simply take over federal forts and leave?

The one thing I would say in Haley's defence is that the asker allowed her to move on to the next question ("What do you want me to say about slavery/You've answered my question, thank you"), she didn't just dismiss them, which is what many outlets make it sound like.

[monorprise]

@goaded
The fact that many of them left before Linclin even took office much-less any action against slavery really only reinforces the point that slavery was NOT the cause but rather the cultural, economic, and political disagreements connected to the economy which still required slavery was the cause of why theses states desired independence.

That desire and even the vote to exersize their INALIENABLE right to express it was NOT in itself a cause of any war.

The European idea that all is forbidden except by permission of the state and thus we require a particular law /clause in the Constitution to permit any act. Is the total opposite of what our Federal Constitution was designed to be. It is the goverment that requires permission to make any law never the people to exersize any right not already ceded under a spesfic law.

However as indicated in that term Inalienable it was in fact the cornerstone of American political philosophy and the key behind our right to become independent in 1776(as this was in fact forbidden under British imperial law) that this right of the people was in fact such a right that can NEVER be ceded to any state.

The logical reason for this idea being were it cede able all of Mankind would inevitably be reduced to slavery as it would only take 1 generation among countless to give up said right to walk away.

[OddBeMe]

@monorprise they all seceded after the election idiot.

[monorprise]

@OddBeMe Linclin wasn't the only one elected in that election, new state houses and governs were elected and frankly. Nor was ending slavery as has been pointed out even on Lincoln's agenda. So if they suddenly decided to leave in 1860's after the election which they didn't (they were debating it for decades), then they didn't do so on the account of an instityuiton that had yet to be threaten, but rather a long chain of political, economic, and cultural issues.
Between the states that for the same economic reasons employed slavery and the states dominated by very different economize interest mostly did not.

Once again this describes the difference between said states on the basis of a common political symptom of their differences Not the cause.

Also once more becoming independent much-less the desire to become independent do NOT in themself lead to war.

There was no clause whatsoever in the constitution which even allowed much less required the federal goverment to go to war.

[OddBeMe]

@monorprise no they clearly and vocally did because Lincoln was elected.

“ Southern partisans had approached the election of 1860 as a litmus test in American political life. Lincoln's election could only mean that the people of the North had decided to trample slaveholders' rights. Only secession could address such a grave insult.”
digital.lib.niu.edu/illinois/civilwar/chronology1

[monorprise]

@OddBeMe If you want to make a case that the south left simply because of Lincoln's election don't site the modern day opinion of Drew VandeCreek a man from northern Illinois.

The reality is when dealing with the reasoning of millions of different people and 11 different states. I am sure more than a few of them though Lincoln's election was the one and only reason. Most however were thinking long term about the issue as they had been for decades at that point.

For that matter even the way your northern phrased it " trample slaveholders' rights" is broad enough to include every issue which divided the states.

[goaded]

@monorprise He didn't say "the south left simply because of Lincoln's election", he said that that was the trigger. And the reason was that the country wasn't willing to accept the spread of slavery to new territories, and MIGHT consider its abolition.

The British Empire took on 200 years of debt to buy out slaveholders around the world. The southern states might have been able to get a similar deal, but they decided to fight, instead.

[OddBeMe]

I mean not only…but Lincoln was the catalyst. Even after rejecting the first version of the 13th amendment that would have kept slavery in slave states BECAUSE the South wanted to force new states like Bleeding Kansas to adopt slavery.

[monorprise]

@OddBeMe The South rejected the originally proposed 13th amendment because slavery was not the only issue, and their people had already decided they wanted to govern themselves independently.

The original 13th amendment offered nothing new to the South in practice. The prior 35+ years of conflict was not over the end of slavery but every other difference in policy that came from their very different economies and culture.

[goaded]

@monorprise It's been 5 days, man! Has this anything to do with Trump claiming he would have been a better president than Lincoln? If he'd have been there, half the country would still have slaves.

[monorprise]

@goaded I don't know what kind of president Trump would have been, his tract record suggest he would have taken a more peaceful route.

That said its hard to imagine too many people not being "better" presidents than Lincoln.

[msc545]

It is hard to be concerned about slavery or the Holocaust when your base consists of anti-semitic white racists.

[OddBeMe]

So we should feel sorry for them? Poor little guys. Lol

[msc545]

That said, when you are an opportunistic psychopath ignoring it probably comes easy...

[OddBeMe]

You profiled them correctly mindhunter.

[OddBeMe]

They do lack a lot of empathy.

[msc545]

My fascist neighbor says, "What is this empathy thing you speak of" ?

[monorprise]

@msc545 Nobody really cares about the lies you say about people you don't even know because they don't agree with you.

I suppose its just a way for you to avoid focusing on the policy questions in front of you to attack the messages you can't even see rather than the message..

[Tomisworthless]

Both sides are fucked you either are the Republican side which is sane but confederate or the Democrat side which is insane and authoritarian.

Still stand with Trump regardless dude was and is the greatest president for the last 150yrs imagine if he were a Democrat he would be considered the Greatest of All Time and the media would be on his side and the people too. No division needed to control the population and make them hate and burn down cities.

[Juxtapose]

Strange, coming from the party that is so tight with Hamas.

[OddBeMe]

I will say the idiot teens on college campuses are being idiots. But at least it’s our teens…. and not your actual voters dipshit.

[Dargil]

We aren't. Only the ones you want to notice.

[OddBeMe]

And the ones running in elections. Clear projections of who votes for them.

[QuietRunner]

Usually Republicans forget that the Democrats are the cause of slavery and that the Democrat President Franklin D Roosevelt didn't accept the Jews from Germany.

If Republicans knew how to better communicate the racist Democrat history then they wouldn't be so weird.

[milyjohn]

I can't figure out why Democrats supported slavery. It was probably Nikki Haley's fault.

[OddBeMe]

When did we support slavery? Oh 150 years ago when political parties were completely different?

How about the Democratic-Republicans vs the Whigs. Who was the slave supports then?

[milyjohn]

Back in the slave days.

[exitseven]

It would be better to ask why democrats are so obsessed with slavery. It was 200 years ago. Time to move on.

[OddBeMe]

Because as historians, we can see its effects today. Shit dude, blacks didn’t get full voting rights until 1965.

[monorprise]

@OddBeMe Your not an historian your an obsessed ideologue trying desperately to justify your repressive modern day ideas and policy failures.

Yes even the flap of a butterfly wings 1000 years ago can be said to have an effect today. Intellectually honest people take responsibility for their own choices and recognize that a man needs only a single generation to recover as demonstrated by most people who entered this country with nothing but the clothing on their back.

That as such your more recent problems are due to more recent bad choice, including but not limited to the refusal to invest the time and effort to improve yourself because of such obsession.

[OddBeMe]

@monorprise I’m talking 60 years ago. And yes slavery led to Jim Crow, Jim Crow kept blacks from gaining generational wealth. If you’re that stupid or blinded I don’t know what to do for you.

[monorprise]

@OddBeMe So your saying the problems of all blacks in all States are caused by the situation only a tiny minority of old blacks in a few states were around to experienced?

That's nonsense and if we in fact look at the economic data the opposite is more the case. While Jimcrow was no doubt not help-full it was nowhere near as harmful as the cultural and political changes driven by that political obsession over the last 60 years.

Prior to the 1960's the black population was improving and reaching parity, They have actually gone backwards since in every state. That obsession and the political and social changes it allowed them to justify and overlook is the reason.

Jim crow didn't do that to them, Democrats and their bit tent of leftist politics did.

[exitseven]

@monorprise I have worked at a local urban college since 2002. When I started there I noticed that all the kids sat together in the cafeteria. It was such a striking contrast from what I experienced as a kid during my own college experience. Fast forward ten or 12 years and now the black kids sit on one side and the white kids sit on the other. I do not know how this happened but I tried to think of what had happened around 2010 that might have had such a negative effect on racial relations. Anybody want to speculate?

[BoopBoopBeep]

@OddBeMe
I'd say post-Jim Crow, this has been equally significant in why blacks as a culture are incapable of building generational wealth.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tgk2iZ-Wj4Q

[OddBeMe]

@BoopBoopBeep funny she’s in furs with fresh nails from the salon. Sure financial education is a variable, but the reason whites own 70% or more of the wealth is because their fathers did, and fathers before them.

[BoopBoopBeep]

@OddBeMe
More than just education. Mindset. It's never about how much you make it's about how much you spend. When I was younger, all my friends were pretty much living paycheck to paycheck no matter how much they made. How you going to make 80k a year in a place where the mean income is 38 and still have to ask me for gas money for your Eddie Baur edition Expedition or your Lexus that's been sitting in the driveway for a week because you can't put gas in the tank? Still going to hit the club tonight though...

[OddBeMe]

@BoopBoopBeep ok…so you’re trying to offset generational and institutional racism by blaming the victims. Bravo your a Republican.

[monorprise]

@exitseven
Obama's race baiting politics happened. Its hard to accept democrats don't know that when you focus on race and division that tends to effect the attitudes of the people you sway to support you with said arguments.
Unlike true political differences which are in ones circumstances and expedience. Your race never changes nor can it be hidden.

A fact that draws unethical politicians to using the issue on the account that it frees them political y from the need to get results that effect those circumstances positively.

[OddBeMe]

@monorprise so we should be able focus on communities that need help without making others feel ignored. That’s pretty childish.

And yeah it’s a bit ironic, maybe hypocritical, when we Dems criticize racism and then focus on black communities but sorry they need help.

[BoopBoopBeep]

@OddBeMe Sticks and stones... Honestly I hate both "sides" because I just think they're one in the same, but ignoring that, our black communities were a lot stronger than they are today before we decided government was the solution, not accountability. I also don't know anybody in my community growing up that thought "man I wish some old white guys would come save us"... all the while spending three times what we made on dumb shite like spinner rims. That'd be the kind a thing that'd have mama whipping your ass all the way back to the dealer if you show up with something like that and have less than a full tank of gas in the car. Now you can just take her to get her nails done and she'll forget all about it. When black men left the home/family unit is when the trouble started. We need them back in the picture, not just more old white men from D. C.

[monorprise]

@OddBeMe There is no black community, there is a South Side, Chicago Community, a new York Brocs community, there is an east Los Angeles Community.

Thou they have many things in common including many problems which might benefit from the same solutions. Theses are not Federal problem nor even State problems but local problems and to the extent they are caused by cultural values they are cultural problems.

The fact that democrats have only succeeded in making theses problems worse with their race baiting and blaming others over the last 60+ years really demonstrates their commonly applied 'solutions' don't work either.

Others who have looked at the issue over the years have identified major cultural problems from the collapse of family due to government paying mothers more to be single than deal with the father to glorification of criminal activity in their cultural medium and corruption of local schools.

[exitseven]

@monorprise The south side of Chicago, is the baddest part of town/

[monorprise]

@exitseven
Its just an example of a location.

[exitseven]

@monorprise But if you go down there you better just beware of a man named Leroy Brown.

[AngryCarl]

When Jews are voting Democrat and your base is made up of racist Neo-Nazis what you gonna do? Nikki just picked the wrong side.

[Anonymous]

Why are we rehashing things from 75 and 150 years ago? Is this actually a relevant issue for you for the 2024 election? Is this the best you Democrats can do? Is this all you got?

[OddBeMe]

Because you fucks literally won't mention Jews or slavery as obvious answers. It’s concerning…

[Opinion Owner]

Yeah, that's the pressing issue. Not inflation, the economy, China, Ukraine, Israel and illegal immigration. What else are you passionate about, The Napoleonic Wars?

[OddBeMe]

It actually is. We’re more segregated now than before Brown v Board.

[Opinion Owner]

With a Democrat President 12 of the last 16 years you'd think some progress would've been made if that was so important. Makes you wonder huh?

[OddBeMe]

With a divided Congress and republicans using the filibuster 1000% more than previous decades…

[Anonymous]

They're not, just bored of the democrats dredging it up to avoid the fact that the democrats are the guilty ones

FDR banned gold ownership for US citizens and sold what they seized on the cheap to nazi Germany to fund the war effort

[Anonymous]

Why do some libtards look at the behavior of one republican and prentend all republicans are the same? I've seen you persoanlly do it countless times.

[gorydetails]

I don't know - the democrats are pro-slavery.

[OddBeMe]

What did Democratic-Republicans support versus the Whigs?

[gorydetails]

Democrats supported slavery, Jim Crow, support slavery to the state, and now human trafficking over our border.

[OddBeMe]

What did the Democratic Republicans support?

[OddBeMe]

Try finding an argument from this century.

[gorydetails]

Ok, illegal immigration is a hotbed for human trafficking. You’re a big fan of it.

[OddBeMe]

It is because we make illegal. If we opened it up there wouldn’t be human trafficking.

Next? Drug policy? Same issue, ironically.

[gorydetails]

From the guy who locks the doors to his house.

[OddBeMe]

Why is that relevant?

[OddBeMe]

I don’t lock them fearing migrants.

[gorydetails]

You should have open borders to your home. No person is illegal.

[OddBeMe]

How is that relevant? You don’t own the border. Or set immigration policy. You can with your own house once you get a paying job.

[gorydetails]

I don’t pay taxes? Then who owns the border? I can’t wait to hear this nonsense.

[OddBeMe]

We socially contract the government shit for brains. But even if we go with your opinion, there’s still 350 million other co-owners you need to run your sick shit by.

[gorydetails]

most of them don’t want illegals streaming over the border. It’s only you fucktards who want slave labor and to fuck children who are pro illegal immigration.

[OddBeMe]

Not sure about that. Take the politicized bullshit out and talk policy…they’d be more inclined with easing the immigration process since it’s economically advantageous.

Instead of burning billions of dollars on ICE. Those fucks should be abolished.

[gorydetails]

Lmao. You’re a fucking retard. Even your blue sanctuary cities are crying uncle because unmitigated mass immigration is bankrupting their budgets.

[OddBeMe]

No ones crying uncle. We gave them hotels and free food because your side trafficked them across the country. But immigrants will pay their own way. Not take welfare for life like right wing “citizens”.

[gorydetails]

Eric Adams and that fuckstick in Chicago are whining on tv every day. Oh, and the citizens who live there, too. But fuckem, you like fucking little boys, so the illegals need to keep coming.

[OddBeMe]

I doubt those fucks are actually paying themselves. And making political hay over immigrants is the easiest fucking shot for politicans in trouble.

[gorydetails]

Not in sanctuary cities.. they love illegals, remember?

[OddBeMe]

Sure because they work unlike a lot of citizens on welfare. You need anymore of my taxes or are you good for this month?

[gorydetails]

I thought your glory hole was cash only and you didn't report your income.

[OddBeMe]

Shh… that’s on the down low for GaG Fags like most right wingers here.

[gorydetails]

I heard it from goaded, he's a frequent customer, apparently.

[OddBeMe]

Well you know those Germans! @goaded and I seem to rile you fucks up easily.

[gorydetails]

He said you’re really gentle with the balls, which is nice of you.

[OddBeMe]

Whatever gets you right wingers going. It always takes forever.

[FenixG45]

I'm getting my popcorn!😂🍿