|
Now that we have a new thread, in order to ensure that this thread continues to meet TL standards and follows the proper guidelines, we will be enforcing the rules in the OP more strictly. Be sure to give them a complete and thorough read before posting! NOTE: When providing a source, please provide a very brief summary on what it's about and what purpose it adds to the discussion. The supporting statement should clearly explain why the subject is relevant and needs to be discussed. Please follow this rule especially for tweets.
Your supporting statement should always come BEFORE you provide the source.If you have any questions, comments, concern, or feedback regarding the USPMT, then please use this thread: http://www.teamliquid.net/forum/website-feedback/510156-us-politics-thread |
On August 03 2025 02:24 Gorsameth wrote: "We should normalize abuse" really is... a take...
No, we should not accept it. Yes, people doing it should be removed. Whether is dildo's or plastic cups, empty or full.
Jimmy makes complete sense when you realise that the last time he enjoyed anything in life was in the 1980s. To the point all he ever does is watch people incapable of enjoying anything anymore whine incessantly about video games that they never bother to play.
The time when spectators thought they were entitled to this type of cool and harmless fun was during the 1980s. Jimmy remembers the fun he enjoyed from wrestling fans heckling pros, many of whom who were professional heels, and none of the disgusting entitlement from sports fans and their really thinly veiled contempt for people who just want to enjoy the game for the game and not the circus.
|
Chronically online liberals deciding to lose their shit over a Sydney Sweeney blue jeans commercial while Trump-Epstein was the top story is just another example of the left repeatedly serving themselves an L
|
United States43232 Posts
I’m out of the loop, what’s going on?
|
Boobs rule the world.
Media is making up some internet reaction to some commercial to show their relevance as advertisement space.
You can just pretend something is viral, and then it is.
|
On August 03 2025 04:50 KwarK wrote: I’m out of the loop, what’s going on?
Some company made an ad campaign with a slogan "Sydney Sweeney has great jeans". Jeans sound like genes. The goal is to get a small group of lefties make angry comments about saying blue-eyed blondes have great genes. This gets a bigger group of right wing dudes promote the campaign in the net to own the libs. This spirals into everyone talking about the ad campaign and how the other side is stupid.
|
On August 01 2025 10:06 Introvert wrote:Show nested quote +On August 01 2025 08:24 Sermokala wrote: Lol, its incredibly stupid to say that Reagon was "great on domestic spending" when he nearly tripled the national debt. No one has been worse for the national finances than him in peacetime. Supply side economics have lead to every major economic problem we see today from the debt, to home prices, to wages. Him breaking PATCO was the turning point in labor participation in unions causeing the wealth disparity we see today.
He wasn't as bad as lincoln but he was one of the most long term determental reigns we've seen from any leader. Where to even begin. 1) If you are conservative who wants generally smaller government just holding domestic, non-military spending flat as a percentage of GDP is something you'll take. 2) "Supply side economics have lead to every major economic problem we see today from the debt, to home prices, to wages." No. A popular take, but generally the timings of when certain trends began to appear make things like "real wage" levels a more complicated story. 3) Union membership was declining for almost 3 decades before Reagan came into office. 4) "He wasn't as bad as lincoln but he was one of the most long term determental reigns we've seen from any leader." This sentence breaks my brain in multiple ways, but I must say I prefer not to use the word "reign" about presidents. Kudos for being brave enough to still call Lincoln a bad president I guess? Horribly wrong, but brave. A good choice usually is at the beginning.
"Something you'd take" which is weird cope for a very clear example of horrendous government finances and a trend that has continued today.
Yes, its a more complicated story, congratulations for trying to sidestep a forum argument with "yeah I don't understand it but I disagree so I don't find your argument valid"
"Things were getting bad so the president showing everyone just how bad it was and normalizing that trend makes him not apart of the problem" is not the postive argument for him.
Hes a terrible president, probably the worst we've had out of all of them. I'm not surprised so see you too cowardly to level any actual arguments about anything I said. If you're going to start with "where do I even begin" you could at least try to begin at some point.
|
On August 03 2025 04:50 KwarK wrote: I’m out of the loop, what’s going on? TLDR: Genes and Jeans sound exactly alike and in an ad where there is just audio and text of both its reasonable to confuse the two.
Sydney sweeny signed up to be apart of the florida republican party after trump won the nomination and is now acting dumb that someone who is blond haired blue eyed talking about "“Jeanes are passed down from parents to offspring” and "My body’s composition is determined by my Jeanes." Might raise red flags with people.
Oh, and sometimes it goes to masks off and just says 'Geans' in text, just to be silly. American eagle is Decidely just rolling with the denialism on this and the usual suspects are saying the usual bad faith things.
|
On August 03 2025 05:29 Sermokala wrote:Show nested quote +On August 01 2025 10:06 Introvert wrote:On August 01 2025 08:24 Sermokala wrote: Lol, its incredibly stupid to say that Reagon was "great on domestic spending" when he nearly tripled the national debt. No one has been worse for the national finances than him in peacetime. Supply side economics have lead to every major economic problem we see today from the debt, to home prices, to wages. Him breaking PATCO was the turning point in labor participation in unions causeing the wealth disparity we see today.
He wasn't as bad as lincoln but he was one of the most long term determental reigns we've seen from any leader. Where to even begin. 1) If you are conservative who wants generally smaller government just holding domestic, non-military spending flat as a percentage of GDP is something you'll take. 2) "Supply side economics have lead to every major economic problem we see today from the debt, to home prices, to wages." No. A popular take, but generally the timings of when certain trends began to appear make things like "real wage" levels a more complicated story. 3) Union membership was declining for almost 3 decades before Reagan came into office. 4) "He wasn't as bad as lincoln but he was one of the most long term determental reigns we've seen from any leader." This sentence breaks my brain in multiple ways, but I must say I prefer not to use the word "reign" about presidents. Kudos for being brave enough to still call Lincoln a bad president I guess? Horribly wrong, but brave. A good choice usually is at the beginning. "Something you'd take" which is weird cope for a very clear example of horrendous government finances and a trend that has continued today. Yes, its a more complicated story, congratulations for trying to sidestep a forum argument with "yeah I don't understand it but I disagree so I don't find your argument valid" "Things were getting bad so the president showing everyone just how bad it was and normalizing that trend makes him not apart of the problem" is not the postive argument for him. Hes a terrible president, probably the worst we've had out of all of them. I'm not surprised so see you too cowardly to level any actual arguments about anything I said. If you're going to start with "where do I even begin" you could at least try to begin at some point.
Your post just made a bunch of assertions, I'm not sure what you wanted in return. While I suppose it can seem cowardly to not fight you on specifics, calling Lincoln maybe our worst president is an opinion so heavily in the minority, so "out there", that I dare say the onus is on you to very forcefully fight for it. Because if there's one thing both Democrats and Republicans can agree on it's that Lincoln was a great president.
|
On August 03 2025 06:07 Introvert wrote:Show nested quote +On August 03 2025 05:29 Sermokala wrote:On August 01 2025 10:06 Introvert wrote:On August 01 2025 08:24 Sermokala wrote: Lol, its incredibly stupid to say that Reagon was "great on domestic spending" when he nearly tripled the national debt. No one has been worse for the national finances than him in peacetime. Supply side economics have lead to every major economic problem we see today from the debt, to home prices, to wages. Him breaking PATCO was the turning point in labor participation in unions causeing the wealth disparity we see today.
He wasn't as bad as lincoln but he was one of the most long term determental reigns we've seen from any leader. Where to even begin. 1) If you are conservative who wants generally smaller government just holding domestic, non-military spending flat as a percentage of GDP is something you'll take. 2) "Supply side economics have lead to every major economic problem we see today from the debt, to home prices, to wages." No. A popular take, but generally the timings of when certain trends began to appear make things like "real wage" levels a more complicated story. 3) Union membership was declining for almost 3 decades before Reagan came into office. 4) "He wasn't as bad as lincoln but he was one of the most long term determental reigns we've seen from any leader." This sentence breaks my brain in multiple ways, but I must say I prefer not to use the word "reign" about presidents. Kudos for being brave enough to still call Lincoln a bad president I guess? Horribly wrong, but brave. A good choice usually is at the beginning. "Something you'd take" which is weird cope for a very clear example of horrendous government finances and a trend that has continued today. Yes, its a more complicated story, congratulations for trying to sidestep a forum argument with "yeah I don't understand it but I disagree so I don't find your argument valid" "Things were getting bad so the president showing everyone just how bad it was and normalizing that trend makes him not apart of the problem" is not the postive argument for him. Hes a terrible president, probably the worst we've had out of all of them. I'm not surprised so see you too cowardly to level any actual arguments about anything I said. If you're going to start with "where do I even begin" you could at least try to begin at some point. Your post just made a bunch of assertions, I'm not sure what you wanted in return. While I suppose it can seem cowardly to not fight you on specifics, calling Lincoln maybe our worst president is an opinion so heavily in the minority, so "out there", that I dare say the onus is on you to very forcefully fight for it. Because if there's one thing both Democrats and Republicans can agree on it's that Lincoln was a great president. I would have liked anything? You can't list my "assertions" point by point and then ignore them or sidestep them, before acting like you've done anything. I have given reasons for why Lincoln is a shitty president, he didn't free the slaves, he never made the war about slavery until after he won a draw, his management of the war is an incredible example of incompetence, and he was a halfway tyrant who was willing to send marines to arrest politicians in maryland but refused to do it in virginia. His best general, the most wealthy of the southern states, and the state literally next door to the capital. But we had to fight a war for 4 years, draining the nation of manpower, wealth and infrastructure because he got cold feet from the first time he was an out and out dictator. The literal examples of dictator have clearly good ones and clearly bad ones. Examples that Lincoln would have been able to study.
There is no defending his insensate need for a general to attack a south that has no allies and no navy. The British were never going to go to war with the nation that supplied half its grain supply. There was no need to burn a south already on the verge of collapse. The only victory achieved was a territory bitter, angry, poor, and stupid that continues to be so to this day.
|
Norway28709 Posts
I remember my brother did jeans modelling like 10 years ago and there was an fb post about it and I just commented nice genes and I thought I was funny but nobody laughed.
|
Northern Ireland26036 Posts
On August 03 2025 07:19 Liquid`Drone wrote: I remember my brother did jeans modelling like 10 years ago and there was an fb post about it and I just commented nice genes and I thought I was funny but nobody laughed. Maybe the pun doesn’t work as well in Norwegian?
|
Northern Ireland26036 Posts
On August 03 2025 04:33 BlackJack wrote: Chronically online liberals deciding to lose their shit over a Sydney Sweeney blue jeans commercial while Trump-Epstein was the top story is just another example of the left repeatedly serving themselves an L I mean I’ve seen shitloads of stuff on Trump-Epstein for weeks now, and it hasn’t stopped.
First I’m encountering this story, maybe it’s not that big a deal and it’s just one of those that originates from one side’s chronically online contingent, and is seized upon and amplified by the other side’s chronically online contingent?
Just a thought
|
Norway28709 Posts
On August 03 2025 07:22 WombaT wrote:Show nested quote +On August 03 2025 07:19 Liquid`Drone wrote: I remember my brother did jeans modelling like 10 years ago and there was an fb post about it and I just commented nice genes and I thought I was funny but nobody laughed. Maybe the pun doesn’t work as well in Norwegian?
tbh norwegian is so anglicized by now that 'nice genes' is something you'll hear a norwegian say to another norwegian in an otherwise norwegian conversation (while neither word is an actual norwegian word). But it's plausible that people didn't get it.
|
On August 03 2025 06:21 Sermokala wrote:Show nested quote +On August 03 2025 06:07 Introvert wrote:On August 03 2025 05:29 Sermokala wrote:On August 01 2025 10:06 Introvert wrote:On August 01 2025 08:24 Sermokala wrote: Lol, its incredibly stupid to say that Reagon was "great on domestic spending" when he nearly tripled the national debt. No one has been worse for the national finances than him in peacetime. Supply side economics have lead to every major economic problem we see today from the debt, to home prices, to wages. Him breaking PATCO was the turning point in labor participation in unions causeing the wealth disparity we see today.
He wasn't as bad as lincoln but he was one of the most long term determental reigns we've seen from any leader. Where to even begin. 1) If you are conservative who wants generally smaller government just holding domestic, non-military spending flat as a percentage of GDP is something you'll take. 2) "Supply side economics have lead to every major economic problem we see today from the debt, to home prices, to wages." No. A popular take, but generally the timings of when certain trends began to appear make things like "real wage" levels a more complicated story. 3) Union membership was declining for almost 3 decades before Reagan came into office. 4) "He wasn't as bad as lincoln but he was one of the most long term determental reigns we've seen from any leader." This sentence breaks my brain in multiple ways, but I must say I prefer not to use the word "reign" about presidents. Kudos for being brave enough to still call Lincoln a bad president I guess? Horribly wrong, but brave. A good choice usually is at the beginning. "Something you'd take" which is weird cope for a very clear example of horrendous government finances and a trend that has continued today. Yes, its a more complicated story, congratulations for trying to sidestep a forum argument with "yeah I don't understand it but I disagree so I don't find your argument valid" "Things were getting bad so the president showing everyone just how bad it was and normalizing that trend makes him not apart of the problem" is not the postive argument for him. Hes a terrible president, probably the worst we've had out of all of them. I'm not surprised so see you too cowardly to level any actual arguments about anything I said. If you're going to start with "where do I even begin" you could at least try to begin at some point. Your post just made a bunch of assertions, I'm not sure what you wanted in return. While I suppose it can seem cowardly to not fight you on specifics, calling Lincoln maybe our worst president is an opinion so heavily in the minority, so "out there", that I dare say the onus is on you to very forcefully fight for it. Because if there's one thing both Democrats and Republicans can agree on it's that Lincoln was a great president. I would have liked anything? You can't list my "assertions" point by point and then ignore them or sidestep them, before acting like you've done anything. I have given reasons for why Lincoln is a shitty president, he didn't free the slaves, he never made the war about slavery until after he won a draw, his management of the war is an incredible example of incompetence, and he was a halfway tyrant who was willing to send marines to arrest politicians in maryland but refused to do it in virginia. His best general, the most wealthy of the southern states, and the state literally next door to the capital. But we had to fight a war for 4 years, draining the nation of manpower, wealth and infrastructure because he got cold feet from the first time he was an out and out dictator. The literal examples of dictator have clearly good ones and clearly bad ones. Examples that Lincoln would have been able to study. There is no defending his insensate need for a general to attack a south that has no allies and no navy. The British were never going to go to war with the nation that supplied half its grain supply. There was no need to burn a south already on the verge of collapse. The only victory achieved was a territory bitter, angry, poor, and stupid that continues to be so to this day.
I think most of your first part here has a simple reply. Whatever his initial goals, he in fact DID win the war, and he DID in fact help free the slaves. I am curious about what type of mental gymnastics are required here to contend otherwise. That part just isn't disputable and it's the hinge point for his entire legacy. Lincoln had famously crappy generals until he found some that were worth something. but Lincoln wasn't a battlefield commander. What Lincoln did better than presidents both before and after him was to manage the political process to get to the right result. His pre-war reluctance to forcing the south to free their slaves was matched by his fervent opposition to its expansion into new states to the west. This was a major topic of the "Lincoln-Douglas debates" were Douglas thought that each state should chose. While only a member of the House, Lincoln had the political cache and well known views prior to his election as president that offered him the legitimacy and benefit of the doubt. It was the South that truly messed up by deciding upon succession, even before Lincoln was president; they buried themselves.
And the *south* itself made the war about slavery, this is again not really controversial.
of course he treated different places differently. Maryland was a hotbed of confederate sympathy and it was right on DC's doorstep. Virginia meanwhile voted to succeed very early. This basic dynamic applies to a lot of your complaints. He had to make decisions based on the best he could do at the moment. They weren't always perfect.
if the razing of the south had been unnecessary then they could have surrendered earlier. Lincoln's famous second inaugural briefly showed the attitude he wanted to have towards a newly subdued south, it's a great tragedy he died and that led to a fight between Radical Republicans in Congress and a loyalist but southern Democrat president.
Maybe Lincoln was right also in his second inaugural when he said
If we shall suppose that American slavery is one of those offenses which in the providence of God must needs come but which having continued through His appointed time He now wills to remove and that He gives to both North and South this terrible war as the woe due to those by whom the offense came shall we discern therein any departure from those divine attributes which the believers in a living God always ascribe to Him. Fondly do we hope ~ fervently do we pray ~ that this mighty scourge of war may speedily pass away. Yet, if God wills that it continue until all the wealth piled by the bondsman's two hundred and fifty years of unrequited toil shall be sunk and until every drop of blood drawn with the lash shall be paid by another drawn with the sword as was said three thousand years ago so still it must be said 'the judgments of the Lord are true and righteous altogether.'
That's how he viewed, blood and death as punishment.
As for Lincoln's legacy for slaves I will leave that in the capable hands of Frederick Douglass. I hate to post so much text but it really doesn't get any better than this. The whole thing is worth a read.
+ Show Spoiler +He was preëminently the white man’s President, entirely devoted to the welfare of white men. He was ready and willing at any time during the first years of his administration to deny, postpone, and sacrifice the rights of humanity in the colored people to promote the welfare of the white people of this country. In all his education and feeling he was an American of the Americans. He came into the Presidential chair upon one principle alone, namely, opposition to the extension of slavery. His arguments in furtherance of this policy had their motive and mainspring in his patriotic devotion to the interests of his own race. To protect, defend, and perpetuate slavery in the states where it existed Abraham Lincoln was not less ready than any other President to draw the sword of the nation. He was ready to execute all the supposed guarantees of the United States Constitution in favor of the slave system anywhere inside the slave states. He was willing to pursue, recapture, and send back the fugitive slave to his master, and to suppress a slave rising for liberty, though his guilty master were already in arms against the Government. The race to which we belong were not the special objects of his consideration. Knowing this, I concede to you, my white fellow-citizens, a preëminence in this worship at once full and supreme. First, midst, and last, you and yours were the objects of his deepest affection and his most earnest solicitude. You are the children of Abraham Lincoln. We are at best only his step-children; children by adoption, children by forces of circumstances and necessity. To you it especially belongs to sound his praises, to preserve and perpetuate his memory, to multiply his statues, to hang his pictures high upon your walls, and commend his example, for to you he was a great and glorious friend and benefactor. Instead of supplanting you at his altar, we would exhort you to build high his monuments; let them be of the most costly material, of the most cunning workmanship; let their forms be symmetrical, beautiful, and perfect; let their bases be upon solid rocks, and their summits lean against the unchanging blue, overhanging sky, and let them endure forever! But while in the abundance of your wealth, and in the fullness of your just and patriotic devotion, you do all this, we entreat you to despise not the humble offering we this day unveil to view; for while Abraham Lincoln saved for you a country, he delivered us from a bondage, according to Jefferson, one hour of which was worse than ages of the oppression your fathers rose in rebellion to oppose.
Fellow-citizens, ours is no new-born zeal and devotion—merely a thing of this moment. The name of Abraham Lincoln was near and dear to our hearts in the darkest and most perilous hours of the Republic. We were no more ashamed of him when shrouded in clouds of darkness, of doubt, and defeat than when we saw him crowned with victory, honor, and glory. Our faith in him was often taxed and strained to the uttermost, but it never failed. When he tarried long in the mountain; when he strangely told us that we were the cause of the war; when he still more strangely told us that we were to leave the land in which we were born; when he refused to employ our arms in defence [sic] of the Union; when, after accepting our services as colored soldiers, he refused to retaliate our murder and torture as colored prisoners; when he told us he would save the Union if he could with slavery; when he revoked the Proclamation of Emancipation of General Fremont; when he refused to remove the popular commander of the Army of the Potomac, in the days of its inaction and defeat, who was more zealous in his efforts to protect slavery than to suppress rebellion; when we saw all this, and more, we were at times grieved, stunned, and greatly bewildered; but our hearts believed while they ached and bled. Nor was this, even at that time, a blind and unreasoning superstition. Despite the mist and haze that surrounded him; despite the tumult, the hurry, and confusion of the hour, we were able to take a comprehensive view of Abraham Lincoln, and to make reasonable allowance for the circumstances of his position. We saw him, measured him, and estimated him; not by stray utterances to injudicious and tedious delegations, who often tried his patience; not by isolated facts torn from their connection; not by any partial and imperfect glimpses, caught at inopportune moments; but by a broad survey, in the light of the stern logic of great events, and in view of that divinity which shapes our ends, rough hew them how we will, we came to the conclusion that the hour and the man of our redemption had somehow met in the person of Abraham Lincoln. It mattered little to us what language he might employ on special occasions; it mattered little to us, when we fully knew him, whether he was swift or slow in his movements; it was enough for us that Abraham Lincoln was at the head of a great movement, and was in living and earnest sympathy with that movement, which, in the nature of things, must go on until slavery should be utterly and forever abolished in the United States.
When, therefore, it shall be asked what we have to do with the memory of Abraham Lincoln, or what Abraham Lincoln had to do with us, the answer is ready, full, and complete. Though he loved Caesar less than Rome, though the Union was more to him than our freedom or our future, under his wise and beneficent rule we saw ourselves gradually lifted from the depths of slavery to the heights of liberty and manhood; under his wise and beneficent rule, and by measures approved and vigorously pressed by him, we saw that the handwriting of ages, in the form of prejudice and proscription, was rapidly fading away from the face of our whole country; under his rule, and in due time, about as soon after all as the country could tolerate the strange spectacle, we saw our brave sons and brothers laying off the rags of bondage, and being clothed all over in the blue uniforms of the soldiers of the United States; under his rule we saw two hundred thousand of our dark and dusky people responding to the call of Abraham Lincoln, and with muskets on their shoulders, and eagles on their buttons, timing their high footsteps to liberty and union under the national flag; under his rule we saw the independence of the black republic of [Haiti], the special object of slaveholding aversion and horror, fully recognized, and her minister, a colored gentleman, duly received here in the city of Washington; under his rule we saw the internal slave-trade, which so long disgraced the nation, abolished, and slavery abolished in the District of Columbia; under his rule we saw for the first time the law enforced against the foreign slave-trade, and the first slave-trader hanged like any other pirate or murderer; under his rule, assisted by the greatest captain of our age, and his inspiration, we saw the Confederate States, based upon the idea that our race must be slaves, and slaves forever, battered to pieces and scattered to the four winds; under his rule, and in the fullness of time, we saw Abraham Lincoln, after giving the slaveholders three months’ grace in which to save their hateful slave system, penning the immortal paper, which, though special in its language, was general in its principles and effect, making slavery forever impossible in the United States. Though we waited long, we saw all this and more.
........
I have said that President Lincoln was a white man, and shared the prejudices common to his countrymen towards the colored race. Looking back to his times and to the condition of his country, we are compelled to admit that this unfriendly feeling on his part may be safely set down as one element of his wonderful success in organizing the loyal American people for the tremendous conflict before them, and bringing them safely through that conflict. His great mission was to accomplish two things: first, to save his country from dismemberment and ruin; and, second, to free his country from the great crime of slavery. To do one or the other, or both, he must have the earnest sympathy and the powerful coöperation of his loyal fellow-countrymen. Without this primary and essential condition to success his efforts must have been vain and utterly fruitless. Had he put the abolition of slavery before the salvation of the Union, he would have inevitably driven from him a powerful class of the American people and rendered resistance to rebellion impossible. Viewed from the genuine abolition ground, Mr. Lincoln seemed tardy, cold, dull, and indifferent; but measuring him by the sentiment of his country, a sentiment he was bound as a statesman to consult, he was swift, zealous, radical, and determined.
Though Mr. Lincoln shared the prejudices of his white fellow-countrymen against the Negro, it is hardly necessary to say that in his heart of hearts he loathed and hated slavery. The man who could say, “Fondly do we hope, fervently do we pray, that this mighty scourge of war shall soon pass away, yet if God wills it continue till all the wealth piled by two hundred years of bondage shall have been wasted, and each drop of blood drawn by the lash shall have been paid for by one drawn by the sword, the judgments of the Lord are true and righteous altogether,” gives all needed proof of his feeling on the subject of slavery. He was willing, while the South was loyal, that it should have its pound of flesh, because he thought that it was so nominated in the bond; but farther than this no earthly power could make him go.
have to head out for a while could have done more in depth and structured but I think this would be a start.
|
On August 03 2025 08:35 Introvert wrote:Show nested quote +On August 03 2025 06:21 Sermokala wrote:On August 03 2025 06:07 Introvert wrote:On August 03 2025 05:29 Sermokala wrote:On August 01 2025 10:06 Introvert wrote:On August 01 2025 08:24 Sermokala wrote: Lol, its incredibly stupid to say that Reagon was "great on domestic spending" when he nearly tripled the national debt. No one has been worse for the national finances than him in peacetime. Supply side economics have lead to every major economic problem we see today from the debt, to home prices, to wages. Him breaking PATCO was the turning point in labor participation in unions causeing the wealth disparity we see today.
He wasn't as bad as lincoln but he was one of the most long term determental reigns we've seen from any leader. Where to even begin. 1) If you are conservative who wants generally smaller government just holding domestic, non-military spending flat as a percentage of GDP is something you'll take. 2) "Supply side economics have lead to every major economic problem we see today from the debt, to home prices, to wages." No. A popular take, but generally the timings of when certain trends began to appear make things like "real wage" levels a more complicated story. 3) Union membership was declining for almost 3 decades before Reagan came into office. 4) "He wasn't as bad as lincoln but he was one of the most long term determental reigns we've seen from any leader." This sentence breaks my brain in multiple ways, but I must say I prefer not to use the word "reign" about presidents. Kudos for being brave enough to still call Lincoln a bad president I guess? Horribly wrong, but brave. A good choice usually is at the beginning. "Something you'd take" which is weird cope for a very clear example of horrendous government finances and a trend that has continued today. Yes, its a more complicated story, congratulations for trying to sidestep a forum argument with "yeah I don't understand it but I disagree so I don't find your argument valid" "Things were getting bad so the president showing everyone just how bad it was and normalizing that trend makes him not apart of the problem" is not the postive argument for him. Hes a terrible president, probably the worst we've had out of all of them. I'm not surprised so see you too cowardly to level any actual arguments about anything I said. If you're going to start with "where do I even begin" you could at least try to begin at some point. Your post just made a bunch of assertions, I'm not sure what you wanted in return. While I suppose it can seem cowardly to not fight you on specifics, calling Lincoln maybe our worst president is an opinion so heavily in the minority, so "out there", that I dare say the onus is on you to very forcefully fight for it. Because if there's one thing both Democrats and Republicans can agree on it's that Lincoln was a great president. I would have liked anything? You can't list my "assertions" point by point and then ignore them or sidestep them, before acting like you've done anything. I have given reasons for why Lincoln is a shitty president, he didn't free the slaves, he never made the war about slavery until after he won a draw, his management of the war is an incredible example of incompetence, and he was a halfway tyrant who was willing to send marines to arrest politicians in maryland but refused to do it in virginia. His best general, the most wealthy of the southern states, and the state literally next door to the capital. But we had to fight a war for 4 years, draining the nation of manpower, wealth and infrastructure because he got cold feet from the first time he was an out and out dictator. The literal examples of dictator have clearly good ones and clearly bad ones. Examples that Lincoln would have been able to study. There is no defending his insensate need for a general to attack a south that has no allies and no navy. The British were never going to go to war with the nation that supplied half its grain supply. There was no need to burn a south already on the verge of collapse. The only victory achieved was a territory bitter, angry, poor, and stupid that continues to be so to this day. I think most of your first part here has a simple reply. Whatever his initial goals, he in fact DID win the war, and he DID in fact help free the slaves. I am curious about what type of mental gymnastics are required here to contend otherwise. That part just isn't disputable and it's the hinge point for his entire legacy. Lincoln had famously crappy generals until he found some that were worth something. but Lincoln wasn't a battlefield commander. What Lincoln did better than presidents both before and after him was to manage the political process to get to the right result. His pre-war reluctance to forcing the south to free their slaves was matched by his fervent opposition to its expansion into new states to the west. This was a major topic of the "Lincoln-Douglas debates" were Douglas thought that each state should chose. While only a member of the House, Lincoln had the political cache and well known views prior to his election as president that offered him the legitimacy and benefit of the doubt. It was the South that truly messed up by deciding upon succession, even before Lincoln was president; they buried themselves. And the *south* itself made the war about slavery, this is again not really controversial. of course he treated different places differently. Maryland was a hotbed of confederate sympathy and it was right on DC's doorstep. Virginia meanwhile voted to succeed very early. This basic dynamic applies to a lot of your complaints. He had to make decisions based on the best he could do at the moment. They weren't always perfect. if the razing of the south had been unnecessary then they could have surrendered earlier. Lincoln's famous second inaugural briefly showed the attitude he wanted to have towards a newly subdued south, it's a great tragedy he died and that led to a fight between Radical Republicans in Congress and a loyalist but southern Democrat president. Maybe Lincoln was right also in his second inaugural when he said Show nested quote +If we shall suppose that American slavery is one of those offenses which in the providence of God must needs come but which having continued through His appointed time He now wills to remove and that He gives to both North and South this terrible war as the woe due to those by whom the offense came shall we discern therein any departure from those divine attributes which the believers in a living God always ascribe to Him. Fondly do we hope ~ fervently do we pray ~ that this mighty scourge of war may speedily pass away. Yet, if God wills that it continue until all the wealth piled by the bondsman's two hundred and fifty years of unrequited toil shall be sunk and until every drop of blood drawn with the lash shall be paid by another drawn with the sword as was said three thousand years ago so still it must be said 'the judgments of the Lord are true and righteous altogether.' That's how he viewed, blood and death as punishment. As for Lincoln's legacy for slaves I will leave that in the capable hands of Frederick Douglass. I hate to post so much text but it really doesn't get any better than this. The whole thing is worth a read. + Show Spoiler +He was preëminently the white man’s President, entirely devoted to the welfare of white men. He was ready and willing at any time during the first years of his administration to deny, postpone, and sacrifice the rights of humanity in the colored people to promote the welfare of the white people of this country. In all his education and feeling he was an American of the Americans. He came into the Presidential chair upon one principle alone, namely, opposition to the extension of slavery. His arguments in furtherance of this policy had their motive and mainspring in his patriotic devotion to the interests of his own race. To protect, defend, and perpetuate slavery in the states where it existed Abraham Lincoln was not less ready than any other President to draw the sword of the nation. He was ready to execute all the supposed guarantees of the United States Constitution in favor of the slave system anywhere inside the slave states. He was willing to pursue, recapture, and send back the fugitive slave to his master, and to suppress a slave rising for liberty, though his guilty master were already in arms against the Government. The race to which we belong were not the special objects of his consideration. Knowing this, I concede to you, my white fellow-citizens, a preëminence in this worship at once full and supreme. First, midst, and last, you and yours were the objects of his deepest affection and his most earnest solicitude. You are the children of Abraham Lincoln. We are at best only his step-children; children by adoption, children by forces of circumstances and necessity. To you it especially belongs to sound his praises, to preserve and perpetuate his memory, to multiply his statues, to hang his pictures high upon your walls, and commend his example, for to you he was a great and glorious friend and benefactor. Instead of supplanting you at his altar, we would exhort you to build high his monuments; let them be of the most costly material, of the most cunning workmanship; let their forms be symmetrical, beautiful, and perfect; let their bases be upon solid rocks, and their summits lean against the unchanging blue, overhanging sky, and let them endure forever! But while in the abundance of your wealth, and in the fullness of your just and patriotic devotion, you do all this, we entreat you to despise not the humble offering we this day unveil to view; for while Abraham Lincoln saved for you a country, he delivered us from a bondage, according to Jefferson, one hour of which was worse than ages of the oppression your fathers rose in rebellion to oppose.
Fellow-citizens, ours is no new-born zeal and devotion—merely a thing of this moment. The name of Abraham Lincoln was near and dear to our hearts in the darkest and most perilous hours of the Republic. We were no more ashamed of him when shrouded in clouds of darkness, of doubt, and defeat than when we saw him crowned with victory, honor, and glory. Our faith in him was often taxed and strained to the uttermost, but it never failed. When he tarried long in the mountain; when he strangely told us that we were the cause of the war; when he still more strangely told us that we were to leave the land in which we were born; when he refused to employ our arms in defence [sic] of the Union; when, after accepting our services as colored soldiers, he refused to retaliate our murder and torture as colored prisoners; when he told us he would save the Union if he could with slavery; when he revoked the Proclamation of Emancipation of General Fremont; when he refused to remove the popular commander of the Army of the Potomac, in the days of its inaction and defeat, who was more zealous in his efforts to protect slavery than to suppress rebellion; when we saw all this, and more, we were at times grieved, stunned, and greatly bewildered; but our hearts believed while they ached and bled. Nor was this, even at that time, a blind and unreasoning superstition. Despite the mist and haze that surrounded him; despite the tumult, the hurry, and confusion of the hour, we were able to take a comprehensive view of Abraham Lincoln, and to make reasonable allowance for the circumstances of his position. We saw him, measured him, and estimated him; not by stray utterances to injudicious and tedious delegations, who often tried his patience; not by isolated facts torn from their connection; not by any partial and imperfect glimpses, caught at inopportune moments; but by a broad survey, in the light of the stern logic of great events, and in view of that divinity which shapes our ends, rough hew them how we will, we came to the conclusion that the hour and the man of our redemption had somehow met in the person of Abraham Lincoln. It mattered little to us what language he might employ on special occasions; it mattered little to us, when we fully knew him, whether he was swift or slow in his movements; it was enough for us that Abraham Lincoln was at the head of a great movement, and was in living and earnest sympathy with that movement, which, in the nature of things, must go on until slavery should be utterly and forever abolished in the United States.
When, therefore, it shall be asked what we have to do with the memory of Abraham Lincoln, or what Abraham Lincoln had to do with us, the answer is ready, full, and complete. Though he loved Caesar less than Rome, though the Union was more to him than our freedom or our future, under his wise and beneficent rule we saw ourselves gradually lifted from the depths of slavery to the heights of liberty and manhood; under his wise and beneficent rule, and by measures approved and vigorously pressed by him, we saw that the handwriting of ages, in the form of prejudice and proscription, was rapidly fading away from the face of our whole country; under his rule, and in due time, about as soon after all as the country could tolerate the strange spectacle, we saw our brave sons and brothers laying off the rags of bondage, and being clothed all over in the blue uniforms of the soldiers of the United States; under his rule we saw two hundred thousand of our dark and dusky people responding to the call of Abraham Lincoln, and with muskets on their shoulders, and eagles on their buttons, timing their high footsteps to liberty and union under the national flag; under his rule we saw the independence of the black republic of [Haiti], the special object of slaveholding aversion and horror, fully recognized, and her minister, a colored gentleman, duly received here in the city of Washington; under his rule we saw the internal slave-trade, which so long disgraced the nation, abolished, and slavery abolished in the District of Columbia; under his rule we saw for the first time the law enforced against the foreign slave-trade, and the first slave-trader hanged like any other pirate or murderer; under his rule, assisted by the greatest captain of our age, and his inspiration, we saw the Confederate States, based upon the idea that our race must be slaves, and slaves forever, battered to pieces and scattered to the four winds; under his rule, and in the fullness of time, we saw Abraham Lincoln, after giving the slaveholders three months’ grace in which to save their hateful slave system, penning the immortal paper, which, though special in its language, was general in its principles and effect, making slavery forever impossible in the United States. Though we waited long, we saw all this and more.
........
I have said that President Lincoln was a white man, and shared the prejudices common to his countrymen towards the colored race. Looking back to his times and to the condition of his country, we are compelled to admit that this unfriendly feeling on his part may be safely set down as one element of his wonderful success in organizing the loyal American people for the tremendous conflict before them, and bringing them safely through that conflict. His great mission was to accomplish two things: first, to save his country from dismemberment and ruin; and, second, to free his country from the great crime of slavery. To do one or the other, or both, he must have the earnest sympathy and the powerful coöperation of his loyal fellow-countrymen. Without this primary and essential condition to success his efforts must have been vain and utterly fruitless. Had he put the abolition of slavery before the salvation of the Union, he would have inevitably driven from him a powerful class of the American people and rendered resistance to rebellion impossible. Viewed from the genuine abolition ground, Mr. Lincoln seemed tardy, cold, dull, and indifferent; but measuring him by the sentiment of his country, a sentiment he was bound as a statesman to consult, he was swift, zealous, radical, and determined.
Though Mr. Lincoln shared the prejudices of his white fellow-countrymen against the Negro, it is hardly necessary to say that in his heart of hearts he loathed and hated slavery. The man who could say, “Fondly do we hope, fervently do we pray, that this mighty scourge of war shall soon pass away, yet if God wills it continue till all the wealth piled by two hundred years of bondage shall have been wasted, and each drop of blood drawn by the lash shall have been paid for by one drawn by the sword, the judgments of the Lord are true and righteous altogether,” gives all needed proof of his feeling on the subject of slavery. He was willing, while the South was loyal, that it should have its pound of flesh, because he thought that it was so nominated in the bond; but farther than this no earthly power could make him go. have to head out for a while could have done more in depth and structured but I think this would be a start. He certinly won the war, and he freed some slaves yes, but half measures make the world a worse place.
He didn't have crappy generals, he had men who served at his pleasure that he was happy to rotate through when they didn't do what he wanted. So the same mistake that happened the first time was allowed to repeat over and over again because thats what he told them to do.
No other president sent Marines into a state's congress to influence the vote how he wanted to. How you can justify doing that once but not a second time to achieve the same ends is madness. The war would be fundamentally different without a legitimate Virginia government voting to join the rebellion. If his aim was to find himself in four years of the bloodiest war the continent has seen he certainly did well to get there.
He did not free the slaves; his proclamation after the battle of Antietam only freed slaves in states that were not under his command, and kept the slaves held in the states that he did control. The constitutional amendment, that the southern states weren't forced to approve to rejoin the union for some insane basic requirement, still allowed for slaves to continue to be held today. They die every year in California fighting the fires, they are still paid functionally nothing to be worked by prisons for profit. Felons are not granted the same rights as citizens once they are released, and find a much harder time finding legitimate work. The United states has the largest prison population and compete on a per capita nation with the other great examples of cuba, el salvador, rwanda, and turkmenistan. Even Guam and the American Samoa somehow make it into the top 10. The military wouldn't be desegregated until 1948, the Voting Rights act didn't come until 1965. If the south had surrendered earlier there is no way the 13th Amendment gets ratified. If he doesn't die at at the end of the war, what does be possibly do to fix the mess he made? He got to become a martyr for the cause, and frederick douglas was happy to make him one. I fail to see where Lincoln put freeing the slaves ahead of any of his goals and where he accomplished anything but the bare minimum to justify the sacrifices made for his mistakes. Obama wasn't a gay rights supporter until the moment it became inevitable to allow them to marry. To act like discrimination against gay people or hate crimes have ended would be just as silly as trying to act like lincoln made any risks or delivered any aid to slaves until he saw personal benifit to it.
The razing of the south was the final peice of damage to the souths economy. They were a export economy that suddenly had their exports cut off completely for four years. New orleans somehow got better under a military occupation that it suffered for most of the war, it still didn't have a functional economy for four years. Its population was ravaged by the war, what little wealth it still had was burned by it, and finally critical infrastructure was burned.
To see a great example of just how little fucks the government still gives about the south I have a video for everyone to watch about the real life sci-fi horror story that is the Kudzu infestation in the south.
Fuck the weather effects of climate change between ferral pigs and Kudzu we're going to be in massive trouble in the comeing decades.
|
On August 03 2025 12:01 Sermokala wrote:Show nested quote +On August 03 2025 08:35 Introvert wrote:On August 03 2025 06:21 Sermokala wrote:On August 03 2025 06:07 Introvert wrote:On August 03 2025 05:29 Sermokala wrote:On August 01 2025 10:06 Introvert wrote:On August 01 2025 08:24 Sermokala wrote: Lol, its incredibly stupid to say that Reagon was "great on domestic spending" when he nearly tripled the national debt. No one has been worse for the national finances than him in peacetime. Supply side economics have lead to every major economic problem we see today from the debt, to home prices, to wages. Him breaking PATCO was the turning point in labor participation in unions causeing the wealth disparity we see today.
He wasn't as bad as lincoln but he was one of the most long term determental reigns we've seen from any leader. Where to even begin. 1) If you are conservative who wants generally smaller government just holding domestic, non-military spending flat as a percentage of GDP is something you'll take. 2) "Supply side economics have lead to every major economic problem we see today from the debt, to home prices, to wages." No. A popular take, but generally the timings of when certain trends began to appear make things like "real wage" levels a more complicated story. 3) Union membership was declining for almost 3 decades before Reagan came into office. 4) "He wasn't as bad as lincoln but he was one of the most long term determental reigns we've seen from any leader." This sentence breaks my brain in multiple ways, but I must say I prefer not to use the word "reign" about presidents. Kudos for being brave enough to still call Lincoln a bad president I guess? Horribly wrong, but brave. A good choice usually is at the beginning. "Something you'd take" which is weird cope for a very clear example of horrendous government finances and a trend that has continued today. Yes, its a more complicated story, congratulations for trying to sidestep a forum argument with "yeah I don't understand it but I disagree so I don't find your argument valid" "Things were getting bad so the president showing everyone just how bad it was and normalizing that trend makes him not apart of the problem" is not the postive argument for him. Hes a terrible president, probably the worst we've had out of all of them. I'm not surprised so see you too cowardly to level any actual arguments about anything I said. If you're going to start with "where do I even begin" you could at least try to begin at some point. Your post just made a bunch of assertions, I'm not sure what you wanted in return. While I suppose it can seem cowardly to not fight you on specifics, calling Lincoln maybe our worst president is an opinion so heavily in the minority, so "out there", that I dare say the onus is on you to very forcefully fight for it. Because if there's one thing both Democrats and Republicans can agree on it's that Lincoln was a great president. I would have liked anything? You can't list my "assertions" point by point and then ignore them or sidestep them, before acting like you've done anything. I have given reasons for why Lincoln is a shitty president, he didn't free the slaves, he never made the war about slavery until after he won a draw, his management of the war is an incredible example of incompetence, and he was a halfway tyrant who was willing to send marines to arrest politicians in maryland but refused to do it in virginia. His best general, the most wealthy of the southern states, and the state literally next door to the capital. But we had to fight a war for 4 years, draining the nation of manpower, wealth and infrastructure because he got cold feet from the first time he was an out and out dictator. The literal examples of dictator have clearly good ones and clearly bad ones. Examples that Lincoln would have been able to study. There is no defending his insensate need for a general to attack a south that has no allies and no navy. The British were never going to go to war with the nation that supplied half its grain supply. There was no need to burn a south already on the verge of collapse. The only victory achieved was a territory bitter, angry, poor, and stupid that continues to be so to this day. I think most of your first part here has a simple reply. Whatever his initial goals, he in fact DID win the war, and he DID in fact help free the slaves. I am curious about what type of mental gymnastics are required here to contend otherwise. That part just isn't disputable and it's the hinge point for his entire legacy. Lincoln had famously crappy generals until he found some that were worth something. but Lincoln wasn't a battlefield commander. What Lincoln did better than presidents both before and after him was to manage the political process to get to the right result. His pre-war reluctance to forcing the south to free their slaves was matched by his fervent opposition to its expansion into new states to the west. This was a major topic of the "Lincoln-Douglas debates" were Douglas thought that each state should chose. While only a member of the House, Lincoln had the political cache and well known views prior to his election as president that offered him the legitimacy and benefit of the doubt. It was the South that truly messed up by deciding upon succession, even before Lincoln was president; they buried themselves. And the *south* itself made the war about slavery, this is again not really controversial. of course he treated different places differently. Maryland was a hotbed of confederate sympathy and it was right on DC's doorstep. Virginia meanwhile voted to succeed very early. This basic dynamic applies to a lot of your complaints. He had to make decisions based on the best he could do at the moment. They weren't always perfect. if the razing of the south had been unnecessary then they could have surrendered earlier. Lincoln's famous second inaugural briefly showed the attitude he wanted to have towards a newly subdued south, it's a great tragedy he died and that led to a fight between Radical Republicans in Congress and a loyalist but southern Democrat president. Maybe Lincoln was right also in his second inaugural when he said If we shall suppose that American slavery is one of those offenses which in the providence of God must needs come but which having continued through His appointed time He now wills to remove and that He gives to both North and South this terrible war as the woe due to those by whom the offense came shall we discern therein any departure from those divine attributes which the believers in a living God always ascribe to Him. Fondly do we hope ~ fervently do we pray ~ that this mighty scourge of war may speedily pass away. Yet, if God wills that it continue until all the wealth piled by the bondsman's two hundred and fifty years of unrequited toil shall be sunk and until every drop of blood drawn with the lash shall be paid by another drawn with the sword as was said three thousand years ago so still it must be said 'the judgments of the Lord are true and righteous altogether.' That's how he viewed, blood and death as punishment. As for Lincoln's legacy for slaves I will leave that in the capable hands of Frederick Douglass. I hate to post so much text but it really doesn't get any better than this. The whole thing is worth a read. + Show Spoiler +He was preëminently the white man’s President, entirely devoted to the welfare of white men. He was ready and willing at any time during the first years of his administration to deny, postpone, and sacrifice the rights of humanity in the colored people to promote the welfare of the white people of this country. In all his education and feeling he was an American of the Americans. He came into the Presidential chair upon one principle alone, namely, opposition to the extension of slavery. His arguments in furtherance of this policy had their motive and mainspring in his patriotic devotion to the interests of his own race. To protect, defend, and perpetuate slavery in the states where it existed Abraham Lincoln was not less ready than any other President to draw the sword of the nation. He was ready to execute all the supposed guarantees of the United States Constitution in favor of the slave system anywhere inside the slave states. He was willing to pursue, recapture, and send back the fugitive slave to his master, and to suppress a slave rising for liberty, though his guilty master were already in arms against the Government. The race to which we belong were not the special objects of his consideration. Knowing this, I concede to you, my white fellow-citizens, a preëminence in this worship at once full and supreme. First, midst, and last, you and yours were the objects of his deepest affection and his most earnest solicitude. You are the children of Abraham Lincoln. We are at best only his step-children; children by adoption, children by forces of circumstances and necessity. To you it especially belongs to sound his praises, to preserve and perpetuate his memory, to multiply his statues, to hang his pictures high upon your walls, and commend his example, for to you he was a great and glorious friend and benefactor. Instead of supplanting you at his altar, we would exhort you to build high his monuments; let them be of the most costly material, of the most cunning workmanship; let their forms be symmetrical, beautiful, and perfect; let their bases be upon solid rocks, and their summits lean against the unchanging blue, overhanging sky, and let them endure forever! But while in the abundance of your wealth, and in the fullness of your just and patriotic devotion, you do all this, we entreat you to despise not the humble offering we this day unveil to view; for while Abraham Lincoln saved for you a country, he delivered us from a bondage, according to Jefferson, one hour of which was worse than ages of the oppression your fathers rose in rebellion to oppose.
Fellow-citizens, ours is no new-born zeal and devotion—merely a thing of this moment. The name of Abraham Lincoln was near and dear to our hearts in the darkest and most perilous hours of the Republic. We were no more ashamed of him when shrouded in clouds of darkness, of doubt, and defeat than when we saw him crowned with victory, honor, and glory. Our faith in him was often taxed and strained to the uttermost, but it never failed. When he tarried long in the mountain; when he strangely told us that we were the cause of the war; when he still more strangely told us that we were to leave the land in which we were born; when he refused to employ our arms in defence [sic] of the Union; when, after accepting our services as colored soldiers, he refused to retaliate our murder and torture as colored prisoners; when he told us he would save the Union if he could with slavery; when he revoked the Proclamation of Emancipation of General Fremont; when he refused to remove the popular commander of the Army of the Potomac, in the days of its inaction and defeat, who was more zealous in his efforts to protect slavery than to suppress rebellion; when we saw all this, and more, we were at times grieved, stunned, and greatly bewildered; but our hearts believed while they ached and bled. Nor was this, even at that time, a blind and unreasoning superstition. Despite the mist and haze that surrounded him; despite the tumult, the hurry, and confusion of the hour, we were able to take a comprehensive view of Abraham Lincoln, and to make reasonable allowance for the circumstances of his position. We saw him, measured him, and estimated him; not by stray utterances to injudicious and tedious delegations, who often tried his patience; not by isolated facts torn from their connection; not by any partial and imperfect glimpses, caught at inopportune moments; but by a broad survey, in the light of the stern logic of great events, and in view of that divinity which shapes our ends, rough hew them how we will, we came to the conclusion that the hour and the man of our redemption had somehow met in the person of Abraham Lincoln. It mattered little to us what language he might employ on special occasions; it mattered little to us, when we fully knew him, whether he was swift or slow in his movements; it was enough for us that Abraham Lincoln was at the head of a great movement, and was in living and earnest sympathy with that movement, which, in the nature of things, must go on until slavery should be utterly and forever abolished in the United States.
When, therefore, it shall be asked what we have to do with the memory of Abraham Lincoln, or what Abraham Lincoln had to do with us, the answer is ready, full, and complete. Though he loved Caesar less than Rome, though the Union was more to him than our freedom or our future, under his wise and beneficent rule we saw ourselves gradually lifted from the depths of slavery to the heights of liberty and manhood; under his wise and beneficent rule, and by measures approved and vigorously pressed by him, we saw that the handwriting of ages, in the form of prejudice and proscription, was rapidly fading away from the face of our whole country; under his rule, and in due time, about as soon after all as the country could tolerate the strange spectacle, we saw our brave sons and brothers laying off the rags of bondage, and being clothed all over in the blue uniforms of the soldiers of the United States; under his rule we saw two hundred thousand of our dark and dusky people responding to the call of Abraham Lincoln, and with muskets on their shoulders, and eagles on their buttons, timing their high footsteps to liberty and union under the national flag; under his rule we saw the independence of the black republic of [Haiti], the special object of slaveholding aversion and horror, fully recognized, and her minister, a colored gentleman, duly received here in the city of Washington; under his rule we saw the internal slave-trade, which so long disgraced the nation, abolished, and slavery abolished in the District of Columbia; under his rule we saw for the first time the law enforced against the foreign slave-trade, and the first slave-trader hanged like any other pirate or murderer; under his rule, assisted by the greatest captain of our age, and his inspiration, we saw the Confederate States, based upon the idea that our race must be slaves, and slaves forever, battered to pieces and scattered to the four winds; under his rule, and in the fullness of time, we saw Abraham Lincoln, after giving the slaveholders three months’ grace in which to save their hateful slave system, penning the immortal paper, which, though special in its language, was general in its principles and effect, making slavery forever impossible in the United States. Though we waited long, we saw all this and more.
........
I have said that President Lincoln was a white man, and shared the prejudices common to his countrymen towards the colored race. Looking back to his times and to the condition of his country, we are compelled to admit that this unfriendly feeling on his part may be safely set down as one element of his wonderful success in organizing the loyal American people for the tremendous conflict before them, and bringing them safely through that conflict. His great mission was to accomplish two things: first, to save his country from dismemberment and ruin; and, second, to free his country from the great crime of slavery. To do one or the other, or both, he must have the earnest sympathy and the powerful coöperation of his loyal fellow-countrymen. Without this primary and essential condition to success his efforts must have been vain and utterly fruitless. Had he put the abolition of slavery before the salvation of the Union, he would have inevitably driven from him a powerful class of the American people and rendered resistance to rebellion impossible. Viewed from the genuine abolition ground, Mr. Lincoln seemed tardy, cold, dull, and indifferent; but measuring him by the sentiment of his country, a sentiment he was bound as a statesman to consult, he was swift, zealous, radical, and determined.
Though Mr. Lincoln shared the prejudices of his white fellow-countrymen against the Negro, it is hardly necessary to say that in his heart of hearts he loathed and hated slavery. The man who could say, “Fondly do we hope, fervently do we pray, that this mighty scourge of war shall soon pass away, yet if God wills it continue till all the wealth piled by two hundred years of bondage shall have been wasted, and each drop of blood drawn by the lash shall have been paid for by one drawn by the sword, the judgments of the Lord are true and righteous altogether,” gives all needed proof of his feeling on the subject of slavery. He was willing, while the South was loyal, that it should have its pound of flesh, because he thought that it was so nominated in the bond; but farther than this no earthly power could make him go. have to head out for a while could have done more in depth and structured but I think this would be a start. He certinly won the war, and he freed some slaves yes, but half measures make the world a worse place. He didn't have crappy generals, he had men who served at his pleasure that he was happy to rotate through when they didn't do what he wanted. So the same mistake that happened the first time was allowed to repeat over and over again because thats what he told them to do. No other president sent Marines into a state's congress to influence the vote how he wanted to. How you can justify doing that once but not a second time to achieve the same ends is madness. The war would be fundamentally different without a legitimate Virginia government voting to join the rebellion. If his aim was to find himself in four years of the bloodiest war the continent has seen he certainly did well to get there. He did not free the slaves; his proclamation after the battle of Antietam only freed slaves in states that were not under his command, and kept the slaves held in the states that he did control. The constitutional amendment, that the southern states weren't forced to approve to rejoin the union for some insane basic requirement, still allowed for slaves to continue to be held today. They die every year in California fighting the fires, they are still paid functionally nothing to be worked by prisons for profit. Felons are not granted the same rights as citizens once they are released, and find a much harder time finding legitimate work. The United states has the largest prison population and compete on a per capita nation with the other great examples of cuba, el salvador, rwanda, and turkmenistan. Even Guam and the American Samoa somehow make it into the top 10. The military wouldn't be desegregated until 1948, the Voting Rights act didn't come until 1965. If the south had surrendered earlier there is no way the 13th Amendment gets ratified. If he doesn't die at at the end of the war, what does be possibly do to fix the mess he made? He got to become a martyr for the cause, and frederick douglas was happy to make him one. I fail to see where Lincoln put freeing the slaves ahead of any of his goals and where he accomplished anything but the bare minimum to justify the sacrifices made for his mistakes. Obama wasn't a gay rights supporter until the moment it became inevitable to allow them to marry. To act like discrimination against gay people or hate crimes have ended would be just as silly as trying to act like lincoln made any risks or delivered any aid to slaves until he saw personal benifit to it. The razing of the south was the final peice of damage to the souths economy. They were a export economy that suddenly had their exports cut off completely for four years. New orleans somehow got better under a military occupation that it suffered for most of the war, it still didn't have a functional economy for four years. Its population was ravaged by the war, what little wealth it still had was burned by it, and finally critical infrastructure was burned. To see a great example of just how little fucks the government still gives about the south I have a video for everyone to watch about the real life sci-fi horror story that is the Kudzu infestation in the south. Fuck the weather effects of climate change between ferral pigs and Kudzu we're going to be in massive trouble in the comeing decades.
"He certinly won the war, and he freed some slaves yes, but half measures make the world a worse place."
The world was a better place after the Union won. This is, in my opinion, the core of your error.
at least we've got to "he won the war."
His generals did very often NOT do what he wanted, that's why he had to keep looking until he found people like Grant.
The underlying premise of your posts appears to be that the Union should have been allowed to dissolve (and therefore slavery should have been allowed to exist). I could justify a lot if the government of state directly on the border to DC was in danger of becoming a threat to the seat of the national government.
I am curious what that alternative history would be in your scenario? Should Lincoln have lost the election? Should the South have been allowed to continue holding the entire country hostage?
I think the long discourse comparing certain policies today to race-based chattel slavery displays both the moral and logical vacuity of your position. It's an absurd comparison.
After the Civil War, that Lincoln oversaw, was finished, slavery was gone. Was everything perfect? No. But it was gone.
"I fail to see where Lincoln put freeing the slaves ahead of any of his goals and where he accomplished anything but the bare minimum to justify the sacrifices made for his mistakes." If you actually read the excerpt you'd see that even back then eveyone knew he didn't start with the goal of freeing the slaves. But so what?
This just looks like you are trying to judge him against some ideal you have created in your own head.
I view the campaign of destruction of the South as an unfortunate reality of the state of the war, it's not clear to me why it would have been better that the north had played nicer if it meant risking the survival of the rebellion or prolonging the work of the union in ending it and slavery.
The South was in a state of rebellion because they wanted to continue keeping human beings as peices of expendable property. I don't feel bad for them, though of course I have some sympathy for those who caught in the crossfire. But there are always people in the crossfire.
Just, your assertions underlying your opnions here are factually untrue or irrelevant. Moreover, you hold him responsible for things that happened after he was dead that are the direct result of the actions of those who were still there after him.
No, Lincoln didn't have the goal initially of freeing the slaves. No, the world wasn't all sunshine ans lollipops afterwards, yes there was a lot of death and destruction. Yet in the end, slavery was ended and the Union was restored.
|
On August 03 2025 04:50 KwarK wrote: I’m out of the loop, what’s going on? Sydney Sweeney is doing an ad campaign with with American Eagle to promote their jeans. In one of the commercials she's talking about genes, how they're passed down and affects things hair color, eye color, and personality as the camera. The camera movement gets to her face and she say "my jeans are blue" and then it goes to campaign's tag line of "Sydney Sweeney has great jeans."
It just... at best feels like an unforced error to talk about how a conventionally attractive, white woman with blonde hair and blue eyes has "great jeans" after talking about genes the entire commercial. At worst there's "Is this leaning into eugenics?" ick which is amplified by, well, reality.
|
On August 04 2025 02:56 Gahlo wrote:Sydney Sweeney is doing an ad campaign with with American Eagle to promote their jeans. In one of the commercials she's talking about genes, how they're passed down and affects things hair color, eye color, and personality as the camera. The camera movement gets to her face and she say "my jeans are blue" and then it goes to campaign's tag line of "Sydney Sweeney has great jeans." It just... at best feels like an unforced error to talk about how a conventionally attractive, white woman with blonde hair and blue eyes has "great jeans" after talking about genes the entire commercial. At worst there's "Is this leaning into eugenics?" ick which is amplified by, well, reality.
I think it is just competent marketing. People are talking about it. People have opinions and care about it. When was the last time you talked about any ad campaign without controversy?
In fact, i think everyone who gets into that discussion just got played by a bunch of advertisement assholes.
|
The thing is that there is more talking about the reactions which came from basically no one relevant and it spawned a weeks long news cycle, it seems very contrived, like we are back in the days of SJW discourse which was, again, based on hundreds of articles being written about a few tweets and articles posted by people with very small followings and then framed as "the left is melting down".
It's basically what the whole anti-Woke moral panic bullshit was built on and it's pretty depressing to see it's still so effective.
|
Granted, I'm neither in the US not chronically online, but it seems to me BJ brought this up, which is entirely on-brand for him, and then the thread discussed *that*. I'd say that's on-brand too, but GH would probably point out that the Epstein stuff is also a pointless distraction.
|
|
|
|
|
|