The south wanted to force the North to treat escaped slaves as stolen property.
The North said they were people.
So the south tried to force the feds into helping them.
The feds told the south "state rights, the Fed can't do that".
So the South started a civil war against the federal government, in an attempt to get a more powerful federal government.
Which actually did work? The federal government went ahead and banned slavery outright during the war. Something Lincoln had spent years saying the federal government couldn't do.
So by trumps logic:
When conservatives try to do something, we should just do the opposite because if they fight a civil war over it, that's what'll happen anyways
The feds told the south “state rights, the Fed can’t do that”.
It's worse. The Feds told the South "Okay, we'll make it law." And that still wasn't enough for the South.
Go on... how would you have negotiated the South out of slavery?
Are you sure that's what he would be negotiating for?
Probably the opposite, but I think he is honestly trying to suggest that the South could have been negotiated out of chattel slavery. He's a moron, let's not forget that.
And a racist, let's not forget that.
I’m not sure if he’s a moron since he knows so much about magnets. I like John Deere
This orange asshole is completely surrounded by White Nationalists, Neo Nazis, KKK Members, Confederate Apologists, etc. etc. They all sit around spewing this shite to each other and then he plays their greatest hits on stage to the Qult45 crowds.
Wasn’t Iowa on the side of the north? Lol
For people who fly the Confederate battle flag it's really lost all original meaning and they just fly it to be edgy and whisper their racist opinions.
I attended a historical reenactment of the 17th century near the northern Iowa border that used to be fun pre-trump and saw so many flags that should not be (trump flags, combo trump/American flags, combo American/Confederate flags, pure Confederate flags, you name it) it really felt like the trumpists pushed out some of the history nerds who were there to nerd out over pre-colonial history
Before the war, Lincoln wasn't an abolitionist. He wanted to stop new states from having slavery, and keep no slavery where it was. He was fine with letting the south keep their slaves for the sake of the Union.
The problem was the South did not want to limit their potential to grow slavery to new states, and decided to go to war over it.
Still doubt negotiation could have worked. Lincoln really did not want to go to war in the first place.
I judge people more by their deeds than their desires, especially their desires before the fact. Lincoln ended up doing the right thing. He also ended up successfully seeing the country through one of the most difficult times, if not the most difficult time, in its history. He is, to me, rightfully regarded as one of our greatest presidents regardless of his thoughts on slavery before the war.
The problem was the South did not want to limit their potential to grow slavery to new states, and decided to go to war over it.
This shows exactly why Trump is wrong.
The reason they didn't want new states to all be free states is that then Congress would have the votes to make slavery illegal.
Lol they just redefined the terms of slavery.
Slavery is alive and well in the USA.
They'll sacrifice their lives for a person who is demonstrably the actual biggest loser in history, and he just gets more loser-y, folks, okay... If any of you are starting to have your memories fade, here's a quick refresher to read this morning and then copy and send to your aunt karen in Missouri.
0 re-elections won
1 term president
2 times impeached
3 marriages
4 inch lifts in his shoes
5 kids, from 3 different mothers
6 bankruptcies
7 US Capitol police suing him for Jan 6 terrorist insurrection and murder of police
8 trillion + dollars added to the US debt in a single term
9 trump lawyers sanctioned by federal judge for lying in frivolous election fraud lawsuits and ordered to pay defendant's legal fees
10 years that trump paid $0 in income taxes between 2000 and 2015. ($0 to cops, teachers, roads, prisons, disaster relief, etc)
11 trump associates charged with serious crimes over the past 5 years
12 million votes (the big lie) - trump claims he won the 2020 election by 12 million votes when in reality, he lost by about 7 million votes.
13 of August, 2021 - one of multiple days that trump was supposed to magically become president again according to Qanon and a crack addicted pillow salesman (the two most respected information sources in the gop)
14 year old girl in a youth choir that trump approached in 1992 to say, "Wow! Just think - in a couple years I'll be dating you."
15 originally confirmed cases of COVID in the US trump said would soon be, “down to close to zero.” followed by, “like a miracle, it will disappear.” - over 1,000,000 Americans have since died of COVID and it continues to kill 4 years later.
16 years old - age of daughter ivanka when she hosted "miss teen" pageant and, according to long time trump associate Noel Casler, "trump called her over in the middle of a rehearsal and had her give him a lap dance while he leered at the crew."
17 known trump and russia investigations from local, state and federal prosecutors
18 gop senators that ignored trump threats / warnings and supported Biden admin's infrastructure bill.
19 as in COVID19 - trump was verified as the single largest source of disinformation on the virus, with a Cornell study claiming that 38% of the "misinformation conversation" originated with trump
20 the day in January, 2021, when Biden was sworn in despite trump inciting a violent insurrection to stop election verification at the US Capitol.
21 gun salute that trump ordered for himself when he left office after a humiliating defeat, even though he never served in the military, famously called military members "losers" and "suckers" and actively avoided the draft with a cowardly "bone spurs" excuse.
22 date in August, 2021, when Alabama hate rally crowd booed trump for finally saying people should get vaccinated, only after 700,000 Americans have died due mostly to his failure as president
23 as in wrestlemania 23 in 2007 where trump, a cartoon level failure with no other prospects, participated in a fake bet that a proxy wrestler would win a fake fight on his behalf or he would shave his wig and hair plugs off.
24 day in August, 2021, when trump actually filed a lawsuit in Florida court against YouTube, a private company, demanding that they reinstate his YouTube channel like a desperate, irrelevant embarrassment with no platforms left to abuse.
25 plus credible sexual assault allegations against trump, spanning decades and with accusers starting as young as 13 years old at time of assault.
At a campaign event in Iowa today, former President Donald Trump explained that the Civil War didn't have to happen. "So many mistakes were made," Trump said. "I think you could have negotiated that."
"This is something that could've been negotiated," he added. "…That was a tough one for our country…. Abraham Lincoln? If you negotiated it, you probably wouldn't even know who Abraham Lincoln was… That would've been okay…. I know it very well… I know the whole process that they went though. They just couldn't get along."
They couldn’t get along,..because one side wanted to keep all their slaves.
Are those ellipses for skipped text or to represent pauses in his speech?
It's how he speaks. I am a foreigner and when he first came at the head of the USA, the journalists didn't know how to translate his speaches. Usually, the sentences have one meaning that you can translate into one sentence, thanks to the context. With him, it's a couple of sentences with no link and the last sentences have absolutely no context. You just can't translate this.
So I wonder what degree of slavery we'd have ended up with? A little? Almost as much? 50% slavery?
What a fucking idiot.
Slavery is already legal in US if you arrest a person first. That is an exception of the 13th amendment,
I assume that is why US has the biggest prison population in the World and is 6th country in the World by per capita incarceration rate (first western country). If China and India would incarcerate it's citizens as much as US, China would have 4 times and India 10 times it's current prison population. And of course white people are about 8 times less likely to be incarcerated then black people.
"Land of the free"
Jesus, I thought that back guy was wearing a Confederate flag hat for a second...
I agree with your overall point.
My only quibble is China (and other heavily authoritarian countries that aren't forthcoming with data). I don't know that we can trust numbers coming out of China, given that many subjects are heavily censored. For instance, are the Uyghurs counted as in prison if they're in focible "re-education" camps? Do people that simply disappear get counted in those figures?
I don't know, but you can say that for any state. Does Guantanamo Bay prisoners count in US, they are offbroad just so they can legally be tortured. It is all play with rules. Do 2 million civilans killed in US invasions in middle east count? Do Palestinians count to be imrpissioned by the US since Israel couln't do it without their support, to trap them in those regions.
Either way, even if not inside the country, US definitely is more agressive overall and kills and imprissions more people. It is just that in the western world, their media propaganda is a lot stronger than Chinas.
Does Guantanamo Bay prisoners count in US
Even if you counted them, it would have a negligible effect on statistics. Last time I checked, there were less than 10 people being held there from the GWOT.
No one can really know how many people are illegally improsioned, directly or indirectly, through puppet governments, by US or by China. We can either messure by the numbers we have, or we can make up our own numbers. There is no reason to believe that China lies about it's numbers any more then US, everybody uses some loopholes.
US is funding many other governments, like Saudi Arabia and Israel to put people in prisons and kill people for them, all around the World. I don't see the point of questioning China numbers and not US numbers.
The funny thing is that Lincoln pretty much said they could keep their slaves for the sake of keeping the union together. He had made it clear he wanted to abolish slavery, but he wasn't going to risk the nation over it. He basically opened with an offer to let the south have everything.
The South, however, believed that the day would come where the US would abolish slavery, and they needed to get out before that happened.
Given the South were handed everything they wanted in the default position, no amount of negotiation would have worked.
So what you're saying is, Trump was Wrong? Holy shit someone needs to tell the Press! Word needs to get out that Trump was wrong about a thing! Nobody will believe it!
I suppose Trump was right... The south could have easily negotiated to get what they wanted. So while the free states could not have negotiated, the slave states absolutely could have. They were just pissy that too many new states were choosing to be free states and they were outnumbered and wanted a country where they weren't outnumbered on slavery.
Although I hate to attribute anything Trump says to having any sort of "deeper" meaning, I do wonder if there's a sort of implied threat here, he does tend to talk like a mob boss and tries not to explicitly get himself nailed for things, at least sometimes. Like he's really saying, "we're going to have another Civil War if I lose or if you keep coming after me in court, but it doesn't have to be like that, we can negotiate..." which I feel like others in his camp have floated that idea previously. They assume the multiple felonies that Trump has been indicted for is all political theater meant to put pressure on him and that all he has to do is just leave the race and that will make all his problems go away. He's trying to use his candidacy more as a bargaining chip, as a Get-Out-of-Jail-Free card, while his supporters are ready to tear down American democracy in the name of that orange POS.
That was the thought that occurred to me when I originally said no negotiation. My amendment to the position that it was entirely within the power of the insurrectionists to negotiate was after reconsidering the situation at the time, and amused by extrapolating it to Trump's current position. Yes, negotiation is possible, so go ahead Trump and make concessions. Oh he didn't mean a negotiation where he/insurrectionists would have to make any concessions? Well that wouldn't have been a possibility for the 1860s, and I don't think it would work now.
That's pretty much what Lincoln tried to do with his inaugural speech after several states had seceded already. He tried to talk them down and promised that the North would not interfere with their life heavy-handedly but that insurrection was too serious for him to ignore. And then they stormed Fort Sumter and forced his hand. He didn't even commit to the cause of abolishing slavery until the third year of the war.
I mean technically yes, the South could have negotiated a surrender any time they wanted.
I wish Lemmy had a way to high-five people.
It's frustrating that historically lost causes based on hatred, like the slavers of the Confederacy or any form of fascism, are never fully punished for what they do. Each time a war ends the history writers make thousands of exceptions for people who were clearly working for their own self interest at the cost of society.
Any time a right wing, conservative cause loses (which is all the time based on history) they need to be burned bad: take away their money and livelihoods and make them reliant on social services.
Would that actually work? How long should the north have kept armies raised and occupied the south to completely root out all bad guys? How long of doing that before you become the bad guys? How would you keep the trials from just becoming witch hunts?
You can't throw the book at every vague supporter, but you CAN throw it at participants and organizers as a show of what the next guys will get.
People would think twice about insurrection if everyone who J6ed faced charges as enemy combatants instead of the slap on the wrist crap most of them are getting.
There's a fine line to walk between letting folks off too easy and making it even worse by going scorched earth on them.
If they were treated as enemy combatants with their rights as citizens revoked, then you are likely to inspire more anger and righteousness than fear.
The mindset of those that are receptive to the position of the insurrectionists is that government is undemocratic, corrupt, and authorian against them. It deflates their position when those folks get due process and frequently get off with light sentences. Incidentally, a lot of the key people got 4 to 18 years in prison, hardly a slap on the wrist.
Lots of precedent where any initial offense is forgotten in the wake of an oppressive response. The best results have been where the "victor" exhibits a reasonable response rather than trying to go all in, especially when you are dealing with millions of folks roughly on the side of the guilty.
Sure, but by your logic - the initial offense has happened. An attempt against the government was made. We'll see how the soft buttpat response goes.
When they do it again - enemy combatants. Full stop. The anger and righteousness is already there, rooted in false narrative nonsense. You can't buttpat your way out of that. If they get a buttpat, it's cause the govt knows they're right, and they're emboldened. If you throw the book at em it's cause the govt is against the people and they're emboldened. They played their hand, and that hand is violence.
Fuck em, hang em all - it's what they were trying to do, it's only fitting. No tolerance for the intolerant.
I am a bit concerned that all this ire aimed at the plebes trying to storm the capitol building detracts from the more significant threat. They were trying to influence election officials to 'come up with votes' and failing that, forging fake electors into the process and refusing to certify results. The "white collar" attempts to subvert the election are a more significant threat than a bunch of randos trying to break into the capitol building.
But with respect to the people storming the capitol building, as stated, key folks in that got years of prison time. I would consider that more than a "soft buttpat". Nearly half of participants received at least some prison time.
Oh they should 100% face the same fate. I'd say hang them too but I don't have the easy line from treason to hanging that I do for people who actively participated in violence.
This whole Democrat shtick of "we can't say anything bad about Republicans or stop them from fucking everything because it's undemocratic to be mean to fascists" needs to stop.
If they try to subvert the process, lock them up for life. If their followers get mad and take action a la J6, take them down and take prisoners. They are enemies of this country, it's time to treat them as such. We've tried giving an inch for decades and every time they take a mile.
Oh give me a break with this bullshit. We got almost 100 years of Jim crow because racists and cowards like you were more worried about the feelings of white supremacists than doing the right thing. Reconstruction was working.
If the south hadn't even seceded, I guarantee you you would still have had those laws happen. The biggest difference would have been the south kept their slaves longer if they never seceded.
Being too weak on human rights was the problem for Jim Crow, not being too weak on rebellion. The hypothetical occupiying armies would have been there to squash rebellion, not try to further elevate rights of the black population.
While more equal rights might have been a more prevailing sentiment in the free states, they didn't have the will to stand up for those equal rights in states hundreds of miles away. They might have managed to abolish slavery in 12 or so years federally if left to their own devices, but they weren't going to police the nuance of citizens' rights in states they knew so little about.
Just. Hang. Them. All. Till. Death.
I can't wait to read this fascist waste of oxygen's obituary.
Same.
I hope it's not as revisionist as Kissinger's was. Or take as long to happen.
This idiot also wanted to cure your COVID infected body with bleach injections and UV light
Surprised he's not calling it the "War of Northern Aggression" just to really try to suck off his base.
The north is racist too. He wouldn’t want to alienate them. After all Montana has the highest concentration of white supremacists per capita.
California apparently has the most hate groups by total amount.
I verified Montana with another website. If you want to know the full list of per capita. Just google it. But all that hate isn’t trapped in the south. Though, I admit that there is more than enough to go around down here.
Montana was not a state until well after the end of the civil war so it isn't a northern or southern state.
Right. What I was saying is. Calling the civil war the “war of northern aggression” may make some of the racists that currently live in the northern states upset.
I meant northern as a literal geographic area. Like how Oregon is in the north. As opposed to some arbitrary line like the 31st parallel, or the mason Dixon line.
No, much like I said in my comment. Now, just like then. The racists are everywhere. They are in the north and the south. Trump welcomes racists from all over the US irregardless of geographical location.
They already call it that. I think he'll need to up the game a bit.
Maybe the alternative war to make America England again?
I know They call it that but it's a low he hadn't discovered he could sink to yet.
It's never good to negotiate with fascists.
You hear that, Democrats?
They never hear that. It's always about "bipartisanship." And these are who we're stuck voting for to stop the Republican agenda. Fucking hell.
The other thing I hear from status quo warriors is "We want things back to normal."
No, we fucking don't! Normal sucks donkey ass for a lot of people.
And they don't want to put things back to normal anyway. They always want whatever the status quo is maintained.
"If normal was progressive and helpful, then we want whatever came before that" is the subtext. It's moustache-twirlingly evil.
The Democrats are getting rich.
They couldn't care less what you and I think about their paid inaction at the federal level.
I love the photo they used. Saving that for future memes.
Looks like he might be in the middle of filling his diaper. My kid used to make the same face.
I only came to the comments to see if people were discussing the picture lol.
I can think of so many memes to 'improve'.
Photo is not altered.
This dude looks like Gritty. And that's an insult to Gritty.
Negotiate? He's suggesting things would've gone better if we'd agreed to mostly keep slavery but soften it a little in exchange for concessions? Well, that's horrifying.
That precise negotiation is how we got the civil war, as well as a number of other completely busted, antidemocratic US institutions like the Senate. Making compromises with slavers.
It's all so bad. The House should have thousands of members to give states proportional representation, but instead Alabama votes count for more than California votes. In turn, this makes the electoral* college unbalanced too in the same way. There's a huge bias towards rural voting power.
*damn auto correct 😠
And then people act like "real America" is like a suburb in Ohio or rural parts of Louisiana.
There's ~4 million people in Louisana. There's ~8 million people in New York City alone. Cities are as or more "real" than the other parts.
this makes the electrical college unbalanced
Yeah they really need to get some more positively charged ions up in that bitch
To be fair, California hasn't built any new housing in 60 years.
California could have 60-70 million people. Instead we are just handing 30 million voters over to Republican states.
If California had 70million citizens, current district sizes are around 700k. So it would have about 100 districts. It would have about 1/5th of the total electoral college vote.
It's honestly insane that New York and Cali have purposefully handed over political power to republicans since the 60s.
As I understand it, because every state still has to have at least 1 House member (and thus 1 electoral college vote). Without increasing the size of the House then all that can do is reduce the proportional power of each vote within California. The State itself becomes more powerful, sure, but the votes of citizens within California are worth less and less as the population grows. It's a really bad system.
Each district is roughly 700k people. A few districts are bigger, a few are smaller.
California could completely dominate the US House of Representatives and the electoral college.
A state becomes more powerful by having more people.
California has much much more power than Wyoming, even tho each voter in Wyoming might have a tiny bit more power than each voter in Cali.
Yeah, but it's not just Wyoming. It's all the little flyover states all teaming up against big bad California, and using their disproportionate electoral power to do so - it's the reason we've had multiple presidents that lost the electoral college, after all.
Yeah sure they can get 20 extra electoral college votes combined, but California would have 20-30 more itself. California just handed these over to republicans by refusing to build housing for 60 years.
New York has done the same.
We've just handed tons of political power over Republicans, who already have a natural advantage.
Hard to know with Trump.
His usual way of "negotiating" is to demand what he wants is the limit, while demanding that the other party capitulate to whatever is best for Trump.
Maybe my vote could have been 2/3 of a white vote? And we could negotiate with women. Maybe they could just tell us who to vote for but not actually do any voting and we could then have a family vote?
Translation: I am going to negotiate a new civil war
This is one that I deal with all the time with the extreme right, the extreme left, the extreme LGBTQ..., the extreme vegans etc.
You have to negotiate!
No, we don't. Some starting positions are so ridiculous that they leave no room for negotiation. No one is owed a negotiation. Sometimes the answer is, "No."
EDIT: A couple of pedantic extremist apologists and a small brigade of their friends tried to shout and insult me down. They failed. They weren't interested in a conversation, just silencing someone whose message they didn't like. Do you know how I know this? Not a single one of them asked me to explain myself. Not a single one asked me why am extremist is an extremist.
All extremists have a pathological belief that they are somehow superior and that that superiority justified their anti-social behavior. So neo-Nazi extremists have a pathological belief that they are racially superior and that that superiority justifies harassing, intimidating, and threatening people they believe are racially inferior to leave. Vegan extremist believe that they are morally superior and that that moral superiority justifies their harassing, intimidating, and bullying restaurateurs butchers, grocers, farmers, and their customers to change their diets to comply with the extremists beliefs.
So, the (pedantic) details may be different but the underlying pathology is the same.
An extremist is an extremist. They're all pathological assholes with grandiose delusions.
Some of those are not the same
Extremists are extremists.
Vegan extremists are not the same as Neo-Nazi extremists.
That's why by they're called different things, pedant, but an extremist is an extremist.
Yes, and a criminal is a criminal. You are very smart.
For example, all extremists resort to pretty insults when their attempts to derail the conversation fail. They also attempt to brigade anyone they don't agree with into silence but downvotes on Lemmy are completely impotent and leave the extremists flailing pathetically. Extremists are extremists. They have different causes and hate different people but their behaviours are very, very similar and they are very easy to spot.
No dude, this isnt the other guy flailing. You refused to explains your point and instead decided to double down and continue to not explain your point.
Saying extremists are extremists means nothing because extremism can vary from situation to situation. John Brown was certainly an extremist so were the confederates, the difference is that Brown wanted to free people from their shackles while the confederates were the ones putting them on.
Frankly speaking the other guy was making fun of your morally simplistic idea on things and had decided to just make fun of you instead.
Youre worse than the fucking retarded wheraboo who thought a king tiger was better than an Abrams, atleast he put in funnt pictures.
More childish insults. Don't forget the impotent downvote. That's really the icing on the flail.
My point was that some opening positions were not worthy of negotiation. The commenter tried to derail the conversion by being pedantic about different types of extremists not being the same. I didn't bite so he and his limp noodle brigade started downvoting and insulting me. I'm not a weak minded tool so I stayed on message and simply taunted them, as I am now doing you, for being utterly ineffective and impotent.
Be better.
Honey it's not a brigade, you're just wrong. It's not pedantism, you just sound like a fool.
I've been around long enough to know that 10-12 downvotes on every comment in a dead thread with only three participants is a brigade. You can say it isn't but that doesn't change that it is and that anyone who looks at it can see that it is.
"The sky is red, millions of people are dying, and we can save them."
"The sky isn't red."
"No, my point was millions of people are dying and we can save them."
"But the sky isn't red!"
That is the literal definition of pedantism.
My main point was that some starting points aren't worth negotiating. I'm sorry that you missed that. It was apparently clear to most readers. That extremists are extremists is a minor, establishing statement and absolutely true. That anyone is arguing that instead of my main point is pedantic.
Here's the thing...I don't care what you or anyone else thinks. That's why your insults are meaningless to me. You want to piss into the wind, go ahead and I'll just keep mocking you.
I'll be here if you want to have an actual conversation.
You think it's clear to most readers, yet ignore the largest evidence contrary to that and instead try to explain it away with conspiratorial thinking, interesting.
Technically, he is right in "The Civil War" being avoided BUT it would have just deferred conflict in the long run. There was no way the US would have continued with slavery. Absolutely zero chance due to an economic perspective.
The federal government would have 100% stroked a deal where select southern states could have kept slavery but the other states and especially the newest states would not be able have slavery. Not being able to negotiate this is what actually led to civil war. The confederates did not want to negotiate.
The North is industrial and made products to sell and export. The south used slavery for agriculture. If the slavery states would use that free labor to go industrial it would be a DISASTER for the slave free sates. Conflict would then arise to make sure the south no longer has that "economic advantage" over the north.
tldr: Any market with legal slavery will go "capitalism full bloom" and create a market where free Americans have no chance to compete.
What is ironic is that the civil war could have been avoided by the South just realizing they're wrong, and letting slavery be banned. Instead they freaked out and attacked US military installations while declaring secession.
So he's right, but not in a way any conservative would want to hear.
Fits completely in line with his intentions to appease Putin.
Just another attention grabbing word salad to entertain his mindless cult zombies.
Oh boy! 1939 all over again!
33*
no wait im wrong
Thanks for making clear that MAGA is in reference to the 1860s. Any Republicans with lots of support speaking out against this? No? Then the message is clear: Vote Blue!
The actual source is this video where he spends almost two minutes trying to say how the conflict itself was bad and thinking if it was negotiated there wouldn't have been a war.
Don't know the full video, but I would like to believe he was trying to show sympathy for the actual losses and casualties. It's Trump so he was probably going on a tirade on how if he had negotiated that there wouldn't have been a need for a civil war, or something along those lines.
In other words, Trump thinks continuing slavery would have been a better outcome. On brand for his base.
That one the next one?
Took me a moment to realise he was talking about the last one.
Oh, he meant the previous civil war.
And hes blaming the Feds for it.
The south wanted to force the North to treat escaped slaves as stolen property.
The North said they were people.
So the south tried to force the feds into helping them.
The feds told the south "state rights, the Fed can't do that".
So the South started a civil war against the federal government, in an attempt to get a more powerful federal government.
Which actually did work? The federal government went ahead and banned slavery outright during the war. Something Lincoln had spent years saying the federal government couldn't do.
So by trumps logic:
When conservatives try to do something, we should just do the opposite because if they fight a civil war over it, that's what'll happen anyways
It's worse. The Feds told the South "Okay, we'll make it law." And that still wasn't enough for the South.
Go on... how would you have negotiated the South out of slavery?
Are you sure that's what he would be negotiating for?
Probably the opposite, but I think he is honestly trying to suggest that the South could have been negotiated out of chattel slavery. He's a moron, let's not forget that.
And a racist, let's not forget that.
I’m not sure if he’s a moron since he knows so much about magnets. I like John Deere
This orange asshole is completely surrounded by White Nationalists, Neo Nazis, KKK Members, Confederate Apologists, etc. etc. They all sit around spewing this shite to each other and then he plays their greatest hits on stage to the Qult45 crowds.
Wasn’t Iowa on the side of the north? Lol
For people who fly the Confederate battle flag it's really lost all original meaning and they just fly it to be edgy and whisper their racist opinions.
I attended a historical reenactment of the 17th century near the northern Iowa border that used to be fun pre-trump and saw so many flags that should not be (trump flags, combo trump/American flags, combo American/Confederate flags, pure Confederate flags, you name it) it really felt like the trumpists pushed out some of the history nerds who were there to nerd out over pre-colonial history
Before the war, Lincoln wasn't an abolitionist. He wanted to stop new states from having slavery, and keep no slavery where it was. He was fine with letting the south keep their slaves for the sake of the Union.
The problem was the South did not want to limit their potential to grow slavery to new states, and decided to go to war over it.
Still doubt negotiation could have worked. Lincoln really did not want to go to war in the first place.
I judge people more by their deeds than their desires, especially their desires before the fact. Lincoln ended up doing the right thing. He also ended up successfully seeing the country through one of the most difficult times, if not the most difficult time, in its history. He is, to me, rightfully regarded as one of our greatest presidents regardless of his thoughts on slavery before the war.
This shows exactly why Trump is wrong.
The reason they didn't want new states to all be free states is that then Congress would have the votes to make slavery illegal.
Lol they just redefined the terms of slavery. Slavery is alive and well in the USA.
Correct. Slavery is still legal in U.S. prisons. The public may not be aware of it, but millions of people in U.S. prisons are slaves as permitted under U.S. law.
I assume you mean in a "wage slave" kinda way?
Unfortunately not, when slavery was abolished in the US Constitution an exception was put in for:
"punishment for crime whereof the party shall have been duly convicted"
Which was common practice at the time, and a huge mistake in hindsight.
Some states have repealed that measure in their state constitution, but the work continues
Well, only metaphorically, right?
No, literally. Slavery is still legal as punishment for a crime. Which is why everything is illegal these days.
As a turn of phrase
I really want to know. We should get Lincoln and Davis impersonators and trick Trump into thinking he time traveled
Well, obviously only half of the slaves would have been freed.
They'll sacrifice their lives for a person who is demonstrably the actual biggest loser in history, and he just gets more loser-y, folks, okay... If any of you are starting to have your memories fade, here's a quick refresher to read this morning and then copy and send to your aunt karen in Missouri.
And a partridge in a pear tree.
They couldn’t get along,..because one side wanted to keep all their slaves.
Are those ellipses for skipped text or to represent pauses in his speech?
It's how he speaks. I am a foreigner and when he first came at the head of the USA, the journalists didn't know how to translate his speaches. Usually, the sentences have one meaning that you can translate into one sentence, thanks to the context. With him, it's a couple of sentences with no link and the last sentences have absolutely no context. You just can't translate this.
So I wonder what degree of slavery we'd have ended up with? A little? Almost as much? 50% slavery?
What a fucking idiot.
Slavery is already legal in US if you arrest a person first. That is an exception of the 13th amendment,
I assume that is why US has the biggest prison population in the World and is 6th country in the World by per capita incarceration rate (first western country). If China and India would incarcerate it's citizens as much as US, China would have 4 times and India 10 times it's current prison population. And of course white people are about 8 times less likely to be incarcerated then black people.
"Land of the free"
Jesus, I thought that back guy was wearing a Confederate flag hat for a second...
I agree with your overall point.
My only quibble is China (and other heavily authoritarian countries that aren't forthcoming with data). I don't know that we can trust numbers coming out of China, given that many subjects are heavily censored. For instance, are the Uyghurs counted as in prison if they're in focible "re-education" camps? Do people that simply disappear get counted in those figures?
I don't know, but you can say that for any state. Does Guantanamo Bay prisoners count in US, they are offbroad just so they can legally be tortured. It is all play with rules. Do 2 million civilans killed in US invasions in middle east count? Do Palestinians count to be imrpissioned by the US since Israel couln't do it without their support, to trap them in those regions. Either way, even if not inside the country, US definitely is more agressive overall and kills and imprissions more people. It is just that in the western world, their media propaganda is a lot stronger than Chinas.
Even if you counted them, it would have a negligible effect on statistics. Last time I checked, there were less than 10 people being held there from the GWOT.
No one can really know how many people are illegally improsioned, directly or indirectly, through puppet governments, by US or by China. We can either messure by the numbers we have, or we can make up our own numbers. There is no reason to believe that China lies about it's numbers any more then US, everybody uses some loopholes. US is funding many other governments, like Saudi Arabia and Israel to put people in prisons and kill people for them, all around the World. I don't see the point of questioning China numbers and not US numbers.
Cuba, wtf?
The funny thing is that Lincoln pretty much said they could keep their slaves for the sake of keeping the union together. He had made it clear he wanted to abolish slavery, but he wasn't going to risk the nation over it. He basically opened with an offer to let the south have everything.
The South, however, believed that the day would come where the US would abolish slavery, and they needed to get out before that happened.
Given the South were handed everything they wanted in the default position, no amount of negotiation would have worked.
So what you're saying is, Trump was Wrong? Holy shit someone needs to tell the Press! Word needs to get out that Trump was wrong about a thing! Nobody will believe it!
I suppose Trump was right... The south could have easily negotiated to get what they wanted. So while the free states could not have negotiated, the slave states absolutely could have. They were just pissy that too many new states were choosing to be free states and they were outnumbered and wanted a country where they weren't outnumbered on slavery.
Although I hate to attribute anything Trump says to having any sort of "deeper" meaning, I do wonder if there's a sort of implied threat here, he does tend to talk like a mob boss and tries not to explicitly get himself nailed for things, at least sometimes. Like he's really saying, "we're going to have another Civil War if I lose or if you keep coming after me in court, but it doesn't have to be like that, we can negotiate..." which I feel like others in his camp have floated that idea previously. They assume the multiple felonies that Trump has been indicted for is all political theater meant to put pressure on him and that all he has to do is just leave the race and that will make all his problems go away. He's trying to use his candidacy more as a bargaining chip, as a Get-Out-of-Jail-Free card, while his supporters are ready to tear down American democracy in the name of that orange POS.
That was the thought that occurred to me when I originally said no negotiation. My amendment to the position that it was entirely within the power of the insurrectionists to negotiate was after reconsidering the situation at the time, and amused by extrapolating it to Trump's current position. Yes, negotiation is possible, so go ahead Trump and make concessions. Oh he didn't mean a negotiation where he/insurrectionists would have to make any concessions? Well that wouldn't have been a possibility for the 1860s, and I don't think it would work now.
Maybe 3/5ths.
That's pretty much what Lincoln tried to do with his inaugural speech after several states had seceded already. He tried to talk them down and promised that the North would not interfere with their life heavy-handedly but that insurrection was too serious for him to ignore. And then they stormed Fort Sumter and forced his hand. He didn't even commit to the cause of abolishing slavery until the third year of the war.
I mean technically yes, the South could have negotiated a surrender any time they wanted.
I wish Lemmy had a way to high-five people.
It's frustrating that historically lost causes based on hatred, like the slavers of the Confederacy or any form of fascism, are never fully punished for what they do. Each time a war ends the history writers make thousands of exceptions for people who were clearly working for their own self interest at the cost of society.
Any time a right wing, conservative cause loses (which is all the time based on history) they need to be burned bad: take away their money and livelihoods and make them reliant on social services.
Would that actually work? How long should the north have kept armies raised and occupied the south to completely root out all bad guys? How long of doing that before you become the bad guys? How would you keep the trials from just becoming witch hunts?
You can't throw the book at every vague supporter, but you CAN throw it at participants and organizers as a show of what the next guys will get.
People would think twice about insurrection if everyone who J6ed faced charges as enemy combatants instead of the slap on the wrist crap most of them are getting.
There's a fine line to walk between letting folks off too easy and making it even worse by going scorched earth on them.
If they were treated as enemy combatants with their rights as citizens revoked, then you are likely to inspire more anger and righteousness than fear.
The mindset of those that are receptive to the position of the insurrectionists is that government is undemocratic, corrupt, and authorian against them. It deflates their position when those folks get due process and frequently get off with light sentences. Incidentally, a lot of the key people got 4 to 18 years in prison, hardly a slap on the wrist.
Lots of precedent where any initial offense is forgotten in the wake of an oppressive response. The best results have been where the "victor" exhibits a reasonable response rather than trying to go all in, especially when you are dealing with millions of folks roughly on the side of the guilty.
Sure, but by your logic - the initial offense has happened. An attempt against the government was made. We'll see how the soft buttpat response goes.
When they do it again - enemy combatants. Full stop. The anger and righteousness is already there, rooted in false narrative nonsense. You can't buttpat your way out of that. If they get a buttpat, it's cause the govt knows they're right, and they're emboldened. If you throw the book at em it's cause the govt is against the people and they're emboldened. They played their hand, and that hand is violence.
Fuck em, hang em all - it's what they were trying to do, it's only fitting. No tolerance for the intolerant.
I am a bit concerned that all this ire aimed at the plebes trying to storm the capitol building detracts from the more significant threat. They were trying to influence election officials to 'come up with votes' and failing that, forging fake electors into the process and refusing to certify results. The "white collar" attempts to subvert the election are a more significant threat than a bunch of randos trying to break into the capitol building.
But with respect to the people storming the capitol building, as stated, key folks in that got years of prison time. I would consider that more than a "soft buttpat". Nearly half of participants received at least some prison time.
Oh they should 100% face the same fate. I'd say hang them too but I don't have the easy line from treason to hanging that I do for people who actively participated in violence.
This whole Democrat shtick of "we can't say anything bad about Republicans or stop them from fucking everything because it's undemocratic to be mean to fascists" needs to stop.
If they try to subvert the process, lock them up for life. If their followers get mad and take action a la J6, take them down and take prisoners. They are enemies of this country, it's time to treat them as such. We've tried giving an inch for decades and every time they take a mile.
Oh give me a break with this bullshit. We got almost 100 years of Jim crow because racists and cowards like you were more worried about the feelings of white supremacists than doing the right thing. Reconstruction was working.
If the south hadn't even seceded, I guarantee you you would still have had those laws happen. The biggest difference would have been the south kept their slaves longer if they never seceded.
Being too weak on human rights was the problem for Jim Crow, not being too weak on rebellion. The hypothetical occupiying armies would have been there to squash rebellion, not try to further elevate rights of the black population.
While more equal rights might have been a more prevailing sentiment in the free states, they didn't have the will to stand up for those equal rights in states hundreds of miles away. They might have managed to abolish slavery in 12 or so years federally if left to their own devices, but they weren't going to police the nuance of citizens' rights in states they knew so little about.
Just. Hang. Them. All. Till. Death.
I can't wait to read this fascist waste of oxygen's obituary.
Same.
I hope it's not as revisionist as Kissinger's was. Or take as long to happen.
This idiot also wanted to cure your COVID infected body with bleach injections and UV light
Surprised he's not calling it the "War of Northern Aggression" just to really try to suck off his base.
The north is racist too. He wouldn’t want to alienate them. After all Montana has the highest concentration of white supremacists per capita.
California apparently has the most hate groups by total amount.
https://thehill.com/changing-america/respect/578513-the-10-us-states-with-the-most-hate-groups/
I verified Montana with another website. If you want to know the full list of per capita. Just google it. But all that hate isn’t trapped in the south. Though, I admit that there is more than enough to go around down here.
Montana was not a state until well after the end of the civil war so it isn't a northern or southern state.
Right. What I was saying is. Calling the civil war the “war of northern aggression” may make some of the racists that currently live in the northern states upset.
I meant northern as a literal geographic area. Like how Oregon is in the north. As opposed to some arbitrary line like the 31st parallel, or the mason Dixon line.
No, much like I said in my comment. Now, just like then. The racists are everywhere. They are in the north and the south. Trump welcomes racists from all over the US irregardless of geographical location.
They already call it that. I think he'll need to up the game a bit.
Maybe the alternative war to make America England again?
I know They call it that but it's a low he hadn't discovered he could sink to yet.
It's never good to negotiate with fascists.
You hear that, Democrats?
They never hear that. It's always about "bipartisanship." And these are who we're stuck voting for to stop the Republican agenda. Fucking hell.
The other thing I hear from status quo warriors is "We want things back to normal."
No, we fucking don't! Normal sucks donkey ass for a lot of people.
And they don't want to put things back to normal anyway. They always want whatever the status quo is maintained.
"If normal was progressive and helpful, then we want whatever came before that" is the subtext. It's moustache-twirlingly evil.
The Democrats are getting rich.
They couldn't care less what you and I think about their paid inaction at the federal level.
I love the photo they used. Saving that for future memes.
Looks like he might be in the middle of filling his diaper. My kid used to make the same face.
I only came to the comments to see if people were discussing the picture lol.
I can think of so many memes to 'improve'.
Photo is not altered.
This dude looks like Gritty. And that's an insult to Gritty.
Negotiate? He's suggesting things would've gone better if we'd agreed to mostly keep slavery but soften it a little in exchange for concessions? Well, that's horrifying.
That precise negotiation is how we got the civil war, as well as a number of other completely busted, antidemocratic US institutions like the Senate. Making compromises with slavers.
It's all so bad. The House should have thousands of members to give states proportional representation, but instead Alabama votes count for more than California votes. In turn, this makes the electoral* college unbalanced too in the same way. There's a huge bias towards rural voting power.
*damn auto correct 😠
And then people act like "real America" is like a suburb in Ohio or rural parts of Louisiana.
There's ~4 million people in Louisana. There's ~8 million people in New York City alone. Cities are as or more "real" than the other parts.
Yeah they really need to get some more positively charged ions up in that bitch
To be fair, California hasn't built any new housing in 60 years.
California could have 60-70 million people. Instead we are just handing 30 million voters over to Republican states.
That, paradoxically, increases California's proportional voting power. Popular vote doesn't decide elections.
If California had 70million citizens, current district sizes are around 700k. So it would have about 100 districts. It would have about 1/5th of the total electoral college vote.
It's honestly insane that New York and Cali have purposefully handed over political power to republicans since the 60s.
As I understand it, because every state still has to have at least 1 House member (and thus 1 electoral college vote). Without increasing the size of the House then all that can do is reduce the proportional power of each vote within California. The State itself becomes more powerful, sure, but the votes of citizens within California are worth less and less as the population grows. It's a really bad system.
Each district is roughly 700k people. A few districts are bigger, a few are smaller.
California could completely dominate the US House of Representatives and the electoral college.
A state becomes more powerful by having more people.
California has much much more power than Wyoming, even tho each voter in Wyoming might have a tiny bit more power than each voter in Cali.
Yeah, but it's not just Wyoming. It's all the little flyover states all teaming up against big bad California, and using their disproportionate electoral power to do so - it's the reason we've had multiple presidents that lost the electoral college, after all.
Yeah sure they can get 20 extra electoral college votes combined, but California would have 20-30 more itself. California just handed these over to republicans by refusing to build housing for 60 years.
New York has done the same.
We've just handed tons of political power over Republicans, who already have a natural advantage.
Hard to know with Trump.
His usual way of "negotiating" is to demand what he wants is the limit, while demanding that the other party capitulate to whatever is best for Trump.
Maybe my vote could have been 2/3 of a white vote? And we could negotiate with women. Maybe they could just tell us who to vote for but not actually do any voting and we could then have a family vote?
Translation: I am going to negotiate a new civil war
This is one that I deal with all the time with the extreme right, the extreme left, the extreme LGBTQ..., the extreme vegans etc.
You have to negotiate!
No, we don't. Some starting positions are so ridiculous that they leave no room for negotiation. No one is owed a negotiation. Sometimes the answer is, "No."
EDIT: A couple of pedantic extremist apologists and a small brigade of their friends tried to shout and insult me down. They failed. They weren't interested in a conversation, just silencing someone whose message they didn't like. Do you know how I know this? Not a single one of them asked me to explain myself. Not a single one asked me why am extremist is an extremist.
All extremists have a pathological belief that they are somehow superior and that that superiority justified their anti-social behavior. So neo-Nazi extremists have a pathological belief that they are racially superior and that that superiority justifies harassing, intimidating, and threatening people they believe are racially inferior to leave. Vegan extremist believe that they are morally superior and that that moral superiority justifies their harassing, intimidating, and bullying restaurateurs butchers, grocers, farmers, and their customers to change their diets to comply with the extremists beliefs.
So, the (pedantic) details may be different but the underlying pathology is the same.
An extremist is an extremist. They're all pathological assholes with grandiose delusions.
Some of those are not the same
Extremists are extremists.
Vegan extremists are not the same as Neo-Nazi extremists.
That's why by they're called different things, pedant, but an extremist is an extremist.
Yes, and a criminal is a criminal. You are very smart.
For example, all extremists resort to pretty insults when their attempts to derail the conversation fail. They also attempt to brigade anyone they don't agree with into silence but downvotes on Lemmy are completely impotent and leave the extremists flailing pathetically. Extremists are extremists. They have different causes and hate different people but their behaviours are very, very similar and they are very easy to spot.
No dude, this isnt the other guy flailing. You refused to explains your point and instead decided to double down and continue to not explain your point.
Saying extremists are extremists means nothing because extremism can vary from situation to situation. John Brown was certainly an extremist so were the confederates, the difference is that Brown wanted to free people from their shackles while the confederates were the ones putting them on.
Frankly speaking the other guy was making fun of your morally simplistic idea on things and had decided to just make fun of you instead.
Youre worse than the fucking retarded wheraboo who thought a king tiger was better than an Abrams, atleast he put in funnt pictures.
More childish insults. Don't forget the impotent downvote. That's really the icing on the flail.
My point was that some opening positions were not worthy of negotiation. The commenter tried to derail the conversion by being pedantic about different types of extremists not being the same. I didn't bite so he and his limp noodle brigade started downvoting and insulting me. I'm not a weak minded tool so I stayed on message and simply taunted them, as I am now doing you, for being utterly ineffective and impotent.
Be better.
Honey it's not a brigade, you're just wrong. It's not pedantism, you just sound like a fool.
I've been around long enough to know that 10-12 downvotes on every comment in a dead thread with only three participants is a brigade. You can say it isn't but that doesn't change that it is and that anyone who looks at it can see that it is.
"The sky is red, millions of people are dying, and we can save them."
"The sky isn't red."
"No, my point was millions of people are dying and we can save them."
"But the sky isn't red!"
That is the literal definition of pedantism.
My main point was that some starting points aren't worth negotiating. I'm sorry that you missed that. It was apparently clear to most readers. That extremists are extremists is a minor, establishing statement and absolutely true. That anyone is arguing that instead of my main point is pedantic.
Here's the thing...I don't care what you or anyone else thinks. That's why your insults are meaningless to me. You want to piss into the wind, go ahead and I'll just keep mocking you.
I'll be here if you want to have an actual conversation.
You think it's clear to most readers, yet ignore the largest evidence contrary to that and instead try to explain it away with conspiratorial thinking, interesting.
Just like he negotiated with those people on January 6th.
He’s propping himself up to be a victim of the next one.
Technically, he is right in "The Civil War" being avoided BUT it would have just deferred conflict in the long run. There was no way the US would have continued with slavery. Absolutely zero chance due to an economic perspective.
The federal government would have 100% stroked a deal where select southern states could have kept slavery but the other states and especially the newest states would not be able have slavery. Not being able to negotiate this is what actually led to civil war. The confederates did not want to negotiate.
The North is industrial and made products to sell and export. The south used slavery for agriculture. If the slavery states would use that free labor to go industrial it would be a DISASTER for the slave free sates. Conflict would then arise to make sure the south no longer has that "economic advantage" over the north.
tldr: Any market with legal slavery will go "capitalism full bloom" and create a market where free Americans have no chance to compete.
What is ironic is that the civil war could have been avoided by the South just realizing they're wrong, and letting slavery be banned. Instead they freaked out and attacked US military installations while declaring secession.
So he's right, but not in a way any conservative would want to hear.
Fits completely in line with his intentions to appease Putin.
Just another attention grabbing word salad to entertain his mindless cult zombies.
Oh boy! 1939 all over again!
33*no wait im wrong
Thanks for making clear that MAGA is in reference to the 1860s. Any Republicans with lots of support speaking out against this? No? Then the message is clear: Vote Blue!
The actual source is this video where he spends almost two minutes trying to say how the conflict itself was bad and thinking if it was negotiated there wouldn't have been a war.
Don't know the full video, but I would like to believe he was trying to show sympathy for the actual losses and casualties. It's Trump so he was probably going on a tirade on how if he had negotiated that there wouldn't have been a need for a civil war, or something along those lines.
In other words, Trump thinks continuing slavery would have been a better outcome. On brand for his base.
That one the next one?
Took me a moment to realise he was talking about the last one.