Miscellaneous And Off Topic Subjects

[iam416]

Right. States can secede if the US lets them. It's not hard. If they don't let them, then, well...good luck. And it ain't happening.

[THE_WIZARD_]

You sir are an Anti-Lincolnite.

[crashcourse]

https://twitter.com/i/status/1614423288180248579

the lone defender from the republicans regarding maricopa board of supervisors. Stephen rictor cesnured and hopefully will resign

because of crap like this

Testimony to Arizona Senate Election Committee Reveals Almost Half the Ballots Ran Through Maricopa County Tabulators Failed - The Arizona Sun Times

[THE_WIZARD_]

Whatever. Trumper. Denier. Threat to democracy.

[Hannibal]

But the idea that he was a garden-variety authoritarian who gets kid glove adoration simply because he ended slavery is utter motherfucking poppycock and historically illiterate. .

No it isn’t. It’s a conclusion based on how historians view most dictators that do stuff like create a secret state police to quash dissent and jail critics. I thought that you were a fan of due process and legality etc? I guess I was wrong.. Richard Nixon was forced out of office for far, far less and is considered one of history’s villains as a result. Lincoln is a sacred cow because of his association with ending slavery and without that result, he would likely be viewed much less favorably.

In the case of the War to Suppress Southern Treason, the political will existed. Waned. Was in grave danger of not existing in 1864 and eventually reconstituted thanks, in no small part, the the heroics of General Sherman. And the might, of course, was never in question. So, as it applies to 2023, states can leave the US if the US lets them. And that's a political question because the question of might is not in disupute.

This is a worthless non-argument that provides no insight at all into whether any particular event was good or bad and if it should be repeated, which is one of the fundamental reasons that we study and discuss history in the first place. “I dunno, might makes right” applies for the Reign of Terror and the Bolshevik Revolution too. Yeah, duh, they took political will and force. But were the people doing this things good people who should be canonized in our history books, or should they be viewed as villains for it?

[Dr. Strangelove]

https://twitter.com/i/status/1614423288180248579

the lone defender from the republicans regarding maricopa board of supervisors. Stephen rictor cesnured and hopefully will resign

because of crap like this

Testimony to Arizona Senate Election Committee Reveals Almost Half the Ballots Ran Through Maricopa County Tabulators Failed - The Arizona Sun Times

Oh no! Censured by the Arizona GOP?! Like Governor Ducey was two years ago?

The AZ GOP has been taken over by retards with an almost perfect track record of losing and your answer to it, as always, is to double down on Trumpism and nutjobbery.

Like I have said repeatedly, if you were to ever start regarding Arizona elections as legitimate, the AZ GOP leadership would suddenly have to face tough questions over their incompetence. Redirecting your energies to rigged election conspiracy bullshit is a good way for them to avoid all that unpleasantness.

[Hannibal]

Criticism of Lincoln for habeas corpus and other wartime exigencies is not new to me. Older lefties like Howard Zinn and Chomsky have always criticized him for those things long before the 1619 people were around.

The 1619 people don't care about abuse of authority. I've never been a huge fan of Noam Chomsky but he at least does show some consistency in his positions on government, media, etc.

[Dr. Strangelove]

It's interesting to speculate about what may/may not have happened if Lincoln did nothing when the South seceded. But that's all it'd be. It's more than possible that an imperialist power like France or the UK invades the South within a decade or two. As it was, Napoleon III took advantage of the war to conquer Mexico. The South relied upon the North or the UK for almost all its industrial material and cash -- could it survive a war cut off from both?

Also what would George Washington have done in Lincoln's situation? Andrew Jackson was prepared to use force against recalcitrant states in the 1830's. Would Washington? Probably. He had no qualms against using military force to put down the Whiskey Rebellion in 1794. The majority of his generation agreed that the federal govt had to be at least powerful enough to enforce its laws else no one would bother to respect any.

In the end Lincoln gets more of a "pass" for authoritarian moves because he was facing the dissolution of the country. There's no guarantee that it would've stopped at just two countries. In fact, I'd say it's more likely than not that the Confederacy would've splintered shortly after winning the war -- like I said before, southern Governors especially near the end started ordering state militias to protect their own states first and forget about Richmond.

[Hannibal]

It's interesting to speculate about what may/may not have happened if Lincoln did nothing when the South seceded.

My guess is that they would have rejoined after maybe 10 or 20 years. Just a guess.

[THE_WIZARD_]

I prefer to call the Civil War the "War of Unfinished Business from 1790"

[Hannibal]

Speaking of alternate history what-ifs, I just rewatched Valkyrie yesterday. Damn, those guys got really close to pulling it off. I mean, really close. Hitler was incredibly lucky that he wasn’t killed. But if he had been, millions of lives might have been saved and the post war world would have likely been a much better place.

[iam416]

No it isn’t. It’s a conclusion based on how historians view most dictators that do stuff like create a secret state police to quash dissent and jail critics. I thought that you were a fan of due process and legality etc? I guess I was wrong.. Richard Nixon was forced out of office for far, far less and is considered one of history’s villains as a result. Lincoln is a sacred cow because of his association with ending slavery and without that result, he would likely be viewed much less favorably.



This is a worthless non-argument that provides no insight at all into whether any particular event was good or bad and if it should be repeated, which is one of the fundamental reasons that we study and discuss history in the first place. “I dunno, might makes right” applies for the Reign of Terror and the Bolshevik Revolution too. Yeah, duh, they took political will and force. But were the people doing this things good people who should be canonized in our history books, or should they be viewed as villains for it?

If you want to argue the Treasonists were right, knock yourself the fuck out. If you want to shit on Lincoln as a worse President than Nixon, knock yourself the fuck out. If you want to say he was Stalin, then knock yourself the fuck out. If you want to say Lincoln had no moral disagreement with slavery, then knock yourself the fuck out. If you want to say that Sherman committed institutional genocide, then knock yourself the fuck out. Those are such awful arguments they honestly don't merit a response.

Everything I said is exactly right as it pertains to your little delusional 2023 fantasies of secession. If you can convince the body politk of the merits of whatever argument you have then you'll be able to leave. If you cannot, then you won't. The choice isn't up to the assclown secessionists. That's just the fact.

If you want to have some sort of academic discussion tilting at windmills discussion about whether the Constiution permits secession then, alright, I guess. Practically speaking -- as noted -- it's purely academic UNLESS you can convince the electorate of the merits.

[Hannibal]

Talent -- Go home. You're drunk.

[iam416]

It's interesting to speculate about what may/may not have happened if Lincoln did nothing when the South seceded. But that's all it'd be. It's more than possible that an imperialist power like France or the UK invades the South within a decade or two. As it was, Napoleon III took advantage of the war to conquer Mexico. The South relied upon the North or the UK for almost all its industrial material and cash -- could it survive a war cut off from both?

Also what would George Washington have done in Lincoln's situation? Andrew Jackson was prepared to use force against recalcitrant states in the 1830's. Would Washington? Probably. He had no qualms against using military force to put down the Whiskey Rebellion in 1794. The majority of his generation agreed that the federal govt had to be at least powerful enough to enforce its laws else no one would bother to respect any.

In the end Lincoln gets more of a "pass" for authoritarian moves because he was facing the dissolution of the country. There's no guarantee that it would've stopped at just two countries. In fact, I'd say it's more likely than not that the Confederacy would've splintered shortly after winning the war -- like I said before, southern Governors especially near the end started ordering state militias to protect their own states first and forget about Richmond.

Yeah, I don't think the Rebels hold together nor do I think they want anything to do with the US. It was the best thing for them to get so thoroughly conquered. The second best thing was to capture History authorship with the lamentably stupid Dunning and rewrite their bullshit into the entire Lost Cause narrative.

And Jackson would have had Davis drawn and quartered and probably refused clemency to others. That motherfucker wouldn't have played around.

[iam416]

Talent -- Go home. You're drunk.

LOL. Everything I said is true. Go post another right-wing YouTuber as some authority on history. Goddamn, man.