2024 ELECTION THREAD
The next presidential race will be here soon! Please see current Bovada odds. Thoughts?
So would you apply the same logic to a BLM rally/protest were folks start burning things are vandalizing things ?
This is a mostly terrible analogy. BLM is not a black supremacy movement, and to state the obvious, the objectives are much easier to defend than the objectives of Richard Spencer.
But to answer your question, if I am attending a protest, and it becomes obvious to me that the organizers are encouraging people to destroy property, then I have a choice. I can leave, or I can continue to participate. If I choose the latter, I am endorsing the tactics as a means to achieve the objective. In the vast majority of cases, I would choose to leave.
Japanese people are a much smaller portion of the population. Also they were all paid reparations which black people weren’t. I don’t think the situation is analogous. Not sure what you mean by enslaved either, sounds like you are trying really hard to make it fit the analogy. They weren’t work camps.
I’m on two minds on this issue though. On the one hand, I really don’t care about removing confederate statues because they are all traitors to the US. The confederacy is a disgusting blight on US h
It was traitorous because it seceded and you guys decided the the "self determination of people" as a concept doesn't exist , but the idea that keeping something that is legal , legal, can be seen as "tratitorous" is completly ****ed up no matter what the legal thing is.
i think what you did as a job before entering politics matters to a degree to judge these things.
ofc for people like Kamala or Biden the answer is "absolutely nothing, they always lived off politics" so ye starting to cash in like that would look bad.
for someone who spent his entire life putting his name on stuff and profiting from it even well before he entered politics well, can't blame him too much if he keeps doing that can you?
But there is a reason why people don’t do things that make it look like they want to make money off the office or political candidacy. In fact, Trump himself understands this, which is why he makes such a big deal about giving up his presidential salary. He also said he would release his tax returns which he never did.
The idea that we should have different standards for a rich businessman running for office does make sense to me, but my inclination would be the opposite of yours. Being independently wealthy, we should expect for them not to use their candidacy for wealth accumulation even more. If he had given up on running for a second term, I wouldn’t even care if he was releasing his gaudy watches, but then I think you and I know given his past failures in luxury goods that no one would want to purchase his watch. The only reason why people would is to support his candidacy or hope that it curries favor with him. He has no name or history in such an endeavor.
Trump bible/constitution, I can accept that even though it makes me cringe because he does have a history of those goods and honestly it’s a book, which I think many people running for presidency still release books. But to use campaign stops to sell his watches is super gross, and I don’t think it’s the type of precedent we should set.
I’m pretty sure in 4 years Elon will run for office, and when he does so what will the precedent be for billionaires running for office? We need to be careful when it cones to creating new norms for the most powerful political office of all time.
It was traitorous because it seceded and you guys decided the the "self determination of people" as a concept doesn't exist , but the idea that keeping something that is legal , legal, can be seen as "tratitorous" is completly ****ed up no matter what the legal thing is.
Can you translate this post into non-schizo language?
This is really my point. You apparently don't want to be associated with the organizers no matter how you feel about removal of statutes memorializing leaders of the Confederacy. And that's because you know who the organizers are and what they are about. The people who showed up and stayed at the rally are the sort of people who are unbothered by those facts.
the treason was the secession (because you american deny what is now considered a human right, self determination of people, it's absurd and incredible that a state can't secede), not the will to keep laws the way they are (which definitionally can never be treason).
Japanese people are a much smaller portion of the population. Also they were all paid reparations which black people weren’t. I don’t think the situation is analogous. Not sure what you mean by enslaved either, sounds like you are trying really hard to make it fit the analogy. They weren’t work camps.
I’m on two minds on this issue though. On the one hand, I really don’t care about removing confederate statues because they are all traitors to the US. The confederacy is a disgusting blight on US h
lol, as Trolly said, that tracks.
It was traitorous because it seceded and you guys decided the the "self determination of people" as a concept doesn't exist , but the idea that keeping something that is legal , legal, can be seen as "tratitorous" is completly ****ed up no matter what the legal thing is.
I have never met an American who offered a defense of the confederacy that was as embarrassing as what you wrote above.
I have never met an American who offered a defense of the confederacy that was as embarrassing as what you wrote above.
It's not a "defense" but it's truly obscene that secession is impossible. Even in the fascist, rule loving, rights-destroying EU we allow countries to leave.
This is really my point. You apparently don't want to be associated with the organizers no matter how you feel about removal of statutes memorializing leaders of the Confederacy. And that's because you know who the organizers are and what they are about. The people who showed up and stayed at the rally are the sort of people who are unbothered by those facts.
like i said, you convinced me i was wrong and i've changed my position on that
the treason was the secession (because you american deny what is now considered a human right, self determination of people, it's absurd and incredible that a state can't secede), not the will to keep laws the way they are (which definitionally can never be treason).
A state can't secede because the states ratified into law a constitution which gave them no legal recourse to secede and gave the federal government broad policing powers when it came to prevention of secession. Lincoln legally won the presidency and the South decided to become traitors. Even if we try to backwards apply international law (which is dumb as hell and no serious scholar does this), the requirement would be for a referendum overseen by a third party to even come close to being considered legitimate. Just the same way you support Ukraine over [Russia].
The second point is just wrong, the problem wasn't keeping laws the same way they are. Most of the party leaders in the Republican party were not immediate abolitionists, they were proponents of a containment strategy for slavery. What pro-slavery legal scholars were trying to do at the time was to make it so that no state could have a law against slavery so that they could freely take their slave to any part of the United States. This would basically allow people to purchase slaves in the South and then bring them up to the North, thus circumventing the restrictions on purchasing slaves. It's a lot more complicated than many people who have a very basic understanding of the issue think, because we always hear that it was the South concerned with states rights when in many ways states rights were also implicated in the abolitionist movement.
In any case, the reason for the treasonous secession was a preservation and expansion of the institution of slavery. Anything else is just mental gymnastics. This was the idea from the very beginning, all you have to do is look at the comments of the confederate leaders at the time.
Our new government['s]...foundations are laid, its cornerstone rests upon the great truth, that the negro is not equal to the white man; that slavery—subordination to the superior race—is his natural and normal condition. This, our new government, is the first, in the history of the world, based upon this great physical, philosophical, and moral truth.[2][3]
The new Constitution has put at rest forever all the agitating questions relating to our peculiar institution—African slavery as it exists among us—the proper status of the negro in our form of civilization. This was the immediate cause of the late rupture and present revolution. Jefferson, in his forecast, had anticipated this, as the "rock upon which the old Union would split." He was right. What was conjecture with him, is now a realized fact. But whether he fully comprehended the great truth upon which that rock stood and stands, may be doubted. The prevailing ideas entertained by him and most of the leading statesmen at the time of the formation of the old Constitution were, that the enslavement of the African was in violation of the laws of nature; that it was wrong in principle, socially, morally and politically. It was an evil they knew not well how to deal with; but the general opinion of the men of that day was, that, somehow or other, in the order of Providence, the institution would be evanescent and pass away. [...] Those ideas, however, were fundamentally wrong. They rested upon the assumption of the equality of races. This was an error. It was a sandy foundation, and the idea of a Government built upon it—when the "storm came and the wind blew, it fell.
It's not a "defense" but it's truly obscene that secession is impossible. Even in the fascist, rule loving, rights-destroying EU we allow countries to leave.
Ah yes, I remember when Spain gave the Basque and Catalonians their own country.
EU is not a country so why are we comparing a supranational institution to a national one?
It's not a "defense" but it's truly obscene that secession is impossible. Even in the fascist, rule loving, rights-destroying EU we allow countries to leave.
If Portland, Oregon, or San Antonio, TX, or some other city decided to secede from the United States, what do you think the response of the federal government should be? If you think that the city should be allowed to secede, am I correct that you would support the Italian government recognizing Portland as a sovereign nation?
What if the group that wanted to secede wasn't an entire city but rather were the people on my specific city block in New York city?
If Portland, Oregon, or San Antonio, TX, or some other city decided to secede from the United States, what do you think the response of the federal government should be? If you think that the city should be allowed to secede, am I correct that you would support the Italian government recognizing Portland as a sovereign nation?
What if the group that wanted to secede wasn't an entire city but rather were the people on my specific city block in New York city?
So you're against self-determination? Never would have thought that.
A state can't secede because the states ratified into law a constitution which gave them no legal recourse to secede and gave the federal government broad policing powers when it came to prevention of secession. Lincoln legally won the presidency and the South decided to become traitors. Even if we try to backwards apply international law (which is dumb as hell and no serious scholar does this), the requirement would be for a referendum overseen by a third party to even come close to being consi
Well stated. These are exactly the sorts of things I had in mind.
What if the group that wanted to secede wasn't an entire city but rather were the people on my specific city block in New York city?
this briefly happened recently in seattle - crime rose to untenable levels and then the mayor put an end to it by sending in the police and the people weren't too fussed because they now had police again
Self-determination is a thought terminating cliche. A lot of the times when we are talking about self-determination, we are talking about the right of a historical people group to a particular territory, and the right of a nation to make decision for itself. Oftentimes this will mean that in a particular local, the nation itself will get to determine what happens to a particular political group advocating for separating itself from the larger body. Else I could just declare that my house is no longer part of US territory, and so on and so forth. The idea of self-determination as the inherent right of every arbitrary block of people is utterly stupid.
Once a state becomes incorporated into the United States, they lose their right to secede. Right now, I think many people would be OK with Puerto Rico voting on independence, and the idea has been floated in the past and voted on for them to have a national referendum on joining or leaving the US. However if one day they become incorporated into the US as an official state, they would lose their right to become an independent country. That's how the US works.
Broadly speaking on the other hand we have treaties with Indian nations where they are quasi-incorporated, and having them vote for their independence is a little more tricky due to the fact that they are located within the interior. The US broadly speaking does not recognize any ethnic group's right to self-determination within its borders, so I'm sure this would cause some kind of diplomatic and constitutional crisis. It wouldn't be as cut and dry as Southern secession because they are not technically American states and citizens.
All this to say that we can't just go "hurr durr self-determination" as if that's the end of the conversation. Not every situation is analogous to another.
Some people just don't like freedom I guess.
That definition of freedom is total anarchy. Liberty requires a state to provide for common security. If a state is so easily dissolved or ignored, it is no state at all. The founding father's saw this in the Articles of Confederation, which did have such provisions for arbitrary secession at a state's choosing. They found that the new government they created was so weak as to be a risk to security and prosperity. Each state did only what benefited that state, which oftentimes meant not paying the national debt and not giving any money to fund a federal government.
The constitution is exactly created as a result of people like you winning out the first time, leading to disaster.
However, if you are so inclined you do have the ability to ask for secession. All it would take is a constitutional amendment to either allow for general secession, or for a particular state to secede. So all is not lost if you really think about it, there are ways to secede. But it would definitely take an amendment to the constitution, imo.
