US US Politics General - Discussion of President Biden and other politicians

 

[The Man With No Name]

Lincoln was absolutely based and did nothing wrong and should be praised for his leadership style.

FDR is a whole nother animal. The US looks more like the USSR than pre-FDR thanks to him not wanting to relinquish power and getting elected four times. That's also taking into account Soviet moles that were part of his and Truman's governments and him sidelining Churchill at Yalta so he could talk with Stalin in private, and we got the Iron Curtain out of that. But no one in the modern US can say anything pro-isolationist or anti-FDR because of the mythologized "good war". If you do you're going to get lefties trotting out the Muh Hitler boogeyman to shut you up. You don't want US boots on the ground in Iran or Russia? Muh Hitler, so shut up. The world police stuff started for a reason.

Gotta love how your comment also completely ignores the turd that was Woodrow Wilson and McKinley originating with the false flags to justify interventionism with the USS Maine. Wouldn't surprise me if Wilson got that idea from him with the Lusitania in his case. Not even mentioning how LBJ, another turd, was both an FDR guy, who himself was a Wilson guy. Interventionism and all of that is the norm now thanks to Wilson, FDR, and LBJ despite the disaster that was Vietnam. The leaders change every 4-8 years, but the policy doesn't change. If only TR had dropped out of the race and let Taft win, and only if isolationist Harding hadn't croaked. What a nation we could have been.

Lincoln crushed any notion of state's rights and the idea of the federal republic representing those states. He aggressed against the secessionists, the Confederacy did not wish to fight a war. He declared war on the Confederacy even though there was no legal basis to do so. The legal perspective is either:

1. The war is against a foreign power (except the Union rejected the Confederacy's sovereignity) and can be prosecuted as an invasion to reintegrate territory.

OR

2. It is a civil dispute in which the people they are fighting are still American citizens. Problem being then that this invents the idea that States, once admitted to the Union, can never leave. There is no prior precedent in the United States for this.

And rather than defend either of these points in court, Lincoln suspended the writ of habeas corpus. The Union could kill and steal whatever they wanted because there was no legal retaliation that the men they were claiming were still citizens could muster.

These precedents royally fucked up the ideas put forth in 1776. We became the gay Federalist centralized government right then immediately.

 

[dustbuster]

Lincoln was absolutely based and did nothing wrong and should be praised for his leadership style.

He arrested state legislators for voting to oppose his agenda.
He had secret police destroy the printing facilities of newspapers critical of him.
He ordered his generals to literally genocide the southern states using the same tactics later decried as the height of evil when used against the Indian tribes out west.
He was unmatched for tyranny until Joseph Stalin showed up on the scene.

 

[George Lucas]

Lincoln was absolutely based and did nothing wrong and should be praised for his leadership style.

FDR is a whole nother animal. The US looks more like the USSR than pre-FDR thanks to him not wanting to relinquish power and getting elected four times. That's also taking into account Soviet moles that were part of his and Truman's governments and him sidelining Churchill at Yalta so he could talk with Stalin in private, and we got the Iron Curtain out of that. But no one in the modern US can say anything pro-isolationist or anti-FDR because of the mythologized "good war". If you do you're going to get lefties trotting out the Muh Hitler boogeyman to shut you up. You don't want US boots on the ground in Iran or Russia? Muh Hitler, so shut up. The world police stuff started for a reason.

Gotta love how your comment also completely ignores the turd that was Woodrow Wilson and McKinley originating with the false flags to justify interventionism with the USS Maine. Wouldn't surprise me if Wilson got that idea from him with the Lusitania in his case. Not even mentioning how LBJ, another turd, was both an FDR guy, who himself was a Wilson guy. Interventionism and all of that is the norm now thanks to Wilson, FDR, and LBJ despite the disaster that was Vietnam. The leaders change every 4-8 years, but the policy doesn't change. If only TR had dropped out of the race and let Taft win, and only if isolationist Harding hadn't croaked. What a nation we could have been.

Truman may not be the worst on paper but he absolutely contributed to the disaster and is my least favorite of the 20th Century. Eisenhower, Nixon, Ford, and Reagan were the only good post-war presidents until Trump. Kennedy died too soon and Carter was ineffective but not as bad as popularly believed IMO.

 

[Coptakhenaten]

Lincoln was absolutely based and did nothing wrong and should be praised for his leadership style.

I love how any criticism of a man acting unconstitutional as fuck to start a war, suspending habeas corpus, telling churches to venerate him, and calling it a special interest to lobby for a national bank is just "lolbert speak."

He justified people like Wilson, Roosevelt, and Johnson to act as they did because he set the precedent that there were exceptions to the constitution in the name of emergencies. He allowed presidents to think the war powers act or vax mandates were a reasonable action.

The united states was supposed to be a collection of nations bound by a small federal government that sorted international affairs and let these states tend to their own policies in peace. Lincoln threw that away and gave way for the strong federal government, allowing for a national bank (Which was one of the primary platforms of the Republican Party) which is the source of a vast majority of the country's issues.

 

[Romulus augustulus]

He arrested state legislators for voting to oppose his agenda.
He had secret police destroy the printing facilities of newspapers critical of him.
He ordered his generals to literally genocide the southern states using the same tactics later decried as the height of evil when used against the Indian tribes out west.
He was unmatched for tyranny until Joseph Stalin showed up on the scene.

My state was a border state that did not secede but were treated like the most rebellious deep south state anyway. An army occupied the state, a military government was put in place that was more powerful than the state government and when state elections came around during the war you had to vote for the chosen northern friendly slate or be branded a rebel and be arrested and all your property and possessions seized and your family put out into the street. Local histories contain many tales of extrajudicial murders by Union troops, theft of horses and livestock and corruption. this government imposed chaos created long lasting poverty such that many places did not exceed their 1860's economies until the late inter-war period or post-WW2.

Before the civil war Kentucky was much more a western frontier state in spirit and didn't have strong ties to the north or south. The state even declared neutrality. but after the treatment the population endured during and after the war firmly pushed Kentucky into the arms of the southern culture. the other border states didn't fare any better.

 

[dustbuster]

I love how any criticism of a man acting unconstitutional as fuck to start a war, suspending habeas corpus, telling churches to venerate him, and calling it a special interest to lobby for a national bank is just "lolbert speak."

Remember when Lincoln massacred thousands of urban northerners in NY and other cities because they were marching for fucking food?
They were starving and he kept firing military personnel until he got people willing to open fire.

 

[George Lucas]

Oh great a Southern Revisionism discussion. I like the South but arguing the confederacy wasn’t illegal and that the Federal government doesn’t have the sovereignty to enforce the Constitution with force is intellectually dishonest. Say what you want about your opinions on Lincoln’s strategies, but nothing that was done by him was illegal. Furthermore, Sherman’s strategy was brilliant and how every war needs to be done: do what it takes to win and repent after.

If you want to separate from the Union you will have to earn it with blood. There is no legal means to separate. The colonies still had to do that during the Revolutionary War, even though Britain had a theoretical legal method for granting colonies sovereignty.

Not to mention the first political party were Federalists, and the first president was sympathetic to them.

 

[dustbuster]

ederal government doesn’t have the sovereignty to enforce the Constitution with force

Nothing Lincoln's government was doing was constitutional in the slightest.
He was Hitler before Hitler's father was a glint his grandfather's eye.
To this day there are empty fields in GA, MS, and other southern states where the only clue you have that a town full of people existed is a foundation marker for that town: the only thing left standing after it was burned and its people massacred.

Biden is following firmly in his tradition, having his gestapo throw people in prison for posting memes and execute disabled old men who can't get up without a cane for daring to criticize him in public.

 

[Coptakhenaten]

Oh great a Southern Revisionism discussion. I like the South but arguing the confederacy wasn’t illegal and that the Federal government doesn’t have the sovereignty to enforce the Constitution with force is intellectually dishonest. Say what you want about your opinions on Lincoln’s strategies, but nothing that was done by him was illegal. Furthermore, Sherman’s strategy was brilliant and how every war needs to be done: do what it takes to win and repent after.

If you want to separate from the Union you will have to earn it with blood. There is no legal means to separate. The colonies still had to do that during the Revolutionary War, even though Britain had a theoretical legal method for granting colonies sovereignty.

I don't even care about the South, they did tons of unethical shit within the war that was authoritarian as hell and breaking the constitution themselves. The confederacy also doesn't even exist anymore. It's just the United States, a United States with way too much power in the federal government that seeps down to the states, and while Lincoln wasn't the first or worst (Adams and FDR) he still was a major stepping stone on this path to centralization and while perhaps he helped win the war with his measures, it's still a fact his precedents kicked the can down the road faster towards the total state.

 

[Romulus augustulus]

Oh great a Southern Revisionism discussion. I like the South but arguing the confederacy wasn’t illegal and that the Federal government doesn’t have the sovereignty to enforce the Constitution with force is intellectually dishonest. Say what you want about your opinions on Lincoln’s strategies, but nothing that was done by him was illegal. Furthermore, Sherman’s strategy was brilliant and how every war needs to be done: do what it takes to win and repent after.

If you want to separate from the Union you will have to earn it with blood. There is no legal means to separate. The colonies still had to do that during the Revolutionary War, even though Britain had a theoretical legal method for granting colonies sovereignty.

There existed no prohibition on secession before the war. The treason trials of the confederate government were dropped because it was not guaranteed that SCOTUS would convict. Jefferson Davis was intended to argue the legality of secession and was building a formidable case.

It wasn't until Texas V white that it was declared illegal in 1870 (i think). Shitty decision but political pressures and partisanship made it happen. they had to justify killing a million people somehow and despite modern revisionist history no northern would claim to have fought for the slaves.

Im stopping my sperging here so the thread doesn't go even more off the rails. Retreading 160 year old history is out of place.

 

[George Lucas]

Nothing Lincoln's government was doing was constitutional in the slightest.
He was Hitler before Hitler's father was a glint his grandfather's eye.

Biden is following firmly in his tradition, having his gestapo throw people in prison for posting memes and execute disabled old men who can't get up without a cane for daring to criticize him in public.

If you truly believe that you have to concede that George Washington and John Marshall were equally as unconstitutional and the balance of Federalism was doomed from the get-go.

 

[Mr. Cow]

I like how people think fighting to end slavery gives someone the right to become a dictator.

 

[Candlelight Desolation]

He arrested state legislators for voting to oppose his agenda.
He had secret police destroy the printing facilities of newspapers critical of him.
He ordered his generals to literally genocide the southern states using the same tactics later decried as the height of evil when used against the Indian tribes out west.
He was unmatched for tyranny until Joseph Stalin showed up on the scene.

You posted that hit piece video Razorfist did on Lincoln earlier in the thread. I'd love to see an actual seasoned Civil War historian rip it to shreds, but the closest I have are Vlogging Through History's responses to it, which are a good rebuttal. This comment is laughable - the Indian thing ultimately had no consequence, so it was a footnote. How Lincoln and his generals put down the southern rebellion was, throughout all of history, one of the NICEST ways to put down a rebellion. If the south had rebelled against Hadrian or Augustus, for example, the southern civilian and military leaders would have been stripped bare, crucified on a road from Richmond to DC, and would have had their homes burned down and plantation lands sown with salt along with their wives and children ironically being sold into slavery themselves. The Byzantine leaders gouged out the eyes of rebels and sent them home that way. Rebels throughout most of history were put down like rabid dogs. Lincoln's conduct of the war was like being pelted with a pebble instead of a boulder.

If Lincoln was a Communist monster for being well within his right to put down a massive rebellion (the Constitution gives the president the means to suspend habeas corpus in the case of insurrection or invasion) like what you're implying with your Stalin comment, then so was any other leader throughout all of history pre-Lincoln who took extreme measures to put down rebellion. I LOVE how this comment ignores people who came before 1861 like Ivan the Terrible, Vlad the Impaler, etc. All men who came before and caused WAY more suffering and violence than Lincoln supposedly did (the war wasn't even the north's fault thanks to Fort Sumter). You also ignore the policies of Jackson who outright told SCOTUS to get lost when they had a ruling he didn't like.

"lolbert speak."

That's Libertarian politics 101, though: hate any and all heads of state who go for centralization. Problem is nations like that fall apart - just look at the Holy Roman Empire, who didn't centralize. You NEED a strong centralized government to keep it together. If the south won and broke off, the government's authority would only extend as far as Virginia from Richmond. Going back to my Roman example, they slapped down rebelling provinces ASAP. You can't have a country running right or thriving with every last state/province telling the authority to get lost. All those Dixie boys died for nothing.

 

[dustbuster]

If you truly believe that you have to concede that George Washington and John Marshall were equally as unconstitutional and the balance of Federalism was doomed from the get-go.

I see your terrible comparison, and respond:
"Fuck you, no"

ou posted that hit piece video Razorfist did on Lincoln earlier in the thread. I'd love to see an actual seasoned Civil War historian rip it to shreds, but the closest I have are Vlogging Through History's responses to it, which are a good rebuttal.

19 citations (including on-stream reading of primary sources both American and European) vs a sperging commie.
You chose the commie.
You are banished from my feed and into the trash can.
I can't wait for you to try to reply by citing the daily fucking beast like the other commie did.
Fuck right off.

 

[OrangeJuliusEvola]

View attachment 5490217

https://ghostarchive.org/archive/h1a59?wr=false

Maybe the abandonment of Hunter's 4-year-old illegitimate kid turned out to be a blessing in disguise for the kid.....

I kind of want to know... Was this an attempted carjacking with agents inside the vehicle, or was this a response to a break and entry into an unoccupied vehicle?

If it was the former it seems odd that none of the joggers went to the morgue or hospital considering SS marksmanship standards. If it's the latter, I'd like to see the legal justification for the use of deadly force in response.

(Yeah, I know feddie boys ain't held to the same standard as regular law enforcement, but still.)

 

[dustbuster]

I kind of want to know... Was this an attempted carjacking with agents inside the vehicle, or was this a response to a break and entry into an unoccupied vehicle?

If it was the former it seems odd that none of the joggers went to the morgue or hospital considering SS marksmanship standards. If it's the latter, I'd like to see the legal justification for the use of deadly force in response.

(Yeah, I know feddie boys ain't held to the same standard as regular law enforcement, but still.)

My understanding is the SUV was a red secret service vehicle (as opposed to the stereotypical black).
My guess is, since they tend to keep those shiny and new, that some car thieves thought they'd hit gold.

The response is very telling.
DC PD would tell an average citizen to fuck off, and prosecute them for a 20 year stretch for defending their car this way.
Secret service just opened up on them and will face zero consequences.
1 law for plebs
another for the royals.

 

[Mr. Cow]

You NEED a strong centralized government to keep it together. If the south won and broke off,

You mean one of the longest lasting empires in history that was destroyed by Napoleon, one of the greatest generals of the period? If anything, it shows how effective decentralization can be.

 

[George Lucas]

I see your terrible comparison, and respond:
"Fuck you, no"


19 citations vs a sperging commie.
You chose the commie.
You are banished from my feed and into the trash can.

Perhaps you should lobby for amendments that restrict the power of the president. The Constitution gave the president a lot of power while the Legislature is actually quite weak (compare to Westminsterian parliaments around the world), and only recently has the Legislative really become ‘oppositional’ to the president. Previously it was more advisory, to varying extents. Under FDR, congress was little more than a rubber stamp, and it was because of FDR that Congress started to get some balls and say ‘enough’. Many Federalists wanted a king. It’s not perfect, but it’s what we have. The system relies on people voting in a measured, competent ruler. If you vote in pretentious, moralist fools like Wilson, and FDR, you get the swampy bureaucratic Executive branches we have today. Lincoln had nothing to do with that. Had the Civil War never happened, the various moralistic movements that led to things like the Fed, income tax, and the FBI still would have come about, and America still would have elected the likes of Wilson and FDR. Theoretically, we still have everything we need to unravel these unnecessary institutions. I personally support Federalism and do not want to see the powers of the Executive branch limited. I think that in times of war, we absolutely may need it.

 

[pwnest injun]

There existed no prohibition on secession before the war. The treason trials of the confederate government were dropped because it was not guaranteed that SCOTUS would convict. Jefferson Davis was intended to argue the legality of secession and was building a formidable case.

It wasn't until Texas V white that it was declared illegal in 1870 (i think). Shitty decision but political pressures and partisanship made it happen. they had to justify killing a million people somehow and despite modern revisionist history no northern would claim to have fought for the slaves.

Im stopping my sperging here so the thread doesn't go even more off the rails. Retreading 160 year old history is out of place.

1869. But yes, the question of whether it was legal or not for the states to secede wasn't actually considered until after the war was over.

 

[dustbuster]

Perhaps you should lobby for amendments that restrict the power of the president.

No amendments were required.
Lincoln violated so many provisions of every article of the constitution and the bill of rights he may as well have doused it in kerosene and set it ablaze.
The republic never recovered.

1869. But yes, the question of whether it was legal or not for the states to succeed wasn't actually considered until after the war was over.

The federal government deliberately avoided treason trials for southern leaders because they knew they would lose.
Only a generation later, after ages of lincoln worship propaganda and the expunging of his arm-long record of tyranny from the public mind, did they finally rule on it, in an extremely corrupt and partisan decision matched only by the likes of Plessy and that very fine ruling where they said POTUS firing federal employees acting as agents of his outgoing opposition was "takings"