Let's pretend for one moment that he does die before the election, just for the funsies. What happens then? Will the nomination revert to option number 2, aka Bernie Sanders? Or will his running mate automatically replace him just the way Vice-President is supposted to step in after the Big Man in the White House chokes on a piece of matzo? Does he even have a running mate yet?
US Joe Biden News Megathread - The Other Biden Derangement Syndrome Thread (with a side order of Fauci Derangement Syndrome)
- Thread starter Borscht
- Start date
- Joined
- Nov 12, 2019
cross posting this absolute keke
- Joined
- Nov 29, 2020
Waiting for someone with more Photoshopping skills than I to add a "r" to "tooning". It'd be too perfect.
- Joined
- May 25, 2014
On the soldiers ordered to turn away U.S. citizens at the gates, how do you feel about that?
For the soldiers ordered by the Taliban to stay inside the cuckport and not actively try to save American lives, S.I.V. lives, and your C.O. having a whiny screech fit with the S.A.S. C.O. for doing such for "making you look bad" how does that feel?
For the soldiers on guard duty at the cuckport seeing the Taliban with American gear beating civilians. Did it feel good to see that?
Were these soldiers hand picked for party loyalty like the guardsmen in D.C. or are we looking at a bunch of pissed off people in out military?
For the soldiers ordered by the Taliban to stay inside the cuckport and not actively try to save American lives, S.I.V. lives, and your C.O. having a whiny screech fit with the S.A.S. C.O. for doing such for "making you look bad" how does that feel?
For the soldiers on guard duty at the cuckport seeing the Taliban with American gear beating civilians. Did it feel good to see that?
Were these soldiers hand picked for party loyalty like the guardsmen in D.C. or are we looking at a bunch of pissed off people in out military?
- Joined
- Jun 24, 2020
What's there to probe? They declined to hear the case. That's a choice they're free to make at their discretion.
Sucks to suck.
Standardized Profile
kiwifarms.net
- Joined
- Oct 5, 2018
The Supreme Court created the right to abortion, the Supreme Court can take it away. There's nothing Nancy or Joe can do about it. Separation of powers. This is what happens when your policies are so unpopular across the country you have to depend on five people in black robes to magic them into existence. Eventually, other people will wear those robes.
- Joined
- Nov 29, 2020
You absolute legend. You poked the hole in their logic so beautifully I wish I could give you a Semper Fi.
- Joined
- Aug 17, 2018
Only a matter of time before gun rights go away or legalizing segregation and race discrimination.
- Joined
- Jun 24, 2020
MrJokerRager
kiwifarms.net
- Joined
- Nov 2, 2019
His wife's side had slaves but not him personally. He was on the abolitionist side of the issue but didn't want to burn the nation down, but it was inevitable.
Under Lincoln we got the emancipation proclaimation which freed slaves in the south and later on the 13th and 14th amendments happened. Also allowed blacks to fight in the union army as well.
History is definitely complex but he managed to get the issue of slavery finally resolved and his payment was a bullet to his head.
- Joined
- Aug 17, 2018
I understand that, but I'm tired of the revisionist history route of American politics.
- Joined
- Apr 24, 2020
- Joined
- Nov 29, 2020
You're definitely not alone on that front. *cough* CRT *cough*
- Joined
- Apr 1, 2017
The screaming from "Five abortions and six baby daddy" people on facebook are making me laugh today.
- Joined
- Feb 5, 2020
- Joined
- Apr 30, 2016
I hate how they can't even assign blame correctly. The Supreme Court literally did nothing, the Texan legislature did. It's like they think the job of the Supreme Court is to intervene any time a red state does something they don't like. They are completely incapable of thinking below the national level.
- Joined
- Oct 2, 2020
To be fair, and forgive me if I sound a bit too much like that one guy, Lincoln's attitudes towards slavery is a bit of a mix of both.
Throughout his political career, Lincoln flipped on a myriad of positions regarding slavery and what should be done about it. It's generally agreed upon that he was a Moderate Republican, in the sense that he was torn between the Radical Republicans who wanted full emancipation and punishment of the Confederacy (think Thaddeus Stevens), and the "Copperheads" (anti-war Democrats), in conjunction with pro-Southern congressmen, either hated Lincoln's guts, or actively plotted to have him assassinated. In an 1854 letter written to Joshua Speed, a personal friend who owned slaves in Kentucky, Lincoln lamented at the notion of patriotic Northerners who cherished the Constitution and the Union being indifferent, or outright complicit, in the oppression of enslaved Africans:
"You ought rather to appreciate how much the great body of the Northern people do crucify their feelings, in order to maintain their loyalty to the Constitution and the Union. … How can any one who abhors the oppression of negroes, be in favor of degrading classes of white people? Our progress in degeneracy appears to me to be pretty rapid. As a nation, we began by declaring that "all men are created equal." We now practically read it "all men are created equal, except negroes." When the Know-Nothings get control, it will read "all men are created equal, except negroes, and foreigners, and catholics.""
Meanwhile during his presidential debates against Stephen A. Douglass in 1858, Lincoln was criticized for being inconsistent on his position. At his first debate in Illinois, Lincoln said that there was "no reason in the world why the negro is not entitled to all the natural rights enumerated in the Declaration of Independence, the right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness." But at a separate speech in Illinois, he clarified that he was not, "nor ever have been in favor of bringing about in any way the social and political equality of the white and black races [applause]—that I am not nor ever have been in favor of making voters or jurors of negroes, nor of qualifying them to hold office, nor to intermarry with white people; and I will say in addition to this that there is a physical difference between the white and black races which I believe will for ever forbid the two races living together on terms of social and political equality."
Years later in 1862, Lincoln wrote a letter to Horace Greeley, editor of the New York Tribune, in response to accusations that his administration seemed far less concerned on preserving the Union, as they had been losing repetitious battles against the Confederacy since April 1861. He emphasized that his "paramount object is this struggle is to save the Union, and is not either to save or to destroy slavery." While he frames emancipation as a potential means to save the Union in the letter, the final segment of it effectively leaves little ambiguity as to Lincoln's position on slavery and emancipation:
"I have here stated my purpose according to my view of official duty; and I intend no modification of my oft-expressed personal wish that all men every where could be free."
That final remark leads historians to believe that Lincoln's inconsistency on his policies were largely rooted in his personal struggle to further his personal desire to end slavery forever, all the while preserving the Union and keeping its majority White population, which in the mid-19th century were technically "racist" by our modern social standards, loyal to the Constitution and the Union for the war.
So in general, while Lincoln definitely shifted his positions, changed his mind, and danced across several of the criticisms levied against him, it is still historically correct that he wanted to end slavery, emancipate the slaves themselves, and to preserve the Union.
For further reading, I personally recommend Father Abraham: Lincoln's Relentless Struggle to End Slavery by Richard Striner. There's also a massive archive of primary source documents from his life all across the internet, so you can get the real words spoken and written by the man himself.
"You ought rather to appreciate how much the great body of the Northern people do crucify their feelings, in order to maintain their loyalty to the Constitution and the Union. … How can any one who abhors the oppression of negroes, be in favor of degrading classes of white people? Our progress in degeneracy appears to me to be pretty rapid. As a nation, we began by declaring that "all men are created equal." We now practically read it "all men are created equal, except negroes." When the Know-Nothings get control, it will read "all men are created equal, except negroes, and foreigners, and catholics.""
Meanwhile during his presidential debates against Stephen A. Douglass in 1858, Lincoln was criticized for being inconsistent on his position. At his first debate in Illinois, Lincoln said that there was "no reason in the world why the negro is not entitled to all the natural rights enumerated in the Declaration of Independence, the right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness." But at a separate speech in Illinois, he clarified that he was not, "nor ever have been in favor of bringing about in any way the social and political equality of the white and black races [applause]—that I am not nor ever have been in favor of making voters or jurors of negroes, nor of qualifying them to hold office, nor to intermarry with white people; and I will say in addition to this that there is a physical difference between the white and black races which I believe will for ever forbid the two races living together on terms of social and political equality."
Years later in 1862, Lincoln wrote a letter to Horace Greeley, editor of the New York Tribune, in response to accusations that his administration seemed far less concerned on preserving the Union, as they had been losing repetitious battles against the Confederacy since April 1861. He emphasized that his "paramount object is this struggle is to save the Union, and is not either to save or to destroy slavery." While he frames emancipation as a potential means to save the Union in the letter, the final segment of it effectively leaves little ambiguity as to Lincoln's position on slavery and emancipation:
"I have here stated my purpose according to my view of official duty; and I intend no modification of my oft-expressed personal wish that all men every where could be free."
That final remark leads historians to believe that Lincoln's inconsistency on his policies were largely rooted in his personal struggle to further his personal desire to end slavery forever, all the while preserving the Union and keeping its majority White population, which in the mid-19th century were technically "racist" by our modern social standards, loyal to the Constitution and the Union for the war.
So in general, while Lincoln definitely shifted his positions, changed his mind, and danced across several of the criticisms levied against him, it is still historically correct that he wanted to end slavery, emancipate the slaves themselves, and to preserve the Union.
For further reading, I personally recommend Father Abraham: Lincoln's Relentless Struggle to End Slavery by Richard Striner. There's also a massive archive of primary source documents from his life all across the internet, so you can get the real words spoken and written by the man himself.
TL;DR - Lincoln flipped-flopped on his public positions and attitudes towards slavery, emancipation, and race-relations. But as current historical evidence indicates, he harbored these dreams of legal and social equality in his personal affairs, and eventually managed to make these pro-emancipation sentiments Constitutional law. For those reasons, I still think his reputation as the "Great Emancipator" and the man who "saved the Union" is well-deserved.
I do agree with you that some history memes like that oversimplifies the past, but the history buried beneath the joke is still backable. And lets be honest, all politicians in all parts of history lie and change their minds. Just look at how Barack Obama's attitudes towards gay marriage changed from 2000 to 2015!
Last edited:
SneedEyeMitch
kiwifarms.net
- Joined
- Jul 21, 2021
I blame mass media, it's not even an American problem, most people don't understand how much control and influence even their local political machine has and directly impacts them.
- Joined
- Apr 30, 2016
Molly Jong-Fast is part of mass media, this is either just the only level of politics they understand (journalists are statistically more likely to be middling IQ alcoholics), or they deliberately sell it this way for an underlying agenda.
- Joined
- Oct 20, 2019
You don't need to be religious to oppose abortion. If it's literally "morning after pill is wrong" level of opposition then it's probably founded in religion but for the rest of us, you don't need to be religious to oppose the taking of a human life.
So in IT there's an expression "security through obscurity". It's not a compliment. It makes you're not secure because you locked the back door but because you hope nobody knows it's open. It's typically associated with closed source software and it's also the reason why encryption algorithms are always publicly disclosed - so that people can check it doesn't have any vulnerabilities before they rely on it. What these "security experts" are saying (and rarely have quote marks been so well used) is that they're relying on Security through Obscurity for electoral integrity and that with the software being disclosed its flaws can be found. There's a long list of things this attitude shows as wrong; starting with the fact that outside parties have almost certainly had access (and therefore can look for vulnerabilities) for years. And also on that list is the fact that the public and its chosen representatives must be able to review the software used for elections because it's not just a question of whether the software is safe from adversaries but whether the vendor itself might be an adversary.
Essentially, the above is much worse that it sounds.
- Status