ADVERTISEMENT

Critical Race Theory & Confederate Statues

Goat, when I first started posting on this forum, I tried to post reasonably. But I was attacked and called names and ridiculed for daring to defend Republicans and Trump.

It didn't help the 'tenor' of the board any, so why should only conservative be expected to act with civility? I can be civil to anyone who is civil with me.

This applies to the political arena as well. You allow leftists and criminals to run rampant, with little or no repurcussion, and then expect conservatives to just sit back and take it. It doesn't work that way in the real world.
Wait -- you just posted that you were attacked "for daring to defend Republicans and Trump."

Did you also post about a week ago that you were not a Trump supporter and didn't even vote for him? I'm going from memory, so I'm just asking the question. That's all.
 
Wait -- you just posted that you were attacked "for daring to defend Republicans and Trump."

Did you also post about a week ago that you were not a Trump supporter and didn't even vote for him? I'm going from memory, so I'm just asking the question. That's all.

No one voted for trump. Didnt you know? Lol
 
I voted for him twice in the National Election. If the only choice is Biden or Harris in 2024 and Trump is the other choice, I will vote for him again.

I voted for Kasich in the Indiana Primary.
 
  • Like
Reactions: DANC
I voted for him twice in the National Election. If the only choice is Biden or Harris in 2024 and Trump is the other choice, I will vote for him again.

I voted for Kasich in the Indiana Primary.
I liked Kasich at first but he turned into a real jerk!
 
Take the statues down through the democratic process, not through vandalism and mobs. I'm all for that. Put them in museums.

Answering your questions:

1. Yes, all of those things are part of the history of the South. Some are part of the history of the North. They are all taught in schools, should be, and have been in northern Indiana since at least the 1980s when I attended high school.

2. No. Your "broad" definition of CRT is wrong. It need not and should not be taught (I'm not saying I'd have a legal ban, though). CRT in all of its manifestations is an illiberal theory; social justice can be taught within a liberal framework. If you'd like to educate yourself, read Cynical Theories by Pluckrose and Lindsay.
I will not discuss the racist part of CRT which says white people bad. Here is what I want to talk about. CRT is also linked to those who don't believe America was justly founded. Thus they want to scrap our Constitution and have a do over which would be a socialist paradise. If CRT was right about the founding being unjust then it would make sense to scrap it. But they are wrong. Have blacks been wronged in the past? Yes! But we had a Civil War because of this issue and the side won who said Slavery was a terrible thing. The Founders never thought America was a perfect place nor were Americans perfect people. It's why we have Amendments. We can make things right if they are unjust. Thus slaves were freed. Let us now move to our current day. CRT says scrap the Constitution and Capitalism. These things are actually what will help those who are believe they are not being treated fairly. It is about the freedom of the individual and the rule of Law. Let's get back to those things. Let's shake off the shackles of a tyrannical government we voted in and get back to freedom. I told my grandson today that he is to love merica. I said it that way because I don't have to think about it. AAAA Merica? Nope. I love America as founded and the hope of us all is in God's providence and adhering to all the founding principles.
 
No, they don't think it is as big of a deal NOW that many on the left do. There are a significant number on one side of the aisle that views everything through that lense and the other side says, "it happened, it is a stain, it was terrible, but if you are someone whose ancestors went through that it has minimal impact on your ability to succeed today".

I do not know how much of an impact it has, neither do you. I have posted how Blacks were cut out from the GI Bill benefits after WW2. That cut down on the amount of wealth transfer to younger generations as they pass. How do we quantify that.

Blacks were far less likely to get Vietnam deferments, how do we quantify that?

We made drug charges harsher for drugs Blacks take (crack cocaine is the poster child). How do we quantify that?

How do we quantify driving while Black?

We know there are studies showing Blacks receive less adequate healthcare, how do we quantify that?


I cannot measure all that except to say all that presents an overall detriment. Is it a 1% detriment, 5%, 10%? Who knows. But you would never enter into a 100 yard dash where the other competitors only have to run 90, 95, 99, yards.
 
Wait -- you just posted that you were attacked "for daring to defend Republicans and Trump."

Did you also post about a week ago that you were not a Trump supporter and didn't even vote for him? I'm going from memory, so I'm just asking the question. That's all.
No, that's not what I said. Your memory is faulty.
 
I do not know how much of an impact it has, neither do you. I have posted how Blacks were cut out from the GI Bill benefits after WW2. That cut down on the amount of wealth transfer to younger generations as they pass. How do we quantify that.

Blacks were far less likely to get Vietnam deferments, how do we quantify that?

We made drug charges harsher for drugs Blacks take (crack cocaine is the poster child). How do we quantify that?

How do we quantify driving while Black?

We know there are studies showing Blacks receive less adequate healthcare, how do we quantify that?


I cannot measure all that except to say all that presents an overall detriment. Is it a 1% detriment, 5%, 10%? Who knows. But you would never enter into a 100 yard dash where the other competitors only have to run 90, 95, 99, yards.
And I proved you wrong about the GI Bill. Please stop spreading this lie.
 
I will not discuss the racist part of CRT which says white people bad. Here is what I want to talk about. CRT is also linked to those who don't believe America was justly founded. Thus they want to scrap our Constitution and have a do over which would be a socialist paradise. If CRT was right about the founding being unjust then it would make sense to scrap it. But they are wrong. Have blacks been wronged in the past? Yes! But we had a Civil War because of this issue and the side won who said Slavery was a terrible thing. The Founders never thought America was a perfect place nor were Americans perfect people. It's why we have Amendments. We can make things right if they are unjust. Thus slaves were freed. Let us now move to our current day. CRT says scrap the Constitution and Capitalism. These things are actually what will help those who are believe they are not being treated fairly. It is about the freedom of the individual and the rule of Law. Let's get back to those things. Let's shake off the shackles of a tyrannical government we voted in and get back to freedom. I told my grandson today that he is to love merica. I said it that way because I don't have to think about it. AAAA Merica? Nope. I love America as founded and the hope of us all is in God's providence and adhering to all the founding principles.
That's all utter nonsense, Van. As usual, you are arguing against something that only exists in your fevered imagination.
 

We are totally not teaching CRT and Kendi style "anti-racism" to your children. So much so that we are forming an attack dog group to go after parents who are against that of which we do not teach.
Yeah man, your link just says there a huge attack coming from the right and they need to be prepared.

Nowhere does it say teaching CRT.

Says they are attacking 'anti-racism' which is a nebulous concept.

Meaning the mob is devouring right wing CRT fear mongering and using it as an attack on any assumed anti racist teaching.

So teachers need to be prepared.
 
I will not discuss the racist part of CRT which says white people bad. Here is what I want to talk about. CRT is also linked to those who don't believe America was justly founded. Thus they want to scrap our Constitution and have a do over which would be a socialist paradise. If CRT was right about the founding being unjust then it would make sense to scrap it. But they are wrong. Have blacks been wronged in the past? Yes! But we had a Civil War because of this issue and the side won who said Slavery was a terrible thing. The Founders never thought America was a perfect place nor were Americans perfect people. It's why we have Amendments. We can make things right if they are unjust. Thus slaves were freed. Let us now move to our current day. CRT says scrap the Constitution and Capitalism. These things are actually what will help those who are believe they are not being treated fairly. It is about the freedom of the individual and the rule of Law. Let's get back to those things. Let's shake off the shackles of a tyrannical government we voted in and get back to freedom. I told my grandson today that he is to love merica. I said it that way because I don't have to think about it. AAAA Merica? Nope. I love America as founded and the hope of us all is in God's providence and adhering to all the founding principles.
Sorry Van, this is example A of a perceived right wing fear that's based on long, underlying feelings and attitudes...but not based in reality.

It's Infowars version of CRT.
 
  • Like
Reactions: IU_Hickory
I do not know how much of an impact it has, neither do you. I have posted how Blacks were cut out from the GI Bill benefits after WW2. That cut down on the amount of wealth transfer to younger generations as they pass. How do we quantify that.

Blacks were far less likely to get Vietnam deferments, how do we quantify that?

We made drug charges harsher for drugs Blacks take (crack cocaine is the poster child). How do we quantify that?

How do we quantify driving while Black?

We know there are studies showing Blacks receive less adequate healthcare, how do we quantify that?


I cannot measure all that except to say all that presents an overall detriment. Is it a 1% detriment, 5%, 10%? Who knows. But you would never enter into a 100 yard dash where the other competitors only have to run 90, 95, 99, yards.
What exactly is the dollar amount of the check you want to write? How are you going to dole it out? Like the Indian casinos? I had clients, a mother and two daughters that got in on the early Indian Casino gold rush. They spent and borrowed like it was never going to stop. Then they needed a government program to help with their debt when the gold was gone. 😂
 
What exactly is the dollar amount of the check you want to write? How are you going to dole it out? Like the Indian casinos? I had clients, a mother and two daughters that got in on the early Indian Casino gold rush. They spent and borrowed like it was never going to stop. Then they needed a government program to help with their debt when the gold was gone. 😂
I do not think I have mentioned a check. I am arguing we ain't equal yet and there are a host of reasons why.
 
Take the statues down through the democratic process, not through vandalism and mobs. I'm all for that. Put them in museums.

Answering your questions:

1. Yes, all of those things are part of the history of the South. Some are part of the history of the North. They are all taught in schools, should be, and have been in northern Indiana since at least the 1980s when I attended high school.

2. No. Your "broad" definition of CRT is wrong. It need not and should not be taught (I'm not saying I'd have a legal ban, though). CRT in all of its manifestations is an illiberal theory; social justice can be taught within a liberal framework. If you'd like to educate yourself, read Cynical Theories by Pluckrose and Lindsay.
"Take the statues down through the democratic process, not through vandalism and mobs. I'm all for that. Put them in museums."

Pretty sure that is exactly what happened in Charlottesville when the town council voted unanimously to remove the statues. That resulted in Walter Kessler and his pal Richard Spencer blackmailing the city into granting them a permit to hold a "defend the statues" rally, which was originally their own Identity Europa/ Vanguard fascist followers along with the KKK. But other supposedly non-Nazi conservatives decided to include themselves and it became the "unite the right" rally, wildly promoted on Fox news...

So apparently you disagree with the "conservatives" who responded to the LEGAL removal of the statues with violence? The problem is attitudes like yours were in short supply, as "preserving the statues" became the culture war cry of the day among your less rational (fellow) right-wingers. The whole reason I'm on the other side of the CRT issue is that it's obvious the same folks who were the money/power behind the "save the statues" campaigns are filling the same role in the anti-CRT crusade. Before that, they were tea party "volunteers" who attacked Obamacare while backed by Big Tobacco...

I just read that Texas is banning the teaching of slavery being a major issue in the dispute between Mexico and Texas leading up to the Alamo. Really, Texas Legislators are afraid that kids learning history can't handle that much truth? I mean I didn't learn that truth until later, but I'm not sure teaching false history and ignoring facts is the way to go.

I think this is interesting, the perspective of a Black mom on what her kids were and were not taught in history.
 
  • Like
Reactions: outside shooter
They were called Dixiecrats, and they flipped over to the republican side as the democrats became more liberal and progressive while the republicans welcomed Goldwater (who begat Reagan) as a move to a far right conservative.

Which is really the trick that those that point to Lincoln and say he's a republican.

The real distinction is progressive/liberal vs conservative.

Lincoln wasn't a conservative, especially for the time that he lived. Hell it cost him his life.
The key thing to remember about the original (1948) Dixiecrats, was that they left the Dem party over (fellow Dem) Truman's integration of the Armed Forces. The fact that many of them then felt welcome in the GOP (esp the Goldwater wing) is significant as well. There have been a total of 11 US Senators who were AA, and while 4 of them have been GOP, only 2 of 4 (Brooke, Scott) served in the 20th or 21st Century...
 
The key thing to remember about the original (1948) Dixiecrats, was that they left the Dem party over (fellow Dem) Truman's integration of the Armed Forces. The fact that many of them then felt welcome in the GOP (esp the Goldwater wing) is significant as well. There have been a total of 11 US Senators who were AA, and while 4 of them have been GOP, only 2 of 4 (Brooke, Scott) served in the 20th or 21st Century...
Robert Byrd, Grand Kleagle of the KKK, stayed Democrat.

As did Al Gore Sr., who voted against the 1964 Civil Rights Act.

As did LBJ, who cynically pushed the Civil Rights Act in search of votes, but was a known racist.

These are key things to remember.
 
The key thing to remember about the original (1948) Dixiecrats, was that they left the Dem party over (fellow Dem) Truman's integration of the Armed Forces. The fact that many of them then felt welcome in the GOP (esp the Goldwater wing) is significant as well. There have been a total of 11 US Senators who were AA, and while 4 of them have been GOP, only 2 of 4 (Brooke, Scott) served in the 20th or 21st Century...
No no no. It’s been made clear here repeatedly. Nixon’s “Southern Strategy” invited the bad Democrats into the GOP so all the racists could be together and the blacks could be Democrats despite the party’s 250 years of racist history.

Stop changing the story.

Nixon. Southern Strategy. Stick to the script. If you go back before the Southern Strategery the facts gets awfully embarrassing for the Democrats. Soo...

Nixon. Southern Strategy. Lester Maddox’s kin went GOP.
 
No no no. It’s been made clear here repeatedly. Nixon’s “Southern Strategy” invited the bad Democrats into the GOP so all the racists could be together and the blacks could be Democrats despite the party’s 250 years of racist history.

Stop changing the story.

Nixon. Southern Strategy. Stick to the script. If you go back before the Southern Strategery the facts gets awfully embarrassing for the Democrats. Soo...

Nixon. Southern Strategy. Lester Maddox’s kin went GOP.
The Democrats are the new Republicans, don't you know. They claim Lincoln as their own.

They weren't really for slavery. Just the government policies that keep them down today.
 
I do not think I have mentioned a check. I am arguing we ain't equal yet and there are a host of reasons why.
People’s all over the world aren’t equal. Why keep belaboring the issue? We have laws regarding discrimination. If someone breaks those laws criminally or civilly let’s punish them. Everyone else doesn’t have to be punished each time.

How are we ever going to move forward if we’re always making everything about race?
 
  • Like
Reactions: Lucy01 and DANC
No no no. It’s been made clear here repeatedly. Nixon’s “Southern Strategy” invited the bad Democrats into the GOP so all the racists could be together and the blacks could be Democrats despite the party’s 250 years of racist history.

Stop changing the story.

Nixon. Southern Strategy. Stick to the script. If you go back before the Southern Strategery the facts gets awfully embarrassing for the Democrats. Soo...

Nixon. Southern Strategy. Lester Maddox’s kin went GOP.
Watching others pull out this dance is funny. Watching you do it is just sad, because you're smart enough to know better.
 
Is the GI Bill statement true or false?
Which GI Bill statement? There are stories showing that colleges and trade schools refused to allow Blacks in after WW2, even if they had been GIs. Some banks refused to loan to Black GIs, and even if a bank would, many people refused to sell to Blacks out of personal choice or because of a deed.

Is that the statement? If so, it appears true. You can Google Blacks GI bill and see what you find.

To be fair, I suspect Native Americans had the exact same problems but have not Googled their issues.
 
The Democrats are the new Republicans, don't you know. They claim Lincoln as their own.

They weren't really for slavery. Just the government policies that keep them down today.

You think Lincoln was a conservative?

You think blowing up the southern economy was conservative thinking?

If we had the WC in 1860 I'm pretty sure there would be posts about 'destroying people's businesses' or the massive increase in labor costs which will hurt businesses if slavery is abolished.

We need less government, particularly federal. Let the states decide!!!!!

Does that sound like a liberal argument?
 
You think Lincoln was a conservative?

You think blowing up the southern economy was conservative thinking?

If we had the WC in 1860 I'm pretty sure there would be posts about 'destroying people's businesses' or the massive increase in labor costs which will hurt businesses if slavery is abolished.

We need less government, particularly federal. Let the states decide!!!!!

Does that sound like a liberal argument?
You need to pick up a history book. The first problem you are going to have is placing those parties on the current left right paradigm we have today. Neither of them was really influenced by Karl Marx to start with....

But yes, Lincoln was a pragmatic conservative, to argue otherwise is to be factually incorrect.
 
  • Like
Reactions: stollcpa and DANC
You need to pick up a history book. The first problem you are going to have is placing those parties on the current left right paradigm we have today. Neither of them was really influenced by Karl Marx to start with....

But yes, Lincoln was a pragmatic conservative, to argue otherwise is to be factually incorrect.
Lincoln supported and signed the Morrell Land Grant College Act, vetoed by Buchanan and opposed by states rights conservatives.

Lincoln supported and signed the Homestead Act, opposed by states rights conservatives.

Lincoln supported the Transcontinental Railroad, opposed by states rights conservatives.

Lincoln said the quote below:

"Labor is prior to and independent of capital. Capital is only the fruit of labor, and could never have existed if labor had not first existed. Labor is the superior of capital, and deserves much the higher consideration."
 
Lincoln supported and signed the Morrell Land Grant College Act, vetoed by Buchanan and opposed by states rights conservatives.

Lincoln supported and signed the Homestead Act, opposed by states rights conservatives.

Lincoln supported the Transcontinental Railroad, opposed by states rights conservatives.

Lincoln said the quote below:

"Labor is prior to and independent of capital. Capital is only the fruit of labor, and could never have existed if labor had not first existed. Labor is the superior of capital, and deserves much the higher consideration."
Pinko!!!
 
  • Like
Reactions: UncleMark
Which GI Bill statement? There are stories showing that colleges and trade schools refused to allow Blacks in after WW2, even if they had been GIs. Some banks refused to loan to Black GIs, and even if a bank would, many people refused to sell to Blacks out of personal choice or because of a deed.

Is that the statement? If so, it appears true. You can Google Blacks GI bill and see what you find.

To be fair, I suspect Native Americans had the exact same problems but have not Googled their issues.
"here are stories showing that colleges and trade schools refused to allow Blacks in after WW2, even if they had been GIs."

If they were denied because of their race, that's racism. Not the fault of the GI Bill.

"Some banks refused to loan to Black GIs, and even if a bank would, many people refused to sell to Blacks out of personal choice or because of a deed."

And I explained to you, per the GI Bill, you still have to get loans through a bank or lending institution and there are credit criteria. The government itself does not just hand out loans itself, per the GI Bill.

You are confused about what the GI Bill does and how it operates. I have explained this to you before, but you keep repeating BLM talking points.
 
Lincoln supported and signed the Morrell Land Grant College Act, vetoed by Buchanan and opposed by states rights conservatives.

Lincoln supported and signed the Homestead Act, opposed by states rights conservatives.

Lincoln supported the Transcontinental Railroad, opposed by states rights conservatives.

Lincoln said the quote below:

"Labor is prior to and independent of capital. Capital is only the fruit of labor, and could never have existed if labor had not first existed. Labor is the superior of capital, and deserves much the higher consideration."
I want to add, we do not know what Lincoln would think of the ACA. There just is no way of knowing. We do not know 2hat he would think of the modern defense budget. I know of no way of knowing what he would think of social welfare programs.

But he did pass an income tax, and he created paper money backed only by the credibility of the US government. Some on the far right still find that very offensive.

So what we know is that Lincoln was not particularly beholden to an old way of doing things.
 
Lincoln supported and signed the Morrell Land Grant College Act, vetoed by Buchanan and opposed by states rights conservatives.

Lincoln supported and signed the Homestead Act, opposed by states rights conservatives.

Lincoln supported the Transcontinental Railroad, opposed by states rights conservatives.

Lincoln said the quote below:

"Labor is prior to and independent of capital. Capital is only the fruit of labor, and could never have existed if labor had not first existed. Labor is the superior of capital, and deserves much the higher consideration."
Keep going, he was a Whig Marvin. I know there is this want of everyone to claim that Lincoln was actually a this or that, but the majority of his views were conservative. To argue otherwise is just making shit up.

The problem I alluded to that you really run into is the fact that both parties at his time have positions that either party today could point at and say, "see, you are this". However, both of those parties would also be further right on the political spectrum than the Democrats are today because neither was poisoned with Karl Marx's philosophies.
 
  • Like
Reactions: stollcpa and DANC
"Take the statues down through the democratic process, not through vandalism and mobs. I'm all for that. Put them in museums."

Pretty sure that is exactly what happened in Charlottesville when the town council voted unanimously to remove the statues. That resulted in Walter Kessler and his pal Richard Spencer blackmailing the city into granting them a permit to hold a "defend the statues" rally, which was originally their own Identity Europa/ Vanguard fascist followers along with the KKK. But other supposedly non-Nazi conservatives decided to include themselves and it became the "unite the right" rally, wildly promoted on Fox news...

So apparently you disagree with the "conservatives" who responded to the LEGAL removal of the statues with violence? The problem is attitudes like yours were in short supply, as "preserving the statues" became the culture war cry of the day among your less rational (fellow) right-wingers. The whole reason I'm on the other side of the CRT issue is that it's obvious the same folks who were the money/power behind the "save the statues" campaigns are filling the same role in the anti-CRT crusade. Before that, they were tea party "volunteers" who attacked Obamacare while backed by Big Tobacco...

I just read that Texas is banning the teaching of slavery being a major issue in the dispute between Mexico and Texas leading up to the Alamo. Really, Texas Legislators are afraid that kids learning history can't handle that much truth? I mean I didn't learn that truth until later, but I'm not sure teaching false history and ignoring facts is the way to go.

I think this is interesting, the perspective of a Black mom on what her kids were and were not taught in history.
Yes, I disagree with people if they believe we should have statues and monuments that might glorify those individuals who fought against the Union to preserve slavery. It's perverse--they were traitorous insurrectionists who were fighting to defend an abhorrent principle that I believe even they knew was immoral. Those are my political and moral beliefs. But my beliefs do not rule everyone else--I believe in the democratic process.

I also believe in the tenets of philosophical liberalism: I think honest debate on ideas can lead to agreement based on reason, I'm a proponent of the consent of the governed, liberty for individuals, equality before the law, free speech, secularism, freedom of the press, freedom of and from religion, and the older I become, I am more and more a proponent of the free market vs. government direction of markets as yielding the best results, as long as we have correctives and safety nets for times when the market isnt working in the way we, as a society, think it should. (CRT questions many of these liberal principles and I think it does so in a particularly poorly reasoned way and I am against it.)

If you believe those beliefs make me a right-winger, so be it, I guess. I just don't think it's very interesting to label people like that (and a lot of other people do on here and in society) and it typically turns people off, shutting down the ability to persuade and communicate. That is to say, I think it's boring and shallow to think and talk about two political tribes and then engage in verbal war with them to prove which side is more hypocritical or evil in their stances.

I find it much more productive and interesting to follow the Ted Lasso-ism: Be curious, not judgmental. I think you'll find if you dig down on people's concerns and what drives their opinions, that those with a more philosophical, thinking bent are quite a bit more heterodox than you believe them to be.

If you are curious, I'm pretty heterodox in my individual political stances on what meets my general beliefs. It's odd: I've studied Marx, Nozick, Rawls, and Hayek quite a bit and have plenty of criticisms of capitalism to this day, have studied the history of the civil rights movement more than most, have actually litigated, for free and on my own dime, on behalf of transgender, Muslim, and African Americans under Sec. 1983 (two successfully, one not), and 25 years ago was a proud, card-carrying member of the ACLU when that was not so popular a thing. Now I'm being labeled a "right-winger." My friends from college and law school find this very funny, by the way.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
I 'experience' you as a moderator every time I'm on the forum and see the double standard.

You're itching to ban me and give me another 'vacation', aren't you? This is proof you have no intention of treating everyone the same.

Tell me who the shitty poster again? You have posted over 57,000 times and have 30,000 'reactions.

I have posted 10,500 times and received 15,000 'reactions'.

That's a much higher percentage of reactions for me than for you.

I guess not 'everybody' thinks I'm a shitty poster.

TheOriginalHappyGoat​

Moderator
Moderator · From Margaritaville
Messages57,053Reaction score30,230Points113

DANC​

Gold Member
Hall of Famer
Messages10,555Reaction score15,012
Alright, you jumped the shark.

Counting “Likes” on a message board as validation of one’s “popularity.”

I’ve witnessed “teenie weenie-itis” in practice many times, but never quite like this. That’s beyond embarrassing.
 
Last edited:
Keep going, he was a Whig Marvin. I know there is this want of everyone to claim that Lincoln was actually a this or that, but the majority of his views were conservative. To argue otherwise is just making shit up.

The problem I alluded to that you really run into is the fact that both parties at his time have positions that either party today could point at and say, "see, you are this". However, both of those parties would also be further right on the political spectrum than the Democrats are today because neither was poisoned with Karl Marx's philosophies.
He was a Republican. Of the two parties of the era, he was a member of the more liberal one.

Cut the Marxist crap out, member of the Hitler party. See what that does for discussion.
 
Alright, you jumped the shark.

Counting “Likes” on a message board as validation of one’s “popularity.”

I’ve witnessed “teenie weenie-itis” in practice many times, but never quite like this. That’s beyond embarrassing.
I wonder if he is counting all the 🤣 likes I have given him to indicate laughing at his bullshit.
 
You need to pick up a history book. The first problem you are going to have is placing those parties on the current left right paradigm we have today. Neither of them was really influenced by Karl Marx to start with....

But yes, Lincoln was a pragmatic conservative, to argue otherwise is to be factually incorrect.
Apply the current and basic left/right paradigm (because if you want to deep dive of course there is no linear left and right, more like 50 spectrums) to the actions of the 1860's.

Then again tell me if you believe Lincoln to be a conservative or a progressive.

Remember the main slavery arguments. The federal shouldn't meddle in state's decisions. If you abolish slavery that will destroy the southern economy.

I'm pretty sure 1860 COH would be telling us that it's disgusting how the federal government is tyrannically and unconstitutionally forcing it's will onto the states. That the anti-slavery libs are just virtue signaling with the woke mob.

The lefties are going to destroy the country if slaves are freed because the economy will collapse and crime will rise to out of control proportions.

Think of the children having to grow up with slaves knowing that they will be targets for hate crimes for something they didn't do!!!
 
ADVERTISEMENT
ADVERTISEMENT