Voter Suppression and Why The Republicans Love It So Much?

[fishonjazz]

Things just got crazy in here


Sent from my iPad using JazzFanz mobile app

 

[Gameface]

Don't be an idiot. People are always gonna be people, and always with some degrees of attitudes and manners of difference. Saying there are variations in how people act within societies or systems is virtually impossible to deny, except that when critics call out a society or a race, the rhetoric generally takes on aspects of hate speech, and the critics imply people are all bad or all good.

I could also argue that there were good slaves and bad slaves in various respects. It's like saying there are good bosses and bad bosses, good workers and bad workers. People cope. In any situation, in every circumstance, in every kind of government, in every religion, in every science, in every activity;. It's a survival mode. When you can't change things, you cope.

So black conservatives tend to speak more harshly against slavery than white liberals, did you notice?

But they are decrying the system more than the people who were in it, the institution more than the humans. And then they hoot about why reparations are nonsense, and how they have everything they need to succeed They are painting a pc of how despite the worst. the world or people can do, they don't have the attitude of being a victim. Times have changed. People changed things. Almost everybody changed. Now they have liberty and they are not about to let the stupid fascist globalist/Democrat cronys take it and make them slaves to socialism. Or communism.

Remember how many times I've said that as an ideology, nobody who is anybody really significant, especially the likes of Obama or Hillary, really believe in the ideas? They use the ideas. They are corrupt as hell, and bent on taking advantage of people to their own enrichment.

I could throw in McConnell too. And Pelosi.

These folks are tyrants, and they want the power.

I'll try not to be an idiot. Will you also... oh wait, you're taking another crack at the different levels of not so bad slavery. Oh hold my hat, you decided to say there were good slaves and bad slaves, just like there are good workers and bad workers. Cool. I never could have guessed that some slaves that were better at being slaves than others. Forget what I was going to ask. Carry on babe.

 

[Deleted member 365]

You don't know anything about it either. I was not a slave, I didn't live through any of that.

You don’t have to live through something to learn about it, otherwise what’s the point of education? I think we’re about done here.

 

[Deleted member 365]

I'll try not to be an idiot. Will you also... oh wait, you're taking another crack at the different levels of not so bad slavery. Oh hold my hat, you decided to say there were good slaves and bad slaves, just like there are good workers and bad workers. Cool. I never could have guessed that some slaves that were better at being slaves than others. Forget what I was going to ask. Carry on babe.

Were you alive in antebellum America to know that for sure? Maybe all slaves were the same? How do you know that some black people were good at being enslaved and others weren’t? You weren’t personally there.

 

[Deleted member 365]

I assume that was babe?

Yep. Honestly one of the weirdest people I’ve seen on the internet. Has anyone actually met him personally? I’m just amazed at the weird posts he makes. I’d love to know where he comes up with this stuff.

 

[Gameface]

Yep. Honestly one of the weirdest people I’ve seen on the internet. Has anyone actually met him personally? I’m just amazed at the weird posts he makes. I’d love to know where he comes up with this stuff.

Trout met him. Said he seemed legit but also that he was in fact weird AF. This was several years ago.

 

[Deleted member 365]

Trout met him. Said he seemed legit but also that he was in fact weird AF. This was several years ago.

He could be a cool guy, I’m honestly not disparaging that. But these political and historical takes are so strange.

 

[Gameface]

He could be a cool guy, I’m honestly not disparaging that. But these political and historical takes are so strange.

Nah, all Trout really said was that he was a real person, his account wasn't a troll account or a "persona" account. Trout, a weird enough guy on his own (love you bro) made clear that babe was next level weird AF.

#stuffyoulearnatGFpokergames

 

[Deleted member 365]

I couldn’t remember all the details, but I remember how there was legit concern on Lincoln’s end about Britain siding with the confederacy and there was legit thought on the other side of the pond whether to help the confederacy out as well. It’s one of the major reasons why the Emancipation Proclamation (1863) was written:

1. Encourage those enslaved to revolt.
2. Make it clear domestically and internationally what the war was about.

After it’s declaration, no European country wanted to overtly help the confederacy.

This doesn’t exactly paint a picture of Lincoln being a useful idiot for a bunch of Masonic British globalists:

United Kingdom and the American Civil War - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

Then again, I wasn’t personally there and I didn’t personally know Lincoln. Maybe he was just an empty husk? Maybe he was merely a useful idiot? Maybe slavery wasn’t that bad? I’ve never been a slave before.

 

[Al-O-Meter]

The Civil War was about slavery. That's the "State Right" in question. There was no broader ideological movement regarding State's Rights involved. To claim otherwise is absolute revisionist history.

I know this is going to come back to bite me but your version is the narrative. It is the revisionist history that the victors wrote. The Thriller has the story much closer to correct.

The State's Right at issue is the Tenth Amendment in the Bill of Rights. The Tenth Amendment reads:

The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.

Secession is not mentioned in the US Constitution which means per the Tenth Amendment it is a power of the States. The Tenth Amendment does not say the States can have the power if it is morally good. The southern states wanted to leave to maintain the disgusting practice of slavery and the Tenth Amendment gave them the right to do so. The north went to war to prevent the south from exercising their tenth amendment rights, their "states rights". The north did not go to war to abolish slavery. In fact one of the northern states that went to war against the south was a slave state and they stayed a slave state even after the emancipation proclamation. The American Civil war was about the state's right to secede from the union. We know the war was about the state's right to secede because Abraham Lincoln put it in writing.

My paramount object in this struggle is to save the Union, and is not either to save or to destroy slavery. If I could save the Union without freeing any slave I would do it, and if I could save it by freeing all the slaves I would do it; and if I could save it by freeing some and leaving others alone I would also do that.
-Abraham Lincoln 1862

Abraham Lincoln's Letter to Horace Greeley

The narrative of the American Civil War being about the abolishment of slavery came out of the Trent Affair. The Union had blocked all southern ports with their navy. The Confederates sent emissaries down to Cuba to board an English postal ship named the RMS Trent with the intention of asking the English to break the Union blockade. The Union found out about it, intercepted the Trent, and imprisoned the emissaries who were technically under English protection. The Union did release the Confederate emissaries but only after sending their own emissaries to brand the war as for the abolition of slavery to poison the well. The narrative was maintained because #1) The Union were the ones legally in the wrong - and - #2) It gives white people something to point to as a price white people paid to end slavery.

We can all celebrate that the American Civil War resulted in the end of slavery, but that doesn't mean we can't be honest about the version of history that has been taught to kids.

 

[Deleted member 365]

We’re splitting hairs here.

The civil war was waged because southern states seceded so they could maintain their “state’s rights” of keeping human beings enslaved.

True, Lincoln and the American government weren’t all on monolithic in their thinking in 1861. There were heated discussions On how to end slavery, if slave owners could be bought out, if former slaves could be shipped to Liberia, and once freed from slavery how many rights could be allotted to them. That’s history that’s called being human. That Lincoln and attitudes of his government evolved and changed is important.

Why?

Because it shows that our country and government isn’t set in stone. It can change to meet the needs of the times.

Which is why arguments about returning the country to a time of less interconnectiveness and “State’s rights” is just absurd. It’s reactionary. It’s the opposite of what this county Needs. It’s why the filibuster needs to go and the house and Supreme Court need to be expanded. It’s why we need universal health care (universal health care wasnt necessary in the 18th century because health care was a joke. Washington died from doctors bleeding out his virus).

Governments must change to meet the needs of its people.

Which is why the civil war was fought. Tolerating seceding states who left over slavery wasn’t acceptable. Rebelling states needed to be brought back into the fold and the right to keep human beings enslaved as property needed to be ended. As @Gameface stated, slavery was the root cause. Without slavery, states wouldn’t have seceded. Without states seceding, there wouldn’t have been a need for a civil war.

 

[Al-O-Meter]

Without slavery, states wouldn’t have seceded. Without states seceding, there wouldn’t have been a need for a civil war.

With or without slavery, the US Civil War was always going to be fought. The American Civil War almost happened 30 years earlier over tariffs in what is called the Nullification Crisis. If it was going to be tariffs or slavery or something else, the question of what we were was always going to result in war. Before the Civil War, America was not a country. It was a Union. There is a reason it was called the Union. In speeches before the Civil War we would be called "These United States" while after the Civil War we were called "The United States". That transition from Union to Country was what the American Civil War was really about. Slavery just happened to be the spark to make the fight happen.