2020 US Presidential Election

[all to gain]

I would not like to see this happen, but if it were split into two nations, and it was done peacefully, I could live with it. What's so terrible about that?

If it was split, how would it be split, e.g. south/north or Republican/Democrat or how?

 

[aot]

I don't understand the question, I have already expressed my concern for the dead soldiers, their widows, and children.

I was referring to the black widows, children, and fathers.

slavery becoming obsolete, very shortly.

Define "shortly". On a historical scale, a short run might very well be a century or more.

the slaves were not in mortal danger of any kind

Imagine living everyday as someone's property. Everyone you love is an object, to be worked for hours in the blazing sun without pay, and if you resist, you are either shot, or whipped into submission. Your wife and daughters are raped, your brothers and sons are nothing more than pack animals. This is your life, from until you are born, up until you die.

Now take that, and multiply by generations. Your kids will suffer the same fate, as did your ansecstors.

"Mortal danger"? Maybe not all the time, granted. But most people would rather be dead than live such a hell.

 

[FGG]

I don't understand the question, I have already expressed my concern for the dead soldiers, their widows, and children.

We don't know what would have happened to them, had the South seceded. It has been said by experts on the subject, that slavery was not sustainable and would have died out, without interference. Forcing people to fight for somebody else, with a very high probability of death of the soliders, when the slaves were not in mortal danger of any kind, is not something that I agree with, especially in light of what the scholars have said about slavery becoming obsolete, very shortly.

Who are these experts and what time frame were they giving?

"Shortly" seems overly optimistic since the Confederate States were willing to go to war over slavery, so it obviously didn't seem economically on the downturn to them at the time.

And if the South was willing to let soldiers die to satisfy rich plantation owners why are they moral and Lincoln and the North are not?

Your earlier post about the civil war leading to segregation and the KKK later also doesn't parallel to places like South Africa where Apartheid followed years later.

I'm still trying to wrap my head around this and to use a comparison, I suspect the Holocaust would have ended shortly later after all the Jews were killed and US soldiers died in WW2. Does this make our participation in WW2 immoral?

And as far as "slaves were not in immediate danger", they had horrible lives. And it is literally like saying "tinnitus isn't bad because your life is not in danger."

 

[Born To Slay]

I know what he was saying.
What other first world countries?

Most of Europe's healthcare markets have more regulation than we do. I'm not saying they do nothing right but there is a reason why most medical breakthroughs happen here than anywhere else.

 

[just1morething]

If Trump wins the election most people will be content and less of the unborn will be murdered. That was a term Trump referred to in one of his interviews.

 

[Luman]

My friend, I think the framing of this is all wrong.

Most people aren't happy that a bunch of white soldiers died. They just don't put the blame on people who wanted to end slavery. You talk about how historians say that it was obvious that slavery would have ended on its own. So then why did southern leaders insist on offering white soldiers as a sacrifice? If their vision was slavery ending in a few years, why secede at all? The logic doesn't check out to me. You're using some twisted (and dubious) hindsight to justify what leaders were thinking in present time.

Also, the idea in the first place that slavery was about to end doesn't make sense to me. Maybe in the precise form that it was implemented, but you are talking about a country that after 1863, required another 100 years for black people to even vote -- passed semi-begrudgingly by LBJ, a racist who called his chauffeur and others the n word regularly.

Yes, be mad that people died. Just be mad at the right ideas that led to that death.

Your takeaway from American history is that white people don't matter. That's unbelievable.

My take, from the quick jump in to war, draft riots and other reasons, is that Lincoln had not an ounce of humanity in him.

The rate of suicide among slaves, did not lower, when slavery was over. It was lower than the white rate, before they were freed, and after.

If their lives were that horrible, why was the suicide rate so low? Were they just sort of naturally happy? Or was it perhaps because their lives were not as bad, for most of them, as we have been led to believe? Why would we have to sacrifice three quarters of a million lives, mostly young men who did not own slaves or harm anybody, for people who were not in mortal danger, or even unhappy enough to kill themselves?

I do not know the answer to these questions, and neither do you. Nobody does. This war, however was a complete travesty, and the worst idea an American president has ever implemented.

 

[HootOwl]

One man died in that war, for every five slaves that were freed form bondage. That's actually far worse than slavery. At least, as property, it was in the masters' best interest to keep his slaves alive and healthy.

Mmmm, yes. Who knew the spiciest political takes of 2020 would be on a random presidential thread on a tinnitus forum.

What a time to be alive.

 

[Daniel Lion]

It seems any psychopath can become a police officer in the US... and can also buy weapons.

It's ironic in the US pretty much anyone can buy a gun but a doctor will not prescribe prednisone (just prednisone!) to people who suffer from tinnitus or hyperacusis.

Hi Juan, yah, gun culture in the US has always been something that I couldn't relate to. There is no way to bring it back to a reasonable scale i.e. hunting rifles for hunting and target practice.

School shootings, disgruntled workers, even traffic altercations can become deadly fast when everyone is packing. We used to have a word for it," going postal", in reference to post office workers who were disgruntled and murdered their co workers, this term is outdated now, it's just part of life in the states. Some folks think having weapons will keep the government in check, I don't concur. Who could go up against the US military and their tech and expertise, except a Nation with similar means.
Having lived in the UK, Taiwan, and a few other places where guns are not accessible, gun related deaths and crimes are far less. Fact.

As a tinnitus sufferer and hyperacusis dude, it's a scary thought to get caught up in the crossfire.

I have had to educate my kids about being careful in the US in relation to guns, you can even buy bullet proof schoolbags for kids now, no joke.
When I lived in London I thought it was a violent place, it was, but generally not deadly. My country, the US, is violent, there's a lot of angst and many people like to fight, like the shooter in Wisconsin unloading punches on a girl's face. Nudity, a woman's breasts on TV was and is a bigger deal than gratuitous violence in cinema or TV. It's how we roll.

I have never seen a public fight here in my wife's country and I have lived here well over a decade. Yes, there are domestic altercations, but generally things are chill here, there is really no comparison.

It's interesting that this thread has gone back to the civil war giving further evidence that the US has yet to move on and accept its past with what I feel is honesty and compassion.

 

[PeteJ]

Most of Europe's healthcare markets have more regulation than we do. I'm not saying they do nothing right but there is a reason why most medical breakthroughs happen here than anywhere else.

Whatever. I have talked to Europeans on other sites and also here. The conclusion is the healthcare system is not much better than here. Which really surprised me.

Oh, it also got worse with the increasing migrant population.

 

[Lane]

Imagine living everyday as someone's property. Everyone you love is an object, to be worked for hours in the blazing sun without pay, and if you resist, you are either shot, or whipped into submission. Your wife and daughters are raped, your brothers and sons are nothing more than pack animals. This is your life, from until you are born, up until you die.

And be sure to thank those of us who have enslaved you, because you would have gone through life as an uncivilized, unChristianized savage had we not mercifully come into your life through Divine intervention.

 

[aot]

"Slavery wasn't that bad."
- @Luman, 2020.

I guess tinnitus isn't bad, because most with tinnitus don't kill themselves either.

Go read a book, bro. Jesus Christ, I can't believe you're actually dying on this hill.

 

[FGG]

"Slavery wasn't that bad."
- @Luman, 2020.

I guess tinnitus isn't bad, because most with tinnitus don't kill themselves either.

Go read a book, bro. Jesus Christ, I can't believe you're actually dying on this hill.

Not to mention slaves were indoctrinated with religious teachings from an early age, which promised divine punishment for suicide.

By this logic also no one can complain about anything because they haven't killed themselves yet so nothing is that bad.

 

[Luman]

"Slavery wasn't that bad."
- @Luman, 2020.

I guess tinnitus isn't bad, because most with tinnitus don't kill themselves either.

Go read a book, bro. Jesus Christ, I can't believe you're actually dying on this hill.

Where did I write the words, "Slavery wasn't that bad."? If you are going to quote somebody you should do it by using the quote feature, like everybody else does, not make stuff up.

What do you mean by, "Go read a book, bro. Jesus Christ, I can't believe you're actually dying on this hill." What hill and who is dying? Is this an expression, a quote from a song or video game, because if it is, I'm not familiar with it.

 

[Lane]

it was in the masters' best interest to keep his slaves alive and healthy.

Before the black slaves became available, the Irish were essentially enslaved prior to that. I don't recall the exact circumstances, but IIRC, it had to do with the practice of having them become "indentured servants", and perhaps somethings else. In a sense, legalized slavery.

And these Irish were dirt cheap. As such, the slave owners (I refuse to call them "masters") had little incentive to treat them properly, and didn't; many died from abuse and neglect. When black slaves came along at a much higher price, they were treated much better than the Irish because of the substantial "investment" it involved.

 

[Luman]

Before the black slaves became available, the Irish were essentially enslaved prior to that. I don't recall the exact circumstances, but IIRC, it had to do with the practice of having them become "indentured servants", and perhaps somethings else. In a sense, legalized slavery.

And these Irish were dirt cheap. As such, the slave owners (I refuse to call them "masters") had little incentive to treat them properly, and didn't; many died from abuse and neglect. When black slaves came along at a much higher price, they were treated much better than the Irish because of the substantial "investment" it involved.

The indentured servant racket was not limited to the Irish. Many Scottish and other European people were sent here, and some to be enslaved tropical climates, such as Barbados, where they could not survive very long. Some of those sent to the latter areas, who were arrested and convicted in British Colonial America, 100 years before the Revolution, included men who had opposed the British colonial government in America, in one way or another.

 

[Zugzug]

"Slavery wasn't that bad."
- @Luman, 2020.

Where did I write the words, "Slavery wasn't that bad."? If you are going to quote somebody you should do it by using the quote feature, like everybody else does, not make stuff up.

If their lives were that horrible, why was the suicide rate so low? Were they just sort of naturally happy? Or was it perhaps because their lives were not as bad, for most of them, as we have been led to believe? Why would we have to sacrifice three quarters of a million lives, mostly young men who did not own slaves or harm anybody, for people who were not in mortal danger, or even unhappy enough to kill themselves?

What in the world?

As for your last quote:
"Why would we have to sacrifice three quarters of a million lives, mostly young men who did not own slaves or harm anybody, for people who were not in mortal danger, or even unhappy enough to kill themselves?"

Do you not see how easily your quote can be flipped against you? You are basically saying slaves didn't even kill themselves (often) so it couldn't have been that bad. Just imagine the slave owners who were the ones who justified the war. Why aren't you pinning this on the slave owners as opposed to the slaves? Again, my friend, please read about cognitive dissonance, as you are basically writing psychology books with this example.

 

[Luman]

What in the world?

As for your last quote:
"Why would we have to sacrifice three quarters of a million lives, mostly young men who did not own slaves or harm anybody, for people who were not in mortal danger, or even unhappy enough to kill themselves?"

Do you not see how easily your quote can be flipped against you? You are basically saying slaves didn't even kill themselves (often) so it couldn't have been that bad. Just imagine the slave owners who were the ones who justified the war. Why aren't you pinning this on the slave owners as opposed to the slaves? Again, my friend, please read about cognitive dissonance, as you are basically writing psychology books with this example.

Do you believe that three quarters of a million men should have died, in order to save people who ended up working and living almost exactly the same way as before, perhaps worse? Why is the notion there are peaceful ways to do things, considered wrong? The true abolitionists, including Henry Ward Beecher, and many others, were astonished when Lincoln went full throttle war, when he became president. They had little choice, but to go along with Lincoln's horrendous decisions.

The death toll from the Civil War was about 2.5% of the population, mostly young, innocent men. Here we are, today, months after closing down the country, to prevent perhaps a fraction of one percent of the population, with pre-existing conditions, and/or of very old age, from expiring from Covid-19, which has brought about some very serious consequences to our society, yet you don't seem to see any irony in this, whatsoever. I simply just have to shake my head, sometimes, because it's hopeless to even try to discuss rational, truly compassionate, peaceful solutions, with the average person. A great man who changed his mind, and was assassinated for it, Malcolm X, is lucky he's not around today, to see the mess that has been made of race relations in this country, by those who believe in the lies, and unworkable solutions, that have been accepted, tried, taught and proven unsuccessful for so long before, and after, his death.

 

[all to gain]

This thread now wants me to go and study the Civil War, which admittedly I know little about.

 

[Christiaan]

This thread now wants me to go and study the Civil War, which admittedly I know little about.

Take the easy road and watch the TV series North & South (1985). It will definitely rock your socks off. Oh, it has also Patrick Swayze. What more do I need to say?

 

[aot]

Where did I write the words, "Slavery wasn't that bad."?

@Zugzug already covered this. This is more or less your point, even if you didn't write those exact words.

What do you mean by, "Go read a book, bro. Jesus Christ, I can't believe you're actually dying on this hill."

By telling you to "Go read a book", I'm insinuating that you're uneducated (mostly about slavery, Lincoln, and The Civil War) and should take measures to educate yourself.

The term "Dying on a hill" is when someone sticks to/defends an unfavorable position/opinion, despite the availability of more favorable, logical options. Such as holding a meanigless hill during a battle, as opposed to doing a strategic retreat, or capturing a more advantageous vantage point.

 

[WillBeNimble]

Take the easy road and watch the TV series North & South (1985). It will definitely rock your socks off. Oh, it has also Patrick Swayze. What more do I need to say?

The channel Atun-shei films goes over it pretty good too. I enjoy his "Checkmate Lincolnites!" Series. I'm actually familiar with the arguments Lumen is making from it. Granted, I've never seen such opinions in the wild, until now.

 

[FGG]

Granted, I've never seen such opinions in the wild, until now.

I have, unfortunately.

My mom had a Thanksgiving guest who was saying similar things in the 1990s. She even added "if it was that bad, they wouldn't have been singing in the cotton fields."

 

[PeteJ]

I prefer the rule of law, except when it comes to war and defence of the nation.

The UK does have strict laws, but having lived in Russia for so long I would much rather that than what goes on here.

Maybe, maybe not. Russia could roll through Ukraine anytime it feels like it if it wanted to.

Remember, I was learning Russian for a time so I discovered all that.

I was talking about the scenario if Ukrainians were armed. It's the same as if they never sold off their nukes. There would have been a disincentive to go in there if people were armed, not just the military. Ordinary soldiers, meaning these "on the spot" militias and battalions probably helped stop the expansion into further territory.

Whether they could or not if they wanted to is redundant to my argument. The whole point is they won't because it means unbelievable bloodshed as there are armed people to resist. They might be able to but Russians, Ukrainians and the global community would destroy what's left of Putin's rep.

People are protesting Lukashenko, because he's been there too long (supposedly).

You can 1) dodge it, 2) buy your way out, 3) go to university or 4) be deemed medically unfit.

Many people get out of serving as the pay is crap, the conditions are crap and there is hazing that takes place.

You are telling me what I already know but missing my point again.

I already typed up my reply so I will quickly summarize. Arms whether it's guns or nukes are a deterrent. The battalions stopped the separatists from advancing more than they did.

Russia won't take over the entire country by force any time soon. So, it's irrelevant whether they can or not.

This thread now wants me to go and study the Civil War, which admittedly I know little about.

They don't know either.

 

[Juan]

I have, unfortunately.

My mom had a Thanksgiving guest who was saying similar things in the 1990s. She even added "if it was that bad, they wouldn't have been singing in the cotton fields."

That's so mean...

 

[Luman]

@Zugzug already covered this. This is more or less your point, even if you didn't write those exact words.

By telling you to "Go read a book", I'm insinuating that you're uneducated (mostly about slavery, Lincoln, and The Civil War) and should take measures to educate yourself.

The term "Dying on a hill" is when someone sticks to/defends an unfavorable position/opinion, despite the availability of more favorable, logical options. Such as holding a meanigless hill during a battle, as opposed to doing a strategic retreat, or capturing a more advantageous vantage point.

OK, I was not familiar with the term dying on hill, this is what I wanted to know.

I grew up in a place, quite some time ago, where tattoo parlors were illegal. Some men, however, had them when they were in the Navy, or another branch of the service. Then, there were other people, that you'd run into on a regular basis, who had another type, which were not voluntary, in fact it was against their faith to have them. The horrors that that they had experienced, including the murder of entire families and communities, were not spoken about. I knew an older lady, an immigrant from Scandinavia, whose sister was hung, by the Reich, because she had been a Socialist. I have met many people from around the world with similar experiences. I know another woman, born in Cambodia who, as a child during the Southeast Asia conflict, witnessed the Khmer Rouge burn down her whole village from a distance, and kill everybody in it, including her family, with the exception of her brother who also escaped, and she managed to somehow navigate through the jungle, until some relief workers eventually found her, sent her to France, and then to New York, where she still lives and works, in her late 60's. She was not able to retire at 65 from her domestic services job at a major hotel, because she did not bring birth documents with her, when she escaped, and the aid workers that assisted her put down her age as about four years younger than she was, when they found her. She does not complain about this, she accepts it. Her brother was sent to the Soviet Union, and she discovered where he was decades later, and they had a reunion.

I can read endless books about how wonderful, clever and human Mr. Lincoln allegedly was, but there are real people, who know what war and suffering brings. I have met enough of them, since I was very young, to get some idea of the extent of human suffering, from afar. Perhaps you have been through some the things that people I have known, and continue to know, have experienced first hand, and can speak about it, or would rather not for which I wouldn't blame anybody. If not, and you have little real world experience with victims of war's extreme violence, over ideologies and power, I suggest that you put down your books, turn off the History Channel, and meet some actual people who have lived through unspeakable horrors - you might just begin to reconsider your positions about war, a bit. Only those who have been through these nightmares really know war, and I am extremely fortunate to not be in that category. The institution of slavery was bad, a stain on our history, but overall it was not equivalent to the worst behavior and events that humanity has engaged in, not even close. Mr. Lincoln had no soul, he was a shell of a man, playing a game, for amusement. Perhaps his work was for the best, perhaps not, but he was not capable of normal human feeling, and emotion. He is not the only such historical person like this, unfortunately there were, and still are, many, but make no mistake about it, this is the way the man whose image is on our currency, truly was.

 

[all to gain]

You are telling me what I already know but missing my point again.

I already typed up my reply so I will quickly summarize. Arms whether it's guns or nukes are a deterrent. The battalions stopped the separatists from advancing more than they did.

Russia won't take over the entire country by force any time soon. So, it's irrelevant whether they can or not.
They don't know either.

Nukes (the threat of the US, UK etc taking action) didn't stop Putin from going into Georgia or Crimea or Eastern Ukraine, and I doubt every man, woman and child having a gun would have made much of a difference to him. If the chance is there, he will take it, but only if the benefits outweigh the risks.

He doesn't need to takeover the country by force anymore, unless the EU or NATO ratchet things up, as it is a failed state that may well eventually collapse on itself. He will bide his time. You don't seem to realise how important Kiev is to him, and I don't think you realise just how much he wants revenge... he will go to any lengths.

Yes, in general, arms are a deterrent, but in many circumstances it is the expected fallout that is the main deterrent.

 

[all to gain]

I would not like to see this happen, but if it were split into two nations, and it was done peacefully, I could live with it. What's so terrible about that?

Interestingly only you answered this question.

I don't think anything is terrible with it, but it would see an end of the US as the world's most powerful country (although it's arguable whether it is anymore due to the rise of China), which would allow other countries to fill the void.

 

[all to gain]

What I always find interesting is that people go on about the slavery of black people, which I think most people on here will agree is a terrible thing, but few mention that the US was built on taking over the land of and the massacring of the Native Americans through ethnic cleansing, introduced diseases, slavery and so on. The US wouldn't exist in the way it is now and you probably wouldn't exist now without European colonisation. But all this seems to get overlooked. I blame the British.

Interestingly though, some Native Americans were also involved in types of slavery between themselves before European colonisation.

 

[aot]

OK, I was not familiar with the term dying on hill, this is what I wanted to know.

I grew up in a place, quite some time ago, where tattoo parlors were illegal. Some men, however, had them when they were in the Navy, or another branch of the service. Then, there were other people, that you'd run into on a regular basis, who had another type, which were not voluntary, in fact it was against their faith to have them. The horrors that that they had experienced, including the murder of entire families and communities, were not spoken about. I knew an older lady, an immigrant from Scandinavia, whose sister was hung, by the Reich, because she had been a Socialist. I have met many people from around the world with similar experiences. I know another woman, born in Cambodia who, as a child during the Southeast Asia conflict, witnessed the Khmer Rouge burn down her whole village from a distance, and kill everybody in it, including her family, with the exception of her brother who also escaped, and she managed to somehow navigate through the jungle, until some relief workers eventually found her, sent her to France, and then to New York, where she still lives and works, in her late 60's. She was not able to retire at 65 from her domestic services job at a major hotel, because she did not bring birth documents with her, when she escaped, and the aid workers that assisted her put down her age as about four years younger than she was, when they found her. She does not complain about this, she accepts it. Her brother was sent to the Soviet Union, and she discovered where he was decades later, and they had a reunion.

I can read endless books about how wonderful, clever and human Mr. Lincoln allegedly was, but there are real people, who know what war and suffering brings. I have met enough of them, since I was very young, to get some idea of the extent of human suffering, from afar. Perhaps you have been through some the things that people I have known, and continue to know, have experienced first hand, and can speak about it, or would rather not for which I wouldn't blame anybody. If not, and you have little real world experience with victims of war's extreme violence, over ideologies and power, I suggest that you put down your books, turn off the History Channel, and meet some actual people who have lived through unspeakable horrors - you might just begin to reconsider your positions about war, a bit. Only those who have been through these nightmares really know war, and I am extremely fortunate to not be in that category. The institution of slavery was bad, a stain on our history, but overall it was not equivalent to the worst behavior and events that humanity has engaged in, not even close. Mr. Lincoln had no soul, he was a shell of a man, playing a game, for amusement. Perhaps his work was for the best, perhaps not, but he was not capable of normal human feeling, and emotion. He is not the only such historical person like this, unfortunately there were, and still are, many, but make no mistake about it, this is the way the man whose image is on our currency, truly was.

Luman, it's clear that these matters mean a lot to you. As they should. I don't think anyone here thinks that war is fun, or cool, or glorious.

Those men and familes who were destroyed by the American civil war, and those fine people you describe above, were indeed screwed over. War may sometimes be a necessary evil, but it's never a good. Again, I think we can all agree on that. And thus, since this thread has shifted from it's original purpose, let us agree to disagree?

That being said, as someone who feels so strongly about solders, their families, and their wellbeing (again, as you should.)

What are your thoughts on this?
https://www.theatlantic.com/politic...ho-died-at-war-are-losers-and-suckers/615997/

We should put a statue of this guy up? The guy who disrespects again and again the people you feel so strongly for?

 

[FGG]

What I always find interesting is that people go on about the slavery of black people, which I think most people on here will agree is a terrible thing, but few mention that the US was built on taking over the land of and the massacring of the Native Americans through ethnic cleansing, introduced diseases, slavery and so on. The US wouldn't exist in the way it is now and you probably wouldn't exist now without European colonisation. But all this seems to get overlooked. I blame the British.

Interestingly though, some Native Americans were also involved in types of slavery between themselves before European colonisation.

What we did to the Native Americans (and continue to do) is an absolute disgrace. No argument there.