2020 US Presidential Election

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.
Thanks for typing all of that out. I understand your perspective a little better.

I would ask you to consider that if you dismiss atrocities on the basis of there being potentially worse atrocities, than North Korean camps should be the only human rights violation of concern right now and conservatives shouldn't worry about looting in Portland because destruction and disruption was worse in Hong Kong. You can see where I am going with this...

Anyway, empathy is not mutually exclusive (and you somewhat aluded to that too). You can care about the victims of slavery and the dead soldiers on the battlefield.

You may blame Lincoln for the death of so many young men but I blame the greedy plantation owners and the politicians in their pocket who decided they would rather leave the union than do away with the exploitive and inhumane practice of slavery.
 
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.
Seriously?!? The USA is not going to protect Ukraine let alone get involved with threat of nukes regarding Ukraine vs Russia.

My point is that Ukraine gave up their Nukes in exchange to have some clout in Crimea which was not worth beans anyway. You should know this stuff.
 
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?
The Atlantic magazine article if full of unnamed sources, and very prejudicial. They use the term, "alleged", to describe the medical condition that Trump had, bone spurs, which were diagnosed by licensed medical doctors. I do not take articles such as this, seriously.

I never said that we should put up a statue of Donald Trump. I could check, but I believe that I said something along the line, that he was more deserving of a statue, than a war-monger, such as Lincoln, is, and I would prefer to have a statue of Trump, in his place. I didn't say it, but any number of other, former, presidents would be suitable, as well, for having their image used for a statue to replace the Lincoln Memorial, in Washington, D.C.

Unfortunately, I cannot honestly say that our Generals, who kept our troops in Afghanistan for nearly two decades after 9/11, are competent, or worthy of praise. Apparently, Trump doesn't think so, either, according to reputable sources. When he spoke his mind, and was critical of their performance, rather than gush over them like former presidents have, these military bureaucratic officers sulked and withdrew. I have my own 9/11 stories, and fully supported and appreciated actions by our military to prevent future attacks, and catch those responsible for carrying out acts of terrorism, but keeping our military forces present in in Afghanistan for almost two decades after 9/11, for no good reason, is simply unacceptable.
 
For anybody who has an interest in how today's politics have become so crazified., here's a PBS interview with an author who wrote a book about the "Foxification of the news". It's really rather incredulous, and like the author, I believe future generations will look back at this time in almost utter disbelief

How Fox News' 'low-quality information' fuels Trump

Clip: 09/03/2020 | 9m 6s

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.

@all to gain -- You might find these words by Thomas Jefferson interesting...

"Deep rooted prejudices entertained by the whites; ten thousand recollections, by the blacks, of the injuries they have sustained; new provocations; the real distinctions which nature has made ... will divide us into parties, and produce convulsions which will probably never end..."
 
What we did to the Native Americans (and continue to do) is an absolute disgrace. No argument there.
So then this makes you complicit as you vote for the political parties that uphold this?

Saying it's a disgrace doesn't change anything, be it history or the present situation.
 
Seriously?!? The USA is not going to protect Ukraine let alone get involved with threat of nukes regarding Ukraine vs Russia.

My point is that Ukraine gave up their Nukes in exchange to have some clout in Crimea which was not worth beans anyway. You should know this stuff.
That's what i'm saying. Those weapons (in the hands of the British, USA etc) were not a deterrent as Putin knew no one would use them. Just as arming every man, woman and child with guns wouldn't be a deterrent.

Even if Ukraine still had them I'm not that sure they would have been much of a deterrent. They would probably have been unserviceable and ineffective and more dangerous to the people using them than to anyone else. But that's real conjecture.
 
Another thing that many either don't know or care not to mention is that slavery/human trafficking has been around for, well, ever. It was part of many nations' histories, eg the Greeks and the Romans. Some scholars suggest, although disputed, that the very word slave comes from the word slavic as many slavs were slaves back in the day.

Further, many tribes in Africa were complicit in the trading of slaves to the Portuguese, British, Dutch and so on. These Africans themselves were selling people for economic gain, prestige, inter-tribal warfare and so on. The slave traders themselves didn't live long in Africa (where they had a life expectancy of less than a year once there) due to disease.

As bad as it sounds, and it is bad, but many of these slaves may have had a better life in the US than if they been born or stayed in Africa. Still crap lives, just a very little better. But it's all conjecture. Many died enroute to their final destination due to disease and so on. In the end, slavery in all forms was and is bad. I am making no defence of what happened at all. Just trying to fill in the gaps.

Slavery in Africa - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Slavery_in_Africa
Slavery among Native Americans (yes, they were at it, too) - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Slavery_among_Native_Americans_in_the_United_States

Aren't we all slaves in one way or another? Slaves to the 9-5? Cubicle dwellers? Slaves of the government? Not the same as being killed or raped or whatever I realise, but still slaves of a kind.
 
many of these slaves may have had a better life in the US than if they been born or stayed in Africa. [...] I am making no defence of what happened at all.

Aren't we all slaves in one way or another?

Do you want to be clear about what your point is? Because I'm seeing a defense of slavery peppered with a lot of 'slavery is bad' comments to try to look like it's not a defense of slavery.
 
Do you want to be clear about what your point is? Because I'm seeing a defense of slavery peppered with a lot of 'slavery is bad' comments to try to look like it's not a defense of slavery.
Two other people have agreed with me, so they seem to see the point.

Try harder?
 
Why am I seeing more "glass is half full" rhetoric surrounding slavery than I am full condemnation of those willing to do absolutely anything to defend it?

Why are we comparing slaves as opposed to the lifestyle differences of rich plantation owners?

This thread is shoving me so hard to the left that I can't even see Bernie anymore. Wtf am I reading?
we all slaves in one way or another?
No. Just no, my friend.
 
Why am I seeing more "glass is half full" rhetoric surrounding slavery than I am full condemnation of those willing to do absolutely anything to defend it?

Exactly my point. I think liberals often concede ground in the hopes that those on the right will do the same. But all that happens is the argument gets pushed further and further to the right, and before you know it we'll all agreeing that African American slaves were better off being enslaved than remaining free.
 
Why am I seeing more "glass is half full" rhetoric surrounding slavery than I am full condemnation of those willing to do absolutely anything to defend it?

Why are we comparing slaves as opposed to the lifestyle differences of rich plantation owners?

This thread is shoving me so hard to the left that I can't even see Bernie anymore. Wtf am I reading?
Slavery is wrong, but it took place and is still taking place. And it took place among the very peoples who themselves were slaves. This is all true, as far as I know. We can't turn back time and unchange the past. Neither can we place ourselves in the past that we did not witness. We can only discuss it from our modern day perspective.

What are you doing to fight modern-day slavery? Except for writing on an internet forum and saying how bad it was in the past?

Me, I'm doing absolutely nothing because ultimately I care more about fighting my own battles to get my children through life whilst dealing with my own problems. I am honest in admitting it.

This thread hasn't shoved me one way or the other. Why would it? It's people just writing on the internet. I still have contempt for both the left and the right.
No. Just no, my friend.
We agree to disagree (to a degree).
 
Exactly my point. I think liberals often concede ground in the hopes that those on the right will do the same. But all that happens is the argument gets pushed further and further to the right, and before you know it we'll all agreeing that African American slaves were better off being enslaved than remaining free.
Some do, some don't.

Liberals do not concede ground anymore than others. Maybe in their own minds they do, but in reality they often aren't. They are often so bound to their own moral high ground that they can't see past it.
 
Native Americans owned slaves, particularly the Cherokees who owned thousands of African slaves. This practice began during the Revolutionary War, when the British allowed the Indians who helped them, to own slaves. It continued until emancipation. Many Indians did not support the Confederacy, and fought against them, for the Union.
 
That's what i'm saying. Those weapons (in the hands of the British, USA etc) were not a deterrent as Putin knew no one would use them. Just as arming every man, woman and child with guns wouldn't be a deterrent.

Even if Ukraine still had them I'm not that sure they would have been much of a deterrent. They would probably have been unserviceable and ineffective and more dangerous to the people using them than to anyone else. But that's real conjecture.
You're missing the point or just ignoring it.

Besides that, I think they would be usable so I disagree with you there.

The point is an armed Ukraine may have been enough to prevent and avoid what happened. Instead, Ukraine's paltry army had to rely on outside militias and battalions for assistance and that only restricted the advancement to Eastern territory.

P.S. the arming is a deterrent not just the possession of firepower but then it becomes a matter of how much damage one is willing to take. Even if I went with your theory of "Putin can do it if he wants." Sure, but a well armed Ukraine would still resist. What actually happened should have told you something. When body bags were sent to Russia, that was further proof that Russia was fully involved and didn't help his popularity at all. A wider scale and hypothetically, a fully armed Ukraine would make it worse. So, whether he could steamroll through Ukraine or not, there's more to consider.
 
So then this makes you complicit as you vote for the political parties that uphold this?

Saying it's a disgrace doesn't change anything, be it history or the present situation.
Everyone not voting does not change our history and Trump will always put Trump first at the expense of everyone including Native Americans:

https://www.latimes.com/politics/la-na-pol-trump-anti-indian-campaign-20160630-snap-story.html

I did what I could realistically do in the parameters of our system by voting for Bernie in the primaries and now I'm left with voting for the lessor of two evils but it's an easy choice.
 
Another thing that many either don't know or care not to mention is that slavery/human trafficking has been around for, well, ever. It was part of many nations' histories, eg the Greeks and the Romans. Some scholars suggest, although disputed, that the very word slave comes from the word slavic as many slavs were slaves back in the day.

Further, many tribes in Africa were complicit in the trading of slaves to the Portuguese, British, Dutch and so on. These Africans themselves were selling people for economic gain, prestige, inter-tribal warfare and so on. The slave traders themselves didn't live long in Africa (where they had a life expectancy of less than a year once there) due to disease.

As bad as it sounds, and it is bad, but many of these slaves may have had a better life in the US than if they been born or stayed in Africa. Still crap lives, just a very little better. But it's all conjecture. Many died enroute to their final destination due to disease and so on. In the end, slavery in all forms was and is bad. I am making no defence of what happened at all. Just trying to fill in the gaps.

Slavery in Africa - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Slavery_in_Africa
Slavery among Native Americans (yes, they were at it, too) - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Slavery_among_Native_Americans_in_the_United_States

Aren't we all slaves in one way or another? Slaves to the 9-5? Cubicle dwellers? Slaves of the government? Not the same as being killed or raped or whatever I realise, but still slaves of a kind.
Both historical and modern slavery are abhorrent. Having a slavery olympics and not getting gold doesn't mean it's all not universally among the worst atrocities people can commit.

Along those lines, having a high chance of disease means your life does not have great options but the fact that they were slaves and did not go willingly means they clearly didn't agree that they would be "better off."

Please tell me if I understand this point properly:

Black slavery in the US wasn't that bad relative to leaving the slaves in Africa because there was disease and low life expectancy in Africa.

Slavery still exists and has historically and there were worse examples so we shouldn't focus on it. Besides, we all have to do things at work we don't like.

The tl;dr seems to be "it could have been worse and aren't we all slaves, really?"

No. We aren't. You married who you wanted. Your children are not going to be sold out from under you. You aren't going to be raped or beaten at work.
 
I'd argue most of our societal problems today come from the botching of reconstruction, and leniency provided to traitors with the idea they would act in the best interest of the country. We won the war, only to turn our back on the actual battle, because the north won it's victory and the slaves were "freed".

@WillBeNimble -- I agree the U.S. is still dealing with the extremely unfortunate reconstruction agenda that was instituted by Andrew Johnson. I just now ran into a most interesting bit of history that gives a little more detail on an important turning point. The last paragraph sums things up quite succinctly...

"By 1873, America was in an economic depression (as it is now). In the 1874 midterm elections, Democrats took control of the House of Representatives while Republicans held the Senate (as happened in 2018). With Grant opting not to run for a third term in 1876, the presidential race that year was between two governors: Democrat Samuel Tilden of New York and Republican Rutherford B. Hayes of Ohio.

The election returns from Louisiana, Florida, South Carolina left 19 dispositive electoral votes in dispute, and no clear winner. Both candidates submitted electors from these three states.

The split Congress came to a compromise, appointing a bipartisan commission of five House members, five Senate members and five Supreme Court justices to definitively award the contested electoral votes. The commission worked to investigate the returns in public, as "there was a great desire to witness a fair count," according to the New York Times. The commission, in a series of party-line votes, handed Hayes the presidency by a single electoral vote.

But a handful of congressional Democrats continued to object and filibuster. Their compliance was only obtained once national party leaders secretly brokered a deal—dubbed by historians the Compromise of 1877—whereby Republicans agreed to abandon Reconstruction efforts by removing federal troops from the South and allowing "home rule" in exchange for Democrats accepting Hayes in the White House. As a consequence of resolving the disputed presidential election, discrimination, disenfranchisement, and racial violence roared back to life in the South."
 
How old are the participants here? Under 30, right? :rolleyes: I know some are university students. Anyway, most of the posts are comical but would be amusing without the condition of tinnitus.
 
I still fine it very ironic that whites had far higher average suicide rates than slaves, for whom suicide was very rare. And if you doubt this was true, there are numerous sources that will verify it, including an extensive, 170 page thesis, AFRICAN AMERICAN SUFFERING AND SUICIDE UNDER SLAVERY by Linda Kay Kneeland for a Masters of Arts in History, Montana State University, Bozeman, Montana, March, 2006.
 
You're missing the point or just ignoring it.

Besides that, I think they would be usable so I disagree with you there.

The point is an armed Ukraine may have been enough to prevent and avoid what happened. Instead, Ukraine's paltry army had to rely on outside militias and battalions for assistance and that only restricted the advancement to Eastern territory.

P.S. the arming is a deterrent not just the possession of firepower but then it becomes a matter of how much damage one is willing to take. Even if I went with your theory of "Putin can do it if he wants." Sure, but a well armed Ukraine would still resist. What actually happened should have told you something. When body bags were sent to Russia, that was further proof that Russia was fully involved and didn't help his popularity at all. A wider scale and hypothetically, a fully armed Ukraine would make it worse. So, whether he could steamroll through Ukraine or not, there's more to consider.
Or I was misunderstanding what you are trying to say. That's another possibility.

The sad thing is that Ukraine was (still is to a degree) very good at making military equipment, but due to rampant corruption among other things its own military doesn't get to see the rewards of that equipment.

I agree that a properly armed Ukraine could have been a bigger deterrent, but it simply wasn't ready for what happened. It was taken by surprise. Twice. Once in Crimea and once in the East of the country.

The problem is that here one never gets the full picture of how many body bags there actually were. For instance, most Russians have no idea the many Wagner personnel (Russians) were killed by the Americans and their supporters, so even if there were lots of body bags from the Ukraine operation many Russians will never get to hear about it.

What will happen next is up in the air. Putin wants Kiev, no doubt about it, and at the very least he doesn't want it to fall into the hands of the EU or NATO. The country will be teeming with Russian FSB/GRU and other military personnel trying to stir things up in favour of Russia.
 
Everyone not voting does not change our history and Trump will always put Trump first at the expense of everyone including Native Americans:

https://www.latimes.com/politics/la-na-pol-trump-anti-indian-campaign-20160630-snap-story.html

I did what I could realistically do in the parameters of our system by voting for Bernie in the primaries and now I'm left with voting for the lessor of two evils but it's an easy choice.
I'm not doubting your sincerity. I think you know that. I'm just putting other arguments out there.

It's a horrible choice for sure. Trump has to go, but let's hope Biden has good advisors around him if he gets in.
I really see it as a very close race.
 
Or I was misunderstanding what you are trying to say. That's another possibility.

The sad thing is that Ukraine was (still is to a degree) very good at making military equipment, but due to rampant corruption among other things its own military doesn't get to see the rewards of that equipment.

I agree that a properly armed Ukraine could have been a bigger deterrent, but it simply wasn't ready for what happened. It was taken by surprise. Twice. Once in Crimea and once in the East of the country.

The problem is that here one never gets the full picture of how many body bags there actually were. For instance, most Russians have no idea the many Wagner personnel (Russians) were killed by the Americans and their supporters, so even if there were lots of body bags from the Ukraine operation many Russians will never get to hear about it.

What will happen next is up in the air. Putin wants Kiev, no doubt about it, and at the very least he doesn't want it to fall into the hands of the EU or NATO. The country will be teeming with Russian FSB/GRU and other military personnel trying to stir things up in favour of Russia.
I doubt a full scale invasion right now and my argument was that it would be a non existent chance if Ukraine was fully armed and still had nukes.

It's impossible to hide body bags coming home if they attempted to take over the entire country by force. Think about it. If it is taken over, it will be a geopolitical and strategic one.
 
Both historical and modern slavery are abhorrent. Having a slavery olympics and not getting gold doesn't mean it's all not universally among the worst atrocities people can commit.
Agreed. I have not said anywhere that it isn't.
Along those lines, having a high chance of disease means your life does not have great options but the fact that they were slaves and did not go willingly means they clearly didn't agree that they would be "better off."

Please tell me if I understand this point properly:

Black slavery in the US wasn't that bad relative to leaving the slaves in Africa because there was disease and low life expectancy in Africa.

Slavery still exists and has historically and there were worse examples so we shouldn't focus on it. Besides, we all have to do things at work we don't like.

The tl;dr seems to be "it could have been worse and aren't we all slaves, really?"

No. We aren't. You married who you wanted. Your children are not going to be sold out from under you. You aren't going to be raped or beaten at work.
For me, you are looking at things in absolutes. We all know, I presume, that slavery was/is terrible.

That doesn't mean that some slaves may have had a slightly better life in the US than in Africa. As I said, still crap, but a little less crap. Still doesn't make slavery just or any less abhorrent.

Again, you are defining slavery in very narrow terms. I take a broader outlook. No way is our slavery, if it exists at all, anyway in the same league as that endured by true slaves. We all, I presume, know that. But that doesn't mean we aren't slaves of a certain type.

What I say is if a person feels so strongly about slavery/human trafficking in the modern world then they should be out there on the front lines trying to make a difference as waiting for politicians to do anything about it is like a set of revolving doors that get nowhere.
 
This thread sadly is reminding me why BLM is necessary. I'm glad I live in a swing state so my vote actually counts.
 
I still fine it very ironic that whites had far higher average suicide rates than slaves, for whom suicide was very rare. And if you doubt this, there are numerous sources that will verify it, including an extensive, 170 page thesis, AFRICAN AMERICAN SUFFERING AND SUICIDE UNDER SLAVERY by Linda Kay Kneeland for a Masters of Arts in History, Montana State University, Bozeman, Montana, March, 2006.
Maybe it's a cultural thing?

For instance the highest suicide rate in the World among men is in Russia. Yet, although Russia has many problems, its standard of living will be much higher than much of Africa. Yet Russia tops the rankings (for men).

"In much of the world, suicide is stigmatized and condemned for religious or cultural reasons. In some countries, suicidal behavior is a criminal offence punishable by law. Suicide is therefore often a secretive act surrounded by taboo, and may be unrecognized, misclassified or deliberately hidden in official records of death"

But I have no idea about suicide, or the rates, among those put into slavery in the US centuries ago.
 
That doesn't mean that some slaves may have had a slightly better life in the US than in Africa. As I said, still crap, but a little less crap. Still doesn't make slavery just or any less abhorrent.
Then why mention it? Would it be intellectual for me to share a story of Hitler giving a Jew a glass of water? Or would it just be nonsense? At some point, order of magnitude has to supersede contrarianism.
 
I doubt a full scale invasion right now and my argument was that it would be a non existent chance if Ukraine was fully armed and still had nukes.

It's impossible to hide body bags coming home if they attempted to take over the entire country by force. Think about it. If it is taken over, it will be a geopolitical and strategic one.
I understand your argument, and you could be right. We are after all talking hypotheticals here.

Give me your best guess what will happen in/to Ukraine in the next 5 and 10 years.
 

Log in or register to get the full forum benefits!

Register

Register on Tinnitus Talk for free!

Register Now