She can be an ignorant liar.

They actually enjoy being illogical, because it frustrates their “enemies”… sane people trying to make educated, thoughtful, rational arguments. Their arguments are equal to someone just making fart noises. Idiocracy is here.

I dunno, I’d put the flip at the time of the Southern Strategy and Nixon. Not quite a century yet.

Are you seriously in favor of the bills? Why are you trying to enforce them? I vote against racist proposals whenever I can. I certainly don’t try to enforce ones that are not even effect.

Are you saying that the paper should seriously call her by that name or that it is a joke about her name?

All politicians at this level are products of marketing consultants. Biden is cosplaying as a younger person with his lifts and fillers. Trump is cosplaying as a rich guy. Obama cosplayed a progressive etc. Clinton failed cosplaying as a likable normal human person.

Is a trans woman a man cosplaying a woman? If you doubt her sincerity that’s a fair argument towards her being generally untrustworthy, but I don’t think that’s what most people mean when they say stuff like this. It’s just bigotry of another kind. She always struck me as generally perceiving herself as a white american woman. Who gets to decide who is brown but the person themselves? Am I brown because I’m Greek? I have naturally darker skin than some who identify as black or brown but I’ve never felt anything other than white.

So you’re gatekeeping who can act white? Please tell me how you’re not here, because I’m having a hard time seeing this as anything but controlling how she should act due to her race and that’s not ok. What she said (or didn’t say) is bad on its own, but bringing her race into it just unnecessarily muddies the waters

Edit: everyone is happy to downvote, but nobody wants to say why she can’t act like a white American woman (including using a name that better matches that profile) because she’s born to Indian parents 🤷‍♂️

Still has Barrack Hussein Obama vibes. What point are we making here?

Like yeah, she’s a race traitor cosplaying a white woman, but surely we have better points to make than hoping her base is racist enough to hate her based on a vaguely foreign name, which is not really at all a secret. meh.

Edit: Plenty of people change their names to more Americanized versions. This is probably the least egregious thing she has ever done… This is a trivial point at best and hypocritical at worst

People who deny rights to others don’t deserve to have that right for themselves. Everyone else deserves the right to define their own identity, but those assholes have waived that right.

I don’t really disagree with anything you said, I still say that it all boils down to “slavery” as the (root) cause.

The war was caused by the federal government refusing to […]

Inaction isn’t the “cause” of an event, so what was the action?

I’d say: Providing (to runaway former slaves) the same safety and protections everyone else was already getting from the state (ex. Wisconsin).

What “actions” do you think were the cause of the civil war?

deleted by creator

why was the Emancipation Proclamation smack in the middle of the civil war?

Because Cassius Marcellus Clay publicly refused to accept Lincoln’s appointment to Major General in the Union Army unless Lincoln agreed to emancipate the slaves. Lincoln had originally planned to do it after until pressured.

The war was caused by the federal government refusing to force northern states to return escaped slaves to the south…

Would that have been an issue if slavery had been made illegal already like in most of the rest of the Western world?

Dred Scott was still in effect in 1860. The federal government was not involved AT ALL in enforcement of slaver’s ‘property rights’ in non-slave states, that enforcement was up to the states, and was generally done by bounty hunters. The election of Lincoln, with the almost certain consequence that Kansas would be admitted as a free state, was the proximate cause of South Carolina’s secession. Slavery was obviously the critical factor, regardless of the enforcement or non-enforcement of Scott.

Love the actual history getting downvotes here… this also doesn’t conflict with it being about slavery. The thing we shouldn’t do is equate “about slavery” in the way the Confederate states meant it when they seceded, with “about slavery” in the sense of abolition. Lincoln did not enter the war to emancipate slaves and fight for abolition, his first inaugural address on the eve of war leaves no question, a direct quote:

“I have no purpose, directly or indirectly, to interfere with the institution of slavery in the States where it exists. I believe I have no lawful right to do so, and I have no inclination to do so.”

Lincoln’s primary motivation was keeping the Union together at first, and obviously that changed, because we have the Emancipation Proclamation. The moral issue of slavery was hugely important for the North’s motivation and for people to fight though, many being emancipated slaves who understood the true point of fighting more than their northern white commanders, and who also faced racism from other northern soldiers yet still fought with them. The point is it wasn’t some goodness of the government that defined this war to be about slavery, it was actually the slaves that did that and those that were sympathetic to this cause.

Barbara Fields is an expert on civil war history and makes the case for this view in this excellent interview: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_ncnTNkeoOM The question of Lincoln’s motivations at the beginning of the war as Union before slavery and whether he can be excused is addressed at 55 minutes.

“it was the battle for emancipation and the people who pushed it forward… it was they who ennobled what otherwise would have been meaningless carnage into something higher. When a black solder in New Orleans said “liberty must take the day nothing shorter” he said in effect that when we count out those who have died and survey the carnage is must be for something higher than Union and free navigation of the Mississippi River”

Spotswood Rice, a former slave, writes to Kittey Diggs, 1864:

I received a letter from Cariline telling me that you say I tried to steal, to plunder, my child away from you. Not I want you to understand that Mary is my Child and she is a God-given rite of my own. And you may hold on to her as long as you can. But I want you to remember this one thing, that the longer you keep my Child from me the longer you will have to burn in hell and the quicker you’ll get there. For we are now making up about one thousand black troops to come up through, and want to come through, Glasgow. And when we come woe be to Copperhood rebels and to the Slaveholding rebels. For we don’t expect to leave them there. Root nor branch. But we think however that we (that have children in the hands of you devils), we will try you the day that we enter Glasgow. I want you to understand Kittey Diggs that where ever you and I meet we are enemies to each other. I offered once to pay you forty dollars for my own Child but I am glad now that you did not accept it. Just hold on now as long as you can and the worse it will be for you. You never in your life before I came down here did you give children anything, not anything whatever, not even a dollars worth of expenses. Now you call my children your property. Not so with me. My children is my own and I expect to get them. And when I get ready to come after Mary I will have both a power and authority to bring her away and to exact vengeance on them that holds my Child. You will then know how to talk to me. I will assure that. And you will know how to talk right too. I want you now to just hold on; to hear if you want to. If your conscience tells that’s the road, go that road and what it will bring you to Kittey Diggs. I have no fears about getting Mary out of your hands. This whole Government gives cheer to me and you cannot help yourself.

(It’s not known if Spotswood had a showdown with Kittey but there are property records indicating he lived with Mary and his wife after the war.)

Edit: It’s people downvoting historical letters from freed slaves and historians reading testimonies of black Union soldiers that makes me think my time on this website is just about over…

Slavery is still allowed in the US to this day.

I’ve blocked you all for hurting my delicate internet feelings

It sounds like your argument is “if it’s okay to be reductionist, then there are no limits.” But there can totally be limits - it depends on the size of the leap.

All of your posts can be boiled down to “it was about strengthening the federal government, specifically in support of slavery”, but reducing this further to “it was about slavery” isn’t a big leap. That’s what the downvotes are all telling you.

Saying the American Revolution was about

England trying to collect taxes after not really caring while simultaneously cracking down on smuggling

And boiling that down to “it was about tea” is a WAY bigger leap than the one about the Civil War.

A similarly sized leap would probably be saying “it was about taxes.” Personally, I wouldn’t care enough to “um, actually” someone who’d make that kind of leap.