Elections Nikki Haley confused about cause of the civil war

GCd1ZbDXEAAHrDw.png
 
It gets worse. Lincoln was okay with slavery in the south. But the southerners wanted to spread slavery to the west. So it was really about the right to keep slaves and to expand slavery.

And the confederates weren't just evil as they were literally fighting to keep Africans enslaved so they could profit from it they were extremely short sighted. An expansion of slavery would eventually lead to a mostly rural and primitive country such as the ones in South America.
Worst case scenario blacks would become a majority, rebel and kill them all such as in Haiti.
Worst case for whom? :)
 
She's still a million times better than Trump.
A massive runny shit in a suit is better than Trump... well nah, to be fair they're about the same. Like I always say, buddy's a good shit in the long run, if you like a long runny shit. Anyway, that's a pretty low bar regardless...
 
A massive runny shit in a suit is better than Trump... well nah, to be fair they're about the same. Like I always say, buddy's a good shit in the long run, if you like a long runny shit. Anyway, that's a pretty low bar regardless...
They're both less than ideal candidates to put it lightly. I think she's more intelligent than Trump and I've already seen what he would to do to run the country given the opportunity. Bottom line is we deserve better either way.
 
It wasn't all about slavery, and it wasn't all about everything outside of slavery.

It was a civil war. It wasn't waged on any one thing.

i don't like this woman at all but monocausal history is a myth for simpletons.

Yes, it's true that slavery was not the sole cause of the Civil War. But it is obvious that it was the primary cause. The other issues only mattered to southern states insofar as they could benefit the southern way of life(e.g. an economy based mostly slave labor).

In a lecture hall, or some other context where a more nuanced answer is appropriate, discussing these secondary causal issues would be fine. But in a short 5-second answer type of a context, citing slavery as the cause is not only reasonable, but appropriate. Trying to convolute it with "well it's complex and there were two different ways of life emerging" rhetoric is being intellectually dishonest, in a short answer type of scenario.

The bottom line is, the Civil War doesn't happen if slavery is not an issue. All those other issues were born out of differences of opinion on a slave labor-based economy, and it's expansion. It says a lot when a politician goes out of their way to sidestep that blatant reality.
 
She's still a million times better than Trump.
1000000x0=0
Yes, it's true that slavery was not the sole cause of the Civil War. But it is obvious that it was the primary cause. The other issues only mattered to southern states insofar as they could benefit the southern way of life(e.g. an economy based mostly slave labor).

In a lecture hall, or some other context where a more nuanced answer is appropriate, discussing these secondary causal issues would be fine. But in a short 5-second answer type of a context, citing slavery as the cause is not only reasonable, but appropriate. Trying to convolute it with "well it's complex and there were two different ways of life emerging" rhetoric is being intellectually dishonest, in a short answer type of scenario.

The bottom line is, the Civil War doesn't happen if slavery is not an issue. All those other issues were born out of differences of opinion on a slave labor-based economy, and it's expansion. It says a lot when a politician goes out of their way to sidestep that blatant reality.
i mean, ok, i'm not having a problem with what you said cause it's a correct assessment, my problem is that the basis of the assessment is built on the idea that it's ok for the public to only be able to react to short, uncomplicated, gradeschool level answers.

ideally you want the public not to be made up of either morons with which you can intellectually interact only by severely limiting the complexity of the dialogue, or hall-monitor midwits that know the list of correct short answers from which if you deviate even a little you are literally Hitler. who the fuck would think that's a public worth wanting to have?
 
Chris Christie gives his view on Haley's situation


Change and tradition sounds a lot like progressive and conservative.

Eagle eyed observers can immediately spot the obvious parallel, the one that explains all the confederate and Nazi flags at their events.
 
This always one of those far right conversations where you can see otherwise intelligent people trying their hardest to appease a base that doesn't want to hear the truth. The politician doesn't want to outright lie because they have to deal with other intelligent people elsewhere but they can't tell the outright truth either.

It's crazy that something that is well known and 150 years in the past is still a sore spot for so many people in this country. The Civil War started over slavery. Everyone agrees slavery was a bad thing. Yet politicians cannot answer that question truthfully without alienating their base.
 
1000000x0=0

i mean, ok, i'm not having a problem with what you said cause it's a correct assessment, my problem is that the basis of the assessment is built on the idea that it's ok for the public to only be able to react to short, uncomplicated, gradeschool level answers.

ideally you want the public not to be made up of either morons with which you can intellectually interact only by severely limiting the complexity of the dialogue, or hall-monitor midwits that know the list of correct short answers from which if you deviate even a little you are literally Hitler. who the fuck would think that's a public worth wanting to have?
Unfortunately, we are where we are politically. The willingness to obfuscate this type of history has become a litmus test for political loyalty.

The audience knows the truth. What they're really asking is "How far will you bend the truth to appease me?"
 
Unfortunately, we are where we are politically. The willingness to obfuscate this type of history has become a litmus test for political loyalty.

The audience knows the truth. What they're really asking is "How far will you bend the truth to appease me?"
that's fair.

i realize i may have misunderstood the nature of the event. i thought these "town hall" events are for everybody, not only for your supporters.
 
Referring to madmick

Modding on this forum has seen a pretty heavy shift to the left, mainly because the conservative positions have been so indefensible it's been hard to give anyone who supports them any authority. The mods I consider actual conservatives and not MAGA imbeciles don't support stupid ideas or stunts.

Nobody anywhere likes Mick so I guess he agreed to fall on this grenade as he had nothing to lose.
 
that's fair.

i realize i may have misunderstood the nature of the event. i thought these "town hall" events are for everybody, not only for your supporters.
Technically, they are for everyone. In reality, only members of your party show up. And more importantly, these things are commercials for voters in other states. They're going to chop up the answers and make them into ads...or their opponents will chop them up and use them against them.
 
Back
Top