Board 8 > Politics Containment Topic 250: Hearing Laws

(+) Yeah! (+)

Wasting excess money to ensure certain people get anything is how you get people to pull their bootstraps!
---

What the FUCK
https://twitter.com/rvawonk/status/1200456808617463810?s=21

---

Youre under arrest for ABORTION MURDER
---

I assume they asked those kids there what they should call the charge
---

https://twitter.com/FBIRecordsVault/status/1200489620917506048
---

Jakyl25 posted...

Yeah the idea is not to make the rich pay for things they cant use. Its to make them pay for things for EVERYONES benefit, including them

Jakyl25 posted...

Yeah the idea is not to make the rich pay for things they cant use. Its to make them pay for things for EVERYONES benefit, including them

Jakyl25 posted...

Yeah the idea is not to make the rich pay for things they cant use. Its to make them pay for things for EVERYONES benefit, including them

Jakyl25 posted...

Yeah the idea is not to make the rich pay for things they cant use. Its to make them pay for things for EVERYONES benefit, including them

Jakyl25 posted...

Yeah the idea is not to make the rich pay for things they cant use. Its to make them pay for things for EVERYONES benefit, including them

Nelson_Mandela posted...

For those who kept arguing with me that "anyone on US soil is afforded constitutional rights":

https://www.thedailybeast.com/trump-invokes-patriot-act-to-detain-palestinian-adham-amin-hassoun-forever

Nope. Not until the supreme court says otherwise about this case.

I will accept a well written apology.

Are you implying the Patriot Act doesnt apply to US citizens? Because thats the only way your argument makes sense.

---

ChaosTonyV4 posted...

Nelson_Mandela posted...

For those who kept arguing with me that "anyone on US soil is afforded constitutional rights":

https://www.thedailybeast.com/trump-invokes-patriot-act-to-detain-palestinian-adham-amin-hassoun-forever

Nope. Not until the supreme court says otherwise about this case.

I will accept a well written apology.

Are you implying the Patriot Act doesnt apply to US citizens? Because thats the only way your argument makes sense.

That provision does not apply to US citizens. It's for "noncitizens who pose a national security threat."
---

https://twitter.com/numbersmuncher/status/1200552671595368448?s=21

---

well Lincoln got shot so how good could he have been?

---

i like presidents that dont get killed by their own people

---

LordoftheMorons posted...

https://twitter.com/numbersmuncher/status/1200552671595368448?s=21

Shouldn't Democrats be agreeing to that since Abraham was undeniably racist?

Abraham Lincoln was obviously a better president so far, but Democrats should be consistent in their outrage.

---

Trump is obviously not a racist. He treats everyone equally.
---

They were both racists. Trump is undeniably a much bigger racist relative to the average at the time of their respective presidencies, and Trump isn't exactly doing much to make up for it (in contrast to ending slavery for Lincoln).

---

How racist was Lincoln compared to his time versus how racist Trump is to his time? I am interested in how you came to that valuation.

---

The whole "Lincoln was actually racist" talking point is greatly exaggerated. The only parts that are definitively true is that he prioritized preservation of the union above all else including abolishment and that he wasn't sure how well former slaves could adapt to being being in society (but that that wasn't an excuse to continue slavery either).

It also tends to get pushed hardest by the same people who say Lee wasn't racist at all.
---

kevwaffles posted...

The whole "Lincoln was actually racist" talking point is greatly exaggerated. The only parts that are definitively true is that he prioritized preservation of the union above all else including abolishment and that he wasn't sure how well former slaves could adapt to being being in society (but that that wasn't an excuse to continue slavery either).

It also tends to get pushed hardest by the same people who say Lee wasn't racist at all.

He likened them to animals and thought they were lesser beings than whites I believe. Is that just not racist? You could argue, maybe, that he was telling people what they wanted to hear but is that much better?

I am again interested to know how the Trump is more racist compared to his time comes from tho.

---

https://twitter.com/notwokieleaks/status/1200579829386633218

lol this is actually p hilarious
---

Corrik7 posted...

He likened them to animals and thought they were lesser beings than whites I believe.

See, that's what I mean when I say it's not actually true. All he wrote in his memoirs anywhere close to that effect is what I mentioned about them not being able to adapt to society, but somehow it gets stretched into that.
---

He literally proposed rounding them all up and sending them back to Africa.
---

kevwaffles posted...

See, that's what I mean when I say it's not actually true. All he wrote in his memoirs anywhere close to that effect is what I mentioned about them not being able to adapt to society, but somehow it gets stretched into that.

Pretty sure he said they weren't as smart as whites or had smaller brains or some shit also. I remember we did a big debate section on this in African American History in college.

My professor was less than amused with me because he created two sides of debate where 1. Was Lincoln was racist and only did what he did because he had to for the union or 2. Lincoln was a good person and freed the slaves because he felt slavery was wrong.

I was on side 2 but my professor got mad at me when I argued that Lincoln was actually racist but it did not preclude that he was a good person and freed the slaves because he felt slavery was wrong either and he in fact did do.

---

Are we really going with people were more racist in the past, so everyone in the future is automatically better at their job?

---

yeah you guys really don't have to defend Lincoln's racism

pro tip you can be a shitty person and still do some good things and that includes being a better president than Trump

---

I wish I could fast forward to the future where our progeny views all of us as awful people for the way we dehumanized our AI technology.

Everyone in history is terrible in retrospect when you cast aside moral relevatism. It's actually one of the most boring and pointless debates to have.
---

ChaosTonyV4 posted...

Are we really going with people were more racist in the past, so everyone in the future is automatically better at their job?

I said Lincoln was better. Of course we don't have the scenario to judge him aptly against Lincoln either. But, I want to know how someone assessed Trump is more racist for his time than Lincoln. Lol.

---

Nelson_Mandela posted...

I wish I could fast forward to the future where our progeny views all of us as awful people for the way we dehumanized our AI technology.

Everyone in history is terrible in retrospect when you cast aside moral relevatism. It's actually one of the most boring and pointless debates to have.

Thats a weak argument. I think we are all in agreement already that any AI that becomes conscious actually should have rights. Sci-fi has been tackling this issue for decades.

Did the people running the slave trade not know that the Africans were humans?
---

Trump is about an average President, which makes him still 100x better than Lincoln, who is probably the worst of all time.
---

SmartMuffin posted...

Trump is about an average President, which makes him still 100x better than Lincoln, who is probably the worst of all time.

What???

---

Why should you care about the rights of 1860s Americans if youve never met one though
---

Corrik7 posted...

SmartMuffin posted...

Trump is about an average President, which makes him still 100x better than Lincoln, who is probably the worst of all time.

What???

Youve never heard SmartMuffins libertarian arguments against Lincoln?
---

Jakyl25 posted...

Youve never heard SmartMuffins libertarian arguments against Lincoln?

I don't think I want to...

---

Like, EVEN IF (and this is a huge if that you absolutely should not do) you hold Lincoln blameless for southern secession in the first place, AND then concede that the South is a evil and absolute enemy of the North that he had every right to declare total war on, including deliberately starving the civilian population, AND therefore suggest that the deaths of northern soldiers and civilians are absolutely not his fault whatsoever, Lincoln is STILL the worst, even if you look solely at what he did to the north during the war, in terms of absolutely shredding the constitution.

He censored the press, suspended habeus corpus, and literally jailed journalists, legislators, and judges who spoke out against his war.

He's the closest thing to a literal dictator America has ever had. And these are all factual matters of record.
---

Corrik7 posted...

Jakyl25 posted...

Youve never heard SmartMuffins libertarian arguments against Lincoln?

I don't think I want to...

He makes a strong argument though!

[I admit I am taking him at his word about those matters of historical record]
---

and just as a bonus, his pre-political background was so incredibly corrupt it makes Trump look like a choir boy

he was literally a lawyer for the giant railroads, probably the biggest crony capitalist enterprises in all of American history

got incredibly rich through land speculation that surely had absolutely nothing to do with being an insider for the giant monopoly corporations of his day
---

SmartMuffin posted...

and just as a bonus, his pre-political background was so incredibly corrupt it makes Trump look like a choir boy

he was literally a lawyer for the giant railroads, probably the biggest crony capitalist enterprises in all of American history

got incredibly rich through land speculation that surely had absolutely nothing to do with being an insider for the giant monopoly corporations of his day

Wouldnt that put him more on equal footing with Trump though?
---

SmartMuffin posted...

Like, EVEN IF (and this is a huge if that you absolutely should not do) you hold Lincoln blameless for southern secession in the first place, AND then concede that the South is a evil and absolute enemy of the North that he had every right to declare total war on, including deliberately starving the civilian population, AND therefore suggest that the deaths of northern soldiers and civilians are absolutely not his fault whatsoever, Lincoln is STILL the worst, even if you look solely at what he did to the north during the war, in terms of absolutely shredding the constitution.

He censored the press, suspended habeus corpus, and literally jailed journalists, legislators, and judges who spoke out against his war.

He's the closest thing to a literal dictator America has ever had. And these are all factual matters of record.

The press loses wars. = /

---

nah

Trump had some shady shit going on with the mob and the unions and maybe NYC local government

but nothing on the scale of what Lincoln was up to with the railroads

plus, as the left loves to point out, Trump didn't even get much richer than what his father already had. Lincoln went from being barefoot in a log cabin to being among the elite, solely through insider shady deals.

like even the guys today who are coming out and being forced on us from McKinsey/Bain/Goldman Sachs are probably better than Lincoln because even those crony capitalist entities have nothing on the sheer level of corruption and government protection that was going on in the 19th century railroad industry
---

SmartMuffin posted...

Lincoln went from being barefoot in a log cabin to being among the elite, solely through insider shady deals.

The American dream!
---

SmartMuffin posted...

Like, EVEN IF (and this is a huge if that you absolutely should not do) you hold Lincoln blameless for southern secession in the first place,

Okay I'll bite

Why is it Lincoln's fault that the south seceded when they didn't like the results of the election and tried to preserve slavery in advance?

---

HeroDelTiempo17 posted...

Okay I'll bite

Why is it Lincoln's fault that the south seceded when they didn't like the results of the election and tried to preserve slavery in advance?

Well, to be fair, Lincoln's stated policies is why in conjunction with the current climate.

---

Jakyl25 posted...

Nelson_Mandela posted...

I wish I could fast forward to the future where our progeny views all of us as awful people for the way we dehumanized our AI technology.

Everyone in history is terrible in retrospect when you cast aside moral relevatism. It's actually one of the most boring and pointless debates to have.

Thats a weak argument. I think we are all in agreement already that any AI that becomes conscious actually should have rights. Sci-fi has been tackling this issue for decades.

Did the people running the slave trade not know that the Africans were humans?

Not every slaveholder was a sadist, as much as you'd like to think they were. Many felt that treating their slaves humanely and giving them a home and provisions was affording them a better life than a free man in Africa would have.

We now see that as wrong, but every generation is "morally superior" to the last. I guarantee that someone studying your life in 200 years can make an argument that you are a morally corrupt person from 23rd century morality. (If you want an example, you're a terrible person because you burn fossil fuels and contribute to mass extinction.)

It's a stupid waste of time to judge historical figures based present-day morality. Everything must be studied in context. Any historian worth his salt will agree.
---

Corrik7 posted...

kevwaffles posted...

See, that's what I mean when I say it's not actually true. All he wrote in his memoirs anywhere close to that effect is what I mentioned about them not being able to adapt to society, but somehow it gets stretched into that.

Pretty sure he said they weren't as smart as whites or had smaller brains or some shit also. I remember we did a big debate section on this in African American History in college.

My professor was less than amused with me because he created two sides of debate where 1. Was Lincoln was racist and only did what he did because he had to for the union or 2. Lincoln was a good person and freed the slaves because he felt slavery was wrong.

I was on side 2 but my professor got mad at me when I argued that Lincoln was actually racist but it did not preclude that he was a good person and freed the slaves because he felt slavery was wrong either and he in fact did do.

There is contradictory reporting about whether he supported or opposed "negro citizenship" in Illinois in his debates with Douglass in 1858 (written later when he was running for president). In these, there is a line attributing "physical differences" as the reason why blacks and whites can't live together. Whether or not he wrote much less delivered speeches with such content, it does seem to actually contradict what his own memoirs on these subjects. That doesn't disqualify them as things he ever said for the purpose of getting elected, but it is 2nd hand versus 1st hand sources.

But even in those, I don't think these speeches ever clearly indicated a difference in intelligence or brain size.

However, it does strike me as odd he would say such things for the purpose of getting elected in Illinois, but not for the purpose of getting elected president only 2 years later.
---

Nelson_Mandela posted...

Everything must be studied in context

Yes. They are soooo bad at context here tho. They are the gotcha culture.

---

man what happened to the Freedom Topics
---

Nelson_Mandela posted...

Not every slaveholder was a sadist, as much as you'd like to think they were. Many felt that treating their slaves humanely and giving them a home and provisions was affording them a better life than a free man in Africa would have.

We now see that as wrong,

Why did they think that though

And I dont disagree with you that I am bad because I contribute to those things! I dont need a future person perspective, and you shouldnt either.
---

And that completely ignores the fact that many people back then knew slavery was wrong.
---

SmartMuffin posted...

and just as a bonus, his pre-political background was so incredibly corrupt it makes Trump look like a choir boy

he was literally a lawyer for the giant railroads, probably the biggest crony capitalist enterprises in all of American history

got incredibly rich through land speculation that surely had absolutely nothing to do with being an insider for the giant monopoly corporations of his day

Sorry, but insider trading was perfectly legal back then. Blame Congress for not banning it for like 70 years after that.

Also, it's a testament to America that the giant railroads would hire a lawyer who never got past 2nd grade in school and taught himself law. Wouldn't happen nowadays!
---

Keep in mind that Smuffin believes black people are naturally inferior to white people, so waging a war that protected their human rights over the rights of white slave owners is naturally a bad thing to him.
---

kevwaffles posted...

Corrik7 posted...

kevwaffles posted...

See, that's what I mean when I say it's not actually true. All he wrote in his memoirs anywhere close to that effect is what I mentioned about them not being able to adapt to society, but somehow it gets stretched into that.

Pretty sure he said they weren't as smart as whites or had smaller brains or some shit also. I remember we did a big debate section on this in African American History in college.

My professor was less than amused with me because he created two sides of debate where 1. Was Lincoln was racist and only did what he did because he had to for the union or 2. Lincoln was a good person and freed the slaves because he felt slavery was wrong.

I was on side 2 but my professor got mad at me when I argued that Lincoln was actually racist but it did not preclude that he was a good person and freed the slaves because he felt slavery was wrong either and he in fact did do.

There is contradictory reporting about whether he supported or opposed "negro citizenship" in Illinois in his debates with Douglass in 1858 (written later when he was running for president). In these, there is a line attributing "physical differences" as the reason why blacks and whites can't live together. Whether or not he wrote much less delivered speeches with such content, it does seem to actually contradict what his own memoirs on these subjects. That doesn't disqualify them as things he ever said for the purpose of getting elected, but it is 2nd hand versus 1st hand sources.

But even in those, I don't think these speeches ever clearly indicated a difference in intelligence or brain size.

However, it does strike me as odd he would say such things for the purpose of getting elected in Illinois, but not for the purpose of getting elected president only 2 years later.

Hillary explained this: with some people he used some arguments, and with other people he used other arguments.
---

Inviso posted...

Keep in mind that Smuffin believes black people are naturally inferior to white people, so waging a war that protected their human rights over the rights of white slave owners is naturally a bad thing to him.

To be fair, even though this is true, he has constructed an argument divorced from that
---