2016 USA Presidential Elections

Firecat

Politically Charged
Joined
Mar 23, 2005
Messages
5,730
The Harvard Republican Club surely must be packed with giant douche bags. The thought of it is enough to make me hurl
 

jasonof2000

Well-Known Member
Joined
May 6, 2008
Messages
1,936
Location
Delmarva Peninsula
Car(s)
2013 Lincoln MKT, 2002 Miata SE, 2012 Honda NC700
Yet you are the one conveniently ignoring the historic facts of Reagan's presidency I outlined above. Perhaps YOU should expand your knowledge of US history in a way that accounts for how your beloved idea of states' rights was used to mask segregation since 1865 and protect Jim Crow-style laws in the South.

Just (re)watch Mississippi Burning for a quick and sobering lesson in history.

Even before then. The South used "States Rights" to defend slavery against abolitionists while using federal authority to force Northern states to remove laws defending runaway slaves and enforce laws that allowed bounty hunters to return runaways in their borders.
 

_HighVoltage_

Captain Volvo
Joined
Aug 5, 2006
Messages
9,963
Car(s)
1998 Volvo S70 T5M
Even before then. The South used "States Rights" to defend slavery against abolitionists while using federal authority to force Northern states to remove laws defending runaway slaves and enforce laws that allowed bounty hunters to return runaways in their borders.

Yep, the 1857 U.S. Supreme Court decision in Dred Scott v. Sandford illustrates your point.
 

LeVeL

Forum Addict
Joined
Jun 16, 2007
Messages
13,265
I can give you far more examples of the misuse of centralized federal power than states' rights. This country was founded on the idea of states' rights and, to a degree, we still follow that idea. Yes, it was used to defend slavery (which, by the way, wasn't racist in and of itself - rather the aftermath was) but that black mark against states' rights pales in comparison to the number of federal governments that have turned against the people.
 

_HighVoltage_

Captain Volvo
Joined
Aug 5, 2006
Messages
9,963
Car(s)
1998 Volvo S70 T5M
I can give you far more examples of the misuse of centralized federal power than states' rights. This country was founded on the idea of states' rights and, to a degree, we still follow that idea. Yes, it was used to defend slavery (which, by the way, wasn't racist in and of itself - rather the aftermath was) but that black mark against states' rights pales in comparison to the number of federal governments that have turned against the people.

And as a country we need to find a balance between the two - we need to be cautious of federal government overreach, but we also can't ignore how certain groups have historically used states' rights and "freedom" to oppress minorities.

I am reminded of John Locke who is celebrated for his "Two Treatises of Government" and for being the inspiration for Thomas Jefferson in drafting the Declaration of Independence, and the idea of "life, liberty, and estate."

What is often forgotten is how Locke used his idea of "estate" as a human right in the other document he wrote - the "Fundamental Constitutions of Carolina" (1669). In that he granted that "every Freeman in Carolina shall have absolute power and authority over his Negro Slaves."

Racial inequality and slavery were embedded into the constitutions of the first states, and they informed the debates that later surrounded the foundation of the Union, and continued to inform "states' rights" ideology over time. The two can't be separated, and we shouldn't forget this ugly history of "states' rights" ideology.
 

prizrak

Forum Addict
Joined
Apr 2, 2007
Messages
21,601
Location
No, sleep, till, BROOKLYN
Car(s)
11 Xterra Pro-4x, 12 'stang GT
I can give you far more examples of the misuse of centralized federal power than states' rights. This country was founded on the idea of states' rights and, to a degree, we still follow that idea. Yes, it was used to defend slavery (which, by the way, wasn't racist in and of itself - rather the aftermath was) but that black mark against states' rights pales in comparison to the number of federal governments that have turned against the people.

I generally agree with you as you know, but HV has a very good point. The idea of states' rights has been used to justify a lot of discriminatory practices. Insane abortion laws that force women to travel for hours to even get a consult. Voting laws specifically designed to disenfranchise certain groups. Things like bathroom laws that make no sense whatsoever (by that I mean that if you are a post op male why in the fuck would you go into the women's bathroom?). On the other side of the isle you got things like three strike laws (CA), mandatory minimum sentencing, ridiculously restrictive gun laws, idiotic auto emission laws (CA again).

Like HV said there has to be a balance, I would generally say that things that have to do with upholding individual rights should be national, like legality of gay marriage.
 

LeVeL

Forum Addict
Joined
Jun 16, 2007
Messages
13,265
Like HV said there has to be a balance, I would generally say that things that have to do with upholding individual rights should be national, like legality of gay marriage.
This I can agree on. Specific uses of states' rights can be negative, sure, but I strongly disagree that it's a negative idea in the general sense.
 

mpicco

Forum Addict
Joined
Jun 29, 2009
Messages
5,413
Location
Portugal
Car(s)
R19
So it's a bad time to vote third party when both major candidates are terrible? Aside from that making zero sense, did either of you vote third party in 2012 when the major candidates weren't as bad as they are today? Or did you come up with some other excuse? How about 2008?

It's the perfect time to vote 3rd party. Even if he/she doesn't win, it'd send a message, of will to change at the very least. It's totally ridiculous, but in most countries the voting system distills into two parties overtime.
 

LeVeL

Forum Addict
Joined
Jun 16, 2007
Messages
13,265
It's the perfect time to vote 3rd party. Even if he/she doesn't win, it'd send a message, of will to change at the very least. It's totally ridiculous, but in most countries the voting system distills into two parties overtime.
The Libertarian Party is already winning - Johnson/Weld are sitting at 13% in recent polls, more than any 3rd party has gotten in many years. Hopefully they will reach the magic 15% and get into the debates.
 

mpicco

Forum Addict
Joined
Jun 29, 2009
Messages
5,413
Location
Portugal
Car(s)
R19
The Libertarian Party is already winning - Johnson/Weld are sitting at 13% in recent polls, more than any 3rd party has gotten in many years. Hopefully they will reach the magic 15% and get into the debates.

That is weird, this is the first time Ive heard of them and I am following the whole election closer than many Americans, I bet. We know the two big ones have lobbying power up the wazoo and can buy as much news air time as they want so it'd be such a great thing to see a slap on their faces from a movement challenging the status quo.
 

LeVeL

Forum Addict
Joined
Jun 16, 2007
Messages
13,265
That is weird, this is the first time Ive heard of them and I am following the whole election closer than many Americans, I bet. We know the two big ones have lobbying power up the wazoo and can buy as much news air time as they want so it'd be such a great thing to see a slap on their faces from a movement challenging the status quo.
The Reps and Dems have a very tight grip on this election (and all elections, really). They don't even allow other parties into the debates.

As far as the LP is concerned, they're basically fiscally conservative and socially liberal. They advocate for a small central government, maximum personal freedom and civil rights ("keep the government out of your wallet and out of your bedroom"), a balanced budget, less global policing, etc.
 

Interrobang

Forum Addict
Joined
Mar 5, 2007
Messages
8,150
This country was founded on the idea of states' rights and, to a degree, we still follow that idea. Yes, it was used to defend slavery (which, by the way, wasn't racist in and of itself - rather the aftermath was) [...]
I must either be understanding this wrong, or you may have written that poorly.

I don?t think you've just written "slavery wasn?t based on racism - until afterwards" ... but it reads that way from where I am sitting, so you might wanna explain how you mean that.
 

LeVeL

Forum Addict
Joined
Jun 16, 2007
Messages
13,265
I must either be understanding this wrong, or you may have written that poorly.

I don?t think you've just written "slavery wasn?t based on racism - until afterwards" ... but it reads that way from where I am sitting, so you might wanna explain how you mean that.
Obviously the majority of slaves were black. However, they were not picked simply because of the color of their skin. Rather, waring African tribes would sell off the people they conquered into slavery through Middle Eastern slave markets (come to think of it, Muslims in that region still engage in trading people). The French and the Japanese weren't exactly selling off their people - if they did there would be more white and Asian slaves in the US. Slave owners simply bought what was available to them. That said, there were certainly some Chinese and Irish slaves, although few, and there were black slave owners as well. It's like the Model T - people didn't buy black ones specifically, it's all that was available (yes, I realize that that's a pretty horrible comparison, people and cars). There were black soldiers fighting for the confederacy too. It wasn't until after the Civil War and the end of slavery that blacks (former slaves) were treated poorly simply because they were black - e.g. segregation, Jim Crow, KKK, etc.

Obviously slavery is a horrific concept but it's also a bit sad that every time it gets mentioned, people think of the US. Slavery existed all over the world for thousands of years before the US existed and it's still around to this day, unfortunately. (As an aside, the US was the only country to go to war with itself to end that horrible practice.)
 

_HighVoltage_

Captain Volvo
Joined
Aug 5, 2006
Messages
9,963
Car(s)
1998 Volvo S70 T5M
Obviously slavery is a horrific concept but it's also a bit sad that every time it gets mentioned, people think of the US. Slavery existed all over the world for thousands of years before the US existed and it's still around to this day, unfortunately. (As an aside, the US was the only country to go to war with itself to end that horrible practice.)

I don't have a source for this, but my guess is because of how hypocritical it was in the U.S. Other cultures in the past had slavery, but they were very clear about it and the classes in their societies. On the other hand, the U.S. pretended to be the bastion of the free man, an escape from the Old World, a new country where freedom and liberty were extended to all men. Except they weren't. The second part is how long we kept this hypocrisy and system of slavery in place - by the early 19th century the rest of the Western world had banned slavery, but it was still booming in the U.S. South.

Your comparison to the Model T is apt, but it also points out how human beings were treated as chattel. Now this I can say for sure - there were actually white slaves (as you mention - the Irish), criminals in Europe who paid for their passage across the ocean by selling themselves as indentured servants for a specified period of time. The big difference was that when their term was over (it was often extended), they were free. With black slaves from Africa, laws were specifically made to ensure they remain as slaves, and much worse - the newborn children of slaves were automatically deemed property of the slave-owner, and could be put to work as well. So it's inaccurate to say that blacks weren't treated poorly because of their race prior to the end of slavery. Even during slavery there was a race hierarchy in which black slaves were below white slaves.
 

jasonof2000

Well-Known Member
Joined
May 6, 2008
Messages
1,936
Location
Delmarva Peninsula
Car(s)
2013 Lincoln MKT, 2002 Miata SE, 2012 Honda NC700
Your comparison to the Model T is apt, but it also points out how human beings were treated as chattel. Now this I can say for sure - there were actually white slaves (as you mention - the Irish), criminals in Europe who paid for their passage across the ocean by selling themselves as indentured servants for a specified period of time. The big difference was that when their term was over (it was often extended), they were free. With black slaves from Africa, laws were specifically made to ensure they remain as slaves, and much worse - the newborn children of slaves were automatically deemed property of the slave-owner, and could be put to work as well. So it's inaccurate to say that blacks weren't treated poorly because of their race prior to the end of slavery. Even during slavery there was a race hierarchy in which black slaves were below white slaves.

It gets even worse. Virginia (and the other slave states) changed the inheritance laws where slaves were concerned in that they derived their status from their mother rather than father. This was to keep them enslaved even if they had white fathers due to all the raping of slave women from the overseer and master class.
 
Last edited:

LeVeL

Forum Addict
Joined
Jun 16, 2007
Messages
13,265
I don't have a source for this, but my guess is because of how hypocritical it was in the U.S. Other cultures in the past had slavery, but they were very clear about it and the classes in their societies. On the other hand, the U.S. pretended to be the bastion of the free man, an escape from the Old World, a new country where freedom and liberty were extended to all men. Except they weren't. The second part is how long we kept this hypocrisy and system of slavery in place - by the early 19th century the rest of the Western world had banned slavery, but it was still booming in the U.S. South.
This is true but to a degree. Remember, the US had slavery for less than 100 years before uprooting half the country's economy and fighting a very bloody civil war to end it. Other countries basically waited until slavery wasn't economically or politically sustainable, like in Russia, which had serfdom until, I believe, 1861.


Your comparison to the Model T is apt, but it also points out how human beings were treated as chattel. Now this I can say for sure - there were actually white slaves (as you mention - the Irish), criminals in Europe who paid for their passage across the ocean by selling themselves as indentured servants for a specified period of time. The big difference was that when their term was over (it was often extended), they were free. With black slaves from Africa, laws were specifically made to ensure they remain as slaves, and much worse - the newborn children of slaves were automatically deemed property of the slave-owner, and could be put to work as well. So it's inaccurate to say that blacks weren't treated poorly because of their race prior to the end of slavery. Even during slavery there was a race hierarchy in which black slaves were below white slaves.
Did not know that about white slaves. Interesting...


It gets even worse. Virginia (and the other slave states) changed the inheritance laws where slaves were concerned in that they derived their status from their mother rather than father. This was to keep them enslaved even if they had white fathers due to all the raping of slave women from the overseer and master class.
Inhumane and immoral as that might be, it's not really racism though.
 

_HighVoltage_

Captain Volvo
Joined
Aug 5, 2006
Messages
9,963
Car(s)
1998 Volvo S70 T5M
Did not know that about white slaves. Interesting...

They were technically called "indentured servants."

After slavery was officially abolished as part of the 13th amendment in 1865, Southern states were sneaky and established a law of "mandatory apprenticeship," which you can guess what it really was and who it targeted. That's when the Federal government had to send troops to the states to ensure that they were following the Constitution, and Southerners once again yelled about Federal intrusion into their ways of life. Because they didn't consider slaves as citizens, that lead to the 14th amendment in 1868. And even then, the South rebelled and didn't extend the right to vote to blacks. Hence, the 15th amendment of 1870 that established that all citizens have equal voting rights. And after that came Jim Crow laws...

The South was hell-bent on maintaining slavery and racial segregation.

So as a result - I am not opposed to the concept of states' rights, but its historical use has made me very skeptical about them.

Inhumane and immoral as that might be, it's not really racism though.

It was implemented to ensure the constant reproduction of a slave class of people. And as you pointed out, the majority of slaves were black. The law was created to target them specifically. White women married to white men, and their children weren't impacted by the law at all.
 
Last edited:

prizrak

Forum Addict
Joined
Apr 2, 2007
Messages
21,601
Location
No, sleep, till, BROOKLYN
Car(s)
11 Xterra Pro-4x, 12 'stang GT
So as a result - I am not opposed to the concept of states' rights, but its historical use has made me very skeptical about them.
That's kind of how I look at it as well. I welcome the idea of states' rights and it's one that makes a lot of sense, however historically it's been a justification for discrimination and curtailing of personal freedoms. As mentioned before that is something that we seen happen on both sides of the political spectrum.

It's also worth noting that reason why black slavery was morally justified is precisely because they were seen as less than human savages. Remember Kipling an "white man's burden" this was a natural extension of that.
 
Last edited:

_HighVoltage_

Captain Volvo
Joined
Aug 5, 2006
Messages
9,963
Car(s)
1998 Volvo S70 T5M
Donald Trump's latest screw up:

[video=youtube;EcxkkrNSv-4]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EcxkkrNSv-4[/video]

"If [Hillary Clinton] gets to pick her judges, nothing you can do folks. Although, the 2nd Amendment people. Maybe there is, I don't know." Trump said.

His campaign said he was referring to "the power of unification."

He may have been referring to said "power of unification," but tell me honestly - what would his original statement sound to an uneducated person who already hates Clinton? If that's not a provocation to attack a candidate, I don't know what is.
 

LeVeL

Forum Addict
Joined
Jun 16, 2007
Messages
13,265
Donald Trump's latest screw up:

[video=youtube;EcxkkrNSv-4]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EcxkkrNSv-4[/video]



He may have been referring to said "power of unification," but tell me honestly - what would his original statement sound to an uneducated person who already hates Clinton? If that's not a provocation to attack a candidate, I don't know what is.
I would not rule out a second civil war if Clinton is elected. I think we all know that she will come for the guns harder than anyone before her and, sadly, that might not end well. A lot of people are fed up and a lot of people are on edge.
 
Top