US US Politics General - Discussion of President Biden and other politicians

 

[dustbuster]

The Democrats had a trifecta in 1964. It had bipartisan support, but come on.

Take a look at the in-party ratios of who voted for it.
Democrats filibustered it.

 

[Amerikaner Teddybär]

Lincoln couldn't even come close to destroying it thoroughly enough for these people. That said they do absolutely LOVE him and constantly use him as their favorite president in part because of this.

They use some real stupid projection to insist that if he hadn't been assassinated the USA would have gone down a path of Fully Automated Luxury Gay Space Communism and shit like that, when it was Lincoln that allowed for the Confederacy to surrender and gave leniency to a lot of them and put reconstruction on route to actually reconstruct and not just remake the south into a yankee colonization project.

Decades later it would be Woodrow Wilson and F.D.R. who would proceed to push this garbage much futher. Ironic that Wilson was such a big time hater of commies but a lot of the shit he set up was gleefully used by them and F.D.R. retarded big government project.

Fuck Wilson, all my homies hate Wilson. It's worth to note the Radical Republicans used Lincoln's death as a way to push forward their form of Reconstruction.

I'm pretty sure that ended with Lincoln.
An educational and well-cited 1 hour documentary by one of our threaded cows:
https://youtube.com/watch?v=-pZG7snE7tU
Watching it will put into context why the "party of small government" rammed through the civil rights act of 1964 to replace the US constitution.

One of the sources used was so well-received by historians that one critic said it was "a diatribe against a mostly unnamed group of Lincoln scholars than a real historical analysis."

Ver archivo adjunto 5446450
Take a look at the in-party ratios of who voted for it.
Democrats filibustered it.

That's still a fair amount of Democrats voting for the 1964 Civil Rights Act. Not to mention the Senate vote passed 71-29 with 44 of the "Yea" being Democrats.

 

[dustbuster]

One of the sources used was so well-received by historians that one critic said it was "a diatribe against a mostly unnamed group of Lincoln scholars than a real historical analysis."

That's not a rebuttal by the "historians", it's a temper tantrum.
If they had valid criticisms as to the veracity of what was presented, that would be their lead, but it's not, just an accusation of "diatribe" (complaints about 'tone' or 'presentation' do not contest the facts presented, they're "pounding the table")
I smell the same stench from these "historians" as I do from politifact, wikipedia's editors, and reddit mods.

No doubt anyone who later contradicts The "official" school-taught history on Trump with actual facts that cannot be disputed will also be accused of "diatribe"

(Also, there are more than a dozen other sources cited, which you have conveniently ignored. Are you affiliated with CNN by chance?)

That's still a fair amount of Democrats voting for the 1964 Civil Rights Act. Not to mention the Senate vote passed 71-29 with 44 of the "Yea" being Democrats.

Yeah, about that...
A much greater percentage of the GOP minority also voted for that in the senate than the DNC majority.
There were democrat filibusters there, in person, for ages.

 

[Meat Target]

They use some real stupid projection to insist that if he hadn't been assassinated the USA would have gone down a path of Fully Automated Luxury Gay Space Communism and shit like that, when it was Lincoln that allowed for the Confederacy to surrender and gave leniency to a lot of them and put reconstruction on route to actually reconstruct and not just remake the south into a yankee colonization project.

Y'know how they're renaming/trying to rename all those military bases in the South named after Confederate generals? Those generals were pardoned by Lincoln.

 

[dustbuster]

Y'know how they're renaming/trying to rename all those military bases in the South named after Confederate generals? Those generals were pardoned by Lincoln.

Trump threatened to veto the bill that called for that.
The GOP helped democrats override.

 

[Amerikaner Teddybär]

That's not a rebuttal by the "historians", it's a temper tantrum.
I smell the same stench from these "historians" as I do from politifact, wikipedia's editors, and reddit mods.
No doubt anyone who later contradicts The "official" school-taught history on Trump with actual facts that cannot be disputed, they will also be accused of "diatribe"
If they had valid criticisms as to the veracity of what was presented, that would be their lead, but it's not, just an accusation of "diatribe"

Looking at Thomas DiLorenzo's history with Lincoln, I believe he's the one throwing the tantrum here.

"His scholarship, such as it is, consists of rummaging through the record for anything he can find to damn Lincoln, stripping it of any nuance or context, and piling on pejorative adjectives. In DiLorenzo, the Lincoln-haters have found a champion with the judiciousness and the temperament they deserve." -Rich Lowry, Conservative writer on the Daily Beast

https://www.thedailybeast.com/the-rancid-abraham-lincolnhaters-of-the-libertarian-right

Hell the Independent Institute, a think tank associated with Diolorenzo, called his work "careless" and a "labyrinth of [historical and grammatical] errors".

https://www.independent.org/publications/tir/article.asp?id=79

Also Crowder's a faggot and likes Ayn Rand who's a bitch therefore any opinion he has is forefeit.

 

[General Emílio Médici]

The article on Crowder's website isn't written directly by him, and the complaints are mostly about a actual school book already being issued and used which is hilariously wrong and openly revisionist and lying about Trump.

 

[Amerikaner Teddybär]

The article on Crowder's website isn't written directly by him, and the complaints are mostly about a actual school book already being issued and used which is hilariously wrong and openly revisionist and lying about Trump.

I know, I just don't like Crowder.

Gives me Ben Sharpiro vibes.

 

[dustbuster]

"His scholarship, such as it is, consists of rummaging through the record for anything he can find to damn Lincoln, stripping it of any nuance or context, and piling on pejorative adjectives. In DiLorenzo, the Lincoln-haters have found a champion with the judiciousness and the temperament they deserve." -Rich Lowry, Conservative writer on the Daily Beast
https://www.thedailybeast.com/the-rancid-abraham-lincolnhaters-of-the-libertarian-right

This quote literally describes a rigorous formal research process, and inserts disparaging words to attempt to discredit valid research.
"thorough research" becomes "rummaging through the record".
"accurately quoting" becomes "stripping it of context".
This is the same mentality and approach of "decolonize science" types who believe the scientific method is white supremacy because it produces results inconvenient to their ideology.

This is also the SJW writer telling on himself and his political camp through projection, because this is exactly how SJWs hoax "scandals" from nothing - by "rummaging through the record" of the target and "stripping it of context"
This is how Mike Brown goes from a felon trying to steal a cop's gun and shoot him to a "gentle giant" and "hands up don't shoot"
This is how a transcript of a trump presser goes from Trump condemning nazis while defending monuments to calling nazis "very fine people"
In short, this is the exact method the daily beast uses to push its lies, day after day, year after year.

Cite known-dishonest commie rags at me again and I put you on ignore.

Hell the Independent Institute, a think tank associated with Diolorenzo, called his work "careless" and a "labyrinth of [historical and grammatical] errors".

The only criticism they have to defend the "myth of america" propaganda version of Lincoln is to grammar nazi?

Again: they can't attack his citations so they attack his presentation.
Telling.

The article on Crowder's website isn't written directly by him, and the complaints are mostly about a actual school book already being issued and used which is hilariously wrong and openly revisionist and lying about Trump.

Every AP history book is like this from what I've seen. The tweet thread cited by crowder goes through 4 of them I think, not just one.
No GOP legislature has bothered to take them to task, including Florida.

 

[George Floyd Sneed]

Reminder to everyone that the Confederacy hatred and erasure has very little to do with giving a shit about the southerners and their rebellion. I tis merely a projection of Communists and Progressives to boil the frog towards the destruction of the United States and it's project of liberal freedom.

The purpose of these measures is to humiliate the losers, which has now been extrapolated to be all white people. In the eyes of the (((elite))), there is zero difference between a shitkicker in Mississippi whose ancestors never owned a slave in their lives and a Scandinavian North Dakotan family that arrived in the United States in 1910. It’s all rooted in antiwhite hatred. The modern descendants of confederacy generals are the ones calling for any remaining traces of ancestry to be erased. I don’t think it has anything to do with boiling the frog as there are lots of cucksevatives that thump their chest and talk about how they hate the confederacy more than the libtards. The competition to see who loves niggers most of all is one of our biggest societal downfalls.

 

[draggs]

Thomas DiLorenzo

Really

My gawd lol

Dude talks and writes like he is either about to pull out a glock and start running around incoherently screaming LINKERRRRRRRRRN squeezing off rounds into the air at random, or start bawling, or both. Haven't seen his name in a while, that cow is still alive? Good for him

 

[The Ugly One]

Take a look at the in-party ratios of who voted for it.

A much greater percentage of the GOP minority also voted for that in the senate than the DNC majority.

There are more blue votes than red votes in both your charts. Bills don't come to the floor or pass based on "in-party ratios." They pass by total votes. Claiming Republicans "rammed through" Civil Rights Act based on "in-party ratios" is as retarded as the "Hillary won the popular vote" arguments for why Trump's presidency wasn't somehow technically legitimate. The minority party has zero power to "ram through" anything in Congress, much less through the President, as though a hapless Democratic Speaker would have dearly loved to keep Jim Crow going another generation if it weren't for the GOP forcing his hand, because that's not how either house of Congress works. That bill would have gone nowhere without buy-in from Democratic leadership and the bulk of the party.

The Southern Democrats (and the handful of rural Republicans) who filibustered the bill were a minority both in their own party and in Congress. The Democrats, as a whole, were not forced to do anything by a Republican minority, and it's a total fiction to claim they were. It is especially dumb to try and parse a massive political realignment in partisan terms. The Civil Rights Act was not "Democrats" against "Republicans." It was "urban" against "rural." The Democratic Party had been shifting more and more urban throughout the 1950s, and in 1964, they decided to tell the dwindling, rural rump of the party to fuck off. It was a little premature, and crippled their Presidential candidates for 40 years straight.

 

[Sebastian Bacchanalia]

I still don't understand why everyone got so pissed at Kevin. Who, now, will give Marjoram Greeeeeene the dicking she so badly needs??

 

[dustbuster]

Claiming Republicans "rammed through" Civil Rights Act based on "in-party ratios" is as retarded

And I stopped there.
Without strong GOP support those bills would have died.
The GOP was pivotal in the legislative coup against the prime first amendment right of freedom of expression via choice of assocations, and the de-facto establishment of a US racial caste system via legislation that protects some people more than others.
That is what my posts demonstrate.
Don't call a point well-made 'retarded' just because you cannot comprehend what that point was.

That is the opposite of "small government"
That resulted in guns being pointed at schools to force niggers into them at the universal disapproval of the voters (edit: yes, I'm aware of the 1955 rulings. This did expand it to neighborhoods and everywhere else, and now we die and have disasters due to diversity hiring).

My point on the GOP continuing Lincolns legacy of state tyranny stands.

 

[draggs]

I still don't understand why everyone got so pissed at Kevin. Who, now, will give Marjoram Greeeeeene the dicking she so badly needs??

Lauren Boebert will teach MTG to respect her true and honest girldick. Now I'm gonna throw up

 

[Amerikaner Teddybär]

This quote literally describes a rigorous formal research process, and inserts disparaging words.
This is the same mentality and approach of "decolonize science" types who believe the scientific method is white supremacy.

Exactly the communist hack-work i'd expect from a lying SJW rag that is "the daily beast"

Cite commie rags at me again and I put you on ignore.



The only criticism they have to defend the "myth of america" propaganda version of Lincoln is to grammar nazi?

Again: they can't attack his citations so they attack his presentation.
Telling.

The Daily Beast may be a bit Liberal but the person who wrote the article is himself a right winger who is the editor-in-chief of the National Review, a conservative/libertarian magazine.

The problem he had with DiLorenzo was the fact DiLorenzo was plucking out words in order to make Lincoln look bad without regard to the context where the words took place. This is frowned upon in historian circles of both sides of the aisle, believe it or not.

Also to have your own magazine shit on your historical work for bad insight is more than just "muh grammar nazi".

There are more blue votes than red votes in both your charts. Bills don't come to the floor or pass based on "in-party ratios." They pass by total votes. Claiming Republicans "rammed through" Civil Rights Act based on "in-party ratios" is as retarded as the "Hillary won the popular vote" arguments for why Trump's presidency wasn't somehow technically legitimate. The minority party has zero power to "ram through" anything in Congress, much less through the President, as though a hapless Democratic Speaker would have dearly loved to keep Jim Crow going another generation if it weren't for the GOP forcing his hand, because that's not how either house of Congress works. That bill would have gone nowhere without buy-in from Democratic leadership and the bulk of the party.

The Southern Democrats (and the handful of rural Republicans) who filibustered the bill were a minority both in their own party and in Congress. The Democrats, as a whole, were not forced to do anything by a Republican minority, and it's a total fiction to claim they were. It is especially dumb to try and parse a massive political realignment in partisan terms. The Civil Rights Act was not "Democrats" against "Republicans." It was "urban" against "rural." The Democratic Party had been shifting more and more urban throughout the 1950s, and in 1964, they decided to tell the dwindling, rural rump of the party to fuck off. It was a little premature, and crippled their Presidential candidates for 40 years straight.

I brought up the same thing with the Senate votes and he still buried his heels in.

Thomas DiLorenzo

Really

My gawd lol

Dude talks and writes like he is either about to pull out a glock and start running around incoherently screaming LINKERRRRRRRRRN squeezing off rounds into the air at random, or start bawling, or both. Haven't seen his name in a while, that cow is still alive? Good for him

Yeah, he's kicking still. Only thing worse than his historical works is his economic philosophy.

 

[dustbuster]

the person who wrote the article is himself a right winger

The Daily Beast doesn't hire "right wingers"
They hire frauds to pretend to be right wingers like WaPo does "Jennefer Ruben"
"hi fellow right-wingers!" (votes for every democrat every time, denounces anything remotely conservative "the conservative case for trooning kids")

The problem he had with DiLorenzo was the fact DiLorenzo was plucking out words in order to make Lincoln look bad without regard to the context where the words took place.

No, he accurately researched and provided valid citations.
If he was doing this they would have been providing lists of examples of his dishonesty, but they did not.
They just tone policed him.
still ignoring the rest of an entire page of sources for this 1h doc, gotta make sure everyone reading this exchange forgets them!

I brought up the same thing with the Senate votes and he still buried his heels in.

Because I'm right.
Cope and seethe and cite more lying rags, please.

 

[draggs]

@Amerikaner Teddybär I remember thinking acolytes of von Mises had some smart things to say when I was a teenager, then I started encountering them online and they all insisted that they were always correct because of the superiority of a priori logic, and got really really mad if anyone pointed out empirical examples that didn't agree with their "reasoning." 'Muh praxeology says the sun rises in the West, your lying eyes are meaningless' type shit. One of them would literally begin every statement with, 'Man acts. This is an undeniable truth and the bedrock of praxeology, so I'm right about whatever sperging I'm about to unleash, it's not up for debate.' Strong other side of the coin to communists ideological slavishness vibes. They all think Rothbard's true and honest brilliance means its pearls not shit that drops out their assholes when they're perched on the toilet

 

[Amerikaner Teddybär]

The Daily Beast doesn't hire "right wingers"
They hire frauds to pretend to be right wingers like "Jennefer Ruben"

"Everyone on the Right side of the political spectrum that isn't my camp is a SJW in disguise"

No, he accurately researched and provided valid citations.
If he was doing this they would have been providing lists of examples of his dishonesty, but they did not.
They just tone policed him.

I think screwing up important dates is a far cry from "accurate research." Did you actually read the Independent article?

"Despite its provocative insights and obvious rhetorical skill, however, The Real Lincoln is seriously compromised by careless errors of fact, misuse of sources, and faulty documentation. Although individually these flaws may seem trivial and inconsequential, taken together they constitute a near-fatal threat to DiLorenzo’s credibility as a historian."

@Amerikaner Teddybär I remember thinking acolytes of von Mises had some smart things to say when I was a teenager, then I started encountering them online and they all insisted that they were always correct because of the superiority of a priori logic, and got really really mad if anyone pointed out empirical examples that didn't agree with their "reasoning." 'Muh praxeology says the sun rises in the West, your lying eyes are meaningless' type shit. One of them would literally begin every statement with, 'Man acts. This is an undeniable truth and the bedrock of praxeology, so I'm right about whatever sperging I'm about to unleash, it's not up for debate.' Strong other side of the coin to communists ideological slavishness vibes. They all think Rothbard's true and honest brilliance means its pearls not shit that drops out their assholes when they're perched on the toilet

I have heard the Austrian School is made up of sociopaths and it's not hard to see why.

Because I'm right.
Cope and seethe and cite more lying rags, please.

No wonder why you find DiLorenzo a good historian.

 

[tehpope]

When did American politics become such a cluster fuck? I knew Biden wouldn't live up to the hype, but Jesus the last few years have been increasingly chaotic. I for one hope this means 2024 will be nothing but very entertaining chaos.

Watergate and Nixon. Got worse with Reagan and Dubya. Went critical with Obama. Nuclear with Trump.

Probably has something to do with the rise of commies in the education system as well. Got worse after Clinton pardon a few of those commie bombers on his last day in office. Occupy Wall St def woke up some sleeper agents to start spreading critical theory.