Haley blaming Lincoln for the Civil War should end any debate about her fitness for office. This is pretty close to saying, basically, slavery should be legal.
Either a) she knows what really happened, but is lying because she considers the bases approval more important than reality or b) she's a fucking moron.
Yeah, I mean blaming Lincoln for the civil war and then claiming to be the party of Lincoln. Seems like that would be a little cognitive dissonance right there wouldn't it?
The base does not care about logical consistency. Indeed, it appears that many of them are altogether unaware of the concept logical consistency, and are entirely uninterested in learning or understanding it.
She's essentially saying the same "states' rights" bullshit. Which was the right to slavery.
Ugh
The constitution of the Confederacy forbade states from banning slavery. The confederates were fighting against state's rights to abolish slavery.
Through that same link. Another video played and she said "Of course the civil war was about slavery, we all know it was about slavery... but it was about more than that. It was about the freedoms of EVERY individual."
Well I guess except for the slaves.
She is white supremacist trash. Props to whoever asked her that question. She isn't bothering to hide it.
Haley's response:
“I think it always comes down to the role of government and what the rights of the people are,” Haley replied. “And I will always stand by the fact that I think government was intended to secure the rights and freedoms of the people. It was never meant to be all things to all people. Government doesn’t need to tell you how to live your life. They don’t need to tell you what you can and can’t do. They don’t need to be a part of your life. They need to make sure that you have freedom. We need to have capitalism. We need to have economic freedom. We need to make sure that we do all things so that individuals have the liberties so that they can have freedom of speech, freedom of religion, freedom to do or be anything they want to be without government getting in the way.”
All Haley had to do was just add in that the Confederacy was about taking away liberties of groups of people and their ability to seek out economic freedom, and that slaves had no freedom of everything.
The bar was on the fucking ground and Haley still failed to meet it.
It's too bad we didn't really crush the Confederates after the war. Meaning, really rub their noses in their loss, but give them a path back to redemption that doesn't involve letting them off easy.
Don't allow them to erect statues for "heritage" and so on. Don't allow them to teach about the "Northern war of aggression" and all that.
Use her full name.
Nimarata Nikki Randhawa Haley
I don't see how dead naming is cool simply because it will hurt her polling with racists.
Edit: Ok, explain the joke. Why is the birtherism of saying "Barrack HUSSEIN Obama" funny on our side? Why should we respect Caitlin Jenner's chosen name but not Nikki's? If it's not a joke, that is, you think it's a genuinely good idea for news outlets to refer to her this way, why?
So from personal experience, I learned Obama's middle name from the mouths' of racists, I learned Biden's middle name from the mouths' toxic masculine chauvinists, and I only hear Jenner's deadname from bigots. I don't like playing the "true name" game.
Edit 2: Ok downvoters, you've convinced me that it is ok to stress politicians' birth names in order to show disagreement. Can you now please provide a list of white politicians whose birth names we should use in order to show we do not support them? I guess we can just put their names in parentheses or something if that is easier.
It's a call out to all the bills republicans are passing to require use of birth names so people like Rafael Cruze and Nimarata Hailey can benefit as well.
Dude she is literally cosplaying a white woman.
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
It's not a dead name, she's using her middle name to narrow her proximity to being white.
When the questioner said it was “astonishing” to hear her respond “without mentioning the word slavery,” Haley replied: “What do you want me to say about slavery?” She then asked for the next question
I understand that it was a rhetorical question....but it's kind of not. It's pretty clear that her position on slavery is going to be--much like every other opinion--entirely controlled by what her voters want her to say.
Gotta court far right hicks that'll vote for potato brained Trump no matter what anyway. The only thing Haley has going for her is that her failure isnt quite as hard as Desantis.
An entire party of rot brains following Lord rot into hell.
Federal minimum wage are slave wages
Chattal slavery ended but wage slavery and prison slavery is still going strong. Your 401K manager is heavily invested in continuing it too
It kind of wasn't.
Southern states wanted the federal government to force northern states to return escaped slaves to the south.
The federal government sided with "state rights" and said the South had no control over the northern states, and the federal government couldn't force them either.
So the south started a civil war against state rights, and a couple years into it the Feds went ahead and outlawed slavery as an economic sanction against the South.
The cause wasn't as simple as "slavery" and it was pretty much the opposite of what modern day confederates pretend it was about
Not as simple as "slavery", but the war was caused by slavery. If there had been no slavery, there would have been no war. That's "cause", in my book.
but the war was caused by slavery
The war was caused by the federal government refusing to force northern states to return escaped slaves to the south...
The southern states started a war over that
If it was just over if slavery was legal, then why was the Emancipation Proclamation smack in the middle of the civil war?
If the south wouldn't have started the civil war, it would have been years if not decades before the Feds outlawed slavery.
The south wanted a strong federal government, and got it. Just not the way they wanted it.
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?
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.
Have you read the declaration of secession?
https://avalon.law.yale.edu/19th_century/csa_scarsec.asp
Or the Cornerstone Speech?
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cornerstone_Speech
Yes, the confederates were complaining about more than just slavery, but slavery was central to secession. In the examples you gave it's still all about slavery. I think looking at foundational documents and speeches makes it clear that the cause was as simple as "slavery".
And also white supremacy. All the states that seceded wrote an article of secession and many, if not all, bring up the importance of maintaining the superiority of the white man. It's insane how people don't know this. Even if you took out all the parts about slavery there would be a shitload of racism left.
It's not the most straightforward route to a wrong answer but you got there in the end.
States' rights to what?
So your long-winded, weird lost cause diatribe stating it wasn't about slavery still points out of was literally about slavery.
Well that was some cringe, Billy Madison BS early in my morning.
ya see it wasn't about slavery, it was about enforcement of slaver property rights. Not seeing the difference is reductionism. /s
Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!
Rules:
Links must be to the original source, not an aggregator like Google Amp, MSN, or Yahoo.
Example:
We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.
All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.
That's all the rules!
Civic Links
• Congressional Awards Program
• Library of Congress Legislative Resources
• U.S. House of Representatives
Partnered Communities:
• News