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
All of these people voting for him are gonna quickly disavow him when the wheels of time turn and history looks down upon them with universal disgust
Hard was find people in Germany who openly admited to supporting a certain party once that party was destroyed. Thank God for social media, people won't be able to use cheep excuses for being held to account
These people voting for him are the same ones that voted for him in 2016 and complained about a stolen election in 2020. At this point they've tripled down.
It's even more
According to my favourite nut wing podcast, they now have checks notes the blacks and the gays on their side as well
Donald Trump is so unliked that a Woman of Indian heritage is taking about 40℅ of the Republican vote.
The Republican party should be terrified of what this means for a general election.
As my Dutch grandfather often angrily said, the Dutch resistance gained most of its members in 1945.
But I think it was a useful lie at that point. Better to get on with things, rather than settle scores.
Better to get on with things, rather than settle scores.
How many problems do we face today because of this misguided notion?
Confederates weren't punished after the US Civil War, and what did they do after that? The KKK, Jim Crow, "lost cause" myth, redlining, sundown towns, etc, happened because we didn't beat every inch of racism out of the South. Nixon literally sabotaged an end to hostilities in Vietnam and prolonged the war just to get elected. What's the word for someone who actively works against their government? Oliver North sold guns to Iran in order to fund right-wing revolutionaries in Nicaragua at Reagan's direction. GW Bush lied about WMDs in Iraq to justify an invasion, and blew the cover off a CIA operative when she refused to endorse false claims of Uranium enrichment.
And that's just the ones off the top of my head.
Confederates weren’t punished after the US Civil War, and what did they do after that?
The ideals and policies the Confederates had during and after the war were abhorrent. That is unquestionable.
However, I struggle to envision what "punishment" for the former Confederate state would have been.
"The population of the Union was 18.5 million. In the Confederacy, the population was listed as 5.5 million free and 3.5 million enslaved. In the Border States there were 2.5 million free inhabitants and 500,000 enslaved people." source
So 25% of the newly reunited population of the USA was part of the Confederacy. How do you punish 25% of your population? Some kind of tax or restriction of freedom on them? Discrimination against blacks was the primary driver for the war. How could the Union then go on to build a new system that would do that to 25% of its citizens?
We also have history to draw from with regard to punishing an entire aggressor population. Post WWI Germany got smacked down hard with huge debts and restrictions on production as punishment for starting WWI. Most historical analysis I've seen says that this punishment was a large contributor to the rise of NAZI Germany just 21 years later.
If the post-civil war US government did the same to the former Confederacy, would the USA have a history including Civil War II?
Punish here isn't meant as a short-term restriction or taking of freedoms. Punish is instead meant for the long term. While I cannot say as to what the correct option would have been, I will say we far too quickly, in reference to the passage of years from the Civil War to today, went from "FREE THEM!" to "Welp, aight, did that. Guess everything is good now."
It wasn't good now.
So what we failed to truly do was follow up and quash the little pockets that exist today much larger and with a damned ancient fruit as their lead.
don't they teach reconstruction any more?
Its been a long time since I've been in a classroom, so I can't say.
With your question do you believe Reconstruction was contained punishment that was insufficient to meet @billiam0202@lemmy.world 's desired level?
I don't know.
I don't believe in punishment, myself. but the South was obviously punished.
Up until it was politically expedient to end the punishment and hey look the worst of Jim Crow...
the problem wasn't that there was not enough government though, it was that there was too much government. without States, Jim Crow could not have n been made law. abolish the state.
Yes, because without the states to make laws that racists followed, there would have been no Jim Crow reaction to newly freed slaves. And I bet we'd also still have newly freed slaves too.
yes
My dude, there's a vast difference between "justice" and "vengeance."
My dude, there’s a vast difference between “justice” and “vengeance.”
I agree completely.
For the post @billiam0202@lemmy.world 's post above, what is your suggestion about how to pushing the newly defeated Confederacy in 1865?
While this isn't something I'd necessarily advocate for, the anti-treason part of the constitution could have easily seen the high command of the confederacy hanged for it. Them being only barred from office seems like a slap on the wrist in comparison, and failed to "make an example" of the traitors. If they had given them life in prison with hard labor, plus directly instilled new leadership in the south specifically working to tamp down on any other segregationist/appologist movements, we very well may not be facing the same issues today.
While this isn’t something I’d necessarily advocate for, the anti-treason part of the constitution could have easily seen the high command of the confederacy hanged for it.
This could have potentially worked. History afterward showed that the hanging worked at Nuremberg, and modern day Germany show no repercussions from that action.
Out of curiosity, what city was he in for that? My great grandparents on my Oma's side were part of the resistance in Haarlem during the war.
Yes, when he loses in November there's going to be an epic meltdown in the GOP. Three election cycles and this idiot is the best they have?
The list of things I heard less democratic than the idea of holding people to account for who they vote for is pretty short.
"you are a shitty person who knowingly did shitty things and history will spit on you" is what I mean by being held to account. Nobody will get a free pass from being judged. But I mean like the opinion sense of judgment. Not like getting arrested or anything.
Oh, that's fair. You came off kinda militant in your first comment. Cheers.
We’re not talking about punishing people for voting for Bob Dole here.
Here's hoping she stays in to the primary and splits the Rep. vote.
She’s going to dip out before then. Her only real plan is to stay relevant enough to be the defacto candidate should Trump not be able to run or dies.
In a number of states, you cannot run in the election as a third party candidate if you lost the primary for that state. I’m not sure how widespread that is, but it’s come up in several recent elections. I think they’re even called something like anti-spoiler rules.
I think there’s pollsters who are looking at three way races now (usually throwing in Kennedy), but I don’t know if they’ve been able to say whether he pulls more Trump or Biden voters yet.
It is literally ~60%-40% as of right now. I would hardly call that a crushing blow.
In politics? 20 points is a huge margin of victory. Anything over 10 is considered a landslide.
The rules are different for a second term primary. 85%+ is typical from what I've read. Especially when your voter base is bigoted and your opponent is female.
Maybe for a current incumbent. Not for someone running for the nomination.
If you've ever been to South Carolina, 20 points for Trump seems very low.
Absolutely insane to me.
What was the turnout? Seriously. I think people need to start taking the primaries more seriously. After this they're gonna whine about why the quality of candidates in the general election is so bad.
There are 3,268,506 registered voters in SC. 451,905 voted for Trump in his primary.
13.8% turned out for Trump.
How sad for us all on earth that a piece of walking excrement calling itself "trump" can even be allowed to walk among us, let alone run for a public office in this country. What a condemnation of all humans everywhere - what a total admission of the true filth we have all turned into.
If there were a decent person still living on earth, trump would not be. That we all just sit here and watch this grotesque and ineffably horrifying tragedy unfold, is a sick indictment of all humanity indeed.
If there were a decent person still living on earth, trump would not be.
I guess that means you're not a decent person. Also this sounds an awful like, "oh won't someone rid me of this person?".
I just hope we get a whole bunch of never Trumpers out of this bullshit. They're both trash human beings.
MSNBC: "looking at the next few Republican primaries is not looking good for Haley. Michigan polls show Trump leading 81% to 19%. Massive blowout"
If she stays in, it's only banking on Trump getting convicted. She's never winning a primary in this Republican party.
Trump running from prison is more likely than them letting her on the ticket.
There's always a chance the SCOTUS does the right thing and disqualifies him from the ballot...
/s
Her campaign is the political equivalent of guessing $1 on The Price Is Right
yodels in plinko
Yup.
MSNBC: "This is the worst loss for a Republican in their home state ever."
Loss and republican pair very nicely together.
Isn't the SCOTUS ruling more likely her last chance before running out of money and determination?
This is the best summary I could come up with:
Former President Trump is projected to handily win the South Carolina GOP primary, dealing a crushing blow to rival Nikki Haley, according to an exit poll conducted by Decision Desk HQ.
Trump’s win will fuel further questions about her viability, especially given that she had previously served as governor of South Carolina.
Yet Haley has signaled that she’s in it for the long haul, saying earlier this week, “South Carolina will vote on Saturday, but on Sunday I will still be running for president.”
Many Republicans have largely started to shift their attention to the general election as it increasingly looks like a rematch between Trump and President Biden.
All eyes are now turning to Super Tuesday on March 5, where Alabama, Alaska, Arkansas, California, Colorado, Maine, Massachusetts, Minnesota, North Carolina, Oklahoma, Tennessee, Texas, Utah, Vermont, Virginia and American Samoa will be casting their ballots in the presidential contest.
The Trump campaign projected in a memo this week that the former president would notch the necessary number of GOP delegates to secure the nomination by March 19.
The original article contains 254 words, the summary contains 177 words. Saved 30%. I'm a bot and I'm open source!