Bay 12 Games Forum

Please login or register.

Login with username, password and session length
Advanced search  
Pages: 1 ... 3290 3291 [3292] 3293 3294 ... 3511

Author Topic: AmeriPol thread  (Read 3533759 times)

Frumple

  • Bay Watcher
  • The Prettiest Kyuuki
    • View Profile
Re: AmeriPol thread
« Reply #49365 on: August 10, 2022, 02:49:47 pm »

So which of the three were the founding fathers?
All three were represented, iirc. Memory might be borking up, but I seem to recall that on top of everything else, it was also partially so folks in the colonies would be more free to pursue genocide of the native populations.
Logged
Ask not!
What your country can hump for you.
Ask!
What you can hump for your country.

Lord Shonus

  • Bay Watcher
  • Angle of Death
    • View Profile
Re: AmeriPol thread
« Reply #49366 on: August 10, 2022, 08:04:54 pm »

The desire for further expansion is often brought up, but there's little period sources to support that. The British did put a bar on further expansion of the colonies (out of fear of antagonizing other European powers with the Seven Years war so recent - they didn't give the slightest trace of a shit about the natives), but it was pretty obvious that wasn't going to last forever.

Likewise, the fairly common claim that the American Revolution was to save slavery is baseless. In 1775, there was only a small abolition movement, and it was very weak.
Logged
On Giant In the Playground and Something Awful I am Gnoman.
Man, ninja'd by a potentially inebriated Lord Shonus. I was gonna say to burn it.

bloop_bleep

  • Bay Watcher
    • View Profile
Re: AmeriPol thread
« Reply #49367 on: August 10, 2022, 09:17:57 pm »

How so, considering slavery was a big issue with the passage of the US Constitution (the 1787 one, not the Articles of Confederation)? The no debate on banning the international slave trade until 1808? Clearly someone was talking about banning the trade if that was a matter of concern. The Pennsylvania Abolition Society was founded in 1775, and by 1780 they already passed gradual abolition.

I really sincerely doubt it was about preserving slavery though because Britain was very much about making a lot of profit using the slave system via the cotton plantations of the Southern colonies and the sugar plantations of Barbados & Jamaica.
« Last Edit: August 10, 2022, 09:19:42 pm by bloop_bleep »
Logged
Quote from: KittyTac
The closest thing Bay12 has to a flamewar is an argument over philosophy that slowly transitioned to an argument about quantum mechanics.
Quote from: thefriendlyhacker
The trick is to only make predictions semi-seriously.  That way, I don't have a 98% failure rate. I have a 98% sarcasm rate.

lemon10

  • Bay Watcher
  • Citrus Master
    • View Profile
Re: AmeriPol thread
« Reply #49368 on: August 11, 2022, 01:04:11 am »

Likewise, the fairly common claim that the American Revolution was to save slavery is baseless. In 1775, there was only a small abolition movement, and it was very weak.
Dammit. I read this and thought you were talking about the civil war instead of the revolution, and I had a whole paragraph typed up with appropriate quotes from each of the states declarations of independence during the civil war.
But you were actually talking about the revolution instead and thus the whole rant was completely pointless. :/
Logged
And with a mighty leap, the evil Conservative flies through the window, escaping our heroes once again!
Because the solution to not being able to control your dakka is MOAR DAKKA.

That's it. We've finally crossed over and become the nation of Da Orky Boyz.

Lord Shonus

  • Bay Watcher
  • Angle of Death
    • View Profile
Re: AmeriPol thread
« Reply #49369 on: August 11, 2022, 03:54:17 am »

How so, considering slavery was a big issue with the passage of the US Constitution (the 1787 one, not the Articles of Confederation)? The no debate on banning the international slave trade until 1808? Clearly someone was talking about banning the trade if that was a matter of concern. The Pennsylvania Abolition Society was founded in 1775, and by 1780 they already passed gradual abolition.

That's internal debate, which isn't what I was talking about. There is (or was, I haven't seen it in a little while) a loud revisionist argument that Britain was all set to ban the "peculiar institution" and that's the real reason the colonies rebelled. Despite the fact that Britain wouldn't ban slavery itself until the 1830s, and that was probably because they lost the colonies (when the sugar islands collapsed, the pro-slavery side lost just about all funding, which wouldn't have happened with the planters of Virginia still in play) as much as anything else.
Logged
On Giant In the Playground and Something Awful I am Gnoman.
Man, ninja'd by a potentially inebriated Lord Shonus. I was gonna say to burn it.

anewaname

  • Bay Watcher
  • The mattock... My choice for problem solving.
    • View Profile
Re: AmeriPol thread
« Reply #49370 on: August 11, 2022, 04:11:37 am »

So which of the three were the founding fathers?
snarky reply
There are different lists of Founding Fathers and I don't know details of who did what, but the story would have played out the same as other secession attempts that became civil wars...
Spoiler (click to show/hide)
Logged
How did I manage to successfully apply the lessons of The Screwtape Letters to my perceptions of big grocery stores?

Loud Whispers

  • Bay Watcher
  • They said we have to aim higher, so we dug deeper.
    • View Profile
    • I APPLAUD YOU SIRRAH
Re: AmeriPol thread
« Reply #49371 on: August 11, 2022, 04:20:34 am »

The desire for further expansion is often brought up, but there's little period sources to support that. The British did put a bar on further expansion of the colonies (out of fear of antagonizing other European powers with the Seven Years war so recent - they didn't give the slightest trace of a shit about the natives), but it was pretty obvious that wasn't going to last forever.
But the royal proclamation was to avoid antagonising the natives further, not the French, who already had ceded their interests in NA. The British were keen to maintain their commercial and military alliances with those tribes who had them; and those who did not, were not by any means defenceless, but rather were the foremost military threat to an expensive western colonial frontier. It's only after native tribes could no longer buy guns from the French to use against the British and guns from the British to use against the French that their military potential greatly dwindles in the face of post-colonial states; many forts were overrun for this exact reason, and defending a large expanse of forest by turning your allies into enemies would be impractical and expensive in the extreme. It was their strategy to balance the power of the French colonists, American colonists and native tribes[/url]

Likewise, the fairly common claim that the American Revolution was to save slavery is baseless. In 1775, there was only a small abolition movement, and it was very weak.
It's unfair to say they fought to save slavery, but slavery was definitely an issue which the crown ministers could easily exploit, e.g. criticising fighting for liberty whilst carrying a whip, recruiting a large loyalist population from slaves by promising freedom for service, and in the UK the anti-slavery movement was well established amongst an influential minority of members of parliament, royal navy captains and judges - and as a result of the 1772 ruling that slavery had no basis in English common law (in two years later in Scottish), British colonials were divided between those supportive of the new wave of abolitionism or who supported a clean break from English common law to protect themselves from the ruling

That's internal debate, which isn't what I was talking about. There is (or was, I haven't seen it in a little while) a loud revisionist argument that Britain was all set to ban the "peculiar institution" and that's the real reason the colonies rebelled. Despite the fact that Britain wouldn't ban slavery itself until the 1830s, and that was probably because they lost the colonies (when the sugar islands collapsed, the pro-slavery side lost just about all funding, which wouldn't have happened with the planters of Virginia still in play) as much as anything else.
It is a peculiar revisionism, as it was just one reason that some pro-slavery individuals held, but not one held by all, nor the main one. Although a quick correction - Britain banned slavery in the entire Empire in the 1830s; it was illegal in Britain from 1772, the trade itself made illegal in 1807; Wellington pushed for an anti-slavery clause in the congress of Vienna after receiving hundreds of thousands of signatures in petitions against slavery, and RN Captains caused diplomatic incidents by attacking allied and neutral country slaverships on their own initiative because they figured whilst on the Atlantic ocean no one in Westminster could stop them, let alone reach them for contact. It is a feature, not a bug that the UK law changes with the policy, not the policy to change to the law
« Last Edit: August 11, 2022, 04:28:47 am by Loud Whispers »
Logged

Frumple

  • Bay Watcher
  • The Prettiest Kyuuki
    • View Profile
Re: AmeriPol thread
« Reply #49372 on: August 11, 2022, 08:13:27 pm »

So... yeah. Armed attack on a FBI field office, appears to have been a right-wing loon retaliating for the raid. No news I've noticed of other casualties, but last update I saw was report of the attacker (perhaps unsurprisingly) confirmed dead.

Guess we get to see if things escalate further.
Logged
Ask not!
What your country can hump for you.
Ask!
What you can hump for your country.

Telgin

  • Bay Watcher
  • Professional Programmer
    • View Profile
Re: AmeriPol thread
« Reply #49373 on: August 11, 2022, 08:22:43 pm »

I hate the fact that every day this week we keep having a new unprecedented event.  For once it feels like justice might be coming to those who deserve it, but I fear that these unprecedented events are going to escalate beyond one guy trying to... I don't know, shoot the entire FBI for doing their jobs.

It's a tiny bit amusing to see the conservatives on a lot of platforms suddenly claiming that the police force needs to go though, the moment they do their jobs to prosecute Trump.

Amusing in a sad and somewhat palpably scary way.
Logged
Through pain, I find wisdom.

hector13

  • Bay Watcher
  • It’s shite being Scottish
    • View Profile
Re: AmeriPol thread
« Reply #49374 on: August 11, 2022, 08:24:49 pm »

Apparently was at the Capitol Riot but wasn’t charged with anything, has form on social media for supporting Trump, and allegedly posted on Trump’s nonsense platform they were proposing war.

It’s just another example of how post-truth politicians are encouraging people to be more violent to people they disagree with.
Logged
Look, we need to raise a psychopath who will murder God, we have no time to be spending on cooking.

the way your fingertips plant meaningless soliloquies makes me think you are the true evil among us.

bloop_bleep

  • Bay Watcher
    • View Profile
Re: AmeriPol thread
« Reply #49375 on: August 11, 2022, 09:24:23 pm »

Of course. They will say anything and everything. They just try to hit the right affective responses.

Oh, and if they do that, it's better to just call them what they are -- fascists.
Logged
Quote from: KittyTac
The closest thing Bay12 has to a flamewar is an argument over philosophy that slowly transitioned to an argument about quantum mechanics.
Quote from: thefriendlyhacker
The trick is to only make predictions semi-seriously.  That way, I don't have a 98% failure rate. I have a 98% sarcasm rate.

hector13

  • Bay Watcher
  • It’s shite being Scottish
    • View Profile
Re: AmeriPol thread
« Reply #49376 on: August 11, 2022, 09:28:15 pm »

Garland (the AG) has moved to unseal the warrant for the search so it’s publicly available, which should hopefully let us know why there was a search and what the search found.

It also moves the ball firmly into Trump’s court, as he can appeal to have it not be unsealed, or release it himself.

I think part of the reason why the Republicans moved to ask for this is because they didn’t think it would happen, so hopefully that shuts them up too.
Logged
Look, we need to raise a psychopath who will murder God, we have no time to be spending on cooking.

the way your fingertips plant meaningless soliloquies makes me think you are the true evil among us.

EuchreJack

  • Bay Watcher
  • Lord of Norderland - Lv 20 SKOOKUM ROC
    • View Profile
Re: AmeriPol thread
« Reply #49377 on: August 12, 2022, 12:08:18 am »

We're starting down a bad path of the Political Party that Won trying to imprison the Political Party that Lost.

This is NOT my complaining about the Democrats.  So far, they're just doing the same shit the Republicans tried/try to do to Hillary Clinton.

Personally, I'd have a lot of respect for President Biden if he offered a Pardon to both Donald Trump & Hillary Clinton.
As Gerald Ford said about pardoning Nixon: It is an admission of guilt to accept a Pardon.

I've heard that Trump wants to run for President in 2024.  I sort of find this hard to believe, since in order for him to run for President in 2024, he would have to acknowledge that he lost the election of 2020...

hector13

  • Bay Watcher
  • It’s shite being Scottish
    • View Profile
Re: AmeriPol thread
« Reply #49378 on: August 12, 2022, 12:23:13 am »

Hilary Clinton has been investigated and didn’t do anything worthy of charge.

This isn’t a political witch hunt, this is Donald Trump being investigated for breaking the law. If he did break the law, his status as a former president should not be a barrier to that. This has nothing to do with Democrats or Republicans, and everything to do with a law-breaking individual being brought to account.
Logged
Look, we need to raise a psychopath who will murder God, we have no time to be spending on cooking.

the way your fingertips plant meaningless soliloquies makes me think you are the true evil among us.

EuchreJack

  • Bay Watcher
  • Lord of Norderland - Lv 20 SKOOKUM ROC
    • View Profile
Re: AmeriPol thread
« Reply #49379 on: August 12, 2022, 12:43:29 am »

Hilary Clinton has been investigated and didn’t do anything worthy of charge.

This isn’t a political witch hunt, this is Donald Trump being investigated for breaking the law. If he did break the law, his status as a former president should not be a barrier to that. This has nothing to do with Democrats or Republicans, and everything to do with a law-breaking individual being brought to account.

Apparently the breaching of confidential documents is only a crime when Donald does it?

Anyways, we're not disagreeing about Trump, necessarily. A pardon would be at the end of an investigation. If there is no investigation, then as you point out, there is nothing "worthy of charge" and thus nothing worth pardoning.

Right now, we're just idly speculating. It will be interesting to see what the DOJ investigation uncovers.
Pages: 1 ... 3290 3291 [3292] 3293 3294 ... 3511