Welcome to Atheist Discussion, a new community created by former members of The Thinking Atheist forum.

Thread Rating:
  • 0 Vote(s) - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
Yeah - This Makes Sense.
#1

Yeah - This Makes Sense.
http://www.msnbc.com/kasie-dc/watch/new-...4333253520

Quote:New poll shows majority of Republicans think Donald Trump is a better President than Abraham Lincoln


After all, Lincoln freed the slaves.  That won't go over big with today's republicunt base.
Robert G. Ingersoll : “No man with a sense of humor ever founded a religion.”
The following 2 users Like Minimalist's post:
  • GenesisNemesis, Phaedrus
Reply
#2

Yeah - This Makes Sense.
They're the Party of Trump, now. They just want to forget about Lincoln.
Reply
#3

Yeah - This Makes Sense.
They are yin and yang for the Grim Old Party.
  [Image: pirates.gif] Dog  
Reply
#4

Yeah - This Makes Sense.
trump isn't even as good as my homemade Lincoln logs.
The following 1 user Likes no one's post:
  • Dancefortwo
Reply
#5

Yeah - This Makes Sense.
If Lincoln were alive today he'd be a Democrat.  150 years ago it was the Democrats who were the assholes.  Today the parties have switched places.
                                                         T4618
The following 3 users Like Dancefortwo's post:
  • Fireball, Thumpalumpacus, Gwaithmir
Reply
#6

Yeah - This Makes Sense.
There's plenty assholeism to go around.
The following 2 users Like no one's post:
  • Thumpalumpacus, Dancefortwo
Reply
#7

Yeah - This Makes Sense.
The cutline says:  "Two former Republican Congressmen discuss a new poll showing that Trump is more
popular than Lincoln in the Republican party".

That may well be the case on Capitol Hill, but to extrapolate this 53% versus 47% result to the entire
Republican support base is far too long a bow to draw.  But... Lincoln still overwhelmingly beats Trump
among all Americans, 75% to 25%, with the vast majority of Democrats and independents also choosing
the former president.

Trump in the past has boasted of his approval rating within the party, comparing his popularity to Lincoln's.
"You know, a poll just came out that I am the most popular person in the history of the Republican Party"
Trump said in a July 2019 interview. "Beating Lincoln" he added, without clarifying to which poll he was
referring,  "I beat our Honest Abe".

The point he's chosen to sidestep/ignore/refute is that annoying 75% of all-Americans figure.  Was
he sick the day they did maths at his school?
I'm a creationist;   I believe that man created God.
Reply
#8

Yeah - This Makes Sense.
(12-02-2019, 06:05 PM)Dancefortwo Wrote: If Lincoln were alive today he'd be a Democrat.  150 years ago it was the Democrats who were the assholes.  Today the parties have switched places.

Yes. Lincoln wanted to abolish slavery, whereas Trump wants to reintroduce it—with immigrants from south of the border.
I'm a creationist;   I believe that man created God.
Reply
#9

Yeah - This Makes Sense.
Actually, Lincoln wanted to send the slaves back to Africa.

He was no hero of equality.
Robert G. Ingersoll : “No man with a sense of humor ever founded a religion.”
Reply
#10

Yeah - This Makes Sense.
(12-02-2019, 09:52 PM)Minimalist Wrote: Actually, Lincoln wanted to send the slaves back to Africa.

He was no hero of equality.

The policy of returning slaves to Africa was nothing new to his administration. Look up the founding of Liberia.
  [Image: pirates.gif] Dog  
Reply
#11

Yeah - This Makes Sense.
(12-02-2019, 08:35 PM)SYZ Wrote: The point he's chosen to sidestep/ignore/refute is that annoying 75% of all-Americans figure.  Was he sick the day they did maths at his school?

No. He just ignores any American who won't vote for him, until they speak up.

He's probably nervous about Lincoln's voice from the grave.
The following 1 user Likes Thumpalumpacus's post:
  • SYZ
Reply
#12

Yeah - This Makes Sense.
(12-02-2019, 08:41 PM)SYZ Wrote:
(12-02-2019, 06:05 PM)Dancefortwo Wrote: If Lincoln were alive today he'd be a Democrat.  150 years ago it was the Democrats who were the assholes.  Today the parties have switched places.

Yes.  Lincoln wanted to abolish slavery, whereas Trump wants to reintroduce it—with immigrants from south of the border.

Lincoln wanted to preserve the union. To do that he would have freed all the slaves, some of the slaves, or none of the slaves. The fact that he signed the Emancipation Proclamation had nothing to do with what he personally wanted for people he thought were inferior and best suited to a life of servitude.
[Image: Bastard-Signature.jpg]
The following 2 users Like TheGentlemanBastard's post:
  • Minimalist, Thumpalumpacus
Reply
#13

Yeah - This Makes Sense.
(12-02-2019, 10:13 PM)Gawdzilla Sama Wrote:
(12-02-2019, 09:52 PM)Minimalist Wrote: Actually, Lincoln wanted to send the slaves back to Africa.

He was no hero of equality.

The policy of returning slaves to Africa was nothing new to his administration. Look up the founding of Liberia.


Nor did his administration do it, they had other things on their plate.  But Lincoln had a long history of endorsing the concept and his opinions of the status and future of slaves was not all that dissimilar from Robert E. Lee's.  In fact, if you have ever read the letters, Lee might have even been a tad more optimistic than Lincoln.

Such is politics.
Robert G. Ingersoll : “No man with a sense of humor ever founded a religion.”
Reply
#14

Yeah - This Makes Sense.
(12-05-2019, 01:13 AM)TheGentlemanBastard Wrote:
(12-02-2019, 08:41 PM)SYZ Wrote:
(12-02-2019, 06:05 PM)Dancefortwo Wrote: If Lincoln were alive today he'd be a Democrat.  150 years ago it was the Democrats who were the assholes.  Today the parties have switched places.

Yes.  Lincoln wanted to abolish slavery, whereas Trump wants to reintroduce it—with immigrants from south of the border.

Lincoln wanted to preserve the union. To do that he would have freed all the slaves, some of the slaves, or none of the slaves. The fact that he signed the Emancipation Proclamation had nothing to do with what he personally wanted for people he thought were inferior and best suited to a life of servitude.

The problem with history is that we have to go with what we have- sometimes a single provocative statement- that certainly expresses an individual's opinion in that moment, but seems a bit unfair to imagine that is the totality of the man's entire view from cradle to grave.  Overall Lincoln seems to have been so open-minded (assassination joke not intended) and so magnanimous that I think he matured quite a bit from that particular quote, which was a heated response to a newspaper editorial early in the war.  Had Lincoln not been whacked I think American history would have been drastically different than the way it unfolded...Lincoln would have found the right path.
Reply
#15

Yeah - This Makes Sense.
Lincoln made clear that he regarded blacks as inferior and as noted above, thought the best solution was "repatriation" to Africa. The Emancipation Proclamation was a political move designed to draw the Union closer to the European powers, and drive a wedge between them and the CSA. It should be noted that the Emancipation Proclamation did not free slaves held in Union states or Union-controlled territory. It only applied to slaves in rebel states:

Quote:The Proclamation applied in the ten states that were still in rebellion in 1863, and thus did not cover the nearly 500,000 slaves in the slave-holding border states (Missouri, Kentucky, Maryland or Delaware) which were Union states. Those slaves were freed by later separate state and federal actions.

The state of Tennessee had already mostly returned to Union control, under a recognized Union government, so it was not named and was exempted. Virginia was named, but exemptions were specified for the 48 counties then in the process of forming the new state of West Virginia, and seven additional counties and two cities in the Union-controlled Tidewater region of Virginia.[25] Also specifically exempted were New Orleans and 13 named parishes of Louisiana, which were mostly under federal control at the time of the Proclamation. These exemptions left unemancipated an additional 300,000 slaves.[26]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Emancipati...n#Coverage

No doubt he would have handled the Reconstruction better than his successors -- he was no dummy -- but I think ascribing that hypothetical to an equally hypothetical magnanimity towards blacks is a bit overwrought, in my opinion. His overriding concern was the existence of the nation as a whole, and as he himself said in 1860, if he could do that by keeping blacks enslaved, he would have been fine with it.

If you'll pardon the pun, he had little skin in the game. He freed slaves he did not control, and allowed slaves under Union control to be kept enslaved.
The following 5 users Like Thumpalumpacus's post:
  • Minimalist, jerry mcmasters, Fireball, Dānu, TheGentlemanBastard
Reply
#16

Yeah - This Makes Sense.
(12-06-2019, 01:26 AM)Thumpalumpacus Wrote: No doubt he would have handled the Reconstruction better than his successors -- he was no dummy -- but I think ascribing that hypothetical to an equally hypothetical magnanimity towards blacks is a bit overwrought, in my opinion. His overriding concern was the existence of the nation as a whole, and as he himself said in 1860, if he could do that by keeping blacks enslaved, he would have been fine with it.

If you'll pardon the pun, he had little skin in the game. He freed slaves he did not control, and allowed slaves under Union control to be kept enslaved.

I think you were speaking generally but if it was reaction to me I mostly agree with you, I didn't mean to imply he wasn't racist and wanted to usher in some kind of racial golden age.  I just think, like you, anything would have been better than the real-life history that actually occurred.  I do think there is enough evidence that he was a sensitive man and we can surmise that he was at least less racist from, say 1860 to 1865.
The following 1 user Likes jerry mcmasters's post:
  • Alan V
Reply
#17

Yeah - This Makes Sense.
(12-06-2019, 02:33 AM)jerry mcmasters Wrote:
(12-06-2019, 01:26 AM)Thumpalumpacus Wrote: No doubt he would have handled the Reconstruction better than his successors -- he was no dummy -- but I think ascribing that hypothetical to an equally hypothetical magnanimity towards blacks is a bit overwrought, in my opinion. His overriding concern was the existence of the nation as a whole, and as he himself said in 1860, if he could do that by keeping blacks enslaved, he would have been fine with it.

If you'll pardon the pun, he had little skin in the game. He freed slaves he did not control, and allowed slaves under Union control to be kept enslaved.

I think you were speaking generally but if it was reaction to me I mostly agree with you, I didn't mean to imply he wasn't racist and wanted to usher in some kind of racial golden age.  I just think, like you, anything would have been better than the real-life history that actually occurred.  I do think there is enough evidence that he was a sensitive man and we can surmise that he was at least less racist from, say 1860 to 1865.

He certainly grew, as a human, during those trying years. His positions from 1860 to 1865 speak to that. Of course he was a man of his times and imbibed the racial views of his era. He's a hero of mine all the same, and I don't really care for heroes. He held the nation together and walked a very fine line between revolution (because that's what eliminating slavery meant by the end of the war), and rededication, to our founding principles.

Like politicians of any era, he was bound by the precepts in play. He tugged America onto a better path even as he himself worked, I think, against his own personal feelings.

Ten years old, I asked my dad why he was racist. The old man was nearly in tears as he told me about his own grandfather scolding him for being polite to a "nigger" -- 1949, East Texas. It was plain to me even at that age that my own dad couldn't escape his own upbringing. We're all, I think creatures of our time. 

Lincoln, too, was a product of his time. But there's a mythology about him that doesn't bear scrutiny. He wasn't on a mission for abolition, no matter what the history books kids read nowadays report (or, for that matter, what I was taught in school). The EP was about tactical advantage, not moral precept. He did good, but I think a lot of us patting him on the back is really us patting ourselves on the back when the job isn't done.
The following 4 users Like Thumpalumpacus's post:
  • GenesisNemesis, Dānu, Alan V, Gwaithmir
Reply
#18

Yeah - This Makes Sense.
In September of 1858, during the 4th debate with Stephen Douglas in Charleston, Illinois Lincoln said:

Quote:Judge Douglas has said to you that he has not been able to get from me an answer to the question whether I am in favor of negro citizenship. So far as I know, the Judge never asked me the question before. [Applause.] He shall have no occasion to ever ask it again, for I tell him very frankly that I am not in favor of negro citizenship. [Renewed applause.] This furnishes me an occasion for saying a few words upon the subject. I mentioned in a certain speech of mine which has been printed, that the Supreme Court had decided that a negro could not possibly be made a citizen, and without saying what was my ground of complaint in regard to that, or whether I had any ground of complaint, Judge Douglas has from that thing manufactured nearly every thing that he ever says about my disposition to produce an equality between the negroes and the white people. If any one will read my speech, he will find I mentioned that as one of the points decided in the course of the Supreme Court opinions, but I did not state what objection I had to it. But Judge Douglas tells the people what my objection was when I did not tell them myself. Now my opinion is that the different States have the power to make a negro a citizen under the Constitution of the United States if they choose. The Dred Scott decision decides that they have not that power. If the State of Illinois had that power I should be opposed to the exercise of it. [Cries of "good," "good," and applause.] That is all I have to say about it.

This was a mere 2 years before he was elected president.  I doubt his opinions could have changed all that much in so short a time and he was indeed a man of his times.

https://www.nps.gov/liho/learn/historycu...ebate4.htm
Robert G. Ingersoll : “No man with a sense of humor ever founded a religion.”
The following 3 users Like Minimalist's post:
  • Thumpalumpacus, mordant, TheGentlemanBastard
Reply
#19

Yeah - This Makes Sense.
(12-05-2019, 03:13 AM)jerry mcmasters Wrote:
(12-05-2019, 01:13 AM)TheGentlemanBastard Wrote:
(12-02-2019, 08:41 PM)SYZ Wrote: Yes.  Lincoln wanted to abolish slavery, whereas Trump wants to reintroduce it—with immigrants from south of the border.

Lincoln wanted to preserve the union. To do that he would have freed all the slaves, some of the slaves, or none of the slaves. The fact that he signed the Emancipation Proclamation had nothing to do with what he personally wanted for people he thought were inferior and best suited to a life of servitude.

The problem with history is that we have to go with what we have- sometimes a single provocative statement- that certainly expresses an individual's opinion in that moment, but seems a bit unfair to imagine that is the totality of the man's entire view from cradle to grave.  Overall Lincoln seems to have been so open-minded (assassination joke not intended) and so magnanimous that I think he matured quite a bit from that particular quote, which was a heated response to a newspaper editorial early in the war.  Had Lincoln not been whacked I think American history would have been drastically different than the way it unfolded...Lincoln would have found the right path.

You know, I'm fine with you calling me out for offering a stance while only providing only a little evidence (though there is more). Until you offer an opposing stance with even less. You're completely correct that with history, we can only go with the evidence we have. In this case it supports the view that Lincoln was a man of his times and cared far more about preserving the union than he did about equality. So, you've got some evidence to the contrary? Maybe a statement from him that the slaves in the U.S. were fine upstanding people and should be given voting rights equal to all free men (something he would deny them, even while "freeing" them)? Anything?

Personally, I don't demonize Lincoln for his attitude toward the slaves or the union. I feel that, as a man of his times, he did what he thought was best for the people and the nation that he could see to do, and you can ask nothing more of anyone than that. I simply refuse to allow the myth of Lincoln being a "Great Man" because he, out of the kindness of his heart, his saintly altruism, and his love of kittens, woke up one morning, decided to free the slaves, then wrote and signed the Emancipation Proclamation.

He may have been a great man, and a great president, but for the sum of his acts, not for any one of them alone.
[Image: Bastard-Signature.jpg]
Reply
#20

Yeah - This Makes Sense.
(12-07-2019, 08:16 PM)TheGentlemanBastard Wrote:
(12-05-2019, 03:13 AM)jerry mcmasters Wrote:
(12-05-2019, 01:13 AM)TheGentlemanBastard Wrote: Lincoln wanted to preserve the union. To do that he would have freed all the slaves, some of the slaves, or none of the slaves. The fact that he signed the Emancipation Proclamation had nothing to do with what he personally wanted for people he thought were inferior and best suited to a life of servitude.

The problem with history is that we have to go with what we have- sometimes a single provocative statement- that certainly expresses an individual's opinion in that moment, but seems a bit unfair to imagine that is the totality of the man's entire view from cradle to grave.  Overall Lincoln seems to have been so open-minded (assassination joke not intended) and so magnanimous that I think he matured quite a bit from that particular quote, which was a heated response to a newspaper editorial early in the war.  Had Lincoln not been whacked I think American history would have been drastically different than the way it unfolded...Lincoln would have found the right path.

You know, I'm fine with you calling me out for offering a stance while only providing only a little evidence (though there is more). Until you offer an opposing stance with even less. You're completely correct that with history, we can only go with the evidence we have. In this case it supports the view that Lincoln was a man of his times and cared far more about preserving the union than he did about equality. So, you've got some evidence to the contrary? Maybe a statement from him that the slaves in the U.S. were fine upstanding people and should be given voting rights equal to all free men (something he would deny them, even while "freeing" them)? Anything?

That's a fair criticism.  I was going by past recollections and didn't give anything evidenciary, just my opinion so you are right. It does just seem like a different guy writing the Gettysburg Address and Second Inaugural than the pre-war guy, a more humbled and humane and merciful (and maybe religious) guy, and think some of that softening and compassion and mercy extended to blacks. Which is not to say he suddenly became a Civil Rights warrior, I didn't mean to imply that!


(12-07-2019, 08:16 PM)TheGentlemanBastard Wrote: Personally, I don't demonize Lincoln for his attitude toward the slaves or the union. I feel that, as a man of his times, he did what he thought was best for the people and the nation that he could see to do, and you can ask nothing more of anyone than that. I simply refuse to allow the myth of Lincoln being a "Great Man" because he, out of the kindness of his heart, his saintly altruism, and his love of kittens, woke up one morning, decided to free the slaves, then wrote and signed the Emancipation Proclamation.

He may have been a great man, and a great president, but for the sum of his acts, not for any one of them alone.

Is your judgment that his racial attitudes didn't evolve at all from start of war to end, that anything regarding blacks was solely pragmatically driven to the sole end of preserving the Union? Maybe it was, I don't know, but there does come a point (around his second election victory in 1864)where it becomes clear the union is going to be preserved for sure and then Lincoln's feelings about them may be more accurately exposed. Surely it was somewhere between racist "man of his times" and the lionized cartoon, the "Great Man" as you describe above.  I may get out some Lincoln biographies and writings later and see where the evidence goes, my recollection is that he was thinking of them as more than just poker chips no longer needed once the Union was safe.  His heart was at least bigger than Andrew Johnson's.
The following 1 user Likes jerry mcmasters's post:
  • Thumpalumpacus
Reply
#21

Yeah - This Makes Sense.
[Image: z-funny-pics-33-1.jpg]
The following 1 user Likes no one's post:
  • Fireball
Reply
#22

Yeah - This Makes Sense.
Copper pennies aren't copper anymore. They're zinc plated with copper.
  [Image: pirates.gif] Dog  
The following 1 user Likes Gawdzilla Sama's post:
  • Gwaithmir
Reply




Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)