Where do these people come up with this Bull [BLEEP]??????
Another Democrat is Joining in to Fear-Monger with Claims Interracial Marriage is on the Chopping Block
It was bad enough that Rep. Eric Swalwell (D-CA) not only
outrageously tweeted that interracial marriage will be next on the chopping block if the U.S. Supreme Court does indeed overturn
Roe v. Wade, but has continued to double down on it. The congressman, from his official account, even cursed
when telling people off who dared to laugh at his buffoonery.
https://townhall.com/tipsheet/rebeccadow...CicybCJNoM
The level of ignorance from the far left is just astounding.
Both sides love their slippery slope fallacies.
Most slopes aren't slippery.
But some are.
(05-10-2022, 08:59 AM)mikesez Wrote: [ -> ]Both sides love their slippery slope fallacies.
Most slopes aren't slippery.
But some are.
The left wants us to be socialists and eventually communists. There's no slope involved, it's what they want.
The right has a crapton of interracial marriages so the statement is beyond ridiculous. It's inflammatory, wrong and just evil to say that's what will come next. It's just lies. The usual, basically.
I don't think it will happen. The lobbying by the Kardashians alone will prevent any sort of law like this from ever being passed.
(05-10-2022, 09:16 AM)TrivialPursuit Wrote: [ -> ] (05-10-2022, 08:59 AM)mikesez Wrote: [ -> ]Both sides love their slippery slope fallacies.
Most slopes aren't slippery.
But some are.
(1) The left wants us to be socialists and eventually communists. There's no slope involved, it's what they want.
(2) The right has a crapton of interracial marriages so the statement is beyond ridiculous. It's inflammatory, wrong and just evil to say that's what will come next. It's just lies. The usual, basically.
(1) That's an overgeneralization. Also a fallacy.
(2) You're right that interracial marriage won't be banned again anytime soon, same as same sex marriage won't. There simply isn't the political appetite for either. No one wants to legally undo marriages that are already on the books where both partners are happy. However, the Supreme Court is supposed to be above all political appetites and apply blind, dispassionate reasoning to all cases. The line of reasoning in the leaked Dobbs draft certainly could be applied to both gay and interracial marriage, neither of which have deep roots in American tradition or in any original concept of ordered liberty. And frankly I can't blame anyone on the left for hysteria on these matters because time and again we see hysteria drives voters, and we know that neither side trusts the other at all. The well is just too poisoned at this point for most people to really rationally take stock of the motives of the other party. Especially when you recall how deceptive and evasive the three Trump appointees were on the subject of Roe v Wade during their confirmation hearings.
(05-10-2022, 12:24 PM)HURRICANE!!! Wrote: [ -> ]Braun stated in the interview (link below) that interracial marriages should be left up to the decision of the States. that's pretty whacked out in itself.
https://www.vanityfair.com/news/2022/03/...l-marriage
Why is it whacked? The State is who licenses a marriage through the various Counties, so that decision doesn't reside anywhere else.
(05-10-2022, 01:10 PM)flsprtsgod Wrote: [ -> ] (05-10-2022, 12:24 PM)HURRICANE!!! Wrote: [ -> ]Braun stated in the interview (link below) that interracial marriages should be left up to the decision of the States. that's pretty whacked out in itself.
https://www.vanityfair.com/news/2022/03/...l-marriage
Why is it whacked? The State is who licenses a marriage through the various Counties, so that decision doesn't reside anywhere else.
And there is no state that would make interracial marriage illegal.
(05-10-2022, 01:10 PM)flsprtsgod Wrote: [ -> ] (05-10-2022, 12:24 PM)HURRICANE!!! Wrote: [ -> ]Braun stated in the interview (link below) that interracial marriages should be left up to the decision of the States. that's pretty whacked out in itself.
https://www.vanityfair.com/news/2022/03/...l-marriage
Why is it whacked? The State is who licenses a marriage through the various Counties, so that decision doesn't reside anywhere else.
Braun is totally wrong on the question of a federal role in the definition of marriage.
Article IV of the US Constitution requires the federal government to have an opinion on which marriages are valid and which aren't. It simply can not be left to the states and never could have been left to the states. A state that refuses to recognize a marriage from another state is violating Article IV unless there is a "general Law" from US Congress allowing them to do so. Such general Laws may be struck down if found to violate the 14th amendment, but striking them down doesn't change the fact that the thing is decided at the federal level, not the state level.
By contrast, Article IV has no application to medical procedures, so a state could be free to go down their own path in regulating or restriction abortion.
But looking at the Dobbs draft, only the 14th amendment is really discussed, and the way that amendment's interpretation is pared down could allow for a new federal statute allowing one state to not recognize marriage in other states on the basis of race or gender. If anyone ever desired to pass such a statute.
Do states have the right to secede?
Or put in another way - is there anything that prohibits a state from secession?
Anthony Scalia was a moron for writing what he did. Seriously. The civil war was a [BLEEP] war - it wasn't a courtroom. It was a war. To say that a WAR can make things legal or illegal is downright stupid.
I disagree. That is why the war was fought. It fundamentally changed the way states and the federal government operate. These united states of America changed to The United States of America.
(05-10-2022, 03:02 PM)Lucky2Last Wrote: [ -> ]I disagree. That is why the war was fought. It fundamentally changed the way states and the federal government operate. These united states of America changed to The United States of America.
A war is not a determining factor of legality.
The war was fought because not one Southern state voted for that moron Lincoln - yet he was elected. It proved to the Southern states that what they thought, what they voted for didn't matter in this "union".
The South made it known that if Lincoln was elected every state would vote for secession immediately after. And they did. And won with a HUGE majority. They voted legally.
And remember, everyone, Lincoln ran a campaign based on appeasing the south - there were no calls for the emancipation proclamation until a year into the war, so don't start saying that he was a champion of the slaves or cared about slavery.. And Lincoln never freed the 50,000 federal slaves. He never cared about the black people, ever. He cared about preserving the union, which means the crops the South provided. He even said hey why don't we ship those slaves back to Africa? In fact, abolitionists HATED Lincoln.
Anywhere else in the world the North would have stomped the South within a year. - the North had ALL the production the South had literally nothing. Only because Southerners were better soldiers they dragged it out for 4 years.
(05-10-2022, 03:04 PM)TrivialPursuit Wrote: [ -> ] (05-10-2022, 03:02 PM)Lucky2Last Wrote: [ -> ]I disagree. That is why the war was fought. It fundamentally changed the way states and the federal government operate. These united states of America changed to The United States of America.
A war is not a determining factor of legality.
The war was fought because not one Southern state voted for that moron Lincoln - yet he was elected. It proved to the Southern states that what they thought, what they voted for didn't matter in this "union".
The South made it known that if Lincoln was elected every state would vote for secession immediately after. And they did. And won with a HUGE majority. They voted legally.
And remember, everyone, Lincoln ran a campaign based on appeasing the south - there were no calls for the emancipation proclamation until a year into the war, so don't start saying that he was a champion of the slaves or cared about slavery.. And Lincoln never freed the 50,000 federal slaves. He never cared about the black people, ever. He cared about preserving the union, which means the crops the South provided. He even said hey why don't we ship those slaves back to Africa?
Anywhere else in the world the North would have stomped the South within a year. - the North had ALL the production the South had literally nothing. Only because Southerners were better soldiers they dragged it out for 4 years.
Amazing. Everything you just said is wrong.
The war was not necessarily fought over the right of white people in South Carolina to own black people in South Carolina. The 1860 election was not about that.
The 1860 election was about if a white man who owned no slaves and moved from New York to Kansas to start a farm would have to economically compete with a white man who did own slaves moving from South Carolina to start a farm in that same town in Kansas, bringing his slaves with him. Northern whites correctly perceived that anywhere slavery was permitted, it would locally dominate, even though areas that did not have slaves were overall more prosperous. Prior to 1850, it was understood that Black people became free if they were in the North, becoming competing wage laborers. Even George Washington was not able to retrieve Oney Judge when she walked out of the executive residence in Philadelphia. But the Fugitive Slave Act, the Kansas and Nebraska Act, and the Dred Scott decision all combined to say that the was no place in any state where a free white wage earner would not have to compete with enslaved Black labor. That's why the Republican party grew so fast in 10 years. It was not intended to free any slave. It was intended to contain all slavery to the South.
(05-10-2022, 03:31 PM)mikesez Wrote: [ -> ] (05-10-2022, 03:04 PM)TrivialPursuit Wrote: [ -> ]A war is not a determining factor of legality.
The war was fought because not one Southern state voted for that moron Lincoln - yet he was elected. It proved to the Southern states that what they thought, what they voted for didn't matter in this "union".
The South made it known that if Lincoln was elected every state would vote for secession immediately after. And they did. And won with a HUGE majority. They voted legally.
And remember, everyone, Lincoln ran a campaign based on appeasing the south - there were no calls for the emancipation proclamation until a year into the war, so don't start saying that he was a champion of the slaves or cared about slavery.. And Lincoln never freed the 50,000 federal slaves. He never cared about the black people, ever. He cared about preserving the union, which means the crops the South provided. He even said hey why don't we ship those slaves back to Africa?
Anywhere else in the world the North would have stomped the South within a year. - the North had ALL the production the South had literally nothing. Only because Southerners were better soldiers they dragged it out for 4 years.
Amazing. Everything you just said is wrong.
The war was not necessarily fought over the right of white people in South Carolina to own black people in South Carolina. The 1860 election was not about that.
The 1860 election was about if a white man who owned no slaves and moved from New York to Kansas to start a farm would have to economically compete with a white man who did own slaves moving from South Carolina to start a farm in that same town in Kansas, bringing his slaves with him. Northern whites correctly perceived that anywhere slavery was permitted, it would locally dominate, even though areas that did not have slaves were overall more prosperous. Prior to 1850, it was understood that Black people became free if they were in the North, becoming competing wage laborers. Even George Washington was not able to retrieve Oney Judge when she walked out of the executive residence in Philadelphia. But the Fugitive Slave Act, the Kansas and Nebraska Act, and the Dred Scott decision all combined to say that the was no place in any state where a free white wage earner would not have to compete with enslaved Black labor. That's why the Republican party grew so fast in 10 years. It was not intended to free any slave. It was intended to contain all slavery to the South.
....now actually show where I was wrong.
Everything I said about Lincoln is factual, regardless of the revisionists.
Geez...
*India is home to the largest number of slaves globally, with 8 million, followed by China (3.86 million), Pakistan (3.19 million), North Korea (2.64 million), Nigeria (1.39 million), Iran (1.29 million), Indonesia (1.22 million), Democratic Republic of the Congo (1 million), Russia (794,000)
......
That's more than ever existed in the US.
(05-10-2022, 03:40 PM)TrivialPursuit Wrote: [ -> ] (05-10-2022, 03:31 PM)mikesez Wrote: [ -> ]Amazing. Everything you just said is wrong.
The war was not necessarily fought over the right of white people in South Carolina to own black people in South Carolina. The 1860 election was not about that.
The 1860 election was about if a white man who owned no slaves and moved from New York to Kansas to start a farm would have to economically compete with a white man who did own slaves moving from South Carolina to start a farm in that same town in Kansas, bringing his slaves with him. Northern whites correctly perceived that anywhere slavery was permitted, it would locally dominate, even though areas that did not have slaves were overall more prosperous. Prior to 1850, it was understood that Black people became free if they were in the North, becoming competing wage laborers. Even George Washington was not able to retrieve Oney Judge when she walked out of the executive residence in Philadelphia. But the Fugitive Slave Act, the Kansas and Nebraska Act, and the Dred Scott decision all combined to say that the was no place in any state where a free white wage earner would not have to compete with enslaved Black labor. That's why the Republican party grew so fast in 10 years. It was not intended to free any slave. It was intended to contain all slavery to the South.
....now actually show where I was wrong.
Everything I said about Lincoln is factual, regardless of the revisionists.
Geez...
*India is home to the largest number of slaves globally, with 8 million, followed by China (3.86 million), Pakistan (3.19 million), North Korea (2.64 million), Nigeria (1.39 million), Iran (1.29 million), Indonesia (1.22 million), Democratic Republic of the Congo (1 million), Russia (794,000)
......
That's more than ever existed in the US.
Lincoln was not a moron. Morons don't pass the bar.
Lincoln won a majority of the votes in the states he won, and a majority of the popular vote. Votes from the South counted. The North was just too unified.
Only four of the southern states held referenda on secession. And only three of the four passed it. None
of the southern state legislatures operated on one person, one vote principles, meaning, even if you think it's fair to only count votes from white property holders, even then those votes weren't counted equally, with voters closer to the coast typically getting more seats than voters settled further inland. The support of "the people" for secession was therefore dubious in most cases. The Southern states of Delaware, Maryland, and Tennessee all had attempts to secede but the result was a vote to stay.
No one ever said Lincoln cared about Black people. He respected them if they were soldiers but he didn't pay them equally even then.
The Civil War dragged on for about as long as it should have. The South is geographically huge with multiple centers of production and power. The North bit off important chunks each year, and the South knew they would never win without European assistance that never came.
The South should have won that war, actually. They won the initial battle and could have marched on Washington, but they were insistent on seceding, not conquering the north. That said, the North was unequivocal in its pursuit of keeping the Union intact. It was Lincoln's primary objective. Lincoln did care about the slaves, but not as much as he cared about preserving the union. This is why the North went to war, and it's what they "solved" by winning it. The country became one country instead of many after the Civil War.
(05-10-2022, 07:16 PM)Lucky2Last Wrote: [ -> ]The South should have won that war, actually. They won the initial battle and could have marched on Washington, but they were insistent on seceding, not conquering the north. That said, the North was unequivocal in its pursuit of keeping the Union intact. It was Lincoln's primary objective. Lincoln did care about the slaves, but not as much as he cared about preserving the union. This is why the North went to war, and it's what they "solved" by winning it. The country became one country instead of many after the Civil War.
I don't see how the South could have won.
They did try to conquer DC. The whole point of the thrusts that culminated at Antietam and Gettysburg was to eventually turn east and lay siege to DC. They were supposed to win those battles, hold the ground, the victory would inspire European support, have Europeans disrupt and distract the resupply of DC by sea, they are cut off from retreat, etc.
The Southern generals knew a simple thrust into DC might have conquered the city but would have had no other lasting effect if the armies defending DC were allowed to retreat north and west from there. They had to be encircled. The South knew the northern armies were going to eventually going to attack Chattanooga and Atlanta as they did, if they survived any battle for DC and weren't distracted by attacks from Europe.
Yes, once the war started, Lincoln said preserving the Union was the only goal. That was 1861. In 1860 Lincoln's campaign, and the Republican party platform, were about confining slaves to the South, as I said.
Yeah. After they realized the north wouldn't quit.
I'm pretty sure morons pass the bar on a regular basis.