Its about to get real

[GroverCleveland]

Which is why Hog's statement that someone needs to be some kind of executive to be president is probably one of the most ridiculous statements I've heard on here yet. It also sounds like something a democrat says when they claim someone needs "experience" to be president.

i do not agree Hog’s statement should be dismissed out of hand like that. He has a point.

With regards to the democrat‘s claims, yes that seems to be based on whatever emotions they are feeling at the moment as to what ”experience” is claimed to be needed, if at all.

 

[DonjoVol]

i do not agree Hog’s statement should be dismissed out of hand like that. He has a point.

With regards to the democrat‘s claims, yes that seems to be based on whatever emotions they are feeling at the moment as to what ”experience” is claimed to be needed, if at all.

One could say Republicans and conservatives make those claims based on emotions as well. Some of them want their safe space as much as democrats. How many political and business executives have failed at their jobs? How many mayors have presided over the destruction of once great cities in this country like Gary and Youngstown? Many of these politicians are in office to ensure their "connections" continue to be wealthy instead of actually helping people. Nancy Pelosi, Mitch McConnell, Mitt Romney and Diane Feinstein are perfect examples.

We need non politicians to step up and run for political offices as Republicans and conservatives. People who actually value freedom and understand that the government and the politicians work for the people. Not the other way around.

The democrat party is now the party of the rich and corporatism and for the people who see the government and democrat party as the central authority figure in their life. Because of this the Republican party is going to have to be a true party for the working class and middle class of this country and one that truly values freedom.

 

[OrangeTsar]

A peaceful soluton would have been not starting a war to prevent secession.

That makes sense. So Lincoln should have just let the South have their way and walk away from the Union. Yes that would have prevented war. And by the same logic, of France and England had just let Hitler have Poland, there would have been no WWII. And of the US would have just given Japan a free hand in the Pacific, no need for all that nasty Pearl Harbour business, right? Yup, doing exactly what the bully demands is a certain way to avoid conflict.
Unless of course, what you Confederate apologists are REALLY getting at is that you really APPROVE of the Confederacy and think they were in the right?

 

[hog88]

That makes sense. So Lincoln should have just let the South have their way and walk away from the Union. Yes that would have prevented war. And by the same logic, of France and England had just let Hitler have Poland, there would have been no WWII. And of the US would have just given Japan a free hand in the Pacific, no need for all that nasty Pearl Harbour business, right? Yup, doing exactly what the bully demands is a certain way to avoid conflict.
Unless of course, what you Confederate apologists are REALLY getting at is that you really APPROVE of the Confederacy and think they were in the right?

7 states had seceded by the time the shots were fired at Ft Sumpter the other 4 (VA, TN, NC, AR) left the Union after FT Sumpter when Lincoln ordered them to raise troops to subdue the “rebels”. To your point about “letting the south Walk away”, yes! What is freely joined should allow free separation, nothing in the constitution barred states from leaving the Union and at that time SCOTUS hadn’t made up the ridiculous ruling saying it was unconstitutional.

Now, are we much better off that the north won? 100% but that doesn’t negate the fact Lincoln was wrong and could have completely avoided the war.

 

[Rasputin_Vol]

LMAO you know I’ve posted this before on Lincoln. Lincoln and Kennedy are revered for the same reason. The guilty conscience of a nation for killing them. That’s all.

Pay attention to the comments that I highlighted in your post.

 

[OrangeTsar]

7 states had seceded by the time the shots were fired at Ft Sumpter the other 4 (VA, TN, NC, AR) left the Union after FT Sumpter when Lincoln ordered them to raise troops to subdue the “rebels”. To your point about “letting the south Walk away”, yes! What is freely joined should allow free separation, nothing in the constitution barred states from leaving the Union and at that time SCOTUS hadn’t made up the ridiculous ruling saying it was unconstitutional.

Now, are we much better off that the north won? 100% but that doesn’t negate the fact Lincoln was wrong and could have completely avoided the war.

I respect your commitment to your opinion even if I totally disagree with it. It sounds like we are at least both glad that the Union is still around. Let’s just stick to that.

 

[EasternVol]

That makes sense. So Lincoln should have just let the South have their way and walk away from the Union. Yes that would have prevented war. And by the same logic, of France and England had just let Hitler have Poland, there would have been no WWII. And of the US would have just given Japan a free hand in the Pacific, no need for all that nasty Pearl Harbour business, right? Yup, doing exactly what the bully demands is a certain way to avoid conflict.
Unless of course, what you Confederate apologists are REALLY getting at is that you really APPROVE of the Confederacy and think they were in the right?

Yes he should have. He could have avoided the most destructive war in our history, but as mentioned elsewhere he did not want that as he aimed to reshape our form of government. And of course the North did not want to lose all the revenue from the South, and access to the Gulf via the Mississippi. The Upper South of Virginia, Tennessee, North Caroling and Arkansas likely would not have seceded if not for Lincoln's aggression. Don't forget they initially chose to stay in the union and only left after Lincoln called for troops to invade the Confederacy.
I like your first analogy but Poland was the Confederacy and Hitler was Lincoln. The seceding states' desire was independence, not war. There was no aim to destroy the Union, just to leave it. The bully was the side aiming to dominate and it was not the Confederacy.
I absolutely don't think that SC et al were right to secede; but they did have the right to do so.

 

[NorthDallas40]

Pay attention to the comments that I highlighted in your post.

I did Ras. No this is not analogous to Ukraine. The Confederacy was trying to get away from the tyrant

 

[EasternVol]

Based solely on Trump's example, no one without experience in government should be considered. He was obviously clueless as to what was required and expected.

How much of what you dislike about Trump's term was due to his lack of government experience and how much was due to his, er, rather unusual personality?

 

[luthervol]

How much of what you dislike about Trump's term was due to his lack of government experience and how much was due to his, er, rather unusual personality?

It was 100% about him being a horrendously despicable person which aligns more with "rather unusual personality."
But I see them at least a little bit intertwined.