Page 3 of 8 FirstFirst
1
2
3
4
5
... LastLast
  1. #41
    Quote Originally Posted by Teleros View Post
    Worth pointing out though that a lot of "conservatives" hold an awful lot of liberal views, be it free speech or votes for women or the free market or w/e.
    https://www.history.com/news/suffrag...ation-election

    Despite the momentum, Southern Democrats and conservative Republican senators managed to stop the bill.
    Not really. This was before the parties shifted alignments in the Southern Strategy.

    At the last minute, a southern Democratic Senator tried to amend the bill to limit the vote to white women, but this failed.
    There was an attempt by conservatives at the time to limit suffrage to white women only.

    Where would the 36th state ratification come from? In Connecticut and Vermont, conservative Republican governors refused to call their legislatures into session. All eyes turned to the South, where most states were controlled by white supremacist Democrats. By July, four months after the ratification in Washington State, prospects for ratification from a 36 state were gloomy, and suffragists were becoming desperate.

    Finally, Tennessee, a rare southern state with two parties, came through with the tie-breaking vote. A young Republican legislator cast the deciding ballot. Eight days later the U.S. Secretary of State announced that the 19th Amendment had officially become part of the Constitution.
    And it was conservative states that held up the amendment.

    You may want to believe that universal suffrage is something that liberals and conservatives agree on. But history doesn't back this up, it's been a uniquely liberal movement, facing constant conservative backlash.

  2. #42
    I Don't Work Here Endus's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Location
    Ottawa, ON
    Posts
    63,352
    Quote Originally Posted by Teleros View Post
    Lol. Under FDR the USA did everything short of declare war in support of the Allies basically from the moment war broke out, and rather clever in pushing Japan into a position such that an attack on US interests was, if not inevitable, then at least highly likely.
    They were not a part of the Allies until '41. And there was a significant pressure within the USA to withhold from entering the war, because many business magnates like Ford were Nazi-friendly.

    Per the Declaration of Independence and all that high-falutin' rhetoric, the CSA had a perfectly good point. The fact that they were retarded enough to nail their flag to the mast of slavery... well, like I said, they were retarded.
    Given that the CSA's sole "point" was the slavery thing, you've contradicted your own bad point, here.

    There was never any legal justification for the CSA's murderous attacks on fellow Americans.

  3. #43
    Warchief Teleros's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2015
    Location
    United Kingdom
    Posts
    2,071
    So? I'm talking about the present-day bunch. If we're going back a century to try and tarnish modern conservatives, then hey let's just blame all the modern liberal types for the Revolutionary Terror in France - it's just as retarded an argument.

    Edit:

    Quote Originally Posted by Endus View Post
    They were not a part of the Allies until '41.
    1. I am aware of that.
    2. Do you not understand what "informal" means? Lend-lease, Liberty ships, and all that stuff started very early on in the war.

    Quote Originally Posted by Endus View Post
    And there was a significant pressure within the USA to withhold from entering the war, because many business magnates like Ford were Nazi-friendly.
    And which had very little impact on FDR's policies, given the enormous aid he gave to the Allies whilst the USA was officially neutral.

    Quote Originally Posted by Endus View Post
    Given that the CSA's sole "point" was the slavery thing, you've contradicted your own bad point, here.
    They had a perfectly good point about the rights of the states over that of the central / Federal government. Again though, they were daft enough to pretty explicitly link it to slavery.

    Quote Originally Posted by Endus View Post
    There was never any legal justification for the CSA's murderous attacks on fellow Americans.
    Nor the American Revolutionaries' attacks on fellow Britons. Big freaking deal.
    Last edited by Teleros; 2020-05-11 at 08:10 PM.
    Still not tired of winning.

  4. #44
    I Don't Work Here Endus's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Location
    Ottawa, ON
    Posts
    63,352
    Quote Originally Posted by Edge- View Post
    You may want to believe that universal suffrage is something that liberals and conservatives agree on. But history doesn't back this up, it's been a uniquely liberal movement, facing constant conservative backlash.
    And let's not pretend modern conservatives are necessarily all that on-board. Is it a cause they support and encourage? Or is it a battleground they understand that they've lost and have no angle for re-opening that fight at this current point in time?

    If they're not actively fighting for women's rights (and Republicans are not), then it's hard to say they're really all that supportive of issues like women's suffrage. Particularly as they've explicitly stated their desire to restrict the franchise as needed to aid in their winning elections.

    - - - Updated - - -

    Quote Originally Posted by Teleros View Post
    1. I am aware of that.
    2. Do you not understand what "informal" means? Lend-lease, Liberty ships, and all that stuff started very early on in the war.
    You really should look into American industry's support of the Nazi Reich.

    They had a perfectly good point about the rights of the states over that of the central / Federal government.
    No. They didn't. They were completely in the wrong.

  5. #45
    Quote Originally Posted by Teleros View Post
    So? I'm talking about the present-day bunch. If we're going back a century to try and tarnish modern conservatives, then hey let's just blame all the modern liberal types for the Revolutionary Terror in France - it's just as retarded an argument.
    I mean...they haven't even changed thought. See the constant conservative attempts to limit access to voting and how the courts constantly are slapping them down for...largely violating peoples rights in their attempts to suppress the vote.

    Want more evidence? The Violence Against Women Act, which one would imagine the pro-women conservatives would support, has been stalled at Mitch McConnell's doorstep for the past year or so. It passed the House, with some Republicans (note: 33, a very small minority), but they haven't bothered in the Senate.

    I'm not worried about "tarnishing" anything. Their behavior is their responsibility.

  6. #46
    Warchief Teleros's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2015
    Location
    United Kingdom
    Posts
    2,071
    Quote Originally Posted by Endus View Post
    You really should look into American industry's support of the Nazi Reich.
    I know of it, so what? Ford or the Bushes backing Hitler pales into comparison with the literal megatonnes of stuff shipped to the Allies under FDR's orders.

    Quote Originally Posted by Endus View Post
    No. They didn't. They were completely in the wrong.
    Keep telling yourself that.

    Edit:

    Quote Originally Posted by Edge- View Post
    I mean...they haven't even changed thought. See the constant conservative attempts to limit access to voting and how the courts constantly are slapping them down for...largely violating peoples rights in their attempts to suppress the vote.
    Utter twaddle. Conservatives today are concerned about various kinds of improper voting - eg voting twice, or the dead voting, or non-citizens voting. That's very different from more reactionary or Alt-Right types who say women shouldn't vote or w/e.

    Quote Originally Posted by Edge- View Post
    Want more evidence? The Violence Against Women Act, which one would imagine the pro-women conservatives would support, has been stalled at Mitch McConnell's doorstep for the past year or so. It passed the House, with some Republicans (note: 33, a very small minority), but they haven't bothered in the Senate.
    As usual, the devil's in the details.

    Quote Originally Posted by Edge- View Post
    I'm not worried about "tarnishing" anything. Their behavior is their responsibility.
    Replace "tarnish" with "bash" then, same difference.
    Last edited by Teleros; 2020-05-11 at 08:21 PM.
    Still not tired of winning.

  7. #47
    Quote Originally Posted by Teleros View Post
    Utter twaddle. Conservatives today are concerned about various kinds of improper voting - eg voting twice, or the dead voting, or non-citizens voting. That's very different from more reactionary or Alt-Right types who say women shouldn't vote or w/e.
    And despite well over a decade of hyperventilating about the grave threat of voter fraud, with frequent allegations of widespread fraud, conservatives still have yet to show any evidence that this is an actual problem.

    The biggest champion of this nonsense? Kris Kobach. His biggest victories? Removing, mostly legal, voters from the voter rolls, and he did manage to prosecute a few cases of voter fraud! But it wasn't those dastardly liberals or illegal immigrants, they were mostly senior citizens who were confused and thought they could vote in the elections for separate counties because they owned properties in multiple.

    Not "utter twaddle", reality. Despite a presidential panel being convened to investigate, they couldn't even find shit.

    Quote Originally Posted by Teleros View Post
    As usual, the devil's in the details.
    Specifically, what "details" are so objectionable to Mitch McConnell and conservatives? Why aren't they proposing compromises to get this important legislation through?

    Quote Originally Posted by Teleros View Post
    Replace "tarnish" with "bash" then, same difference.
    I mean, I'm just here calling out reality. If that's "bashing" them, then maybe they should change their behavior?

  8. #48
    Warchief Teleros's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2015
    Location
    United Kingdom
    Posts
    2,071
    Quote Originally Posted by Edge- View Post
    And despite well over a decade of hyperventilating about the grave threat of voter fraud, with frequent allegations of widespread fraud, conservatives still have yet to show any evidence that this is an actual problem.
    Then it's an illusory threat. Doesn't make it anywhere near the same as wanting to disenfranchise women or w/e.

    Quote Originally Posted by Edge- View Post
    Specifically, what "details" are so objectionable to Mitch McConnell and conservatives? Why aren't they proposing compromises to get this important legislation through?
    I have literally no idea, I think this is the first I've heard of the proposed law. But just because the law is called some nice-sounding name doesn't mean the contents are anything like as nice - hence "the devil's in the details".

    Quote Originally Posted by Edge- View Post
    I mean, I'm just here calling out reality. If that's "bashing" them, then maybe they should change their behavior?
    Okay, so modern liberals are in favour of guillotining their opponents, tearing down churches, and all that fun stuff. Good to know.

    Oh wait, modern liberals aren't like that. They may be in my view retarded in other (or perhaps in related) regards, but modern liberals don't want public guillotining of their political opponents, just like modern conservatives don't want women disenfranchised. Communists might want their political enemies guillotined, and reactionaries might want women disenfranchised, but they're not liberals/conservatives respectively.
    Still not tired of winning.

  9. #49
    Quote Originally Posted by Teleros View Post
    Then it's an illusory threat.
    Also known as, "not real". And consequently, not worth the constant attempts to place additional barriers for citizens to vote. Which is usually how courts have ruled.

    Quote Originally Posted by Teleros View Post
    Doesn't make it anywhere near the same as wanting to disenfranchise women or w/e.
    I didn't say it was. But I said it was along the same principle. Especially given that, often, these laws are specifically targeted at poor communities of color.

    Quote Originally Posted by Teleros View Post
    I have literally no idea, I think this is the first I've heard of the proposed law.
    Read the link I shared, then. It's been on the books since the mid-90's, and has been reauthorized multiple times.

    Quote Originally Posted by Teleros View Post
    But just because the law is called some nice-sounding name doesn't mean the contents are anything like as nice - hence "the devil's in the details".
    So why haven't Republicans moved ahead with it, then? What is in it that's so objectionable now that wasn't the 3 times it's been passed/authorized before? Why aren't Republicans proposing compromises to any specific aspects they find objectionable in order to reauthorize it?

    Quote Originally Posted by Teleros View Post
    Okay, so modern liberals are in favour of guillotining their opponents, tearing down churches, and all that fun stuff. Good to know.

    Oh wait, modern liberals aren't like that.
    Cool, so while you're just making shit up I'm actually referencing current or historical behavior of US conservatives. Glad to see you have to dig into fiction for your response.

    Quote Originally Posted by Teleros View Post
    just like modern conservatives don't want women disenfranchised.
    I didn't say they did. I rejected your assertion that conservatives supported enfranchisement for women (they did). And as the conversation evolved we moved on to discuss whether they support broader enfranchisement as a whole, which they don't given their constant attempts to limit access to voting.

    Quote Originally Posted by Teleros View Post
    Communists might want their political enemies guillotined, and reactionaries might want women disenfranchised, but they're not liberals/conservatives respectively.
    Except that we can't point to "liberals" ever wanting that in the US. We can point to conservatives wanting to deny women, and others, the right to vote. Both historically, and in modern times.

  10. #50
    Warchief Teleros's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2015
    Location
    United Kingdom
    Posts
    2,071
    Quote Originally Posted by Edge- View Post
    I didn't say it was. But I said it was along the same principle.
    No, you just threw a link up about anti-suffragist stuff with zero context.

    Quote Originally Posted by Edge- View Post
    Read the link I shared, then. It's been on the books since the mid-90's, and has been reauthorized multiple times.
    Doesn't mean it's any good.

    Quote Originally Posted by Edge- View Post
    So why haven't Republicans moved ahead with it, then? What is in it that's so objectionable now that wasn't the 3 times it's been passed/authorized before? Why aren't Republicans proposing compromises to any specific aspects they find objectionable in order to reauthorize it?
    I have no idea. Maybe they're just being dicks, maybe they've grown a pair for a change, hell maybe they just think they have more important stuff to do. I don't know.

    Quote Originally Posted by Edge- View Post
    I didn't say they did. I rejected your assertion that conservatives supported enfranchisement for women (they did). And as the conversation evolved we moved on to discuss whether they support broader enfranchisement as a whole, which they don't given their constant attempts to limit access to voting.
    Me: Worth pointing out though that a lot of "conservatives" hold an awful lot of liberal views, be it free speech or votes for women or the free market or w/e.
    You: https://www.history.com/news/suffrag...ation-election

    Any reasonable person is going to see those two lines and think you're trying to bash modern conservatives, who almost wholly support votes for women & all that, with the views of people a century or more ago.

    Quote Originally Posted by Edge- View Post
    Except that we can't point to "liberals" ever wanting that in the US. We can point to conservatives wanting to deny women, and others, the right to vote. Both historically, and in modern times.
    Need better terminology in that case. The modern US conservative is a product of Russel T Kirk's conservative principles*.

    *They're not actual principles, they're just an attitude at best.
    Still not tired of winning.

  11. #51
    The West was always a nebulous idea to begin with, so what exactly is fracturing? Depending on which year and who you ask, "the West" is defined very differently.
    No ideology has been more murderous or detrimental to human dignity than Communism
    Quote Originally Posted by kidkilla View Post
    The Ottomans brought civilization to Greece.
    Oh my...

  12. #52
    The Insane Acidbaron's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2010
    Location
    Belgium, Flanders
    Posts
    17,390
    Quote Originally Posted by DKjaigen View Post
    Perhaps the center is holding but the traditional labor parties are getting decimated and the left is fractured in every single western country.
    The left made a fairly bad move over the last immigration crisis but that's not the whole story here, how i see it the left is facing several core issues;

    They have competition on the left, where before they were just alone they now have seen a rise in dark red (labour / communist) parties and Green ( Progressive Family and ecological) parties.

    They are now in the opposition but they have previously propped up centrum governments, so their criticism of them no longer being social enough rings hallow.
    It is also one of the reasons why they lost feeling with their worker base. Those are now moving to far more dark red parties. Multiple reasons for that corruption scandals, their past voting track record, muzzling voices so the base does not feel itself represented by the top any more.

    Armchair socialists, the left elite so to speak that is educated and has prestige or well paying jobs is something they used to be able to count on. Those well off socialists have also been making more of a move to the green party, hence me calling them progressive families also generally younger families. These idealists also prefer a party with a blank slate than one with a bad track record (arguably something all older traditionals have) and care also a good part more about the environment and less so about worker rights because they aren't part of that group.

    You also have to factor in that traditional parties are generally not doing well, being it Belgium or France they have been losing influence every election something younger parties have been scooping up. To counter this they are bringing in new blood from their political youth movements but that takes time and as like it or not, not everyone fancies voting for 25 year olds for example.

    To give my opinion on the more general lines and moving it beyond simply the refugee crisis as a scape goat.


    A rise in extremism and nationalism is normal during times of crisis perhaps due to all the misinformation floating around presenting simple but false solutions to complex issues people are far more prone to believing it. Not because they are stupid, but because if you really want to stay on top of everything you need to read a lot of news making it almost a second job and a lot of folks can't be bothered with that, where as previously when news was more controlled, it was of higher quality and it was filtered and ethically more correct with less bait and lies.

  13. #53
    Old God Grimbold21's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2010
    Location
    Azores, Portugal
    Posts
    10,475
    I know he's banned, but I'm still waiting to figure out what is being fractured and by what...

  14. #54
    The Insane Acidbaron's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2010
    Location
    Belgium, Flanders
    Posts
    17,390
    Quote Originally Posted by Grimbold21 View Post
    I know he's banned, but I'm still waiting to figure out what is being fractured and by what...
    Going by what he posted earlier he is taking random opinions of others and not reading it properly while at the same time adding random things to it.

  15. #55
    The Insane PC2's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2015
    Location
    California
    Posts
    18,418
    Quote Originally Posted by Grimbold21 View Post
    I know he's banned, but I'm still waiting to figure out what is being fractured and by what...
    It's just made-up BS... This concern basically amounts to "people disagree with each other in democracies therefor society is fracturing".
    -------
    A problem consists of a conflict between two ideas. Problems are soluble.
    Logical Fallacies: Ad hominem, Generalizing history to predetermine the future.

  16. #56
    Old God Grimbold21's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2010
    Location
    Azores, Portugal
    Posts
    10,475
    @Acidbaron @PC2

    For a moment I was under the impression that it had something to do with the rise of populist, extreme entities.

    But you could make the case that this bares a similarity with economical cycles in that it's cyclical. In periods of perceived instability, extreme populist parties tend to gain some measure of significance due to its pervasive use of easy, catchy and familiar slogans.

    But it goes back to the point of democratic regimes. The fact that it allows for a voice to extreme positions isn't a reflection of fracture

  17. #57
    The Insane Acidbaron's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2010
    Location
    Belgium, Flanders
    Posts
    17,390
    Quote Originally Posted by Grimbold21 View Post
    @Acidbaron @PC2

    For a moment I was under the impression that it had something to do with the rise of populist, extreme entities.

    But you could make the case that this bares a similarity with economical cycles in that it's cyclical. In periods of perceived instability, extreme populist parties tend to gain some measure of significance due to its pervasive use of easy, catchy and familiar slogans.

    But it goes back to the point of democratic regimes. The fact that it allows for a voice to extreme positions isn't a reflection of fracture
    Could be, but the whole thread premise was a bit odd since as you say in a democracy there is always division.

    The whole "liberal fracturing or failing" was also odd considering liberal ideas are found left and right especially so in Europe in which he added a disclaimer later with the OP.

    And yes in times of crisis populism rises and in today's age how easy it is to put information out to the common man it is even easier to get people to swing either extreme left or right. I fully for see that being reflected in upcoming elections as the economic crisis has not yet fully set in. As we read reports today that the aviation sector is hurting demanding tons of government support where ever they can or stating that 1000's of people will lose their job and that is excluding the sectors that are tied into them, such as holiday sellers.

  18. #58
    The Insane PC2's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2015
    Location
    California
    Posts
    18,418
    Quote Originally Posted by Grimbold21 View Post
    @Acidbaron @PC2

    For a moment I was under the impression that it had something to do with the rise of populist, extreme entities.

    But you could make the case that this bares a similarity with economical cycles in that it's cyclical. In periods of perceived instability, extreme populist parties tend to gain some measure of significance due to its pervasive use of easy, catchy and familiar slogans.

    But it goes back to the point of democratic regimes. The fact that it allows for a voice to extreme positions isn't a reflection of fracture
    Right so we want political and societal "fractures" because that means there are disagreements and disagreements are the only means of improvement. However the way I interpret the OP is that he thinks "fractures" are indicative of societal failure as opposed to the system working properly.
    -------
    A problem consists of a conflict between two ideas. Problems are soluble.
    Logical Fallacies: Ad hominem, Generalizing history to predetermine the future.

  19. #59
    Quote Originally Posted by PC2 View Post
    Right so we want political and societal "fractures" because that means there are disagreements and disagreements are the only means of improvement. However the way I interpret the OP is that he thinks "fractures" are indicative of societal failure as opposed to the system working properly.
    If that’s the case, what would such ideology, have to say about diversity?
    Entropy won't yield to you.
    Every damn thing you do in this life, you pay for. - Edith Piaf
    The party told you to reject the evidence of your eyes and ears. It was their final, most essential command. - Orwell
    Don’t click random links on forums.

  20. #60
    The Insane PC2's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2015
    Location
    California
    Posts
    18,418
    Quote Originally Posted by Felya View Post
    If that’s the case, what would such ideology, have to say about diversity?
    Well idea diversity is basically the best thing ever. In a democracy we want to maximize the amount of people arguing for their own different ideas and then the best one's will naturally rise to the top as they get implemented and tested out over a long period of time.
    -------
    A problem consists of a conflict between two ideas. Problems are soluble.
    Logical Fallacies: Ad hominem, Generalizing history to predetermine the future.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •