Comment on Polling guru Nate Silver predicts Trump has 64% chance of winning the Electoral College in latest forecast

• LookBehindYouNowAndThen@lemmy.world ⁨1⁩ ⁨year⁩ ago

  We’ve been over this, remember?

  Abraham Lincoln himself said the slavers called themselves Conservatives. You want to pretend like the great realignment didn’t happen, because facts are inconvenient to the narrative you find useful.

  I know reactionaries are anti-intillectuals, but the reading assignment was pretty short.

  source

  • wintermute_oregon@lemm.ee ⁨1⁩ ⁨year⁩ ago

    Lincoln was a conservative himself. He described himself as a conservative and historians Label him as one. In the speech you cited, he was speaking as a conservative to other conservatives.

    Democrats owned slaves. Democrats still want to own slaves.

    source

    • Zeppo@sh.itjust.works ⁨1⁩ ⁨year⁩ ago

      Ending slavery is not a conservative position by definition. Conservatism means continuing the system that is currently in place and accepted.

      source

      • amerika@annihilation.social ⁨1⁩ ⁨year⁩ ago

        @Zeppo @wintermute_oregon
        
        Not correct. Conservatism aims for the eternal. Our system is feudalism, which chattel slavery replaced.

        source
      • wintermute_oregon@lemm.ee ⁨1⁩ ⁨year⁩ ago

        Ending slavery is a conservative value. Since we believe all men are equal, slavery by default insults that position.

        source

        • -> View More Comments
    • LookBehindYouNowAndThen@lemmy.world ⁨1⁩ ⁨year⁩ ago

      Conservatives did not consider Lincoln a conservative. They considered a revolutionary. You’re lying.

      But you say you are conservative - eminently conservative - while we are revolutionary, destructive, or something of the sort. What is conservatism? Is it not adherence to the old and tried, against the new and untried? We stick to, contend for, the identical old policy on the point in controversy which was adopted by “our fathers who framed the Government under which we live;” while you with one accord reject, and scout, and spit upon that old policy, and insist upon substituting something new. True, you disagree among yourselves as to what that substitute shall be. You are divided on new propositions and plans, but you are unanimous in rejecting and denouncing the old policy of the fathers. Some of you are for reviving the foreign slave trade; some for a Congressional Slave-Code for the Territories; some for Congress forbidding the Territories to prohibit Slavery within their limits; some for maintaining Slavery in the Territories through the judiciary; some for the “gur-reat pur-rinciple” that “if one man would enslave another, no third man should object,” fantastically called “Popular Sovereignty;” but never a man among you is in favor of federal prohibition of slavery in federal territories, according to the practice of “our fathers who framed the Government under which we live.” Not one of all your various plans can show a precedent or an advocate in the century within which our Government originated. Consider, then, whether your claim of conservatism for yourselves, and your charge or destructiveness against us, are based on the most clear and stable foundations.

      Again, you say we have made the slavery question more prominent than it formerly was. We deny it. We admit that it is more prominent, but we deny that we made it so. It was not we, but you, who discarded the old policy of the fathers. We resisted, and still resist, your innovation; and thence comes the greater prominence of the question. Would you have that question reduced to its former proportions? Go back to that old policy. What has been will be again, under the same conditions. If you would have the peace of the old times, readopt the precepts and policy of the old times.

      You charge that we stir up insurrections among your slaves. We deny it; and what is your proof? Harper’s Ferry! John Brown!! John Brown was no Republican; and you have failed to implicate a single Republican in his Harper’s Ferry enterprise. If any member of our party is guilty in that matter, you know it or you do not know it. If you do know it, you are inexcusable for not designating the man and proving the fact. If you do not know it, you are inexcusable for asserting it, and especially for persisting in the assertion after you have tried and failed to make the proof. You need to be told that persisting in a charge which one does not know to be true, is simply malicious slander.

      source

      • amerika@annihilation.social ⁨1⁩ ⁨year⁩ ago

        @LookBehindYouNowAndThen @wintermute_oregon
        
        By definition, the Radical Republicans were progressives.
        
        Back then it had a lot more to do with industry than Communism.

        source

        • -> View More Comments
      • wintermute_oregon@lemm.ee ⁨1⁩ ⁨year⁩ ago

        I get you don’t read well but see how Lincoln uses the word we. It’s including himself. Lincoln was a conservative. He was a Republican.

        Lincoln was not a progressive.

        source

        • -> View More Comments
    • amerika@annihilation.social ⁨1⁩ ⁨year⁩ ago

      @wintermute_oregon @LookBehindYouNowAndThen
      
      Democrats were conservative back then.

      source
• Zeppo@sh.itjust.works ⁨1⁩ ⁨year⁩ ago

  I guess if you knew basically nothing about US history that would be a convincing statement.

  source
• amerika@annihilation.social ⁨1⁩ ⁨year⁩ ago

  @wintermute_oregon @LookBehindYouNowAndThen
  
  Slavery sucked because it was diversity.
  
  It was also cruel and pointless, since it was low quality labor.
  
  The solution is ending diversity.

  source