No, nothing deplorable about these people at all.

[laughing dog]

If 20% answered that they are that intolerant then 80% didn't. Look at the silver lining there. The vast majority of Trump supporters are not what people routinely accuse them of being. I do agree with marc though that many have dropped their support for him since he took office, of those left a higher percentage will be horrid.

One would think that to any humane person, any percentage above 0% would be horrid enough to not bother with any silver lining.

You may think it can't get worse. It can. It really can. And that it hasn't is a silver lining you should be struggling to keep.

We don't know if it has gotten worse. The fact anyone is happy it is no than 20% is not a silver lining, but a pathetic commentary on expectations.

 

[Jolly_Penguin]

JP is​ the Alan Dershowitz of TF.

Well, AD has some knowledge of what he's talking about, so that might be kinda generous.

Alan Dershowitz is yours. He has nothing to do with me. You allowed Trump to take the presidency and you have failed to put in safeguards to stop it from happening again. Only you, the American people, have the power to remove him and fix it so another like him doesn't come into power. And you won't get there by generalizing and villifying and further dividing your fellow citizens.

 

[Jolly_Penguin]

You may think it can't get worse. It can. It really can. And that it hasn't is a silver lining you should be struggling to keep.

We don't know if it has gotten worse. The fact anyone is happy it is no than 20% is not a silver lining, but a pathetic commentary on expectations.

Who said anything about being happy? I don't like that you have so many intolerant people in your country. But I do recognize that you could have more. And I do recognize that generalizing and labeling people who aren't in with those who are is only going to push them towards becoming so. You need outreach and inclusion, not prejudice.

 

[blastula]

If 20% answered that they are that intolerant then 80% didn't. Look at the silver lining there. The vast majority of Trump supporters are not what people routinely accuse them of being. I do agree with marc though that many have dropped their support for him since he took office, of those left a higher percentage will be horrid.

One would think that to any humane person, any percentage above 0% would be horrid enough to not bother with any silver lining.

Probably, but then it's above zero for Dems too. I looked at the poll data, and even 5% of blacks disapproved.

The point of the article citing the data was that Trump's supporters in the primaries had worse numbers for this question and several others too. Surprisingly, racists liked Trump best.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

The use of WMD against trumpets is a war crime! Cease this topic at once!

 

[Half-Life]

Time for a history lesson.

Most people have no clue why the Civil War started. I will tell you. The South declared succession and Buchanon (president at the time) saw no constitutional basis to stop them. Then Lincoln became President and he wanted to stop the Confederacy. The Union had ships at Fort Sumter and the Confederacy told them to leave their territory since they are in Confederate waters. The Union refused to listen and the Confederacy attacked the ships and it started the War. So, you can claim it was the North who started the war by refusing to leave Southern territory, which was now its own land. The result was Lincoln ordering about 700,000 Americans murdered over this during the war.

This raises the question of, "Is 700,000 deaths worth the deaths that would have come from slavery?" In other words, "Would more than 700,000 slaves have died or less?

 

[Patooka]

Time for a reality check.

The South really wanted to own black people and were ready to fight a war for this. And it really is that simple.

 

[laughing dog]

You may think it can't get worse. It can. It really can. And that it hasn't is a silver lining you should be struggling to keep.

We don't know if it has gotten worse. The fact anyone is happy it is no than 20% is not a silver lining, but a pathetic commentary on expectations.

Who said anything about being happy? I don't like that you have so many intolerant people in your country. But I do recognize that you could have more. And I do recognize that generalizing and labeling people who aren't in with those who are is only going to push them towards becoming so. You need outreach and inclusion, not prejudice.

It is not prejudice to accurately depict someone. Saying "well, it could be worse" is simply a meaningless platitude. Proposing "outreach and inclusion" without defining the terms or giving instructions is another form of meaningless platitudes. Why do so many people from your country engage is such meaningless moralizing?

It is disgusting that anyone could think that freeing slaves was a bad idea. I knew racists who thought slavery was wrong and that slaves should have been freed. The notion that freeing slaves was a bad idea goes way beyond racism. It indicates a fundamental disconnect with basic human rights and dignity.

 

[blastula]

Shocker, Halfie is a slavery apologist.

The North didn't fight (at first) to stop slavery, it's the South that both seceded and started the war to continue slavery.

 

[Half-Life]

Time for a reality check.

The South really wanted to own black people and were ready to fight a war for this. And it really is that simple.

This is true. They did see the inauguration of Lincoln as a threat. However, if the Union just left Fort Sumter, there would have been no War. The North refusing to leave Confederate waters is what started it. Think about it. The South was now its own territory. The Union was in their territory. The Union refused to leave despite being given a few days to leave by the Confederacy.

It was Lincoln who subverted the Constitution. That is why Buchanan did nothing. He saw no Constitutional basis for or against succession, so he let it happen. Lincoln didn't give a damn about the Constitutional basis.

 

[Half-Life]

Shocker, Halfie is a slavery apologist.

The North didn't fight (at first) to stop slavery, it's the South that both seceded and started the war to continue slavery.

"If there be those who would not save the Union, unless they could at the same time save slavery, I do not agree with them. If there be those who would not save the Union unless they could at the same time destroy slavery, I do not agree with them. My paramount object in this struggle is to save the Union, and is not either to save or to destroy slavery. If I could save the Union without freeing any slave I would do it, and if I could save it by freeing all the slaves I would do it; and if I could save it by freeing some and leaving others alone I would also do that." - Abraham Lincoln

 

[Patooka]

It was Lincoln who subverted the Constitution.

Good. Slavery is fucking despicable. And if the constitution condones it, then fuck the constitution. I will never understand how some Americans view a constitution with mythical reverence. Even countries like North Korea and Iran have one. They're not magical and they don't instantly justify an argument or legitimize a course of action.

 

[blastula]

Shocker, Halfie is a slavery apologist.

The North didn't fight (at first) to stop slavery, it's the South that both seceded and started the war to continue slavery.

"If there be those who would not save the Union, unless they could at the same time save slavery, I do not agree with them. If there be those who would not save the Union unless they could at the same time destroy slavery, I do not agree with them. My paramount object in this struggle is to save the Union, and is not either to save or to destroy slavery. If I could save the Union without freeing any slave I would do it, and if I could save it by freeing all the slaves I would do it; and if I could save it by freeing some and leaving others alone I would also do that." - Abraham Lincoln

And, your point?

 

[laughing dog]

Time for a reality check.

The South really wanted to own black people and were ready to fight a war for this. And it really is that simple.

This is true. They did see the inauguration of Lincoln as a threat. However, if the Union just left Fort Sumter, there would have been no War. The North refusing to leave Confederate waters is what started it. Think about it. The South was now its own territory. The Union was in their territory. The Union refused to leave despite being given a few days to leave by the Confederacy.

Fort Sumter belonged to the US, not the Confederacy. So, the Confederacy literally attacked the US Government.

It was Lincoln who subverted the Constitution. That is why Buchanan did nothing. He saw no Constitutional basis for or against succession, so he let it happen. Lincoln didn't give a damn about the Constitutional basis.

As usual, the facts contradict your view.  Secession in the United States

The Constitution does not directly mention secession.[54] The legality of secession was hotly debated in the 19th century. Although the Federalist Party briefly explored New England secession during the War of 1812, secession became associated with Southern states as the north's industrial power increased.[55] The Supreme Court has consistently interpreted the Constitution to be an "indestructible" union.[54] There is no legal basis a state can point to for unilaterally seceding.[56] Many scholars hold that the Confederate secession was blatantly illegal. The Articles of Confederation explicitly state the Union is "perpetual"; the U.S. Constitution declares itself an even "more perfect union" than the Articles of Confederation.[57] Other scholars, while not necessarily disagreeing that the secession was illegal, point out that sovereignty is often de facto an "extralegal" question. Had the Confederacy won, any illegality of its actions under U.S. law would have been rendered irrelevant, just as the undisputed illegality of American rebellion under the British law of 1775 was rendered irrelevant. Thus, these scholars argue, the illegality of unilateral secession was not firmly de facto established until the Union won the Civil War; in this view, the legal question was resolved at Appomattox.[55][58]

 

[Half-Life]

It was Lincoln who subverted the Constitution.

Good. Slavery is fucking despicable. And if the constitution condones it, then fuck the constitution. I will never understand how some Americans view a constitution with mythical reverence. Even countries like North Korea and Iran have one. They're not magical and they don't instantly justify an argument or legitimize a course of action.

I never condoned the slavery. But, the Confederacy was technically its own territory at that time. They had their own Constitution and flag. Just as I don't condone North Korea's actions, there's a reason we don't just go start a war with them.

I don't condone the South wanting slavery, but that's no reason to just go and fight a war with them.

 

[Half-Life]

Fort Sumter belonged to the US, not the Confederacy. So, the Confederacy literally attacked the US Government.

It was Lincoln who subverted the Constitution. That is why Buchanan did nothing. He saw no Constitutional basis for or against succession, so he let it happen. Lincoln didn't give a damn about the Constitutional basis.

As usual, the facts contradict your view.  Secession in the United States

The Constitution does not directly mention secession.[54] The legality of secession was hotly debated in the 19th century. Although the Federalist Party briefly explored New England secession during the War of 1812, secession became associated with Southern states as the north's industrial power increased.[55] The Supreme Court has consistently interpreted the Constitution to be an "indestructible" union.[54] There is no legal basis a state can point to for unilaterally seceding.[56] Many scholars hold that the Confederate secession was blatantly illegal. The Articles of Confederation explicitly state the Union is "perpetual"; the U.S. Constitution declares itself an even "more perfect union" than the Articles of Confederation.[57] Other scholars, while not necessarily disagreeing that the secession was illegal, point out that sovereignty is often de facto an "extralegal" question. Had the Confederacy won, any illegality of its actions under U.S. law would have been rendered irrelevant, just as the undisputed illegality of American rebellion under the British law of 1775 was rendered irrelevant. Thus, these scholars argue, the illegality of unilateral secession was not firmly de facto established until the Union won the Civil War; in this view, the legal question was resolved at Appomattox.[55][58]

Yes, that's what I said! The Constitution does not say anything for or against succession. That's why Buchanan did nthing and let it happen. He saw no basis for them doing it, but he also saw no basis for stopping them. Then Lincoln came in and said, "Screw it. You can't succeed."

 

[laughing dog]

Fort Sumter belonged to the US, not the Confederacy. So, the Confederacy literally attacked the US Government.


As usual, the facts contradict your view.  Secession in the United States

Yes, that's what I said! The Constitution does not say anything for or against succession. That's why Buchanan did nthing and let it happen. He saw no basis for them doing it, but he also saw no basis for stopping them. Then Lincoln came in and said, "Screw it. You can't succeed."

And you actually read that snippet, you'd see the Buchanan and you are incorrect: there is a basis to prevent unilateral secession. Hell, the SCOTUS even ruled that unilateral secession was unconstitutional.

 

[ZiprHead]

Fort Sumter belonged to the US, not the Confederacy. So, the Confederacy literally attacked the US Government.


As usual, the facts contradict your view.  Secession in the United States

Yes, that's what I said! The Constitution does not say anything for or against succession. That's why Buchanan did nthing and let it happen. He saw no basis for them doing it, but he also saw no basis for stopping them. Then Lincoln came in and said, "Screw it. You can't succeed."

-10 for reading comprehension.

 

[Keith&Co.]

It was Lincoln who subverted the Constitution.

Good. Slavery is fucking despicable. And if the constitution condones it, then fuck the constitution. I will never understand how some Americans view a constitution with mythical reverence. Even countries like North Korea and Iran have one. They're not magical and they don't instantly justify an argument or legitimize a course of action.

I never condoned the slavery. But, the Confederacy was technically its own territory at that time.

technically, no. They claimed the territory, but so did the union.
So until that was resolved, this technicality also applies to the North, rendering it moot.

They had their own Constitution and flag. Just as I don't condone North Korea's actions, there's a reason we don't just go start a war with them.

well, we don't have a claim to their land, and recognize them as sovereign. So as ananalogy, that dost sucketh.

I don't condone the South wanting slavery, but that's no reason to just go and fight a war with them.

the South started the shooting. They changed it from civil discourse to a war.

 

[Bronzeage]

JP is​ the Alan Dershowitz of TF.

Well, AD has some knowledge of what he's talking about, so that might be kinda generous.

Alan Dershowitz is yours. He has nothing to do with me. You allowed Trump to take the presidency and you have failed to put in safeguards to stop it from happening again. Only you, the American people, have the power to remove him and fix it so another like him doesn't come into power. And you won't get there by generalizing and villifying and further dividing your fellow citizens.

Talk about victim blaming.