Gerrymandering in Virginia

#1,328
#1,328
OrangeTsar said:
Strange….every book I have ever read has General Beauregard firing the first shots on Fort Sumter. Do i have that backwards?
Click to expand...

No, that happened but so did the many requests for the union troops to leave peacefully and not to be reinforced or resupplied. Both of which the Union attempted. Sumpter no longer belonged to the Union and was being occupied by a Foriegn power, they are lucky the fort wasn’t stormed.
 
  • Like
Reactions: EasternVol
#1,330
#1,330
hog88 said:
No, that happened but so did the many requests for the union troops to leave peacefully and not to be reinforced or resupplied. Both of which the Union attempted. Sumpter no longer belonged to the Union and was being occupied by a Foriegn power, they are lucky the fort wasn’t stormed.
Click to expand...
„Requests“ 😂
Is that what they call threatening ultimatums nowadays?

It was federal property and South Carolina was demanding that Anderson abandon his assigned command without authorization. Something an honorable officer would never do.
 
#1,331
#1,331
OrangeTsar said:
„Requests“ 😂
Is that what they call threatening ultimatums nowadays?

It was federal property and South Carolina was demanding that Anderson abandon his assigned command without authorization. Something an honorable officer would never do.
Click to expand...

It was no longer “federal property” and he had no authority to occupy land in a sovereign nation.
 
#1,333
#1,333
hog88 said:
It was no longer “federal property” and he had no authority to occupy land in a sovereign nation.
Click to expand...
Timely post in the Gerrymandering thread where lots of people have been arguing that there's no better group to direct their own destiny than local communities with common interests and needs.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Rickyvol77
#1,335
#1,335
hog88 said:
The day SC seceded.

If Germany expelled all US troops from it’s soil should we refuse to leave our bases there?
Click to expand...
I am curious what would've happened if SC militia just simply left the base alone a bit and made no big deal about it...in the larger picture

Lincoln would have had much smaller support among the North to invade without the attack to begin with
 
  • Like
Reactions: EasternVol
#1,336
#1,336
luthervol said:
It seemed lol to me because of the indefinite time line. It's not like we're debating jay-walking being legal.
Click to expand...

Yes. I suppose my somewhat ambiguous “industrialization” timeline was no where near as concrete and certain as your “probably eventually fizzle out” continuum timeline. 🤦‍♂️
 
#1,337
#1,337
Ritzwatch said:
Yes. I suppose my somewhat ambiguous “industrialization” timeline was no where near as concrete and certain as your “probably eventually fizzle out” continuum timeline. 🤦‍♂️
Click to expand...
But I was using my timeline as justification for the war and you were using yours to claim the war was not justified.

And that was the whole point.
 
#1,338
#1,338
luthervol said:
But I was using my timeline as justification for the war and you were using yours to claim the war was not justified.

And that was the whole point.
Click to expand...
You are hallucinating my response.

All I did was provide a thoughtful answer to your question regarding how slavery might have ended had there not been a civil war. I didn’t justify anything.
 
  • Like
Reactions: luthervol
#1,339
#1,339
Ritzwatch said:
You are hallucinating my response.

All I did was provide a thoughtful answer to your question regarding how slavery might have ended had there not been a civil war. I didn’t justify anything.
Click to expand...
You're right.
Sorry about that.
I immediately assumed your stance was that the war was not justified, but after re-reading your posts, I see that you never made that claim.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Ritzwatch
#1,341
#1,341
luthervol said:
It seems to mean the exact opposite to me.
Why in the world would anyone want a non-representative gerrymandered state legislature electing their senator for them. Absolutely horrible idea.

I do find it amusing that you believe an elected politician knows better what the common citizen needs than does the common citizen.......and after I recently said I admired your consistency.
Click to expand...
you fail civics?

the senate doesn't represent the people. The House of REPRESENTATIVES represents the people.

get the people of the government back to doing what their job actually is and lets see if things get better before we try drastic measures.
 
#1,342
#1,342
LouderVol said:
you fail civics?

the senate doesn't represent the people. The House of REPRESENTATIVES represents the people.

get the people of the government back to doing what their job actually is and lets see if things get better before we try drastic measures.
Click to expand...
Seriously????????????
Where in the world did I say the senate REPRESENTS the people?
Did you fail reading comprehension????????

And WTH does your last sentence mean? What drastic measure am I proposing?
 
#1,343
#1,343
luthervol said:
Seriously????????????
Where in the world did I say the senate REPRESENTS the people?
Did you fail reading comprehension????????

And WTH does your last sentence mean? What drastic measure am I proposing?
Click to expand...
you took umbrage at politicians electing politicians. and then argued with a couple posters about what the senate ACTUALLY represents, I believe you bickered about what is a district, the government, the land, or the people being your argument.

and I figured with you being unhappy about what the senate actually is, you wanted to change it without going back to the pre-17th amendment.
 
#1,346
#1,346
LouderVol said:
you took umbrage at politicians electing politicians. and then argued with a couple posters about what the senate ACTUALLY represents, I believe you bickered about what is a district, the government, the land, or the people being your argument.

and I figured with you being unhappy about what the senate actually is, you wanted to change it without going back to the pre-17th amendment.
Click to expand...
I was basically saying that the current system of citizens electing their senators is appropriate, and that hog thinking it should go back to pre-17th amendment is simply dumb.

The district convo was just pointing out how 85's argument was meritless.
 
Last edited:
#1,348
#1,348
luthervol said:
I was basically saying that the current system of citizens electing their senators is appropriate, and that hog thinking it should go back to pre-13th amendment is simply dumb.

The district convo was just pointing out how 85's argument was meritless.
Click to expand...

What does the 13th amendment have to do with direct election of senators?
 
#1,349
#1,349
EasternVol said:
No way. He was well to the left of Nixon, who many say would be a Democrat today. Only one Soetoro awarded.
Click to expand...
How? Nixon was for price controls and cozying up to the commie Chinese. He created the freaking EPA.
Nixon famously stated, "Now I am a Keynesian in economics," and controversially imposed peacetime wage and price controls to combat inflation, deepened détente with the Soviet Union, historically visited communist China and opened American markets to them making them what the are today, widely known as the last LIberal Republican.
Keynesian economics is a macroeconomic theory asserting that total spending, or aggregate demand, dictates economic outcomes and that governments should actively intervene to manage economic downturns.

Humphrey and Nixon would have got along great.
 
New Posts
You must log in or register to reply here.

Advertisement



Back
Top