Yeah, I’m tired of this rollercoaster too. The rule of law must be shown to still apply, or the country is fucked. I’m still hoping he lives long enough to be convicted of whatever crimes he has committed and to face the penalties therefor.
Nope. From 1776 to around 1800 interest in slavery was declining . The Founders mostly thought that slavery would just go away on it’s ow, since it wasnt very economical. However, with the invention of the cotton gin, all of a sudden slavery made huge economic sense in the South. Huge fortunes were made from growing and exporting cotton. From 1800 or so to 1865 was the heyday of Southern Slavery and racism. However, the North never liked slavery- yes, there were a few slaves here and there, but the North got rid of them.
So, for about 65 years HALF of the USA was a slave state.
Well, since whites (until recently) were a solid majority, that is to be expected. Do we call Australia, & Canada 'white supremacism" nations, even tho their government is very white?
Dont get caught up in American exceptionalism. Quite a few other nations, mostly in the Americas, had more slaves and economies that depended more on slavery. Brazil didnt free the slaves until 1888, and Mauritania in 1905. Nor is the USA all that racist, in fact it isnt even in the ten most racist nations.
Yes. about half of the USA had slaves for about half of America’s history, and racism is still a major issue. But America is not alone in this.
Your post demonstrates profound ignorance of American history. Allowing slavery in half the country can reasonably be characterized as a slave state. But that’s a labeling quibble. It’s the other part of your post that’s really wrong - the hundred years I’m referring to is segregation, Jim Crow, redlining, sundown towns, and other overt white supremacist policies allowed throughout the country for the century or so following the Civil War.
That is true, but again, not limited to the USA. Pretty much if you have one race in charge or a strong majority that sort of stuff occured in almost every nation on earth.
So what? What does this have to do with anything I said?
This whole thing is a hijack, so start another thread if you like.
Wow.
Just…wow.
Modnote: Please end this hijack about slavery. It is indeed a hijack.
I saw a news clip last night that pretty much summed up her campaign. They showed Haley saying the same canned line word for word in about half a dozen settings. The line went “I voted for T***p twice, I agree with many of his policies, but rightly or wrongly, chaos follows him”. The same lines, over and over, word for word. What a passive turn of words, “chaos follows him”. She doesn’t say he creates chaos or that he loves chaos, it’s simply that chaos follows him. She doesn’t say that it’s his fault in the least, he’s just an innocent fellow and chaos decides to follow him wherever he goes. The story had a headline that summed it up perfectly: “with enemies like this, who needs friends?”
This is about where I come down, too. George W. Bush was an enlightened statesman, a fucking philosopher king, compared to Trump. I’d take a third Dubya term in a heartbeat compared to a second Trump term, if presented with that awful choice.
That’s a good way to frame it. W’s presidency was a disaster, but given a choice of Bush or Trump, who would I select? Requires zero deliberation.
Hell, I’d take a third Reagan term, dead or alive.
Hid off-topic post
No, I am not getting on board with that, Trump was and is a piece of crap to be sure, but the Bush administration was horrendously destructive to the entire world in a way that Trump just isn’t capable of. Trump has no principles, but Bush and his cabinet were true believers in neocon ideology - they exported death and destruction across the world. They started forever wars. It’s inexcusable. They’re fucking evil. I’m far, far more offended by their brand of politics than by Trump’s.
Hid off-topic post
When Trump is re-elected, he will be more destructive. He will give Putin full support , encouraging him to first destroy Ukraine, and then go on to conquer other parts of Europe.
We can only judge Haley’s foreign policy by her performance at the UN. It’s a toothless task with no real responsibility…but she did a respectable job, and she was a voice of reason in an institution where there is often no logic.
Hid off-topic post
I agree. You put it more clearly than I did.
I’m still very offended by Trump’s brand (and his brand of politics) of course. He will do enormous damage to the US and the World if he gets a chance, but he and the people around him are too incompetent to achieve all that they say they want. The same was not as much the case for Cheney and Rumsfeld.
Modnote: This is not the thread for Trump vs Bush. please talk about Nikki Haley and her run for Presidient.
understood, sorry.
And since I was responding to Lamoral, who is sorry…then I’m sorry too. 
One more sorry and we have another hijack. Careful, folks, this could avalanche.
An expert on the subject says that Nikki Haley isn’t “Presidential timber.” Takes one to know one. Don.