Romney

[Mountaineer]

I mean the ultimate maverick, love him or hate him, was Teddy Roosevelt (as far as I know).  The guy was simultaniously a brutal racist nationalist and an anti-racist (yup... he was a weird dude), enviornmentalist, anti-trust, pro-regulation populist.  He simply Did. Not. Care. what ANYONE thought cuz he KNEW he was right, and often did a pretty good job of arguing his case.  It's part of the reason I'm utterly captivated by the guy.  Some of his accusations of others sound downright hateful.  But he's on a lot of people's short-list of favorite presidents that would label Obama the anti-Christ.

What are we in some alternate universe tonight? I'm totally agreeing with Moda on this one. TR is da Man! I highly recommend Edmund Morris' trilogy on his life. It would be a real toss up to me who was the most talented President ever between TR and Lincoln. For pure renaissance man qualities TR beats Lincoln hands down. Lincoln had the far tougher job though and his vision in terms of long-term impact on the U.S. was just below the Founding Fathers...and we probably can credit Lincoln with correcting the errors of the F.Fs in the application of their vision.

TR?  Lincoln?  And the Founding Fathers - what a bunch of rebellious cantankerous misfits.  You must be kidding.  Without TR and Abe we could have much more land to exploit instead of wasting it on National Parks, or in the case of Abe, we could have had two countries instead of only one.  Surely there are one or two Andrew Johnson or Richard Nixon lovers on the forum?  Surely. 

... Mountaineer

[MachineGhost]

That said, I voted for him and prefer him to Obama, since my views align better with his than with Obama's.

Wow, for a hard-core libertarian that's pretty surprising.  I bet you can guess who I voted for as protest vote as I was able to do so after I re-registered.  Not that it matters.  People get too wrapped up in the popular vote when it rarely matters.  Heck, I can't remember if it even decides elections but there were a few instances when the electoral collage was tied, right?

[MachineGhost]

I think there's a LARGE portion of the Republican electorate that sees Obama THIS way, rather than simply someone who is in over his head, perhaps a bit pompous, and who's nausiating to listen to... or whatever.

That's the rank and file; they're just gonna use whatever propaganda is available to confirm their innate bias; the more subjective and personal it is against the perceived political enemy, the better.  Even Reub is far more circumspect if only because I don't feel he's as right wing as most of the party base is.  Being a NeoCon isn't an inherently conservative position; it's actually progressive vs the armed neutrality of our Founding Fathers.

[MachineGhost]

Lincoln had the far tougher job though and his vision in terms of long-term impact on the U.S. was just below the Founding Fathers...and we probably can credit Lincoln with correcting the errors of the F.Fs in the application of their vision.

What the heck are you talking about?  Lincoln all but transformed the country into the modern interventionist nation state we're suffering with today.  He was a traitor to our Constitutional principles.  The ends do not justify the means of using the Constitution as toilet paper because someone else down the line will take advantage of the weakened loopholes.  Has not the last 165 years made that evident?

In my book, Lincoln and FDR have special place in hell for their treason.  The ends do not ever justify the means in a Constitutional Republic (RIP).

[moda0306]

I mean, I would imagine that if what you say is true, electing a guy like Rand (or especially ol' Ron) would be ESPECIALLY interesting. Those guys have some CONVICTION!! And they don't like playing the game that so many in Washington are skilled at playing.

Would we call them "hateful, spiteful, vindictive, and malevolent" when they side-step congress, the Fed, and the systems in place to bring about the change they wish to see?

would they side step? if so then they really aren't men of CONVICTION are they? especially when the constitution is the very thing they have a history and reputation for being men of conviction about...

Simon,

That's a good point.  However, if they see the Fed as unconstitutional, is using unconstitutional authority like two wrongs making a right?

It's easy to rationalize that if you're the one with the power.  But if anyone could resist the urge, it's probably a Ron Paul type... I'll hand ya that.

as far as i know neither one has proposed using unconstitutional authority to do anything with the fed, both have tried to pass bills to audit the fed which is a perfectly legal way to force the fed to be subject to higher standard of transparency. i would hope that if the fed was audited and IF it was exposed that they were up to illegal, corrupt or criminal acts they would be the type to resist the urge to rationalist there own taking of criminal acts...
but power does corrupt, so i would hope we keep an eye on the guys with a history of being men of conviction with regards to the constitution.. even if they are voted "most likely to resist"..

[Tyler]

I like Romney and would vote for him over most of the republican alternatives.

I think Lizzy Warren would absolutely love to run against him and make the entire election about class warfare. That would probably be very effective, although the election season would be even more brutal and divisive than normal.

But IMHO Romney would be a really good candidate against Hillary. Nobody mistakes her as "common" with her $250k speaking appearances and she's already made a fool of herself several times trying to downplay her own wealth, so the most common argument against Romney wouldn't be very effective. And he can basically run an "I was right" campaign against both her and Obama on foreign policy.

That said, I expect the republicans to commit seppuku and nominate Jeb.

[Kbg]

Lincoln had the far tougher job though and his vision in terms of long-term impact on the U.S. was just below the Founding Fathers...and we probably can credit Lincoln with correcting the errors of the F.Fs in the application of their vision.

What the heck are you talking about?  Lincoln all but transformed the country into the modern interventionist nation state we're suffering with today.  He was a traitor to our Constitutional principles.  The ends do not justify the means of using the Constitution as toilet paper because someone else down the line will take advantage of the weakened loopholes.  Has not the last 165 years made that evident?

In my book, Lincoln and FDR have special place in hell for their treason.  The ends do not ever justify the means in a Constitutional Republic (RIP).

For the record, I think it is just fine to use violence to overcome a large evil. (I can't add enough caveats to what I just wrote...so don't interpret it the wrong way.) The U.S. Civil War was a just war in the Western tradition as was World War II. In both cases violence was justified morally. I'm not aware of any democratic government in a a major war (one that actually could result in national government extinction) that hasn't suspended some personal liberties...and the good ones have restored them once the period of danger passed and in several cases apologized and compensated those later realized to have been unjustly treated. Imagine that, humans sometime overreact to fear. I think the Civil War also resulted in some huge advantages to the US that were an unintended consequence that I won't add here other than to say we take them for granted now.

As for God and hell, my guess is things turned out pretty good for Mr. Lincoln at the Pearly Gates.

[MachineGhost]

That said, I expect the republicans to commit seppuku and nominate Jeb.

What's wrong with Jeb?  He may not be able to beat Hillary without some kind of catalysm, but I think he's far more preferable than the other Republican contenders, except maybe Romney.  Both are RINO's anyway.

[MachineGhost]

As for God and hell, my guess is things turned out pretty good for Mr. Lincoln at the Pearly Gates.

So being a humanist in the end absolves all your other sins?  That's comforting.  But you know what they say: the road to hell is paved with good intentions.  The living have to live with that.

[Lowe]

The problem with Jeb Bush is that he looks soft and weak.  Whether he is those things, is beside the point.  The guy looks like a caricature of an accountant.  The glasses don't help.  That he would be running after his older brother, makes worse the image of him as a person with no internal compass or personal strength.

[Reub]

This will be a simple campaign theme for Hillary...It's time for a female President. Might be unbeatable.  The Republican's  only answer may be it's time for a female, latino President. Is Susana Martinez from New Mexico the only one who can beat her?

https://m.facebook.com/SusanaMartinezFo ... rPresident

[Pointedstick]

It ain't gonna be Martinez. She's my governor and I like her and voted for her, but she is a personality-less nobody without much of a record. Great ticket-balancing and hispanic-pandering VP material for a white man, but not a presidential candidate.

[Tyler]

What's wrong with Jeb? 

Jeb may be a fine man.  But the only thing he has going for him is that he's popular in Florida which could give an edge in a tight race.  Running the third Bush versus the first woman would be the easiest campaign layup I can think of for the Dems, and I don't think it would be a tight race.

[MachineGhost]

The problem with Jeb Bush is that he looks soft and weak.  Whether he is those things, is beside the point.  The guy looks like a caricature of an accountant.  The glasses don't help.  That he would be running after his older brother, makes worse the image of him as a person with no internal compass or personal strength.

I looked up his track record.  I'm liking him far more than Romney who really didn't do much while in office, just signed bills from the legislature (but took credit for them).

Lets just elect a damn woman and get it over with.  But then I guess we'll have to elect an Asian, a Hispanic, an Arab, etc. before everyone finally gets down to serious business. 

[Kbg]

As for God and hell, my guess is things turned out pretty good for Mr. Lincoln at the Pearly Gates.

So being a humanist in the end absolves all your other sins?  That's comforting.  But you know what they say: the road to hell is paved with good intentions.  The living have to live with that.

Well let's use the greater good theory of just action. List every bad thing you can think of that arose out of Lincoln's actions and your evidence has to outweigh freeing the slaves and abolishing slavery permanently in the United States.

I eagerly await your response. Help me understand why I shouldn't believe Lincoln was the finest of American Presidents and forged a country more up to living its ideals.

[Pointedstick]

Well let's use the greater good theory of just action. List every bad thing you can think of that arose out of Lincoln's actions and your evidence has to outweigh freeing the slaves and abolishing slavery permanently in the United States.

I eagerly await your response. Help me understand why I shouldn't believe Lincoln was the finest of American Presidents and forged a country more up to living its ideals.

Food for thought: Lincoln didn't actually free the slaves. The south, bitter over their loss, continued to enslave black people through the practice of convict leasing, which involved arresting young blacks for doing nothing at all (e.g. being unemployed) and then selling them to private firms as unpaid labor. This practice ended only the first half of the 20th century. In addition, while this was going on, Jim Crow laws and the Ku Klux Klan made life almost unlivably bad for blacks. They were largely barred from gainful employment and routinely murdered for no real reason and with no repercussions. An honest reading of history is that life for blacks in the south was, until about the 1950s, no better after slavery was officially abolished, and in some ways was far worse.

The unnecessary civil war resulted in the unnecessary deaths of more than 600,000 Americans.

Lincoln imposed the first federal income tax.

Lincoln imposed the first federal mandatory conscription.

Lincoln set the precedent for secession being punishable by death in the USA. Throughout the rest of the world, secession is usually a peacefully and mutually beneficial affair.



It seems to me that a utilitarian assessment of the effects of Lincoln's actions does not at all necessarily result in the conclusion that the good outweighs the bad.

[MachineGhost]

Well let's use the greater good theory of just action. List every bad thing you can think of that arose out of Lincoln's actions and your evidence has to outweigh freeing the slaves and abolishing slavery permanently in the United States.

I eagerly await your response. Help me understand why I shouldn't believe Lincoln was the finest of American Presidents and forged a country more up to living its ideals.

That's really a tough position to be in because you know human nature will always be on the side to violate legal restraints.  But our system was supposed to have been specifically setup so that Constitutional violations would not happen.  But it did under Lincoln and some of the legacies of that violation are the huge centralization of Federal power over the states, the not-direct-but-allegedly-indirect income tax, Jim Crow, corruption of the judiciary, the expansion of the welfare-state under suffrage, as well as our endearing NeoCon intervention adventures around the world.  Now, I suppose it is ultimately an ideological question whether or not you're in favor of all that (its obviously a Progressive agenda), but two wrongs never make a right.  Short-term thinking has long-term consequences.  But if we have to committ sins in the pursuring of a greater good, then so long as we can fix the damage later on to achieve that more perfect union, I think it may be tolerable?  But this presupposes you don't wind up with another Hitler.  The democratic Nazi's violated their Constitutional restraints all for the sake of a greater good.  How are we any different?  Good intentions do not prevent future bad actors from exploiting what you previously rendered inert.  Our Founding Fathers understood the corrupt nature of man.

[moda0306]

Well let's use the greater good theory of just action. List every bad thing you can think of that arose out of Lincoln's actions and your evidence has to outweigh freeing the slaves and abolishing slavery permanently in the United States.

I eagerly await your response. Help me understand why I shouldn't believe Lincoln was the finest of American Presidents and forged a country more up to living its ideals.

Food for thought: Lincoln didn't actually free the slaves. The south, bitter over their loss, continued to enslave black people through the practice of convict leasing, which involved arresting young blacks for doing nothing at all (e.g. being unemployed) and then selling them to private firms as unpaid labor. This practice ended only the first half of the 20th century. In addition, while this was going on, Jim Crow laws and the Ku Klux Klan made life almost unlivably bad for blacks. They were largely barred from gainful employment and routinely murdered for no real reason and with no repercussions. An honest reading of history is that life for blacks in the south was, until about the 1950s, no better after slavery was officially abolished, and in some ways was far worse.

The unnecessary civil war resulted in the unnecessary deaths of more than 600,000 Americans.

Lincoln imposed the first federal income tax.

Lincoln imposed the first federal mandatory conscription.

Lincoln set the precedent for secession being punishable by death in the USA. Throughout the rest of the world, secession is usually a peacefully and mutually beneficial affair.



It seems to me that a utilitarian assessment of the effects of Lincoln's actions does not at all necessarily result in the conclusion that the good outweighs the bad.

I have mixed feelings on Lincoln, and definitely don't disagree with some of what you're saying, but still... a few things on this:

1) Of course Lincoln didn't actually free the slaves.  Even if he did, it was more congress than him.  But the status of anything is only comparable to its most reasonable alternative, which brings me to...

2) What would the status of blacks have been from 1865 onwards had the federal government NOT won or NOT gotten involved.  Much to the dismay of revisionist-historians, slavery was actually gaining traction in the South, and no where is that more clear than the reasons the states gave to secede in the first place.  It wasn't about tariffs or any "states right," other than the right to own slaves as property and have Northerners not only accept this, but join them in hunting runaway slaves.  You seem to know this from past conversations on the subject.

So this begs the question... "What would have happened to the slaves over time?"  My prediction is that slavery would have stuck around for some time to come, and either one of the following would have eventually occurred as the world progressed beyond the South...

a) Black revolts rising to the level of revolution.
b) Mass genocide of blacks once they were no longer needed/desired as property (if Germans could do it to Jews, it's hardly a stretch of the imagination that the South do it to slaves).
c) Eventual 3rd-party intervention on the matter.

This was going to be an ugly scenario no matter what.  That's what happens when 2/3 of the population enslaves 1/3 as the rest of the world progresses around you.

3) This is probably where I disagree the most.  I'm sure there are hundreds of instances where what could be called "Secession" was or would have been greeted with military might of the central government before the U.S. Civil War.  Usually they're not labelled "secessions," but "rebellions."    Hell, it's essentially what we did in the Revolutionary War... and Great Britain said "No."  The only real precedence Lincoln set was that there was no inherent "right" that was going to be recognized for a state to just leave the Union (and claim Union resources in that state).  This type of conflict between the authority of levels of government is as old as when civilization was mature enough to HAVE multiple levels of government.  I'm willing to bet even Mesopotamia had plenty of issues surrounding legitimate authority of various government powers, and people's individual right to "ignore" the "illegitimate" authority of the "city counsel" or whatever they had.

It's a story as old as time, man.  Individuals vs small gov't.  Small gov't vs bigger gov't.  Big government vs another big government disputing authority over region overseen by small gov'ts.  Same sh!t.  Different pile.  Lather, rinse, repeat.

[Mountaineer]

Well let's use the greater good theory of just action. List every bad thing you can think of that arose out of Lincoln's actions and your evidence has to outweigh freeing the slaves and abolishing slavery permanently in the United States.

I eagerly await your response. Help me understand why I shouldn't believe Lincoln was the finest of American Presidents and forged a country more up to living its ideals.

Food for thought: Lincoln didn't actually free the slaves. The south, bitter over their loss, continued to enslave black people through the practice of convict leasing, which involved arresting young blacks for doing nothing at all (e.g. being unemployed) and then selling them to private firms as unpaid labor. This practice ended only the first half of the 20th century. In addition, while this was going on, Jim Crow laws and the Ku Klux Klan made life almost unlivably bad for blacks. They were largely barred from gainful employment and routinely murdered for no real reason and with no repercussions. An honest reading of history is that life for blacks in the south was, until about the 1950s, no better after slavery was officially abolished, and in some ways was far worse.

The unnecessary civil war resulted in the unnecessary deaths of more than 600,000 Americans.

Lincoln imposed the first federal income tax.

Lincoln imposed the first federal mandatory conscription.

Lincoln set the precedent for secession being punishable by death in the USA. Throughout the rest of the world, secession is usually a peacefully and mutually beneficial affair.



It seems to me that a utilitarian assessment of the effects of Lincoln's actions does not at all necessarily result in the conclusion that the good outweighs the bad.

I have mixed feelings on Lincoln, and definitely don't disagree with some of what you're saying, but still... a few things on this:

1) Of course Lincoln didn't actually free the slaves.  Even if he did, it was more congress than him.  But the status of anything is only comparable to its most reasonable alternative, which brings me to...

2) What would the status of blacks have been from 1865 onwards had the federal government NOT won or NOT gotten involved.  Much to the dismay of revisionist-historians, slavery was actually gaining traction in the South, and no where is that more clear than the reasons the states gave to secede in the first place.  It wasn't about tariffs or any "states right," other than the right to own slaves as property and have Northerners not only accept this, but join them in hunting runaway slaves.  You seem to know this from past conversations on the subject.

So this begs the question... "What would have happened to the slaves over time?"  My prediction is that slavery would have stuck around for some time to come, and either one of the following would have eventually occurred as the world progressed beyond the South...

a) Black revolts rising to the level of revolution.
b) Mass genocide of blacks once they were no longer needed/desired as property (if Germans could do it to Jews, it's hardly a stretch of the imagination that the South do it to slaves).
c) Eventual 3rd-party intervention on the matter.

This was going to be an ugly scenario no matter what.  That's what happens when 2/3 of the population enslaves 1/3 as the rest of the world progresses around you.

3) This is probably where I disagree the most.  I'm sure there are hundreds of instances where what could be called "Secession" was or would have been greeted with military might of the central government before the U.S. Civil War.  Usually they're not labelled "secessions," but "rebellions."    Hell, it's essentially what we did in the Revolutionary War... and Great Britain said "No."  The only real precedence Lincoln set was that there was no inherent "right" that was going to be recognized for a state to just leave the Union (and claim Union resources in that state).  This type of conflict between the authority of levels of government is as old as when civilization was mature enough to HAVE multiple levels of government.  I'm willing to bet even Mesopotamia had plenty of issues surrounding legitimate authority of various government powers, and people's individual right to "ignore" the "illegitimate" authority of the "city counsel" or whatever they had.

It's a story as old as time, man.  Individuals vs small gov't.  Small gov't vs bigger gov't.  Big government vs another big government disputing authority over region overseen by small gov'ts.  Same sh!t.  Different pile.  Lather, rinse, repeat.

It is interesting to note what the Emancipation Procamation actually did, who authorized it (not Congress) and where it applied (vs. the historical myth so many seem to value) and where it did not apply (e.g. the states that Lincoln had authority over):

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Emancipation_Proclamation

http://www.archives.gov/exhibits/featur ... clamation/

http://www.archives.gov/exhibits/featur ... cript.html

... Mountaineer

[moda0306]

Mountaineer,

I wasn't talking about the Emancipation Proclamation... which was 2/3 wartime strategy and 1/3 Civil Rights concession.

I'm talking about the passing of the 13th amendment.

[MachineGhost]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Emancipation_Proclamation

Wow, pretty interesting!  Very clever/legalistic and I hate to say it, but Constitutional.  Lincoln did not literally free the slaves.

But issuing orders for which you have no jurisdiction over is tyranny.

[moda0306]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Emancipation_Proclamation

Wow, pretty interesting!  Very clever/legalistic and I hate to say it, but Constitutional.  Lincoln did not literally free the slaves.

But issuing orders for which you have no jurisdiction over is tyranny.

Wasn't it the opinion of the Union that they DID have jurisdiction over the South?

Actually, probably the most entertaining point in the movie "Lincoln" was when Abe was talking about the legal Catch 22 that was the Emancipation Proclamation.... or something like that, if memory serves.

[MachineGhost]

Wasn't it the opinion of the Union that they DID have jurisdiction over the South?

Is it opinion when backed by coercive force?  I think not.  What is especially galling is the fact the states were sold the Constitution on the understanding that they could seceed anytime they wanted if the arrnagement became abusive.  So Lincoln is still treasonous in that regard.  Does he still belong in hell if freeing the slaves was an afterhought rather than the whole point of the Civil War?  What good was pseudo-freeing the slaves if he took away another, more significant freedom?  There's still separatist movements.  Does the Fed government plan to put them violently down if they ever get close to seceeding via the polls?

I haven't seen Lincoln yet.  Really not in the mood for Hollywood liberal biased propaganda.  Some day.

[Libertarian666]

Wasn't it the opinion of the Union that they DID have jurisdiction over the South?

Is it opinion when backed by coercive force?  I think not.  What is especially galling is the fact the states were sold the Constitution on the understnaind that they could seceed anytime they wanted.  So Lincoln is still treasonous in that regard.  Does he still belong in hell if freeing the slaves was an afterhought rather than the whole point of the Civil War? 

I haven't seen Lincoln yet.  Really not in the mood for Hollywood liberal biased propaganda.  Some day.

Lincoln was the epitome of fascism, having initiated most of the governmental overreach horrors that we face today, e.g., income tax, unconstitutional search and seizure, federal intrusion into state affairs, and the like. How people who claim to be constitutionalists can have any positive opinion of Lincoln is beyond me, other than that they are ignorant about his actual positions and actions.

[moda0306]

Wasn't it the opinion of the Union that they DID have jurisdiction over the South?

Is it opinion when backed by coercive force?  I think not.  What is especially galling is the fact the states were sold the Constitution on the understanding that they could seceed anytime they wanted if the arrnagement became abusive.  So Lincoln is still treasonous in that regard.  Does he still belong in hell if freeing the slaves was an afterhought rather than the whole point of the Civil War?  What good was pseudo-freeing the slaves if he took away another, more significant freedom?  There's still separatist movements.  Does the Fed government plan to put them violently down if they ever get close to seceeding via the polls?

I haven't seen Lincoln yet.  Really not in the mood for Hollywood liberal biased propaganda.  Some day.

Facepalm.  Yes, it can be an opinion if backed by force.  Many strongly-held opinions will be backed by force. It's probably your opinion that you have a right to your property. So if a mugger comes to steal your wallet, you will back that opinion with coercive force.

The whole "states were sold on secession" thing is a bit of a myth.  It was hotly debated, but no such language was ever put into the Constitution. Some believe it is implied... some believe it was not.

The only real case the South made for secession was that Lincoln and the North was a threat to slavery.  How that can be interpreted as "abusive" to the South is a bit of a stretch to me.



States don't have any natural "rights" any more than the federal government does.  Only people do. The constitution enumerated some right to the states (none of which, explicitly, was the right of secession), but that's just a document signed by some guys who came together "representing" their districts.  Well at least the land-owning white males (aka, not really representing them at all).

As good of ideas as the founding fathers had, they were in the end just arbitrary ways to split up power.  The basis of the entire power structure of the South was taking a white male population that claimed land as their own and forced slaves to work on it.  These things were essentially Banana Republics.  If you want to argue that the federal government had little real legitimacy (an argument I can respect in some ways), then state governments, especially those of the South, were complete jokes.