She responded it was about “basically how the government was going to run."
Of course she ignores slavery. She’s a conservative. Conservatives were responsible for slavery and they are tired of being called out for it. They would bring it back immediately if they weren’t actively stopped by progressives.
Nearly every act of racism, xenophobia, homophobia, transphobia, misogyny, antisemitism or other bigotry ever committed on earth has been at the hands of conservatives.
There is no place in a modern culture for conservatism. Teach your children why it is immoral to keep relationships or do business with such people. Marginalize hate by marginalizing those who hate.
This is some crazy partisan shit.
“Nearly every act of racism, xenophobia, homophobia, transphobia, misogyny, antisemitism or other bigotry ever committed on earth has been at the hands of conservatives.”
Let’s talk about first and second wave feminists or terfs like Sheila Jeffreys. Or who pushed Don’t Ask Don’t Tell policies. Or some the unsavory views of Theodore Roosevelt. There are so many instances of progressives and liberals getting it wrong and causing harm. Conservatives do sometimes get it right if they are consistent. This current brand of American conservatism is bonkers though.
Let’s talk about first and second wave feminists
Gloria Steinem is still a queen no matter what happens ;)
It does bug me that partisans of either stripe conveniently ignore so much in order to find satisfaction with their preferred narrative.
deleted by creator
Yes, conservatives were the reason slavery continued for so long. At the time of the Civil War, the conservative party were the Democrats.
deleted by creator
The big idea behind conservatism is “let’s keep things how they’ve been” while progressives seek new solutions to problems. Pre civil war progressives were looking for a means to abolish slavery while conservatives sought to preserve the institution. No mental gymnastics needed.
You really argue against yourself here.
With your way of reasoning it was the progressives who caused slavery.
At some point in time someone proposed slavery as cheap labor. That would have been a progressive since the ones who just wanted to “keep things as they’ve been” were conservatives…
What comment did you even read?
Your argument is completely absurd. Especially since slavery existed long before anything remotely even resembling progressives and conservatives.
So weird to realize you see your comment as some kind of slam dunk. Doesn’t that get tiring? Having to invent some nonsense to replace reality with, just so your precious feelings don’t get threatened.
(parent comment) The big idea behind conservatism is “let’s keep things how they’ve been” while progressives seek new solutions to problems
This is one way to think about it, and it mostly works because keeping things how they’ve been typically benefits those already in power. But this doesn’t always work as you’ve almost sorta pointed out (your specific example doesn’t work but others potentially could). That is to say, yes, it’s possible to “innovate” in the field of exploitation and if viewed from this perspective your argument makes sense.
That’s why the better way to view the big idea behind conservatism this way: Conservatism consists of exactly one proposition, to wit: There must be in-groups whom the law protects but does not bind, alongside out-groups whom the law binds but does not protect. – Frank Wilhoit
It’s well documented that the political parties had a policy switch some time in the 1930s.
deleted by creator
Political parties are important differentiators in US politics, because nearly every major party were and are liberal parties. Additionally , in this conversation it’s about politics and political leaders preserving and maintaining slavery, not “who dun it”.
Let’s draw the through line of history, shall we? The Democratic-Republicans (conservative, laissez-faire) are why the constitution preserved slavery for a minimum of 20 years with no exceptions and why the 3/5 compromise existed. It was conservatives that threw a fit about the international slave trade being outlawed. It was a conservative court that ruled against Dred Scott. When it was time to add more states to the union, the Democrats demanded on expanding slavery to maintain their position of power in Congress. The traitorous states that tried to rebel over slavery were ran solely by conservatives.
I don’t fully agree with the details and history of what you are saying, but I absolutely agree with your general sentiment….
The history of us political parties is not that simple, and we have not always just had the democrat and Republican parties…. I see you said the word conservative, but a hundred years ago pretty much everyone would agree with our modern “Republican” party over our modern democrat party…. But times have changed, and I would agree many conservatives are stuck in an archaic mindset no longer compatible with the modern world
I sort of understand the downvotes here but also don’t at the same time. Southern Democrats can be a bit of a surprise to newer generations not steeped in US history of the southern Dixiecrats and the southern block they use to rule with until they finally broke up and switched to the Republicans.
The comment above is sticking with Conservatives and Progressive which today most would equate to Republicans and Democrats respectively within the US.
This meme is a quick hey what?
This is for those that want to know
much*more in depth: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Southern_DemocratsThe original post did not mention parties in any way shape or form. Republicans may have made themselves the modern party of conservatism. But the Dixiecrats were conservative as well. All conservatives all in the wrong side. It’s fairly simple.
I’m not sure conservative and progressive would have had the same context back then… it’s not that simple…
It’s trying to cram hundreds of years of history into today’s notions of conservative and progressive which I don’t think accurately represents the actual sentiments of the people living back then… and it glosses over the fact that many in the north enriched themselves from slavery as well, our country is founded on slavery, let’s not just simplify it to conservatives bad, progressives good… I think that is my main issue…
Progress is a moving target. There are many views held by those that were progressive back then. That would be anathema to modern progressives. But their progressive view points tend to transcend the time they were born.
Modern conservative bigots, aren’t really all that different from their counterparts from the past however. Party history doesn’t necessarily need to enter into it at all. Conservatives seek to conserve power for themselves. No more, no less. Exactly what that means to them may change superficially. But the core remains. Throughout all positive change in human history. Conservatives have been solidly against it. Conservative in America, conservatives in England, conservatives in Afghanistan, conservatives in just about anywhere else. Potato potato. The superficial trappings around it may differ slightly. But the core is always power for themselves and oppression of others to get it.
Fundamentalist
I think we might be at a point in history where democrats are the new legitimate right wing party and we have some new left wing party….
Republicans no longer get to sit at the table
Ummm… literally fucking definitions, bro. Conservatives by definition want things to go back to ‘the good old days’ full of racism and white America. Progressives want… progress.
Progressives are good. Conservatives are bad. It is black and white.
So Conservative Colin Powell was wrong advocating for affirmative action and other programs to help create a more equitable society?
Or David Frum writing for the Atlantic as a conservative… I guess that magazine is secretly GOP shill.
regardless of what political party the aligned themselves with, the political views of conservatives remain the same. that’s why the person you replied to didn’t identify those they referring to by their political party, but by their political views: conservatism.
I love how this community has clearly become such an echo chamber that even people who try to speak with even a bit of logic and measure get downvoted to hell. Our words fall on deaf ears here.
What do you mean. I don’t mind getting downvoted if we are discussing facts,
The civil war was about slavery, fact number 1
I’m not disagreeing with you, just very annoyed that if you don’t absolutely demonize the other side, you get downvoted, which you did and you were. That’s not what a healthy community does.
I hear you. Thankfully I don’t care if I get downvotes….
I do try to understand why I got the downvotes though, in this case I’m still not convinced.
I think a lot of people can’t stop with the black and white, our side Good their side Bad…
So even suggesting the other side isn’t worse than Hitler, or that our side is the fucking messiah gets downvotes, lol…
Former Texan here. Bring up the fact (and it is a fact) that the creation of Texas and its subsequent fight for independence was 100% slavery. Enjoy the fireworks.
Texas “was received as a commonwealth holding, maintaining and protecting the institution known as negro slavery-- the servitude of the African to the white race within her limits-- a relation that had existed from the first settlement of her wilderness by the white race, and which [Texas] people intended should exist in all future time”
Gee, what a hard question to figure out from historical sources, guess we’ll never know what they were thinking…
It is a mystery.
Nimarata Nikki Randhawa doesn’t want to use her real name and Rafael Edward Cruz doesn’t either.
Some family values. What are they trying to hide from us?
She’s gone by Nikki forever, and her married name is Haley.
There’s a ton of legitimate reasons to criticize her - let’s stick with those.
Though honestly I’m probably going to vote in the Republican primaries this round to vote for her over Trump. I’m confident the Dems of the ballot will be people I can live with, so I might as well try to influence the Republican ticket.
Especially because I live in a state that’s voting GOP no matter what.
It’s not a criticism, it’s denoting hypocrisy and we should be highlighting it as much as possible
How are nicknames hypocrisy?
You know Biden’s first name isn’t really Joe, right? And Clinton’s first name was William. And Dwight Eisenhower went by “Ike.” And Bernie’s name is Bernard. And a dude named Edwin walked on the moon while going by “Buzz.”
It’s fine to have a nickname.
It’s not having a nickname that is the problem. The problem is using a nickname to sidestep racism that she is perpetuating by affiliating with a racist group.
What a brain dead way to say you don’t understand the situation
In fairness she’s married to Michael Haley. It was only the right wingers that insisted on calling Obama Barrack Hussein.
She knows where her racist, lost cause bread is buttered.
It’s not a lost cause for the candidates. These fuckers can loan their campaigns money at 20% interest legally and just pocket their contributors’ cash.
They can also write books and easily make money there too.
It’s a cash grab.
Aside from the obvious racist subtext to her answer, it’s pretty shocking how completely incapable she is of stringing a coherent sentence together.
The freedoms and what people could and couldn’t do
How old are you??
Also
FREEDOM TO DO WHAT, NIKKI? FREEDOM TO DO WHAT
The freedom to have the freedom to tell people about freedom and the freedom you have.
with tip-toing like that, i was expecting her to do a pirouette!
“Fweedom”
She doesn’t know. She’s a moron.
Or she does know but wishes to spread willful ignorance for power
If Nikki Haley is having a townhall in your area please take the time out of your day to ask her this question. She should be required to answer this everywhere she goes.
“Basically how the government was going to be run…” in regards to WHAT, Nikki?!?
It’s like everyone who tries to defend the Rebellion has never read the CSA Constitution. It’s pretty obvious it was about slavery.
The worst part is that she seems to be saying that she knows it was about slavery but people now feel like it was about state’s rights so that’s what is important.
It was only about slavery, wasn’t it?
