blah the Prussian

Beyond being a sell out, my main problem with her is her support for the idiotic policy of supporting the FSA and Libyan rebels without actually figuring out who we want to win. It was the same mistake the USA made in Afghanistan.

That's because I realized the mistake with my wording that just using a bunch of sources that all agree with you is pointless. That's all.

Yes, I am aware that you disagree with me. However, when, for example, a photographer is body slammed by security, it raises concerns as to the respect that a Trump and his supporters have for rule of law. I am sure that your stepdad is a perfectly fine guy, it's just that we all have biases. I don't claim to be immune to them, and I wouldn't expect you to get all your information, for example, on the French Revolution from me, because if you did you would think that the noble, virtuous, big dicked Louis XVI was treacherously killed by the evil revolutionaries who were jealous of his supreme manliness. The thing is, using other sources isn't enough. Since all sources will inevitably be biased, you should see what a variety of sources have to say about something and then form your opinion.

It is an objective truth. He is using frankly Jacobin (huge insult from me) mob tactics against those that disagree with him. Also, Ana is actually t socialism is similar to Cmmunism (the two have been used interchangably) but she is incorrect in that Sanders is actually a Social Democrat, which basically means regulated Capitalism. It's no different than the regulations in place in the majority of European countries (my friend, who is fairly right wing by European standards, got Sanders as his far and away best result). Sanders does not want the government to control everything, just for companies to have to obey more rules. In regards to Clinton, the moment that stuck with me was when she declared that the Republicans were wasting the lives of soldiers in Iraq, despite Clinton herself being critical to declaring war on Iraq. Also, Ana, I would advise you to use sources other than your stepdad. I used to be the same way, just parroting what my parents told me, and I kind of cringe when I think of me back then. If you think the media is biased against Trump, your stepdad is probably far more biased. That isn't to say that he doesn't do his research, just that, when he relates said research to you, he puts his own spin on it that makes it less reliable than it would be if you get it news (an aside: use BBC. Not only does it cover more than just America, I find it to be quite unbiased).

Trump is likely to make a good deal of things worse. His path is the path of mob rule, of entitled brats thinking that something should happen just because the majority wills it, that what is popular should Trump (pun intended) what is right. I dislike Cointon a massive amount too, but at least she seems well disposed towards rule of law. I did get Trump more than any other Reoublican, though.

Oh, that's going to be devastating. The Three Pashas weren't goign to be in power for that to happen, but they probably will now. The Stab in the Back myth for the Turks is going to be horrific. Did they just relinquish their Slavic holdings, or did they release the Arabs, Kurds, and Armenians as well?

I suppose that that makes sense. In any case, firstly it was Leon Trotsky and not Vladimir Trotsky; might have been a typo. Secondly, I don't think that the US would have been able to deploy enough of an army to Belgium to stop the French, although, since this President is more militaristic, there could be a larger US standing army, which would have explained it. Everything seems fine other than that. What is the situation in the Ottoman Empire? Since there was no mention of wars in the Balkans is it still Constitutional, or are the Three Pashas in power?

Now, that is an interesting point, because let me engage in my own bit of revisionist history and say that you're absolutely right. The Americans did not have the right to declare Independance. They were acting like whiny assholes over some taxes. However, at the very least America was founded on tax evasion, while the CSA was founded (admittedly partly, but still significantly) to keep slavery. Regarding representation, as I said before, the South was still represented in Congress, so unless every other state ganged up on them (which wasn't going to happen for anything, sans maybe slavery) they would have been fine.

As I said previously, the only countries that are really like that are Iran and Saudi Arabia. There are other countries that are hellholes, to be sure, but that isn't because of Islam, it's because in many cases they're fascist. Also, name one time that a government in a western society has actively engaged in censorship due to critisism of Islam (not of Muslim people, but of the religion itself).

Wait, what? The only thing that makes the Middle East relevant today is oil, and European countries actually reached the height of their dominance after the Napoleonic era. You know, I don't t anyone was legally punished for either of those incidents. Part of free speech is that people are free to label you a bigot or an Islamophobe if you criticize Islam. Trust me, criticizing Judaism or Christianity will get you into deep shit too. While I agree that Islam is not perfect, that does not mean that you are having your free speech infringed upon by speaking out against it. As I have said many times before, there is a common misconception that the whole of the Middle East is fundamentalist, while in reality only Iran and Saudi Arabia are. Turkey is secular, Jordan is secular, Syria is Fascist, Iraq was Fascist but now it's just an anarchy, Egypt is under military rule, etc.

The principle reason he stated was such in the same way that the assassination of Franz Ferdinand was the principle reason for starting WWI. It was the reason the war started, but if it hadn't been something else would be.

I agree with most of these, especially the Conquistadors given that the Spanish government had very loose control over them, but Mary? Really? She was the lawful ruler of Scotland, she didn't try to force Catholicism on the Scots, there was no evidence she was a threat to Elizabeth until well into her captivity, and she was executed after a blatant show trial. I am a huge fan of Elizabeth, but how she handled Mary was not one of her prouder moments.

Yes, but without major social changes suffrage in 1906 just wouldn't happen. The death of Susan B Anthony wouldn't have been enough of a catalyst.

It's a bit more complex than that. Basically, I think that if we find an illegal immigrant without kids in the US, we should deport them, but we shouldn't have, say, a special initiative devoted to finding them, because that will devolve into witch hunts fairly quickly. I am also in favor of making legal I'm,irrational easier, and if that happens we can be more sure that the illegal ones are doing it out of a lack of scruples rather than a lack of means.@Ms. Andrews: TBH if you're already so blatantly engaging in religious discrimination it's not actually a bad idea to test them based on this. No one would be forcing them to do it. It's a still a stupid idea, though. To Tukvarz, there haven't been many Catholic extremists (whether or not the IRA counts is for another thread) but there certainly have been Christian terrorists, most bloodily the Taiping rebels, whose leader claimed he was the brother of Jesus and tried to force Christianity on China. A friend of mine described them as the Christian version of ISIS, which, given the shit they did, isn't that far off. TENS OF MILLIONS of civilians died, a figure that wouldn't be topped until the Nazis and Soviets, both of whom had industrialized weaponry, unlike the Taiping. So, the notion that Christian terrorism doesn't exist is false.

Saying it was about states rights doesn't necessarily absolve the South though. I definitely think it was partly about states rights, but even if it was entirely about that the CSA would still be in the wrong. Decentralization is a menace, and setting the precedent of letting states secede would be the destruction of the Union. PM isn't really supporting the CSA here.

I honestly highly doubt Wilson would have given women the vote as early as 1906. He was as opposed to it as everyone else. Interesting developments in Europe, though. I assume that Germany is going to win WWI if they aren't invading Belgium. As a pointer, it is highly likely that, had Germany not attacked Belgium, France would have attacked it, because that is simply the only way they would have managed to mount a successful invasion of Germany. It the President does get assassinated instead of Franz Ferdinand, the latter's survival will be significant.

No one is defending Sharia laws. If you think they're horrible, help people get away from them. No, I'm just noting that that is what Trump fans are doing.

Oh, trust me, the treatment of immigrants, especially Chinese ones, was horrible. There is no equivalency between it and slavery, and plenty of immigrants, like Carnegie and Pullitzer, made it big. So let me get this strait: the South should have the right to secede, but the thousands of people you want to disenfranchise don't have the right to secede. These definitions you have of a firm grasp of politics and economics are dangerous, because they can easily be twisted to fit the needs of whoever is running gone government. Can you define what a firm grasp is in both of these cases? In my mind, every citizen of age should vote, or no one should and we should be an absolute monarchy, because being well educated does not mean that you will use your power for the good of your country. Look at Robespierre, or Lucius Sejanus, both of whom were very smart and very evil. Finally, give me any law, and precedent set for a President being illegitimate because certain states didn't vote for him. I do actually agree that the President cannot represent the minority who didn't vote for them, and thus the head of state shouldn't be elected, but that is no excuse for rebellion.

You really think Trump supporters are going to know that?

Quiet, fellow Aryan national comrade Sophie! We must not blow our cover, or the inevitable triumph of the Volk will face yet another setback!

Okay, I will admit that Trump has never said anything to that effect, however his supporters are unambiguously to at least some extent afraid of Middle Easterners. Trump is quite clearly exploiting this, I don't know if he's racist himself.

It would be, quite simply, a humanitarian nightmare to deport so many people. I am in favor of deporting any first generation illegal immigrants without children born in the States. The rest would then integrate themselves. As for Muslims, firstly it is pretty heavily tied to Arabs, Persians, and Turks, and since only one of those 3 makes up a large portion of the refugees, we can assume that there is at least some amount of racism. Secondly, an ideological disagreement is not an excuse to not help someone, unless they are, say, a Nazi. You could say that it is to prevent terrorism, which would be valid, but the idea that the morality of Islam as a whole is even relevant to whether or not we should help the refugees is absurd. I am also under no illusions that Europeans can be xenophobic fucks as well (I live in a country currently run by one of those xenophobic fucks) but that is no excuse for America to do the same.@Yojinbo, I despise Clinton and consider her a sell out and definitely worse than Sanders, but she is better than Trump. Trump is one side of everything I hate about democracy, Climton is the other. After some careful self examination, I have decided that the side where a screaming mob of ignorant fools think they have the right to do whatever they want because "the people will it" is worse than the side where politicians are just tools for corporations and ultimately little better than common whores. The worst the latter has given us is probably modern day America, while the worst the latter has given us are such gems as the Reign of Terror, the Islamic Republic of Iran, and the Confederacy. I feel unclean voting for Clinton, but I would feel moreso in not voting for someone other than Trump or Cruz.

No matter what you did, any God who would punish you by hurting innocents is worse. The first few days are always the hardest. Just do what normally makes you happy.

I'm inclined to agree generally about Grant, but Vicksburg was huge. It bisected the Confederacy, which basically meant it lost everything west of the Missisipi. It was every bit as decisive as Gettysburg. As for Gettysburg, is Stonewall Jackson had been alive he might even have told Lee to not be a dumbass and keep doing what he was doing. If Lee had held out for one more year, Lincoln would almost certainly have lost the election and whoever replaced him would have recognized the CSA. Instead, he risked everything on a gamble he didn't need to make and lost badly. If he hadn't lost so many men, he had a chance at beating Grant in a war of attrition. You can blame the defeat at Gettysburg on Pickett, but the mistake of fighting a battle that shouldn't have been fought was all on Lee, and that's why I find him so overrated as a general. Sherman was better, Von Moltke was better, Radetzky was better, Caxais was better, and Garibaldi was better. I won't deny that Lee was a great general on the defensive, but strategically speaking he had one job and he fucked it up.Alright, let's go into your Confederate apologism. First, if only there was some way for states that didn't vote for the President to be represented. That sure would be great, wouldn't it? Man, I wish that there would be something that would act as a representative body for all the states to affect the federal government. What would be even better would be if there was a separate body where states would be represented equally regardless of population, so that the bigger states wouldn't just dominate politically. Man, it sure would be great if such a body existed! It's just a shame it doesn't. All joking aside, you act like the North was some massive, monolithic body dedicated to oppressing those virtuous southerners. That simply wasn't true. It was a massive chore for Lincoln to simply ban slavery in 1865, and that was for something objectively terrible! Good luck getting the unity of purpose to do anything that would infringe on the actual rights of the people of the south. Hell, pretty much as soon as Lincoln died the North basically let the South run away with the rights of blacks, so there you go. Of course Lincoln was a hypocrite, he was a politician. This is not about the morality of Lincoln this was about the morality of succession, and whatever the North was trying to do, violent rebellion without Congress even having passed a single act that was against the South was not only traitorous, it set a dangerous precedent. But no, rebels against the lawful government (lawful is a stretch, given that the lawful head of state of America was Queen Victoria, but that's a whole different thread) fired against a fort on the territory of said government. Seems pretty clear cut. Lastly, and this is where you lose all credibility, any attempt to draw a moral link between slavery and the treatment of immigrants is insulting to slaves, ridiculous, and academically dishonest at the same time. Were immigrants legally property? Could they be bought and sold? Separated from their families at the whims of their masters? Living in fear that maybe the master fancies their wife or daughter, and can rape them at any time, as happened quite often? Living with the knowledge that they would never, no matter how hard they worked, no matter how brilliant they were, be able to be anything other than a nigger who picks cotton? Jesus Christ. This is like those Japan apologists who say that Hiroshima and Nagasaki were somehow as bad as human experimentation. I have no words.

Grant does deserve a lot of credit for his doggedness, but as Sherman demonstrated there were less bloody ways he could have gone about breaking the CSA.