View Full Version : Court Rules Trump Can Withhold Funds From NYC & 7 States In Sanctuary Cities Fight!
Vacuum7
Feb 26, 2020, 12:17 PM
The 2nd Court Of Appeals REVERSED a lower courts decision on the withholding of Federal funding to New York City and seven states in another victory for President Trump. This is a fight over immigration enforcement and the capacity for some of these large "progressive" municipalities to become "CITY STATES" and wield the power to make laws counter to Federal Laws or IGNORE Federal Laws altogether. Whether or not you agree with Trump, it stands to reason that none of these cities should operate OUTSIDE of Federal JURISPRUDENCE: When you allow this to happen, you end up with the creation of little "CZARS" like NYC Mayor Di Blasio and former Chicago Mayor Rahm Emanuel who think they are above the law. This is a BOMBSHELL RULING FOR PRESIDENT TRUMP. further solidify his rule and the rule of the people over those forces that have conspired against him for so long.
Wondergirl
Feb 26, 2020, 12:58 PM
But when the federal laws are stupid and senseless....
Vacuum7
Feb 26, 2020, 02:19 PM
W.G.: I don't even feel its about the immigration matter portion of it as much as it is about the fact that these large cities have the temerity to flagrantly go against Federal Laws: At some point these SELFAPPOINTED KINGS (mayors) think they are bigger than the Federal Government and think that nobody can tell them what to do....you know that has to stop. Di Blasio, for instance, has shown himself to be a raving lunatic that the Police Union cannot stand because he has purposely and without fail promoted the interests of criminals and their rights over the safety of the city's LEOs and still thinks he knows best: Thank goodness he tried to run for President so everyone could see what a fraud he is really.
Wondergirl
Feb 26, 2020, 02:33 PM
W.G.: I don't even feel its about the immigration matter portion of it as much as it is about the fact that these large cities have the temerity to flagrantly go against Federal Laws
Sorta like the current president sticking his nose in the business of the Supreme Court and telling two of the justices to sit out cases involving him or his administration?
At some point these SELFAPPOINTED KINGS (mayors) think they are bigger than the Federal Government and think that nobody can tell them what to do....you know that has to stop.
At some point he thinks he is bigger than the other two branches of the federal government and thinks that nobody can tell him what to do....you know that has to stop.
paraclete
Feb 26, 2020, 06:46 PM
A President is elected to rule, to enforce the laws, that appears to be forgotten
Vacuum7
Feb 26, 2020, 06:55 PM
W.G.: But Di Blasio has NO BUSINESS telling anyone what to do: His policies got LEOs killed and he is an astounding air-head, as seen on the debate stage.
Look, I know you don't like our President, and I don't like some of the stuff he does, either, but what we are talking about here transcends that debate: This is about the nature of Federal Laws and the will power of the Federal Government to enforce those laws and not permit rogue cities within the borders of the U.S. to nearly declare themselves "independent" nations while still nursing the tits of the Federal Government. This large cities still suckle the Federal Government and ask for handouts but they are willing to follow the laws laid out by the Federal Government: This behavior cannot be tolerated. Trump, in this case, but I could care less WHO the President is, is telling them that ENOUGH IS ENOUGH, that they have to get back into line if they expect to get fed. I think its the right thing to do to crush this "REBELLION" before radical ideologue mayors try something like "breaking away" from the U.S.
talaniman
Feb 26, 2020, 07:01 PM
Not rule, co govern is a more apt description Clete as ascribed in the Constitution. This dufus is a bully that surrounds himself with sycophants and loyalists and is as lawless as it comes so he destroys the processes and norms of good behavior which why should we listen and succumb to such an arse, who corrupts and subverts the very rule of law he is charged to uphold and defend with his authoritarian actions. I have listened to the 2nd amendment crowd holler about defending the country against tyranny and I will be dog gone if the fools didn't up and elect a would be tyrant!
W.G.: But Di Blasio has NO BUSINESS telling anyone what to do: His policies got LEOs killed and he is an astounding air-head, as seen on the debate stage.
Look, I know you don't like our President, and I don't like some of the stuff he does, either, but what we are talking about here transcends that debate: This is about the nature of Federal Laws and the will power of the Federal Government to enforce those laws and not permit rogue cities within the borders of the U.S. to nearly declare themselves "independent" nations while still nursing the tits of the Federal Government. This large cities still suckle the Federal Government and ask for handouts but they are willing to follow the laws laid out by the Federal Government: This behavior cannot be tolerated. Trump, in this case, but I could care less WHO the President is, is telling them that ENOUGH IS ENOUGH, that they have to get back into line if they expect to get fed. I think its the right thing to do to crush this "REBELLION" before radical ideologue mayors try something like "breaking away" from the U.S.
If you can tolerate a bully tyrant, then maybe you should tolerate opposition to him, and his tyrant regime. Like liberals are going to abide by that crap! You conservatives got life and BS all screwed up!
paraclete
Feb 26, 2020, 10:38 PM
If you can tolerate a bully tyrant, then maybe you should tolerate opposition to him, and his tyrant regime. Like liberals are going to abide by that crap! You conservatives got life and BS all screwed up!
Opposition is one thing, rebellion another, but as the nation was founded in rebellion this is nothing new. When the government enforces the law, opposition becomes rebellion in the name of tyranny
Vacuum7
Feb 27, 2020, 04:01 AM
Trump is simply enforcing Federal Law: Federal Law is entirely unbiased as to parties and it is secular. SURELY, YOU CAN UPHOLD FEDERAL LAW? If not, why not? Its not Trump's law: Executive Branch does not make laws! Courts are only there to INTERPRET laws.
You want the U.S. to become a nation of "KINGDOMS", ruled by WARLORDS, like Di Blasio? That's where this is headed: We would end up like old Italy once was with a bunch of "City States". Trump, in this case, is simply bringing back some sanity to the situation as he will force these little despots (mayors) to heed the will of the land: These cities, no matter how large they are or how many people tell them that their sh&t don't stink, MUST ABIDE BY THE LAWS OF THE LAND!
jlisenbe
Feb 27, 2020, 04:41 AM
Vac, it's what we've been seeing all along here. Some don't like Trump and it clouds their views of his actions. It would seem to be the most obvious thing in the world that if you want to take fed money, then you ought to obey fed law. I think the fed is way too large and powerful and is assuming powers that are reserved for the states, but it is what it is, and so until we can get that changed, everyone needs to follow the law.
talaniman
Feb 27, 2020, 05:03 AM
How about we follow the law the same way the dufus does? FAIR?
Vacuum7
Feb 27, 2020, 08:42 AM
Talaniman: These little mayors "think" that THEY are the President! They need to be brought back down to earth and follow the Federal Laws that, by definition, force them to stop BREAKING FEDERAL LAWS and abide by Federal mandates. As much as California and their larger cities think that they are an independent nation, fact is that California and New York are still part of the United States Of America and they must act accordingly OR President Trump is well within his rights to stop the Federal handouts! You know where I stand with immigrants who come here because they are fleeing hardships and seek employment but there are legal routes to doing this the right way: These SANCTUARY CITIES are a bunch of crap and they need a strong dose of reality!
talaniman
Feb 27, 2020, 11:25 AM
It's a good fight brewing, but for now this fight moves to the back burner, and those warring factions face the test of can they get together and handle this coronavirus deal, and the economic fall out of it. Everything else seems kind of small compared to a real crisis. That seems to have taken control of everybodies attention rather suddenly.
paraclete
Feb 27, 2020, 03:16 PM
The sanctuary cities will become epicentres when the coronavirus hits and the "immigrants" have another reason to flee their countries. Borders are closing and it will take a mammoth effort to contain population movement
tomder55
Feb 27, 2020, 03:56 PM
keep in mind this is the 2nd circus court . If they are ruling in favor of the President exercising his constitional authority then you know they could not find a pretext to deny it .
Vacuum7
Feb 27, 2020, 03:59 PM
Paraclete: I believe you may be correct.
Talaniman: The Trump tariffs on China were very, very opportune: These tariffs began forcing American Manufacturers to begin looking and developing OTHER SOURCES for manufactures and materials and parts outside of RED CHINA...this will become a more profound movement in the future for us and others around the world...the U.S. Manufactures may even begin to pull more manufacturing base back to the U.S. itself....the net effect of this will be the weakening of the ChiCom economy and the strengthening of ours, long term: A GREAT THING!
jlisenbe
Feb 27, 2020, 04:53 PM
keep in mind this is the 2nd circus court . If they are ruling in favor of the President exercising his constitional authority then you know they could not find a pretext to deny it .Very good post.
Vac, that's a good point as well. We had to do something. China has enough advantages without allowing their govt subsidies to give them even more.
Vacuum7
Feb 27, 2020, 05:33 PM
jlisenbe: I know this is akin t blasphemy for the left but: I would not be surprised is the ChiComs put this virus out there to try and derail the economy so keep Trump from being elected.....REMEMBER THIS ABOUT THE CHICOMS: They are atheistic communist who HAVE NO MORAL COMPASS WHATSOEVER!
Wondergirl
Feb 27, 2020, 05:52 PM
jlisenbe: I know this is akin t blasphemy for the left but: I would not be surprised is the ChiComs put this virus out there to try and derail the economy so keep Trump from being elected.....REMEMBER THIS ABOUT THE CHICOMS: They are atheistic communist who HAVE NO MORAL COMPASS WHATSOEVER!
Ah, another InfoWars reader!!!
You didn't hear about the bat?
Vacuum7
Feb 27, 2020, 06:46 PM
W.G.: I don't read InfoWars…..not Right Wing....I heard about cobras and bats.....But let's face it: ChiComs are Godless communists and that is a fact....they have no moral compass, which is another fact: With ChiComs, you can't make a smiley face with ChiComs, just the same analogy as the fact that you cannot make a silk purse out of a hog's ear....Trying to NORMALIZE RED CHINA is like putting lipstick on a pig: You can do it but its still a pig!
jlisenbe
Feb 27, 2020, 06:55 PM
Vac, you just have to understand that there are those who despise Trump and will have their lips hanging out about anything and everything good that might be ascribed to him.
Wondergirl
Feb 27, 2020, 06:57 PM
W.G.: I don't read InfoWars…..not Right Wing....I heard about cobras and bats.....But let's face it: ChiComs are Godless communists and that is a fact....they have no moral compass, which is another fact: With ChiComs, you can't make a smiley face with ChiComs, just the same analogy as the fact that you cannot make a silk purse out of a hog's ear....Trying to NORMALIZE RED CHINA is like putting lipstick on a pig: You can do it but its still a pig!
You are incorrect. I have known, am friends with, and have worked with many Asian-Americans, especially those whose families are from China and Korea. They are very intelligent, very friendly, and very hardworking. Please stop disrespecting them.
paraclete
Feb 27, 2020, 07:05 PM
You are incorrect. I have known, am friends with, and have worked with many Asian-Americans, especially those whose families are from China and Korea. They are very intelligent, very friendly, and very hardworking. Please stop disrespecting them.
It is doubtful that vac has ever been to China or have first hand experience of their society.
jlisenbe
Feb 27, 2020, 07:22 PM
He is not talking about all Chinese. He is speaking of the Chinese communist core.
Wondergirl
Feb 27, 2020, 08:04 PM
He is not talking about all Chinese. He is speaking of the Chinese communist core.
And he should stop disrespecting them.
jlisenbe
Feb 27, 2020, 08:07 PM
He should stop disrespecting the Chinese communists???
Wondergirl
Feb 27, 2020, 08:23 PM
He should stop disrespecting the Chinese communists???
What did Jesus say?
paraclete
Feb 27, 2020, 08:31 PM
He should stop disrespecting the Chinese communists???
Not everyone is bad, The Chinese government has enabled development and millions have come out of poverty. Ok they over stimulated their economy but they have made remarkable progress. They have bad attitudes towards various religions and minorities and this needs to change, you cannot see them through the prism of 50 years ago. They oppose any nation that seeks to dominate China or in their eyes threatens China, but isn't that what your own nation does?
Wondergirl
Feb 27, 2020, 08:44 PM
Yes, 'Clete. I especially like the sentence that says [people in the US] "have bad attitudes towards various religions and minorities."
jlisenbe
Feb 27, 2020, 08:58 PM
What did Jesus say?He said we are to love our neighbor as ourselves. He did not say we should be delusional and profess to have great respect for a communist regime that has murdered innocent people by the thousands. If you think it's so wonderful, try going over there and speaking your mind. Try going to China and see if you can pass out Bibles on the street corner. It is still the government of forced abortions for women who become pregnant past the government approved quotient.
https://www.pop.org/forced-abortion-still-mandated-chinas-planned-birth-laws/
https://www.npr.org/2016/02/01/465124337/how-chinas-one-child-policy-led-to-forced-abortions-30-million-bachelors
And you really suggest we should respect that government, and try to suggest Jesus would approve of that? That is incredible.
Wondergirl
Feb 27, 2020, 09:15 PM
He said we are to love our neighbor as ourselves. He did not say we should be delusional and profess to have great respect for a communist regime that has murdered innocent people by the thousands. If you think it's so wonderful, try going over there and speaking your mind. Try going to China and see if you can pass out Bibles on the street corner. It is still the government of forced abortions for women who become pregnant past the government approved quotient.
https://www.pop.org/forced-abortion-still-mandated-chinas-planned-birth-laws/
https://www.npr.org/2016/02/01/465124337/how-chinas-one-child-policy-led-to-forced-abortions-30-million-bachelors
And you really suggest we should respect that government, and try to suggest Jesus would approve of that? That is incredible.
In Matthew 5 (Sermon on the Mount), Jesus said, "You have heard that it was said, ‘Love your neighbor’ and ‘hate your enemy' but I say love your enemies and pray for those who persecute you, that you may be sons of your Father in heaven."
paraclete
Feb 27, 2020, 10:57 PM
Not a message anyone wants to hear these days
Vacuum7
Feb 28, 2020, 04:09 AM
W.G.: I am really amazed by the left's dichotomy of what constitutes good and bad, acceptable and nonacceptable, and evil and nonevil. So, you don't remember history at all when it comes to RED CHINA: You don't remember that RED CHINA attacked U.S. Forces in Korea or that RED CHINA supplied equipment and advisors to North Vietnam to help kill U.S. troops there or that RED CHINA CONTINUES TO SUPPLY WEAPONS TO THE ENEMIES OF THE U.S. RIGHT TODAY! You have classic selective memory. And don't try to turn this into a racial thing: I specifically state "COMMUNIST CHINESE", not Chinese in general....and please don't throw Koreans in the mix: I have close working relationships with Koreans and Koreans are not Chinese, W.G.: just because they are Oriental doesn't make them all Chinese! Who is being XENOFOBIC, me or YOU? I find it odd that your memory doesn't allow you to remember Mao's murdering of 30-40 million Chinese. And you want me and others to RESPECT the ChiComs? Not in this lifetime I will not. Why don't YOU respect Nazi Germany? There are many Christian and hardworking Germans, too, like Chinese, as you say. Why not RESPECT Islamic radicals, while we are at it? Why not RESPECT the KKK and Skinheads?
Your problem, and the problem of the left, is that you don't realize that we are in a WAR with RED CHINA: we are only a match away from an inferno with a Godless communist state. Meanwhile, you think it is just fine to condemn RUSSIA....you and the left think it is "IN FASHION" to hate RUSSIA, but RED CHINA gets a pass....Hhhmmm, I see: RED CHINA "GOOD", RUSSIA "BAD"...that makes all the sense in the world.
talaniman
Feb 28, 2020, 04:42 AM
Just as you mean the Chinese government, so do we mean the Russian government, as I think we all seperate the people from the politics. Hope they do the same. Proxy wars rage on, and those battlegrounds are just as devastating to those involved as a major war. So do we really have to play this word game of left and right when it's governments fueling these wars? Still it represents breakdowns of relationships around the world and that can't be good.
To be fair Vac, the left is totally bewildered by the dufus catering to Vlad, and blasting his own people, because we see Vlad as a thug criminal that suppresses his own people, as much as your ChiComs do, maybe worse when you figure what he does to political foes and defectors.
jlisenbe
Feb 28, 2020, 05:19 AM
In Matthew 5 (Sermon on the Mount), Jesus said, "You have heard that it was said, ‘Love your neighbor’ and ‘hate your enemy' but I say love your enemies and pray for those who persecute you, that you may be sons of your Father in heaven."
Jesus is speaking of what we are to do on a personal level, but even then He said nothing about respecting a murderous, tyrannical government. In fact He said nothing about respect at all. If you want to urge us to love and pray for them, then that's a great thing, but to respect?
It's really fascinating that forced abortions have no impact on you. Wonder why?
Vacuum7
Feb 28, 2020, 06:02 AM
Talaniman: Somewhere along the way, we lost our way, the American Way: I think this crap started after WWII with regard to the PROXY WARS you speak about here...these PROXY WARS are nothing short of terrorism and it really doesn't matter WHO is in support of them. When you think about it, the Proxy Wars are quite cowardly and slimy: A nation trying to impose its national will upon another nation but trying to use other people to produce that outcome and keep blood off its hands in terms of using its own troops: WHAT A DASTARDLY CONCEPT! I also blame the initial foray of the Proxy Wars on the Germans (is there anything they haven't initiated?!!) when they started these types of wars in the regions of Africa and the M.E. held by Britain and France as a means of forcing those countries to commit troops and reduce strength in Europe. The U.S. should remove itself from entering into any Proxy Wars: I don't think its a good way of doing business. As for your beloved "Dufus" and Russia: Maybe he is not handling this attempt at a "relationship" exactly right but the relationship we have with Russia is a dysfunctional one that needs to be restructured and reexamined: There is no way we should keep up the COLD WAR with Russia...this should change.
Jlisenbe: I agree: I RESPECT rattlesnakes for their poison but that doesn't mean I like them and I certainly don't love them!
jlisenbe
Feb 28, 2020, 06:13 AM
I think we have a different understanding of what "respect" means.
What do you mean by "proxy wars"? Please give an example.
Vacuum7
Feb 28, 2020, 09:07 AM
jlisenbe: Respect can mean "to be cognizant of" or, even, "to be wary of" or it can also mean "regards"....it can also connote a certain level of "decorum".
Proxy Wars is where you use another nations troops (or any description of "fighters") to further the national interest of your nation....you supply equipment and support for the other nations fighters but you, yourself, do not directly enter into combat: Its warfare conducted through somebody else.
jlisenbe
Feb 28, 2020, 11:53 AM
Can you please give an example of a U.S. proxy war.
Vacuum7
Feb 28, 2020, 12:37 PM
jlisenbe: Yes, a good example of a Proxy War is where we opposed a perceived Russian expansionism effort in the M.E. and, instead of directly confronting Russian funded adversaries with our own troops, we elected, at John McCain's and others urging, to fund radical Islamic "Moderate" Rebels instead as our PROXY combatants to resist Russian efforts in Syria aimed at preserving Assad. That is one example.
jlisenbe
Feb 28, 2020, 12:46 PM
Ok. Got it.
talaniman
Feb 28, 2020, 05:02 PM
Once tyrants and dictators gain power, it's hard to get rid of them, yet there are many furilla and rebels out there still fighting them so yeah helping them as you can is okay, but with caution as our own weapons we supply can be used against us and have. One thing we must remember is we also had help gaining our own independence.
paraclete
Feb 28, 2020, 07:09 PM
Yes the french were opportunistic
talaniman
Feb 29, 2020, 06:12 AM
Breaking the rule of the hated British was a must way back then. You know destroy the competition, as they were growing colonies all over the place too, from Canada to the Caribbean.
paraclete
Mar 1, 2020, 02:54 PM
Yes the British were far more successful than the French but no doubt they sowed the seeds of rebellion
talaniman
Mar 1, 2020, 03:43 PM
The French did okay with Canada, of course Canada still bends the knee to the Queen, so not a total loss..
paraclete
Mar 1, 2020, 06:11 PM
The French never were colonists, just opportunists
jlisenbe
Mar 1, 2020, 07:46 PM
The French never were colonists,You must mean something other than what you posted. It would be true only if you don't count: (Sorry for the length. Only way it would list them.)
Albreda
Anguilla
Annam
Antigua and Barbuda
Cambodia
Chandernagore
Cochinchina
Colonial Mauritania
Colony of Niger
Dahomey
Dominica
France Antarctique
France Equinoxiale
French Algeria
French Cameroons
French Chad
French Comoros
French concessions in Shanghai
French Congo
French Guiana
French Guinea
French Madagascar
French Mandate for Syria and Lebanon
French protectorate in Morocco
French protectorate of Tunisia
French Seychelles
French Somaliland
French Sudan
French Togoland
French Upper Volta
Gabon
Grenada
Haiti
Ile-Royale
Iles Malouines
Isle de France
Ivory Coast
Karikal
Kwang Chou Wan
Laos
Mahe
Malagasy Protectorate
Montserrat
Nevis
New France
New Hebrides
Newfoundland
Niger
Oubangui-Chari
Pondicherry
Saint Bathelemy
Saint Christophe
Saint Croix
Saint Vincent and the Grenadines
Saint-Domingue
Saint-Dominigue
Sainte-Lucia
Sint Eustatius
Tobago
Tonkin
Upper Senegal and Niger
Vietnam
Yanaon
https://www.worldatlas.com/articles/former-french-colonies.html
paraclete
Mar 1, 2020, 09:14 PM
and very few retain the allegiances today, the French were occupiers and independence was won with bitter conflicts. The British however, were more pragmatic and with the exception of the US did not need to be persuaded with widespread violence that hands off local government was a good idea
talaniman
Mar 2, 2020, 03:36 AM
Or they left because they saw those bloody conflicts coming and sought to save their own arses.
paraclete
Mar 2, 2020, 04:14 AM
a long french tradition
talaniman
Mar 2, 2020, 07:47 AM
They aren't extinct so it must be working on some level even if they cannot just dominate.
tomder55
Mar 2, 2020, 08:26 AM
The British however, were more pragmatic and with the exception of the US did not need to be persuaded with widespread violence that hands off local government was a good idea
yes there was a peaceful transition from British colonizing India right ? How about Ireland ? Another peaceful transition . How about Egypt ? Israel ? Cyprus ? The Zulus ? Boers ?
jlisenbe
Mar 2, 2020, 09:32 AM
yes there was a peaceful transition from British colonizing India right ? How about Ireland ? Another peaceful transition . How about Egypt ? Israel ? Cyprus ? The Zulus ? Boers ?Well, other than all of those many and major exceptions, it was very peaceful.
tomder55
Mar 2, 2020, 09:48 AM
Well, other than all of those many and major exceptions, it was very peaceful. yes I did not get into some of the minor ones like Pontiac's rebellion against the Brits or the failed Aussie rebellions of the Eureka's, or the successful 1808 Rum rebellion that ousted Captain Bligh (the second mutiny he was involved in)
Vacuum7
Mar 2, 2020, 11:45 AM
Come on gentlemen: ALL COUNTRIES WISH THEY WERE COLONIZED BY BRITAIN! Go through your lists and evaluate all the countries colonized versus those colonized by Great Britain based upon:
1) Standard of living
2) Rate of growth
3) Allies to the U.S.
4) Continuity of governments
5) Dictatorships
6) Democracies
7) Level of education
Certainly, there are exceptions but then take into consideration those nations that held onto the English language: They are heads and shoulders above all others!
Not even the "WORLD'S SMARTEST PEOPLE" (i.e. Germans, if you don't believe them, ask them!) can contest the British colonies on terms of how the people in those lands fared AFTER the Brits left.
Imagine if the BRITISH had discover Central and South America? Those countries, undoubtedly every one of them, would have been far, far further along than they are right now in every aspect of development. If that one is hard for you to imagine, try this one: Imagine if Australia was colonized by the SPANISH? Well, right away, there would be no Aboriginal People left, they would have killed most of them and bred the others to small portions of bloodline.
You want to say Greece or Rome or, even, Iraq was the "Cradle Of Civilization"....O.K.: Let me tell you, BRITAIN WASN'T FAR BEHIND! You can credit it to luck, planning, or God's divine intervention but the facts are facts!
The English language is the language of Civilization and Civility the world over! No nation speaking the English language has ever produced any dictators....never produced any Gas Chambers...never produced any Holocaust....and we won't even get into the literary contribution of the English language....or The Magna Carta...or The United States Constitution.
Are we Blessed to be speaking English? Uhhh, Yeah!
tomder55
Mar 2, 2020, 12:03 PM
I don't dispute that . I think anglo countries would be well served to have economic and military ties . That doesn't change the fact that the Brits held onto their empire long after their ability to do so. This was especially true in India where the cost of India nationalism cost millions of lives years before their final independence . And that was before the partition . Just check out the Bengal famine the Brits engineered in 1943 .
Vacuum7
Mar 2, 2020, 01:18 PM
tomder55: The British weren't the Germans....If India was a German colony, they would have held on until someone came and SAVED the Indians. What I am getting at is that the Brits could have held-ion much longer than they did: The "holding on" capacity is really a measure of how determined and how far the "holder" is willing to go toward retaining the "holdee".....when you apply this the Britain-India relationship, the Brits look to be fairly generous.
The British were also masters at using opposing sides in a country as a leveraging tool to retain their holdings...they did so in India with Muslims Vs. Hindus and also in Canada when they imported Labrador Indians to Newfoundland to exterminate native Newfoundland Indians and when they had finished off the native Indians, they deported the Labrador Indians back off Newfoundland.
tomder55
Mar 2, 2020, 02:09 PM
Except that the Bengal famine of 1943 was a direct result of Churchill's policies . It was not a natural famine .There was plenty of food . Churchill plundered the food to feed British troops . It was an intentional genocide as bad as Stalin ever did to Ukraine. 10 million Indians died from the policy . The problem is that we are not taught these things .WE are taught about Gandhi's non-violent protests . The truth is that his was just one movement . The rest were quite violent .
Vacuum7
Mar 2, 2020, 03:16 PM
tomder55: I must plead ignorance about the Bengal Famine and certainly would not have thought it to be manmade by the Brits....Now, Churchill, he is another of history's complicated characters, and not entirely clean: When he was Minister Of War in WWI, he purposely made false statements about the Lusitania being loaded with weapons and war materials knowing that there were American citizens aboard and knowing that the Germans would clue their U-Boats in on the information to sink the ship...his whole purpose was to drag the U.S. into "The Great War"...and, it worked.
talaniman
Mar 2, 2020, 04:14 PM
Conquerors conquer for their own glory, and any excuse will do, because they can. This excuse of how benevolent they are is just that an excuse. Fact is ruthless domination for profit or gain is the bottom line. Dress it up all you want but the nature of man always comes out for good or bad.
tomder55
Mar 2, 2020, 04:39 PM
.Now, Churchill, he is another of history's complicated characters, and not entirely clean: When he was Minister Of War in WWI, he purposely made false statements about the Lusitania being loaded with weapons and war materials knowing that there were American citizens aboard and knowing that the Germans would clue their U-Boats in on the information to sink the ship...his whole purpose was to drag the U.S. into "The Great War"...and, it worked. yes I admire hm as Brits leader of UK WWII .He was the right man at the right place at the right time . But the rest of his history is far less admirable .The famine was real and engineered by Churchill . The harvest was above average and could've easily fed the population .Instead he diverted the harvest to use in the Middle East where it was not needed for the war effort. He blamed the Indians for the famine saying they breed like rabbits .
Vacuum7
Mar 2, 2020, 06:38 PM
tomder55 and Talaniman: I think it is safe to say that the "GREAT MEN" of history, with the exception of Jesus Christ, were all paradoxs of virtue, effectively living, walking contradictions of who we think they are or, even, the characters that our history books have portrayed them to be all this time. Churchill was an example...Kennedy is another: A heroic figure that had trouble keeping his britches pulled up....Franco, whom we were taught was an evil dictator, was a dictator BUT also a man who kept Spain free of communist tyranny....Nixon is shown to be "a crook" in history but he got the U.S. out of Vietnam....there are many more examples like this but the evidence shows none of these "Great Men" were entirely with a darker side.
tomder55
Mar 2, 2020, 07:03 PM
yes . FDR had internment camps that Congress approved of and SCOTUS validated .Both Lincoln and Woodrow Wilson violated habeus corpus and threw opponents in jail .
paraclete
Mar 2, 2020, 07:09 PM
The "Great Men" are all despots, consumed by purpose and not caring about suffering. They would all lose whole populations if it suited their purpose. Churchill was only great because he rallied a nation, Lincoln only freed the slaves for political advantage, Stalin killed millions, FDR would let Europe rot but for pearl harbour. History is full of these "Great men", despots all
Vacuum7
Mar 2, 2020, 07:17 PM
tomder55: However, WE NEED HEROES! Everyone does in this world! I am not for tearing down every single person in history just to show evenhandedness or "because its truth"....My Daddy, the GREATEST MAN I have ever known, had proclivities but they matter not to me, he was still great and will always be great TO ME!
Looking at historical figures through the prism of today's lenses is ALWAYS going to be a risk...and it is entirely unfair, to tell you the truth.
Paraclete: I will defend Lincoln: He freed the Slaves, true, but as a byproduct of saving the nation: The United States would have never been the United States had Lincoln not sought to bring the Southern State back into the Union....If the Union/North had not won the Civil War, the United States wouldn't have existed and certainly would not have been as great a force for good as it has become through history since that time.
jlisenbe
Mar 2, 2020, 07:45 PM
I think you guys are confusing powerful men with great men. Churchill, FDR, and Lincoln could probably be referred to as "great". Stalin? Nope. Powerful, but not great.
tomder55
Mar 2, 2020, 08:05 PM
Lincoln only freed the slaves for political advantage, That is just not true . The whole purpose of the Republican party origins was to advance emancipation . He was personally morally opposed to slavery . But as the chief law enforcer of the land he had the enforce the constitution . So he could not do it immediately upon inauguration . He could not declare them free . The Emancipation Proclamation was of questionable constitutionality . He took advantage of war powers to declare slaves in rebellious states free . That only became a permanent state when the constitution was changed with the 13th amendment . Presidents do not unilaterally make law .
jlisenbe
Mar 2, 2020, 08:16 PM
Lincoln and others proposed a Constitutional amendment that would have perpetually established slavery in the states which then had it but would not have allowed it in new states. They did this in the hopes of avoiding secession. Lincoln was on record that he would abide slavery in order to preserve the union.
paraclete
Mar 2, 2020, 08:46 PM
as I said a despot
jlisenbe
Mar 2, 2020, 09:08 PM
A despot would have imposed his will. Lincoln, not being a despot, could not do that.
Vacuum7
Mar 3, 2020, 04:02 AM
The true answer to the age old question: Why was the Civil War fought? It wasn't fought to free slave, it was fought to reunify the Southern States back into the Union. Today's history books teach "revisionist history" and its a damned shame.
talaniman
Mar 3, 2020, 07:29 AM
The civil war was fought over slave policy and what new states would be able to do about slavery. It was open to negotiation until the south attacked a union fort.
tomder55
Mar 3, 2020, 08:06 AM
it all went back to slavery . Why did the southern states secede ? Because Lincoln and the Republicans supported abolition is one reason . The bigger reason was that the Dredd Scott decision broke the Missouri compromise . Instead of having a hard border for free and slave stated now every new state being admitted could be contested . That is why the Kansas territory was so violently contested .
Vacuum7
Mar 3, 2020, 08:46 AM
Talaniman & tomder55: O.K., the "distilled" reason for the Civil War would be Slavery, that's the "root cause"...I honestly never thought about in those terms but that is WHY the Southern States broke away...I was wrong!....and the North wouldn't let that status of separate Southern States stand: I have always attributed the War to that, breakaway Southern States, as being the solitary reason for the execution of War. Above all of these reasons, it comes down to control and unification, I don't believe there was a "NOBLE" reason of freeing Slaves as much as it was that the Southern States could govern themselves and enforce their own rules and have their own privileges, having Slaves being nestled amongst those rights...the Union was determined to enforce administer equal laws and rights to all states.
jlisenbe
Mar 3, 2020, 08:59 AM
Lincoln would have tolerated slavery in the existing southern states if that would have held the Union together.
Vacuum7
Mar 3, 2020, 01:21 PM
jlisenbe: You said it much better than I did: crisply and to the point!
tomder55
Mar 3, 2020, 02:36 PM
yes there was a lot of tolerating slavery between 1782 and 1861 . The framers wrote in a grace period that would last until after they were gone because they knew that intolerable institution was enough to break apart the nation.
In exchange for a 20 year ban on any restrictions on the slave trade, southern delegates agreed to remove a clause restricting the national government's power to enact laws requiring goods to be shipped on American vessels (benefiting northeastern shipbuilders and sailors). The same day this agreement was reached, the convention also adopted the fugitive slave clause, requiring the return of runaway slaves to their owners. Abolitionist William Lloyd Garrison claimed the constitution was "a covenant with death and an agreement with Hell"? If the Constitution temporarily strengthened slavery, it also created a central government powerful enough to eventually abolish the institution.
As far as the state's "power " to secede ;I think Grant summed it up best in his memoirs(the absolute best history of the war) . This chapter of the best summation of the civil war by itself is worth the price of the purchase .
http://www.historyofwar.org/sources/acw/grant/chapter16d.html
Doubtless the founders of our government, the majority of them at least, regarded the confederation of the colonies as an experiment. Each colony considered itself a separate government; that the confederation was for mutual protection against a foreign foe, and the prevention of strife and war among themselves. If there had been a desire on the part of any single State to withdraw from the compact at any time while the number of States was limited to the original thirteen, I do not suppose there would have been any to contest the right, no matter how much the determination might have been regretted. The problem changed on the ratification of the Constitution by all the colonies; it changed still more when amendments were added; and if the right of any one State to withdraw continued to exist at all after the ratification of the Constitution, it certainly ceased on the formation of new States, at least so far as the new States themselves were concerned. It was never possessed at all by Florida or the States west of the Mississippi, all of which were purchased by the treasury of the entire nation. Texas and the territory brought into the Union in consequence of annexation, were purchased with both blood and treasure; and Texas, with a domain greater than that of any European state except Russia, was permitted to retain as state property all the public lands within its borders. It would have been ingratitude and injustice of the most flagrant sort for this State to withdraw from the Union after all that had been spent and done to introduce her; yet, if separation had actually occurred, Texas must necessarily have gone with the South, both on account of her institutions and her geographical position. Secession was illogical as well as impracticable; it was revolution.Now, the right of revolution is an inherent one. When people are oppressed by their government, it is a natural right they enjoy to relieve themselves of the oppression, if they are strong enough, either by withdrawal from it, or by overthrowing it and substituting a government more acceptable. But any people or part of a people who resort to this remedy, stake their lives, their property, and every claim for protection given by citizenship—on the issue. Victory, or the conditions imposed by the conqueror—must be the result.
paraclete
Mar 3, 2020, 08:59 PM
Lincoln would have tolerated slavery in the existing southern states if that would have held the Union together.
Lincoln was a racist, he wanted to deport all negros back to Africa, ending slavery was a political convenience
tomder55
Mar 4, 2020, 04:39 AM
no he wasn't. But he did consider what would happen once slavery ended ,and like many in the country ,his views evolved over time . It is very 20-20 hind sight to apply 21st century values to 19th century reality .
Lincoln said during the Civil War that he had always seen slavery as unjust. He said he couldn't remember when he didn't think that way ; and there's no reason to doubt the accuracy or sincerity of that statement.
But he did not know what would happen once the slaves were freed . So one of the options he considered early in his time was to encourage them to colonize Liberia . By the time of the emancipation proclamation he had rejected that idea.
read 'The Fiery Trial: Abraham Lincoln and American Slavery. 'by historian Eric Foner for more on this subject
paraclete
Mar 4, 2020, 05:51 AM
and yet the idea of Liberia went ahead
jlisenbe
Mar 4, 2020, 06:03 AM
When people are oppressed by their government, it is a natural right they enjoy to relieve themselves of the oppression, if they are strong enough, either by withdrawal from it, or by overthrowing it and substituting a government more acceptable. But any people or part of a people who resort to this remedy, stake their lives, their property, and every claim for protection given by citizenship—on the issue. Victory, or the conditions imposed by the conqueror—must be the result.So might makes right?
Vacuum7
Mar 4, 2020, 06:28 AM
jlisenbe: I think, more accurately, WINNERS make RIGHT: Adolf Hitler said that "Victors write the history": If you choose to throw off tyrannical rule by force and win that struggle, consequences are good...if you engage that struggle and lose, the rulers will impose punishment.
tomder55
Mar 4, 2020, 08:29 AM
yes often might does make right so to speak . In this case there was the added benefit that the union was on the morally right side of the conflict .
jlisenbe
Mar 4, 2020, 08:53 AM
I'd put it this way. Might makes winners. Are the winners always morally right? Hardly.
talaniman
Mar 4, 2020, 09:43 AM
and yet the idea of Liberia went ahead
That idea started in the late 1700's, and was another white man solution (https://www.history.com/news/slavery-american-colonization-society-liberia) that was well intentioned by some, but a very agenda driven endeavor by others.
President Abraham Lincoln still believed at this late date (https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__www.abraham-2Dlincoln-2Dhistory.org_colonization_&d=DwMFaQ&c=bHpC9irXhivtSwyVyKc43lLt4-cAwmmH7TeQLPqTb5E&r=DnM91hJ18gcNL3QDGSFbaxqDKqUNYha-dXU1EFEqguU&m=8jGJbUIcBxgH2Opo_zPgP3hUanLEFG06VldWPU2v0BE&s=FHWnuEjo6xIOQiczHLr_9qulwGsN3TtwJSPQ3eZz2bI&e=)
that voluntary colonization should go hand-in-hand with emancipation because he thought black and white people couldn’t live equally in the same country. Later in the war, however, Lincoln abandoned the idea of colonization and publicly supported black men gaining the right to vote.
Vacuum7
Mar 4, 2020, 10:45 AM
Talaniman: I think that not much is remembered of one Marcus Garvey...but I remember him: He was a pretty forward thinking Black man who was a leader in Black nationalism and in an era that predates MLK, albeit he was somewhat controversial....he was also quite a statesman who promoted a return of Blacks to their continent of origin: he is very interesting reading, if you have the opportunity. He said: "A people without the knowledge of their past history, origin, and culture is like a tree without roots." I won't call him a radical because he wasn't that at all, in my opinion. His primary observations were that progress couldn't not be made by anyone other than Blacks themselves and he didn't play the blame game at all.
talaniman
Mar 5, 2020, 08:09 AM
He was a separatist and so agreed with separatists policies and ideas. I suppose for the times he was relevant in some ways, but certainly inspired the launching of many others to get more actively involved in the struggle on many fronts. Black History Month got a bit drowned out this year with other current events and this election, so thanks for bringing that up, and as a black guy, we raised our kids to take voting very seriously, and never fall for the tricks and traps to make that vote not count.
Vac, let's separate legit concerns and complaints from the blame game stuff, because it's far to easy to dismiss what concerns a minority as frivolous beetch to get free stuff. An effective ploy to scare you white folks and it's as effective now as ever when it comes to getting that "scared of minorities" vote. Repubs are energized and inspired to vote, so must the dems be, plain and simple. Everywhere. We got the dufus because of dems not voting everywhere and we will get more of him if we repeat that MISTAKE!
Vacuum7
Mar 5, 2020, 02:02 PM
Talaniman: I don't like to see "a people" led around as a "herd": to me, a "herd mentality" is purely a submissive mentality...and I don't care what the "herd" is or what it is made up of...at their lowest common denominator, herds are made of individuals: Individuals should "think as individuals" and not a group: Groups are great when we are trying to accomplish "BIG PROJECTS" (i.e. Engineering a dam construction, raising and orchestrating and Army for an invasion, running a Corporation or a manufacturing plant, trying to elect a POTUS)...but, at some point, outside of the military, everyone goes home at night and, in the solitude of their own minds, every person should discard their "Group Think" and think for themselves: If we don't think for ourselves, we will never be able to recognize when we are being led merrily down the old proverbial "Garden Path"....and this is advisable as much to Caucasians as it Blacks, as it is to Republicans as it is Democrats, and as it is to Libertarians as it is John Birchers. NO ONE SHOULD BE CONTROLLED BY ANYONE, to abdicate your capacity to think and act as an individual is to is to give up your freedom: By doing this, you cheapen the very principles upon which this nation was founded....We were designed, as human beings, to exercise our abilities to think, reason, and act independent of others.
jlisenbe
Mar 5, 2020, 04:56 PM
It would be an amazing thing to see 20% or 30% of the black vote go to Trump this year if for no other reason than to break the dems seeming possession of black voters. With black unemployment at record low levels, it would certainly be a logical move.
talaniman
Mar 5, 2020, 06:20 PM
Talaniman: I don't like to see "a people" led around as a "herd": to me, a "herd mentality" is purely a submissive mentality...and I don't care what the "herd" is or what it is made up of...at their lowest common denominator, herds are made of individuals: Individuals should "think as individuals" and not a group: Groups are great when we are trying to accomplish "BIG PROJECTS" (i.e. Engineering a dam construction, raising and orchestrating and Army for an invasion, running a Corporation or a manufacturing plant, trying to elect a POTUS)...but, at some point, outside of the military, everyone goes home at night and, in the solitude of their own minds, every person should discard their "Group Think" and think for themselves: If we don't think for ourselves, we will never be able to recognize when we are being led merrily down the old proverbial "Garden Path"....and this is advisable as much to Caucasians as it Blacks, as it is to Republicans as it is Democrats, and as it is to Libertarians as it is John Birchers. NO ONE SHOULD BE CONTROLLED BY ANYONE, to abdicate your capacity to think and act as an individual is to is to give up your freedom: By doing this, you cheapen the very principles upon which this nation was founded....We were designed, as human beings, to exercise our abilities to think, reason, and act independent of others.
When there are two choices, which we will have at the end of the primary process, then you go one way or another. It's that simple other than the state and local stuff.
paraclete
Mar 5, 2020, 06:22 PM
It is the beginning of the process and you are down to two choices, soon there will be just one and all the hoha will have been for nothing, very inefficient
talaniman
Mar 5, 2020, 06:28 PM
It would be an amazing thing to see 20% or 30% of the black vote go to Trump this year if for no other reason than to break the dems seeming possession of black voters. With black unemployment at record low levels, it would certainly be a logical move.
Thems some long odds partner, and I wouldn't hold my breath, because I doubt many minorities feel the repubs and especially not the dufus has earned that respect to follow this party. The dems don't have possession of black voters, black voters have possession of the dem party. Until you understand how that dynamic works, I suggest you keep your expectations a lot more realistic.
talaniman
Mar 5, 2020, 06:34 PM
It is the beginning of the process and you are down to two choices, soon there will be just one and all the hoha will have been for nothing, very inefficient
One person, one vote, and that's the way we like it. Few can see the smaller groups that make up the two parties but we recognize those coalitions Clete. Heck there are more independent voters than there are in either party.
I know you don't think much of our system, but I keep reminding you there are a lot more of us, than you have down under.
jlisenbe
Mar 5, 2020, 07:18 PM
The dems don't have possession of black voters, black voters have possession of the dem party.Yeah. I'm sure that's right.
paraclete
Mar 5, 2020, 08:02 PM
I know you don't think much of our system, but I keep reminding you there are a lot more of us, than you have down under.
Size doesn't matter, it is not an excuse for inefficiency, and is it democracy that, in effect, a few states actually select the candidate while the rest of the nation watches
talaniman
Mar 5, 2020, 08:23 PM
Size doesn't matter, it is not an excuse for inefficiency, and is it democracy that, in effect, a few states actually select the candidate while the rest of the nation watches
Seems that way to the uniformed, but demographics and turnouts as well as population distribution has a good deal to do with outcomes and yesterdays swing states may change tomorrow. The winning combinations of states are not set in stone, and the swing states mean noting without the other states. Pray tell how we could be more efficient my Aussie friend with the bias?
paraclete
Mar 5, 2020, 09:59 PM
Seems that way to the uniformed, but demographics and turnouts as well as population distribution has a good deal to do with outcomes and yesterdays swing states may change tomorrow. The winning combinations of states are not set in stone, and the swing states mean noting without the other states. Pray tell how we could be more efficient my Aussie friend with the bias?
Well you could hold the ballots on the one day or over one week so it is all wrapped up quickly and the whole nation is heard from. You named your nation the United States but in reality it is a collection of fiefdoms
jlisenbe
Mar 6, 2020, 05:09 AM
You named your nation the United States but in reality it is a collection of fiefdomsIf you believe that, then you don't know what a fiefdom is.
talaniman
Mar 6, 2020, 05:19 AM
A duly and lawfully elected fiefdom for sure Clete, under one set of rules that apply to all those fiefdoms. Like your own system, and though we stretch it out in the name of fairness to those fiefdoms, it still comes down to ballots cast on the specified day that the nation AND states can be heard from. Over here we just give ALL the candidates a fair chance to be heard too, and the citizens time to consider what they have heard and weigh in. Don't you do that there? Size does matter, when you respect that everybody should be heard from, and there are so many voices that have the same rights.
I often don't understand your criticism of our system Clete, since it serves us well, as yours serves you well, and are not both a works in progress subject to change with the times and circumstances? Hey you think its an easy thing to organize so many people with differing ideas and views, languages and cultures into a functioning nation?
We ain't perfect, but we are trying to be better. Messy as that is look around, whose the biggest dog on the planet bar NONE? You let me know when you can do as we have done and still GROW. Your criticisms and biases are duly noted though, and forgive my own bias ego and national pride.
jlisenbe
Mar 6, 2020, 05:54 AM
A duly and lawfully elected fiefdomNo, they are not. There is a huge difference between a duly elected government and a fiefdom.
Over here we just give ALL the candidates a fair chance to be heard too, and the citizens time to consider what they have heard and weigh in. Very good observation.