Except for that time they freed the slaves.
Yeah, yeah, I know that's 19th century, but I hope to show your generalizations are absurdly broad.
Hell, even 21st century, we have a populist Republican president appealing to blue-collar workers. Characterizing the Republican party as elitists oppressing the masses is woefully incomplete.
This gets my goat more on the grounds of using sweeping absolute statements, than any care for the reputation of Republicans, current or pre-1960.
Well sourced: https://soapboxie.com/us-politics/Debunking-the-Myth-GOP-and...
Dinesh D'Souza The Switch https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IJCVVbDlYhQ
You shouldn't downvote just because it doesn't fit your narrative.
https://www.thenation.com/article/exclusive-lee-atwaters-inf...
Education institution that fires people based on their personal life choices that don't affect their work? And I thought we were done with this crap in the 21st century.
(2) When you teach at a religious institution, "personal life choices that don't affect their work?" is less of a thing, because you've deliberately related work and religion (i.e. personal choices).
It might not be your cup of tea, but some students want to attend an institution of high moral standards, as well as high academic standards.
I don't find cheating to be especially immoral, at least not more than lying or withholding information for any other purpose.
56 Broadway, New York, NY 10004
But I'm not sure why extramarital relations are being brought up as a way to discredit someone, when it's of zero relevance.
I am however, impeaching D'Souza's credibility as a source.
Well, I didn't know that a felony conviction or cheating on your wife were political views. However, given the current President, perhaps you're right.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ad_hominem#Non-fallacious_reas...
Specifically, pointing out the obviously biased nature of a source calls to question the credibility of said source, even before we get to addressing the argument itself.
I think its safe to say that one the guiding principles of the modern Republican party is that less government regulation is better for everyone.
So why is the party that always advocates for less regulation and more competition REGULATING the energy market and RESTRICTING competition? Maybe because they aren't really for less regulation and more competition. Maybe they are about protecting the status quo?
Squaring the less regulation/more competition principles against this Wyoming law, or the anti-Tesla legislation in conservative states seems to indicate that these "principles" are an idealogical front to justify at least what some people want - Protecting their interests.
Wikipedia is far from non partisan.
Get used to it. Folks on HN often downvote anything that's counter-liberal. I post my Austrian views a lot and I get downvoted a lot.
Voted you up BTW.
And in the 21st century, as you mention, the "populist Republican president" is pretty blatantly playing an inside game and an outside game, cursing the industry and political establishment to the public, then going inside and shaking hands and sitting down with the same people, going so far as to put them on his cabinet and deep inside his government.
Claptrap. It's not the same party, and I don't mean that in the sense of stepping in a river.
https://www.thenation.com/article/exclusive-lee-atwaters-inf...
http://s3.amazonaws.com/thenation/audio/mp3/Full_Audio/LeeAt...
... because only Northern Republicans signed up to the Union army?
Not to mention that only the superficial accounts of the civil war say it was about slavery. Even Lincoln basically said the free slaves thing was basically just an add-on.
If you're going to be literalist in how you read others' comments, then be correct when you do so.
Taking a counterpoint from over 150 years ago and using a hard literalist interpretation... is a pretty pissweak way to counter the point that the GP was getting at. Extracting 'have always been' from everything that was said and then zeroing in on that like it's the core of the argument? It's an adolescent debating style.
The real reason the US "freed" the slaves was because there was a cotton crisis in egypt, making the united States the primary supplier of cotton to Europe. Now, the civil war was a resources game of who could fund their armies the longest, and Lincoln was smart enough to know that Europe would most likely support the south in the war in order to ensure steady flow of suddenly more valuable cotton. So, he made the war about slavery and issued the emancipation proclamation. The language in the EP is very clearly aimed at European interests and it put a moral high ground underneath the north to stand on, to sort of guilt Europe from funding the south in the civil war. It wasn't about civil rights, it was about securing the war effort.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Kingdom_and_the_America...
http://www.abrahamlincolnsclassroom.org/abraham-lincoln-in-d...
The emancipation proclamation was issued in 1863, same year as the Lancanshire Cotton Famine. The language of the document is clearly pointed outwards as much inwards.