Donald Trump continued his push on Saturday to win the Republican presidential nomination with a pair of caucus rallies in Iowa, beginning at the DMACC Conference Center in Newton and then culminating in Clinton. His speeches come on the third anniversary of Jan. 6 attack on the Capitol and a little more than a week before the Republican Iowa caucus commences on Jan. 15.
As for commemorating the solemn anniversary of Jan. 6, Trump lauded the insurrectionists, while labeling some immigrants as “terrorists” and prisoners and gang members. “And terrorists are coming in also. What they’re doing to our country is not — it’s it’s, when you talk about insurrection, what they’re doing? That’s the real deal. That the real deal — not patriotically and peacefully, peacefully and patriotically” he said, contrasting those who rioted as “peaceful” and “patriotic” against immigrants, who the four-time indicted former president continually paints as criminals.
…
“I’m so attracted to seeing it,” Trump said. “So many mistakes were made. See, there was something I think could have been negotiated to be honest with you. … I was reading something and I said, ‘This is something that could have been negotiated … that was a that was a tough one for our country… If you negotiated it, you probably wouldn’t even know who Abraham Lincoln was … but that would have been OK.”
75 Comments
Rapidcreek@lemmy.world · 181 pts · 2y
The three presidents before Lincoln all tried negotiating. They ended up capitulating to the south. They're considered three of the worst presidents in US history. After Trump
gravitas_deficiency@sh.itjust.works · 60 pts · 2y
But Andrew Johnson, who was president after Lincoln, is absolutely up there in terms of terribleness, seeing as he kneecapped any real punitive action on the vast majority of major confed leaders and the south in general, leading directly to Jim Crow, as well as making the “southern strategy” a viable tactic, and ultimately leading to the mutation of the GOP into what it is today - including Trump.
Chainweasel@lemmy.world · 33 pts · 2y
Boothe is getting exactly what he wanted albeit almost 160 years later.
He assassinated Lincoln in an effort to destabilize the union and liberate the south. He wasn't aware that the war was essentially over at that point and that only a few Confederate militias remained.
Well, putting Johnson in office ended reconstruction and put into motion everything listed in the above comment.
Now we're in real danger of losing our democracy and we've got a neo-confederate guerilla force that's already trashed the Capitol once and is ready to do it again in 11 months.
And none of this would be happening without Boothe.
BeautifulMind@lemmy.world · 12 pts · 2y
It's soo interesting that Kennedy's assassination (which also elevated a VP from the south named Johnson) wasn't ever talked about like it was more of the confederacy being ungovernable over desegregation and civil rights
grue@lemmy.world · 10 pts · 2y
Speaking of assassinations, MLK had been leading the campaign for civil rights since 1955, but didn't get assassinated until 1968. What else happened related to him in 1968? Well, he had just started pivoting towards the Poor People's Campaign.
Maybe you're right that Kennedy was assassinated because of his support for civil rights (even though MLK was tolerated for another half-decade), but considering all the other leftist domestic policies he was trying to push through in addition to the civil rights stuff, it makes me wonder.
ChunkMcHorkle@lemmy.world · 4 pts · 2y
deleted by creator
Ensign_Crab@lemmy.world · 17 pts · 2y
There's a lesson to be learned here about capitulating to evil.
Those abolitionists and their purity tests, never thinking about what abolition will do to the economy.
FlyingSquid@lemmy.world · 93 pts · 2y
What he actually means by this is that he knows most people think Abraham Lincoln was a better president than he was and he can't stand it.
Jaysyn@kbin.social · 55 pts · 2y
I see you're fluent in narcissist.
AutistoMephisto@lemmy.world · 7 pts · 2y
Fucking DUBYA was a better President! Like, Trump set the bar on the fucking floor, and now he's trying to dig under it!
eran_morad@lemmy.world · 73 pts · 2y
Subverb@lemmy.world · 13 pts · 2y
If Trump were working a glory hole you'd have people accusing you of abusing the mentally handicapped. Not even joking.
finthechat@kbin.social · 8 pts · 2y
Yeah man. If i walked up to a gloryhole and a river of shit was flowing out of it, I'd just leave.
pearsaltchocolatebar@discuss.online · 6 pts · 2y
Because cult brainwashing is a powerful thing.
conditional_soup@lemm.ee · 64 pts · 2y
The fact of the matter is that slavery was negotiated endlessly. The north and south argued about it ferociously, and there were dead ass fist fights in Congress about it. Remember that the US was hardly the first, and closer to the last, nation in the west (I'm only making this distinction because I know significantly less about this time period outside of the west) to ban chattel slavery, and by a pretty good margin. It wasn't for lack of trying by the north's politicians, but the south had evolved the question of slavery into an existential matter for themselves, and basically said that "without slavery, there is no south". This made it so that every political attack on slavery was framed as an attack on the very existence of the south itself, which made the subject impossible to negotiate on. There's a lot more detail that can be got into here, like the insane performative concessions for slavery (that is, in favor of it) that the south demanded that are reincarnated in the braindead performance politics of MAGA today, but that's a story for another day.
The gist is that when Lincoln, the candidate from the abolitionist party (the republicans. Yeah, a lot has changed lol) won the election, the south had the ultimate shit fit and decided they'd sooner reject the legitimacy of the government than live under a president who, while he probably wouldn't fully abolish slavery, was against it enough to be part of the abolition party. There was no negotiating this; the founding fathers tried it, and people tried it for decades between then and the war, and when faced with the spectre of maybe having to negotiate some change or moderation, the south looked the north directly in the eye and shit its pants as loud and ferociously as possible. You can see this attitude in the Cornerstone Speech (incidentally, it is a wonderful speech to pull out when someone says the war wasn't about slavery), which is a speech by the first VP of the Confederacy about how this war is absolutely 100% about preserving slavery.
Dagwood222@lemm.ee · 12 pts · 2y
https://richardpoe.substack.com/p/how-the-british-caused-the-american
Not unlike Putin today, Lord Palmerston was pushing the South to secede.
son_named_bort@lemmy.world · 3 pts · 2y
Pitt the Elder would never.
Scotty_Trees@lemmy.world · 5 pts · 2y
I haven't heard of the Cornerstone Speech before, or perhaps I don't remember it from school from many many years ago. But I do wonder how did you hear about it? Class? A book? Would love to know where you acquired some of your US history knowledge because I'd like to know and learn more about the history myself and this seems like a crucial piece of history to know so I do thank you for sharing.
givesomefucks@lemmy.world · -9 pts · 2y
What?
In his inaugural address he literally said a president couldn't outlaw slavery and he wasn't even gonna try, and wouldn't even if he thought he could.
Now people are acting like it was the whole reason he became president...
He thought it was a state issue, and there's nothing the feds can do. Like with Joe Biden and abortion.
Then the South started a civil war to force the North to have slavery, like current Republican are trying to force abortion into being illegal all over.
The specifics matter, because it's still the conservative playbook.
You should read his inaugural address
https://millercenter.org/the-presidency/presidential-speeches/march-4-1861-first-inaugural-address
You should read a lot of stuff...
But start with that.
conditional_soup@lemm.ee · 21 pts · 2y
Maybe take a break, pal, that tone is unnecessary.
I just did some quick homework, and it looks like my public education has failed me again. That Lincoln wasn't going to abolish slavery isn't a shock, but I was taught that the Republicans were abolitionists, when it looks like it's actually the case that the Republicans wanted to moderate and contain slavery*. Which makes the South's defcon 5 shit fit about it that much funnier.
*There are a lot of people online talking about how the party was abolitionist, but none that provide sources, so that point is going to take more homework than I'm willing to commit to confirm or deny.
PugJesus@kbin.social · 14 pts · 2y
The Republicans were an abolitionist party, but the moderates (like Lincoln) believed that containing it would cause it to die out, while the radicals advocated for it to be banned immediately and outright.
Ensign_Crab@lemmy.world · 5 pts · 2y
The moderates were clearly wrong. The radicals were right. I'm glad Lincoln changed his mind.
givesomefucks@lemmy.world · 2 pts · 2y
Were literally staring down a second civil war, and everyone is still believing the South's propaganda from last time...
So it's pretty important that people understand why it happened last time, and they're gonna lie about it next time too.
It's not a meaningless argument like is PlayStation better than Xbox.
It's worth being upset when 99% of the country doesn't understand why we had a civil war
And no matter my "tone" it'll piss off conservatives because it's pointing out they lied.
And it pisses off moderates because it points out how the only other option still wasn't actively against slavery.
If the South hasn't thrown a temper tantrum, it could have taken decades more for slavery to be outlawed, pushing back civil rights and everything.
"Just do nothing and hope for the best" rarely works out
nonailsleft@lemm.ee · 2 pts · 2y
Wdym playstation is better
Dkarma@lemmy.world · -12 pts · 2y
Theres no tone there, you're just insecure lol
conditional_soup@lemm.ee · 4 pts · 2y
Slow day at the troll farm?
Slowy@lemmy.world · 1 pts · 2y
What was the South’s argument for wanting the North to also have slavery?? I’m Canadian and not a history buff so idk much, but it seems a strange thing to try to enforce in other regions that don’t want it? I do see the parallel with the abortion access issue, so I can take a guess, but still, what logic did they they put forward for that argument (not just what they actually wanted but what they said their reasons were as well)?
Jimmyeatsausage@lemmy.world · 8 pts · 2y
There were laws that required non-slavery states to return any runaway slaves they found. Eventually, the non-slavery states said "fuck that" and just stopped doing it. I imagine it was similar to when Trump was fighting with so-called "sanctuary cities" about trying to get them to round up immigrants for deportation and they refused. Eventually, the slavery states petitioned the federal government to force the non-slavery states to enforce the runaway laws, and the feds refusal or inability to do so led to succession.
The biggest irony is that the racists still try to claim the Civil War wasn't about slavery but states' rights. In a way, it was, but not the way they imply...as they were trying to force other states to follow their state laws. Someone else mentioned that this was "still the Republican playbook," and I believe this is what they were referencing, as today we see Republican states trying to enforce their state laws requiring forced pregnancy and birth laws in states that still allow women to seek reproductive healthcare.
Slowy@lemmy.world · 1 pts · 2y
Snapz@lemmy.world · 36 pts · 2y
They'll sacrifice their lives for a person who is demonstrably the actual biggest loser in history, and he just gets more loser-y, folks, okay... If any of you are starting to have your memories fade, here's a quick refresher to read this morning and then copy and send to your aunt karen in Missouri.
massacre@lemmy.world · 10 pts · 2y
A bit tortured to make that list in a numerical order, but upvoted for the effort. Also - recommend taking away opinions like "most respected information sources in the GOP" - stick to the facts - there are plenty of them.
You also forgot the absolute laundry list of indictements, fraud in his Real Estate business, defrauding his own charity, rape of his ex-wife, COUNTLESS contractors and lawyers left unpaid in his wake, foreign payments while he was in office, etc...
And you don't even have to get into conjecture like selling state secrets, being a Russian asset, Russian mob ties, or the fact that he stinks like B.O. and soiled diapers.
empireOfLove2@lemmy.dbzer0.com · 9 pts · 2y
Bro has got the fucking receipts
Witchfire@lemmy.world · 4 pts · 2y
I'd rather have 184 birds and 5 golden rings, thanks
Ghostalmedia@lemmy.world · 36 pts · 2y
Reminder, people very much tried to negotiate before and during the American civil war.
The key compromise efforts were basically all around finding a way to let the south keep slaves and continue treating people like property. Compromise efforts did not gain enough support to make it through the legislature.
wildcardology@lemmy.world · 3 pts · 2y
You didn't understand, the civil war wouldn't have happened if he negotiated it.
Ghostalmedia@lemmy.world · 3 pts · 2y
To be fair, he’s right. If he was president he would’ve totally backed the Crittenden compromise to let the south keep slaves.
LarryTheMatador@sh.itjust.works · 33 pts · 2y
be_excellent_to_each_other@kbin.social · 18 pts · 2y
This right here is 100% exactly what is happening, folks. Don't let it.
MegaUltraChicken@lemmy.world · 7 pts · 2y
And put your carts back!
overzeetop@lemmy.world · 11 pts · 2y
You know what’s insurrection? Hunter Biden. Clear and in direct violation of the 14th amendment by old Sleepy Joe. Is it coincidence that Benghazi also begins with a B? I don’t think so. Case closed.
LarryTheMatador@sh.itjust.works · 9 pts · 2y
Jimmyeatsausage@lemmy.world · 3 pts · 2y
That weird smell everyone keeps talking about? Trump just insurrectioned his pants.
ChunkMcHorkle@lemmy.world · 0 pts · 2y
PugJesus@kbin.social · 26 pts · 2y
Trump negotiating before the Civil War: "You can keep the slaves, okay? I say you can keep the slaves, and you know what, the Supreme Court - they say - very fine people - they say that the woke ABOLITIONIST states can't stop you."
withnail@infosec.pub · 25 pts · 2y
Why do they keep talking about Nikki? The Civil War? What was that? She's getting all the attention! So much attention. I better wade in. The civil war... what was it again? Slavery? I bet they could have negotiated to keep slavery. Don't say that part? OK, but I can say negotiation, right?
nonailsleft@lemm.ee · 5 pts · 2y
Hahaha you just made me realize the warmup sessions or whatever he does before the rally must have even better material
Jaysyn@kbin.social · 20 pts · 2y
Fascist says stupid fashy things, Republicans eat it up like the authoritarian trash they are.
Art3sian@lemmy.world · 19 pts · 2y
You dummies. You know he says this shit intentionally, yeah?
He is an absolute master PR-man, and no one has ever respected that fact to their own detriment.
Disclaimer: I hate the dickhead.
wildcardology@lemmy.world · 3 pts · 2y
Yeah, they even agreed with trump saying that he'll be a dictator for one day. If fact they want him to be dictator forever.
cashews_best_nut@lemmy.world · 16 pts · 2y
Can't believe his native language is English. I've known 4yr olds more coherent.
beebarfbadger@lemmy.world · 15 pts · 2y
Trump's idea of negotiating is simply giving the more evil side whatever they demand, so yeas, I fully agree that Trump would have ended that war in the most pleasing manner. For one side. And then he'd go slave shopping.
TheMusicalFruit@lemmy.world · 13 pts · 2y
He said he was “reading something” so you know he just made it all up.
nonailsleft@lemm.ee · 4 pts · 2y
"And then all the historians in the room with me and the books said "Sir...", "Sir..." they told me, "... if only you had been there, Sir. You would have negotiated and everybody would have had what they wanted and then there wouldn't have been a civil war, Sir. There would have been slavery and there would have been freedom and Lincoln wouldn't know what to do, Sir. If only you could have been president then and now and forever then the country would be so, so great Sir. Sire." And then they all started clapping"
cheese_greater@lemmy.world · 7 pts · 2y
The Art of The Deal
cultsuperstar@lemmy.world · 5 pts · 2y
I'm curious what the reaction of his audience was, though I'm sure they easily agreed.
cheese_greater@lemmy.world · 5 pts · 2y
Cut the slaves in 1/2?
overzeetop@lemmy.world · 10 pts · 2y
A good negotiator would get at least 3/5ths.
cheese_greater@lemmy.world · 1 pts · 2y
Slavery is 3/5ths of the Law, so this checks out!
VikingHippie@lemmy.wtf · 3 pts · 2y
Is not a succession of words I particularly like in an article about Trump..
autotldr@lemmings.world · 1 pts · 2y
This is the best summary I could come up with:
Donald Trump continued his push on Saturday to win the Republican presidential nomination with a pair of caucus rallies in Iowa, beginning at the DMACC Conference Center in Newton and then culminating in Clinton.
His speeches come on the third anniversary of Jan. 6 attack on the Capitol and a little more than a week before the Republican Iowa caucus commences on Jan. 15.
As for commemorating the solemn anniversary of Jan. 6, Trump lauded the insurrectionists, while labeling some immigrants as “terrorists” and prisoners and gang members.
In his appearance in Newton, a particularly bronzed-up Trump made his usual claims that Biden is the worst president in the history of the United States, and took potshots at his Republican challengers Nikki Haley, Ron DeSantis, and Chris Christie.
A day prior, President Joe Biden delivered his first major election year campaign speech, where he lambasted his potential 2024 rival.
That same day Biden delivered his speech, Trump was in Sioux Center, Iowa, where he told residents they should “get over” an incident on Thursday where a gunman killed a sixth grade student and wounded five others at Perry High School northwest of Des Moines.
The original article contains 709 words, the summary contains 193 words. Saved 73%. I'm a bot and I'm open source!
givesomefucks@lemmy.world · -6 pts · 2y
I don't understand why everyone acts like the civil war was fought to make slavery illegal.
Like, it's history, but it's not ancient history. We have all types of evidence about what was going on back then
Seriously, pre civil war Lincoln just wouldn't stop talking about how he'll never outlaw slavery.
Like in his inaugural address:
https://millercenter.org/the-presidency/presidential-speeches/march-4-1861-first-inaugural-address
Dude was literally running around telling anyone that would listen that he can't outlaw slavery.
And now people want to act like that was his entire life mission and why he ran for president.
Eventually doing it halfway thru the civil war wasn't a decision made from ethics or morals, it was just an economic sanction, you know, that shit that would happen to pretty much anyone that lose a war back then...
The morality of it, was just a "bonus" it wasn't the goal.
FlyingSquid@lemmy.world · 26 pts · 2y
They don't, because the Civil War was fought to keep slavery legal.
That is why the South seceded.
Every single declaration of secession of every confederate state mentions slavery if not at the very beginning than almost at the very beginning.
https://www.battlefields.org/learn/primary-sources/declaration-causes-seceding-states
I don't know why you think they seceded, but it was undeniably due to the desire to maintain chattel slavery based on their own words.
givesomefucks@lemmy.world · -17 pts · 2y
The issue is, you guys are listening only to the conservative version...
By that logic 1/6 was because Biden stole the election.
Fortunately that's still recent enough only one side believes that, but you all got me worried what people will say 200 years from now
FlyingSquid@lemmy.world · 12 pts · 2y
No, I'm telling you what they literally wrote on the subject. I gave you a link to it. I suggest you read it.
givesomefucks@lemmy.world · -8 pts · 2y
You're saying what conservatives said was the reason for the civil war...
I'm pointing out conservatives always lie about that shit.
Believing them about the civil war is like believing the modern ones about 1/6.
Something I didn't think would ever happen, but after this thread...
Yeah. Idiots are going to keep falling for this. They're going to keep taking the words of literal insurecctionists over reality. And then for some reason get offended when it's pointed out that all they're doing is falling for centuries old propaganda.
Like, are you just too embarrassed to admit it now?
Or do you really still think the traitors who fucking started a civil war would never lie about why they did it to make it seem like they're the victims and had no choice?
FlyingSquid@lemmy.world · 7 pts · 2y
What is your actual evidence that the confederate states lied about why they were seceding? Let's see it.
givesomefucks@lemmy.world · -8 pts · 2y
Well, I've linked Lincoln inaugural address a few times, because it shows the North or the Feds had no desire to ban slavery.... And that the big argument was return of escaped slaves...
But here it is again I guess:
https://www.battlefields.org/learn/primary-sources/lincolns-first-inaugural-address
It literally covers all of this, you should just read it. I'm not going to just keep linking relevant bits paragraph by paragraph for you to ask what the next says.
But your resistance to reading is really helping me understand why you're not getting this.
I just never want to have an exchange like this again, so hopefully someone else can answer all the further questions you'll undoubtedly have.
I'm not putting anymore effort into you
FlyingSquid@lemmy.world · 8 pts · 2y
Sorry, did the Union secede from the Confederacy?
Otherwise, why does Lincoln's inaugural address prove they were lying about why they seceded?
Jiggle_Physics@lemmy.world · 1 pts · 2y
conditional_soup@lemm.ee · 11 pts · 2y
Oh, hey, aren't you the person that challenged me to read more? Incidentally, I have some reading for you that might shed light on your opening line. It's called the Cornerstone Speech, and it was made by the first Vice President of the Confederacy at what was, functionally, their first state of the union address.
https://www.battlefields.org/learn/primary-sources/cornerstone-speech
But to make it easy for you, here's a juicy quote. It's a little long, but I made it that way to make it clear it's not out of context.
So, maybe that's why some people think the war was about preserving slavery, because that's what the Confederacy said it was about with their own words.
givesomefucks@lemmy.world · -17 pts · 2y
Why listen to the South on what was happening instead of Lincoln and reality?
Do you think 1/6 was actually about stopping Biden from stealing the election because that's what conservatives keep saying?
They lied then, they lie now, why do you want people to believe them?
captainlezbian@lemmy.world · 6 pts · 2y
Because they started the damn war.
givesomefucks@lemmy.world · -6 pts · 2y
Oh wow...
Everyone that started a war was honest about why they started it to you?
So, you think Russia is honestly invading Ukraine to save the globe from Nazis?
Have you ever thought about how profitable bridge ownership would be? I've got one in Brooklyn I want to get off my hands....
captainlezbian@lemmy.world · 5 pts · 2y
If the reason is that fucking reprehensible yes.
givesomefucks@lemmy.world · -5 pts · 2y
The fuck does that even mean?
You think staring a civil war over "they're making us stop having slaves" is better than "they won't return escaped slaves back into slavery"?
Their lie is a bad thing, but it's still better than the actual truth.
What is hard to understand?
Like, if Jeffery Dahmer admitted to rape, would you think that means the serial killer stuff can't be true?
Lots of evil people admit to less evil actions so people stop talking about the worst.
This ain't even about history, it never stopped happening.
forrgott@lemm.ee · 6 pts · 2y
Point us to the quote where Lincoln says anything as to why the southern states seceded from the Union.
Or, heck, how about a single reference supporting your so called "reality"...
Ensign_Crab@lemmy.world · -4 pts · 2y
-- Abraham Lincoln, Second Inaugural Address.
forrgott@lemm.ee · 2 pts · 2y
Well, no, that is not an example of Lincoln stating what the South seceded.
conditional_soup@lemm.ee · 6 pts · 2y
Because the Confederacy was already made by that point. They already had what they wanted: the institution of slavery constitutionally guaranteed forevermore. There's no point concealing their hand anymore, it's time to pop the champagne.
givesomefucks@lemmy.world · -6 pts · 2y
Lincoln literally said in his inaugural address that he had no desire to make slavery illegal, and he didn't think the federal government could even do that...
The South wasn't happy with that, they wanted the feds to force northern states to return escaped slaves.
That is what they wanted, and when they couldn't get it that, they started the civil war.
But that blows up the "states rights" excuse they were using to trick poor people into fighting for them, so they lied.
And apparently lots of people are still falling for it, yet don't understand why modern conservatives are still trying it.
It's because you're still falling for it