After a voter said he found it “astonishing” that Haley hadn’t used the word “slavery” at any point in her answer, she asked, “What do you want me to say about slavery?”
We need to have capitalism. We need to have economic freedom.
Freedom to do what, Nikki?
freedom to do or be anything they want to be without government getting in the way.”
Freedom to exploit anything for profit, got it.
So if it’s not illegal, it’s fair game. And guess what wasn’t illegal until the Thirteenth Amendment? And guess what we had to do in order to pass that amendment?
Fight a civil war, right.
We need the freedom to take away all the freedom that you have that we don’t like!
Guess what’s still legal as long as you got convicted of a crime and get a prison sentence?
Free to be anything unless that means LGBT or black or not Christian
Freedom to be trans? Oh ohhhh #checkmate
Guess what is not illegal even with the 13th Amendment? Slavery is a legal form of punishments.
We need to have capitalism.
This need to have capitalism by both of our ruling parties is why the American Dream no longer exists.
I’m with you on your main point I think, but this
So if it’s not illegal, it’s fair game
Is how it works, and how it should work.
It’s fair game legally (by definition), not morally .
100% agree, but legality is what is being discussed, isnt it? i think we can all agree that there are plenty of things that happen now that should be illegal for moral/common sense/ethical reasons but arent (yet at least).
We elect politicians to make changes to the law, or uphold the status quo. It’s why we ask them questions; to ascertain their moral character and decision making process.
Saying it is legal is not sufficient to be an acceptable answer. Saying it is illegal is similar. Look at trump, or even (fake allegations for) Biden, accused of illegalities but no real consequences. The constitution says he can’t run, yet he is running.
Holding politicians to account should not be seen as unusual.
Is how it works, and how it should work.
No one is disagreeing with that one piece of the post. You intentionally cut off the second sentence of that post that slavery was legal, and lots of us wanted that to change to make it illegal, and some of us wanted to keep owning other people legal.
Any reason why you did that?
because thats the part i disagreed with. the rest of it is fine. also, theres at least one other person in this chain that disagrees with that one piece of the post. i read that whole part of the OPs post as in “fine, you want to play by these rules? well look what happened last time.”
and if that interpretation of the post is correct, then my point was simply “those are the rules we always play by, and i dont think thats a bad thing”. if that interpretation is incorrect, well then id be interested in knowing what point OP was trying to make.
Lol no. That definition just leaves corporations everything they need to continue to exploit the fuck out of any and every loophole that exists. When they’re the ones paying billions to decide what is ‘illegal’ the definition ceases to have any value.
If It not illegal, but it should be, fuck no you shouldn’t be doing it. Get your ‘well tEcHnICaLlY’ bullshit outta here.
thats not meant to be a “well technically”. thats pretty much how the world always has and continues to work.
LMAO
The exchange drew a swift response from Democratic National Committee Chair Jaime Harrison. “This isn’t hard: condemning slavery is the baseline for anyone who wants to be president of the United States,” he said in a statement.
President Joe Biden also responded with a post on X, saying, “It was about slavery.”
I used to believe so many things.
And Trump really showed us that all those things we thought a president should be was optional.
Back in the day, Ronald Reagan figured out that of X% of the population was African American and X+1% of the population was racist using anti-Black dog whistles was the way to go. The problem was that the racists got tired of the dog whistles and demanded politicians who said exactly what they wanted to hear.
“I think the cause of the Civil War was basically how government was going to run — the freedoms and what people could and couldn’t do,” Haley said at the beginning of her response.
She went on to say: “I think it always comes down to the role of government and what the rights of the people are. And I will always stand by the fact that I think government was intended to secure the rights and freedoms of the people. It was never meant to be all things to all people.
Darned guv’ment trampling the rights of slaveholders.
I always love the, “it was about state’s rights,” people.
Yes, you’re absolutely correct. It was about the state’s right to let rich white men own black people.
technically I believe the south was more so mad that the northern states passed laws that allowed slaves to become free people once they escaped north. Then, the south couldn’t reclaim their slaves and they got mad and threatened a war. So it was actually the northern states’ rights that started a lot of the feuding.
The fugitive slave law was in effect at the outbteak of the civil war and wasn’t repealed until 1864.
deleted by creator
It wasn’t though. My state (Ohio) was stopped from freeing all people who cross our borders. We were stopped from refusing to reenslave and return people who escaped to our state. We wanted to do these things and the states that seceded blocked us from doing them. Then when they seceded they openly banned abolition of slavery in their constitution. Meanwhile 4 union states were permitted to allow slavery to continue until after the war. Those 4 states were the last states to see abolition.
From the confederate perspective the civil war was about the right of white people to own black people no matter what.
They actually had the state right to let rich white men own black people before they separated. States choosing to ban slavery scared the rich southern slave owners.
The Confederacy made it a federal right. The poor southerners were literally convinced to fight and die to not be allowed to make their own state laws on the matter.
And I will always stand by the fact that I think government was intended to secure the rights and freedoms of the people.
So people in slavery weren’t “people”, Haley?
Her answer reminds me of that old Miss America 1/5 of Americans can’t identify America on a map question.
She’s certainly speaking to her audience, absolute morons.
They actually think the South was the side fighting for freedom, and the good guys lost. These psychos are trying to be the only ones in charge of everything.
I don’t find it astonishing. Let’s stop pretending like the GOP isn’t a group of racist, fascist assholes.
There’s nothing to wonder about here. Nikki Haley is, like the rest of the GOP, perfectly fine with white supremacy and everything that comes of it up to and including slavery.
I’m not sure that it’s true that she is “fine with white supremacy” but you’re right that she is likely trying to appeal to those that are.
Based on what little I know about her, (like most politicians) she wants to win, and will say whatever the “correct” words are to get the most pepple vote for her. She’s also trying to win over trumpers, and she knows to dance around certain topics to do that. Problem for her is she is starting to come across as spineless in the media, which is the opposite of how (I think) trumpers see their Orange-Supreme-Leader
But yeah, she also gives off a vibe of being more rational and moderate which is what makes her a credible threat to Biden. (So I’m glad that she’s fucking things up for herself, and if she can continue to put her foot in her mouth that’s a plus)
deleted by creator
Fair point (s)
She’s pulling a Ron Desantis. We had actual Nazi’s in full bullshit in Florida holding his signs and promoting him as governor and he wouldn’t disavow them. She is cut from the same cloth, she wants their support.
State Right to enslave people. That is the primary cause and what it was being fought over.
You are right technically that they fought over that. But they fought to get rid of that state right, which they already had. The Confederacy made it a constitutional, federal right.
The south fought and died to get rid of their own rights for the benefit of the rich.
It’s about tradition!
Traditionally many, many children died at childbirth or soon after due to the lack of medical care and vaccines.
Traditionally the rich, wealthy and powerful have held almost all the cards of power, keeping most to themselves while denying the elevation of new generations - “new money” vs “old money” is a great example of how they try to minimize meritocracy.
Traditionally snake oil salesmen were everywhere and misleading claims were status quo. This is where we are today with politics, maybe it’s always been this way too. Gotta love those weasel words!
Traditionally though… women couldn’t run for office, vote, or have any real kind of say. Not really sure how you can run on a tradition platform and just gloss over that.
Oh, and traditionally in terms of human society the rich and wealthy have always owned slaves, serfs and other humans because their families had amassed wealth and land first. We’re returning to this with landlordship in the USA.
Ah well, fighting over scraps until humans go extinct in the next couple of generations. No helping it imo.
Traditionally though… women couldn’t run for office, vote, or have any real kind of say.
More to the point, Nikki Haley couldn’t do those things. She wouldn’t have a campaign.
You know you’re living in the craziest timeline when the party of Lincoln is more evil than the actual Church of Satan.
Hasn’t been the party of Lincoln ever since the parties switched due to the southern strategy.
She can go lower, she’ll do anything for power
This woman will end Union (or at least tries her hardest) as we know it. She’s the biggest union buster and she’s proud of it. Corporation love her so much
I don’t believe that Nimarata thinks about black people enough for slavery to have even registered in her consciousness.
It’s just how you have to frame it if you’re a Republican in the south. She knows what it was about, but didn’t want to say the words because it would upset a good chunk of her electorate.
