Jump to content
The Political Lounge

Favorable or Unfavorable #455: Andrew Johnson


vcczar

Favorable or Unfavorable #455: Andrew Johnson  

16 members have voted

  1. 1. Did you read my first comment?

  2. 2. Favorable or Unfavorable #455: Andrew Johnson

    • Favorable
      0
    • Unfavorable


Recommended Posts

Andrew Johnson (TN-D) was the highest profile Southern Unionist during the Civil War. Had he never been named VP or had never become president, he would probably be considered favorable by most people. His presidency is typically considered one of the top 5 worst presidencies, it was certainly the most powerless presidency in US History. 

When I was a kid, say 3rd grade in 1988-1989, I knew of Johnson as the only president to have been impeached. I had some sort of lamenated cardboard thing with all the presidents from Washington through Reagan. Aside from their names, party affiliation, and dates of presidency, a few had asterisks on the presidential dates. Johnson's had impeached, and I remember his photo had a very sour look, as if he had just been told he was impeached. Other presidents had asterisks that said died in office or assassinated. Nixon's said resigned. On oddity was that Washington's party affiliation was listed as Federalist. I never knew he had no official party affiliation until maybe high school. 

Anyway, after the Clinton and Trump impeachments (Trump twice!), Johnson seems so less singular now. 

His actions:

Johnson, Andrew 1843 New Dem Pol enters US House advocating for the interests of the poor but also defending slavery
Johnson, Andrew 1849 Pres Polk records Johnson as having been hostile to him his entire presidency, but pretends support for votes
Johnson, Andrew 1850? Proposes Const Amendments for Direct Election of US Senators and President (abolish EC), and term-limiting Fed Judges to 12 yrs
Johnson, Andrew 1852 Introduces his homestead bill to provide cheap land to settlers, but it fails
Johnson, Andrew 1856 Hoped to be Pres cand at Dem Convention but could not get a single delegate to back him
Johnson, Andrew 1857 New US Sen proposes his old Homestead bill from US House days; passes but is vetoed by Buchanan
Johnson, Andrew 1859 After John Brown raid, faults the North for creating disunion over slavery
Johnson, Andrew 1860 Dem candidate for pres; backs Breckinridge over Douglas in the general
Johnson, Andrew 1860 Works to try and keep Southern Senators from seceding
Johnson, Andrew 1861 Crittenden-Johnson resos re war goals
Johnson, Andrew 1861 only Southern Sen not to leave with his state; Unionist Southerner
Johnson, Andrew 1862 Advocates Homestead Act, which finally passes and is made law
Johnson, Andrew 1862 appointed military governor of TN by Lincoln as Union recaptures part of his state
Johnson, Andrew 1863 Lincoln grants his request to exempt TN from Emancipation Proclamation.
Johnson, Andrew 1864 VP on Lincoln's winning ticket, despite being a Dem (selected for unity)
Johnson, Andrew 1865 Reported as drunk and giving an incoherent speech at Lincoln's 2nd inauguration
Johnson, Andrew 1865 Becomes president on Lincoln's death
Johnson, Andrew 1865 Opts to retain Lincoln's entire cabinet
Johnson, Andrew 1865 Presided during the final surrenders and the end of the Civil War
Johnson, Andrew 1865 Reverses several of powers granted to Freedman's Bureau by Lincoln
Johnson, Andrew 1865 Offers amnesty to most former Confederates, including most of the elite planter class
Johnson, Andrew 1865 Vetoes CO statehood bill
Johnson, Andrew 1866 Vetoes bill designed to enhance Civil Rights power of Freedman's Bureau
Johnson, Andrew 1866 Uses influence to build opposition to 14th Amndt but fails
Johnson, Andrew 1866 Signs Southern Homestead Act
Johnson, Andrew 1866 Heckles a Northern crowd to hang Stevens rather than Jefferson Davis
Johnson, Andrew 1866 Failed Swing Around the Circle campaign to bolster support for his policies at Midterms
Johnson, Andrew 1866 Breaks with congressional Republicans, opting to preside independently
Johnson, Andrew 1866 Gives rambling speech accusing Sumner and Stevens of plotting his assassination
Johnson, Andrew 1866 Vetoes Civil Rights Act of 1866, but it is overridden
Johnson, Andrew 1867 Vetoes Tenure of Office Act, but it is overridden.
Johnson, Andrew 1867 Vetoes NE statehood bill, but it is overridden
Johnson, Andrew 1867 Vetoes 1st Reconstruction Act, but it is overriden
Johnson, Andrew 1867 Vetoes votes for AA in DC, but it is overriden
Johnson, Andrew 1868 Fails to get nomination as Dem nominee in reelection bid, coming in 2nd in the first two ballots
Johnson, Andrew 1868 Signs 8-hr workday for laborers and mechanics in Fed Gov bill
Johnson, Andrew 1868 Impeached by Republicans and barely acquitted
Johnson, Andrew 1868 Vetoes 4th Reconstruction act, but it is overridden
Johnson, Andrew 1869 Refuses to attend Grant's inauguration
Johnson, Andrew 1870 Fmr Pres defeated for US Sen bid 51-54 by TN Legislature
Johnson, Andrew 1872 Fmr Pres defeated for Us House bid, first as a Dem, then as an Ind when couldn't secure Dem nom
Johnson, Andrew 1875 Fmr Pres wins US Sen seat and enters the US Sen as only fmr pres to become a US Sen
Johnson, Andrew 1875 In only US Sen speech, blasts Grant for using troops in Louisiana, calling it a prelude to "military despotism" (dies a few months later)
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Johnson, in many ways, was a proto-progressive during his tenure in the US House. He arguably tried to do more than anyone else for the antebellum poor, unfortunately this only applied to white people. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, OrangeP47 said:

While I'm unfavorable, I find that the massive hate he usually gets is a bit over the top.  Yeah, he's bad, but a lot of people tend towards hyperbolic when discussing him.

The only thing that makes me strongly against him is his veto of Civil Rights and Voting Rights legislation. It's strange that he has the same surname of a president who favored this kind of legislation almost exactly 100 years later. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, vcczar said:

The only thing that makes me strongly against him is his veto of Civil Rights and Voting Rights legislation. It's strange that he has the same surname of a president who favored this kind of legislation almost exactly 100 years later. 

Proof the deep state controls our elections and contain knowledge of the future… along with the ability to time travel, clearly.

  • Based 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

For me, it's kind of more of a "what do you expect" sort of situation, or really a Joe Manchin kind of question.  Maybe relief that he was at least not an actual Confederate, even if he was 100% too lenient during reconstruction.  Like yeah, sure, maybe don't get in Congress' way at such a vital moment, but he wasn't an actual traitor, of which we had barrels full of right then.

I may even go so far as to say he had some good points, except he wasn't very smart (and that's not just my opinion but the generally held view), and thus was not competent enough to express his views in a productive manner.  I mean this in a "can't see the forest through the trees" sort of the way.  Sometimes it doesn't matter if you win on a technicality, you're still an asshole (and I feel as if this is pretty rich coming from me).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, OrangeP47 said:

For me, it's kind of more of a "what do you expect" sort of situation, or really a Joe Manchin kind of question.  Maybe relief that he was at least not an actual Confederate, even if he was 100% too lenient during reconstruction.  Like yeah, sure, maybe don't get in Congress' way at such a vital moment, but he wasn't an actual traitor, of which we had barrels full of right then.

I may even go so far as to say he had some good points, except he wasn't very smart (and that's not just my opinion but the generally held view), and thus was not competent enough to express his views in a productive manner.  I mean this in a "can't see the forest through the trees" sort of the way.  Sometimes it doesn't matter if you win on a technicality, you're still an asshole (and I feel as if this is pretty rich coming from me).

And before anyone gets the wrong impression, I mean this as in a "Yeah, maybe Congress was overriding the President's power a bit, but if you were just gonna use your Presidential power to sit on your butt and do nothing when we really need a problem fixed, maybe that's why Congress is trying to override you." sort of way.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

personally, for me, if I was the one calling the shots for reconstruction then Hell would be risen to the South, Confederate traitors (Soldiers to crop farmers to governmental offices) would be on mass trials and there would not be any pardons at all. ANY resembles of southern pride or confederates would be burned, destroyed, discarded. Use the southern lands and give them to either loyal southern industrialist or carpetbaggers or freedman, modernize and industrialize the south. ETC.

Andrew Johnson was personally to me the worst president of all time, even James Buchanan seems like FDR to me compared to Johnson. I wish him nothing but hell and suffering.

  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

39 minutes ago, Blockmon said:

personally, for me, if I was the one calling the shots for reconstruction then Hell would be risen to the South, Confederate traitors (Soldiers to crop farmers to governmental offices) would be on mass trials and there would not be any pardons at all. ANY resembles of southern pride or confederates would be burned, destroyed, discarded. Use the southern lands and give them to either loyal southern industrialist or carpetbaggers or freedman, modernize and industrialize the south. ETC.

What are your thoughts on Abraham Lincoln then? Often times Lincoln consistently displayed his wish to show mercy, camaraderie, and firm yet compassionate re-integration of the South into the Union. If people had it your way we'd be right on track to an immediate situation resembling a Second Civil War or worse, complete anarchy throughout the United States and especially in the South. 

Quote

"With malice toward none with charity for all with firmness in the right as God gives us to see the right let us strive on to finish the work we are in to bind up the nation's wounds, to care for him who shall have borne the battle and for his widow and his orphan ~ to do all which may achieve and cherish a just and lasting peace among ourselves and with all nations."

Quote

- Abraham Lincoln, Lincoln's Second Inaugural Address

I'm sure Andrew Johnson is very offended by your wishing for hell and suffering upon him, 150 years later...

I find this lack of understanding completely ironic for someone who considers themselves to be a progressive. An ideology supposedly concerned with compassion and understanding towards another. 

I encourage you to read this article and the latest biography of Lincoln from Jon Meacham if you wish to learn more about why it was such a travesty that Lincoln was killed, and what reconstruction may have looked like had he lived. 

https://www.friendsofthelincolncollection.org/lincoln-lore/3159/

image.png.e11a2665de4cbd392acff0e32482180a.png

 

 

Edited by Pringles
Link to comment
Share on other sites

38 minutes ago, Pringles said:

What are your thoughts on Abraham Lincoln then? Often times Lincoln consistently displayed his wish to show mercy, camaraderie, and firm yet compassionate re-integration of the South into the Union. If people had it your way we'd be right on track to an immediate situation resembling a Second Civil War or worse, complete anarchy throughout the United States and especially in the South. 

"With malice toward none with charity for all with firmness in the right as God gives us to see the right let us strive on to finish the work we are in to bind up the nation's wounds, to care for him who shall have borne the battle and for his widow and his orphan ~ to do all which may achieve and cherish a just and lasting peace among ourselves and with all nations."

- Abraham Lincoln, Lincoln's Second Inaugural Address

I'm sure Andrew Johnson is very offended by your wishing for hell and suffering upon him, 150 years later...

I find this lack of understanding completely ironic for someone who considers themselves to be a progressive. An ideology supposedly concerned with compassion and understanding towards another. 

I encourage you to read this article and the latest biography of Lincoln from Jon Meacham if you wish to learn more about why it was such a travesty that Lincoln was killed, and what reconstruction may have looked like had he lived. 

https://www.friendsofthelincolncollection.org/lincoln-lore/3159/

image.png.e11a2665de4cbd392acff0e32482180a.png

 

 

First off, I do not even support Lincoln to brim, He was a great president. But even I do not think that he would have done a great job with reconstruction; moderatism would have led to the same problem. Democrats and White supremacist would have taken in power through violence and suppression to then enact Jim Crow. What I brought was a plan to destroy the ideals of the south and rid of old traditions with new ones. The fact is I would not have supported either party at the time, Corruption and general business interest in the Republican Party would have turned me away while the white supremacy in democrats would have not helped at all. 

The problem was and will be that ex-Confederates were given a resemblance of power, and that for lily whites it was more profitable to accept the hatred instead of turning it away. That also should not be taken away that slavery should have ended the day of signing of Constitution but we didn't accept that and its a tragic mistake that USA should apologies to. 

Progressivism to me is not the ideal of compassionism, nor is it the idea of compromise. I will never work with nazi, racist, trumpist, nor confederate; hell I would rather do nothing except prevent them from spreading their hatred-filled ideals. Progressivism is the ideology of moving forward with liberty and freedom, not small but big, hell sometimes harshness is needed. 
As Benjamin Wade as said "I may fall here in the Senate chamber, but I will never make any compromise with any such men." He was right in his time, compromise was done in 1876; it lead to 100 years of violence and suppression of millions of colored people. Even to this day, places are still segregated because of the old systemic racism created.

Source of the quote: https://www.loc.gov/resource/gdcmassbookdig.menofourday00broc/?sp=270&st=image

Edited by Blockmon
Source added
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

12 minutes ago, Blockmon said:

Even to this day, places are still segregated because of the old systemic racism created.

What? Segregation was ended 60 years ago. There is no evidence to support that legal, enforced segregation still exists in the United States. Social phenomena and disparities among different groups can be seen as a result of the past in many ways, but in no way does that mean segregation still exists. 
 

12 minutes ago, Blockmon said:

Progressivism to me is not the ideal of compassionism, nor is it the idea of compromise. I will never work with nazi, racist, trumpist, nor confederate; hell I would rather do nothing except prevent them from spreading their hatred-filled ideals. Progressivism is the ideology of moving forward with liberty and freedom, not small but big, hell sometimes harshness is needed. 

Ah, so we're just espousing a progressive-minded totalitarian ideology. One that wishes to impose your view of moral superiority and beliefs upon the masses. Got it. 

Edited by Pringles
Link to comment
Share on other sites

20 minutes ago, Blockmon said:

First off, I do not even support Lincoln to brim, He was a great president. But even I do not think that he would have done a great job with reconstruction; moderatism would have led to the same problem. Democrats and White supremacist would have taken in power through violence and suppression to then enact Jim Crow. What I brought was a plan to destroy the ideals of the south and rid of old traditions with new ones. The fact is I would not have supported either party at the time, Corruption and general business interest in the Republican Party would have turned me away while the white supremacy in democrats would have not helped at all. 

The problem was and will be that ex-Confederates were given a resemblance of power, and that for lily whites it was more profitable to accept the hatred instead of turning it away. That also should not be taken away that slavery should have ended the day of signing of Constitution but we didn't accept that and its a tragic mistake that USA should apologies to. 

Progressivism to me is not the ideal of compassionism, nor is it the idea of compromise. I will never work with nazi, racist, trumpist, nor confederate; hell I would rather do nothing except prevent them from spreading their hatred-filled ideals. Progressivism is the ideology of moving forward with liberty and freedom, not small but big, hell sometimes harshness is needed. 
As Benjamin Wade as said "I may fall here in the Senate chamber, but I will never make any compromise with any such men." He was right in his time, compromise was done in 1876; it lead to 100 years of violence and suppression of millions of colored people. Even to this day, places are still segregated because of the old systemic racism created.

MaoZedongAgrees.jpg.226d9108be2f73d6bca9bb25c4a9af99.jpg

  • Haha 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, Blockmon said:

personally I hate some of those Gen Zs that support china, god they are unbearable. But for me, I am not communist, Democratic Socialist.

Can we get the same meme but with a bunch of pictures of Bernie’s face?

  • Haha 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

19 minutes ago, Pringles said:

What? Segregation was ended 60 years ago. There is no evidence to support that legal, enforced segregation still exists in the United States. Social phenomena and disparities among different groups can be seen as a result of the past in many ways, but in no way does that mean segregation still exists. 
 

Ah, so we're just espousing a progressive-minded totalitarian ideology. One that wishes to impose your view of moral superiority and beliefs upon the masses. Got it. 

I will leave this for segregation (https://belonging.berkeley.edu/roots-structural-racism) and By "Prevent", I mean deplatform and let them hang out in the secluded places of internet and groups; prevent violence from them. I do not want them to be in power as it will lead to harm to other, if you truly support them then do you think the process of denazification was an attempt at removing their first amendment? Or that German constitution prevent any nazi from power and banning those parties as "Totalitarian"? I just do not want them in this country spew this hatred at the presidency or congress, by either voting for other side or telling other to.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, Blockmon said:

I mean deplatform and let them hang out in the secluded places of internet and groups; prevent violence from them. I do not want them to be in power as it will lead to harm to other, if you truly support them then do you think the process of denazification was an attempt at removing their first amendment? Or that German constitution prevent any nazi from power and banning those parties as "Totalitarian"?

Regardless of what I think about Germany tackling denazification since you're such a proponent of a similar policy here. I want you to ask yourself: How well has it worked in Germany? Surely you're familiar with the political situation in Germany.

image.png.d2052501cca7a72284c9e14377cdad04.png

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Blockmon said:

I will leave this for segregation (https://belonging.berkeley.edu/roots-structural-racism)

I believe you've read this paper, correct? Why was your specific takeaway from this about segregations lingering effects, when the paper itself shows repeatedly and puts a major emphasis on areas that have become MORE segregated since 1980 and 1990, particularly a lot of northern areas such as Boston? This can't be your best example for the lingering effects of segregation when it mentions how, from 1970-1980, segregation decreased significantly, yet from 1980/1990-2020 segregation's decline has slowed significantly, and in many areas has INCREASED significantly. I'd assume if you had qualms about this, or if your specific takeaway was from a certain section of the paper, you wouldn't simply link the paper and call it a day, no?

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 hours ago, Pringles said:

Regardless of what I think about Germany tackling denazification since you're such a proponent of a similar policy here. I want you to ask yourself: How well has it worked in Germany? Surely you're familiar with the political situation in Germany.

image.png.d2052501cca7a72284c9e14377cdad04.png

Yes, I do know Germany situation (I have relatives that live there), But this type of argument is ineffective and a bit of surprise. AfD is only getting more national support because of the similar situation worldwide and if you look closely USA, we have a Leftist coalition/party that won against moderate government before and dealt with consequences, now a resurgence of right wing populism is taking place. Now why this this also is a surprises, well I did not expect you to acknowledge that a right wing populism is fascist or nazi-like, since that is also the ideology of Trump and his MAGA community. But oh well, its not like we aren't going to ignore that over 60 years have past with no real threat to the German democracy happened thru this policy.

3 hours ago, mark2 said:

I believe you've read this paper, correct? Why was your specific takeaway from this about segregations lingering effects, when the paper itself shows repeatedly and puts a major emphasis on areas that have become MORE segregated since 1980 and 1990, particularly a lot of northern areas such as Boston? This can't be your best example for the lingering effects of segregation when it mentions how, from 1970-1980, segregation decreased significantly, yet from 1980/1990-2020 segregation's decline has slowed significantly, and in many areas has INCREASED significantly. I'd assume if you had qualms about this, or if your specific takeaway was from a certain section of the paper, you wouldn't simply link the paper and call it a day, no?

ummm, cause that is my point? From Gentrification to redlining, it doesn't matter, They are all systemic racisms aka racism in the governmental systems. Also from the 1970s to beginning of 1980s was when court ordered busing and Massive Resistance movement had ended, that's why segregation went down significantly. Now if we do see the 1980s and to present day, I wonder why we experience more segregation then ever? oh thats when Ronald Reagan and Reagan democrats took in power, and since then we have had supply-side and general amendments to civil rights acts to lessen their power, that is what increased segregation or atleast slowed down desegregation.

Overall this discussion has been moved so far away from what originally was a radical reconstruction opinion that I had. I just do not believe that Lincoln's reconstruction would have done enough and I sure has hell don't believe Johnson's would have done anything. Maybe you all are more happy with the moderate reconstruction, that reintroducing south back as if its some mass rapist/murderer could reenter society. Which I do not have any hatred over that, I respect it as your opinion but I also think that what you are doing is basically nothing and ignoring the problem that lies head. 

While this is more violent that I believe it is needed, it is still something that represents what was needed. 
"It is said the South will never submit — that we cannot conquer the rebels — that they will suffer themselves to be slaughtered, and their whole country to be laid waste. Sir, war is a grievous thing at best, and civil war more than any other; but if they hold this language, and the means which they have suggested must be resorted to; if their whole country must be laid waste and made a desert, in order to save this Union from destruction, so let it be. I would rather, Sir, reduce them to a condition where their whole country is to be re-peopled by a band of freemen, than to see them perpetrate the destruction of this people through our agency. I do not say it is time to resort to such means, and I do not say that the time will come, but I never fear to express my sentiments. It is not a question with me of policy, but a question of principle." -- Thaddeus Stevens in Thaddeus Stevens by E. B. Callender

I will not respond to this discussion again, as to me this seem to have strayed from discussing the crude presidency of Andrew Johnson and instead seems like a critique over my own ideology; which is more influenced by modern events than far old 1860s. I know I would have been radical republican, even more radical than norm. But I really honestly don't care, as the fact is, the war was started by the south and with it; they killed thousands of American lives from south to north, to black or white. They deserved harsher terms, but they were let go as if they were brothers, when in reality they were nothing but schemers.

  • Disagree 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

26 minutes ago, Blockmon said:

Now why this this also is a surprises, well I did not expect you to acknowledge that a right wing populism is fascist or nazi-like, since that is also the ideology of Trump and his MAGA community.

Out of respect to you I won’t refute your points for the fourth or fifth time, however, I think most people know me here as one of the most anti-Trump, bipartisan minded conservatives on the forum. Call me a Moderate Conservative, a Neo Con, a RINO, I don’t particularly care. But I’m not, and I hope I never am so blinded by ideology I can’t make a fair assessment of an event or politician and offer sincere, even if brash criticism.
 

AFD has a lot of bad figures who are indeed nazi-like. I’m not a fan of throwing nazi or fascist accusations around because it’s redundant on the internet and in any serious debate. But I genuinely am worried about the rise of Right Wing Populism, and the extremes throughout the political spectrum propagated by social media. In fact, I’m so passionate about calling out these problems when I see them because I was once one of them. The old phrase, “It takes one to know one.” Has truth to it outside of being a schoolyard comeback…. But that was a very long time ago. 

  • Like 4
  • Agree 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

28 minutes ago, Blockmon said:

Now why this this also is a surprises, well I did not expect you to acknowledge that a right wing populism is fascist or nazi-like, since that is also the ideology of Trump and his MAGA community.

Just a note, irrespective of everything else you’ve written, I’d just like to point out that Pringles is not a MAGA Trumpist. You seem to imply he is one. Pringles and I disagree on a lot, but he is by no means a Trump supporter. He supports Liberal Democracy, he’s never said anything outwardly bigoted as far as I’m aware, he’s not an isolationist, he actually supports the free market instead of only supporting it when companies agree with him. He’s basically as opposed to Trump as you can possibly be whithout becoming a liberal.

  • Like 3
  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

38 minutes ago, Blockmon said:

ummm, cause that is my point? From Gentrification to redlining, it doesn't matter, They are all systemic racisms aka racism in the governmental systems. Also from the 1970s to beginning of 1980s was when court ordered busing and Massive Resistance movement had ended, that's why segregation went down significantly. Now if we do see the 1980s and to present day, I wonder why we experience more segregation then ever? oh thats when Ronald Reagan and Reagan democrats took in power, and since then we have had supply-side and general amendments to civil rights acts to lessen their power, that is what increased segregation or atleast slowed down desegregation.

There is no systemic racism post-redlining pointed out by said paper to further your argument though. Segregation only continued to increase under presidents such as Barack Obama, who I would certainly not consider a Reagan type conservative. We also, however, do not experience more segregation than "ever". This is just a factually incorrect statement, and perhaps an emotionally charged one. The vast majority of the paper spends time discussing increase in segregation from 1990 to 2019, which is well past the Reagan's presidency and includes presidents who disagree with Reagan on many things, such as Clinton, Obama and Trump to quite an extent. You can call Clinton a "Reagan democrat", but this is just discrediting how much they disagreed. Conservative economic policy such as supply-side economics did not increase segregation; while it may have lead to disparate outcomes which adversely affected lower-income people more than upper-income people (highly disputed itself), which thus tended to affect minorities more than it did white people, this isn't "racism". It's, at its most favorable to your position, a failed idea of economics. This does not make it fundamentally racist, nor does it mean that it's purpose was to "lessen" minorities' "power" and increase segregation. 

So, if we'd like to touch upon the topic of why places are still increasing in terms of segregation, or as you put it "places are still segregated because of the old systemic racism created," we need to discuss that in it's entirety, as well as the reasoning FOR that. We must also note that the places where "systemic racism" would be most expected, such as the deep red South or flyover country (Kansas, Nebraska, Iowa etc) are areas with significantly lower segregation than typically "progressive" areas such as the NY/PA/NJ area or the west coast. It's easy to brush things aside as "muh systemic racism", but if we are going to discuss this in good faith (which if we are going to continue this, which it seems like you are not interested in and I am not particularly in favor of myself, it'd be nice to move it to it's own thread or to a private message, just out of respect for V and his post), we'd have to discuss all possible factors at play, and not simply assert that a disparate outcome is a result of racism. image.png.d841bb7e55c949a4bbd663a43e916177.png

I would like to mention though, on a side note, that I do appreciate your message most recently sent. While it was directed mainly towards Pringles, I do believe that you are genuine, and that you aren't arguing in bad faith, while I may disagree with you. I know some of these topics do trigger emotional responses, so I don't blame you for getting irritated over the subject.

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

×
×
  • Create New...