People saw the divide between North and South decades before the war. The bitterness, the divisiveness, the extremism and lack of compromise... sound familiar? Anyway, Trump obviously knows that Jackson wasn't actually around at the time of the war: "Had Andrew Jackson been a little later, you wouldn't have had the Civil War. He was a very tough person, but he had a big heart," But he was around in the decades leading up to it. And hell, maybe he could have done something to prevent it, had he been president at the time. (I doubt it. He was, like most Democrats, pro-slavery.)
Actually that's a good point, I won't dispute that. However, I still think it's a bit silly to think anyone could have defused the dumpster fire that was the poilitical tension leading up to the Civil War, much less Jackson.
Im a history (well, technically social science) major who has studied this area of history quite a few times. First; there was compromise at first; the Missouri compromise of 1820 for example. Yes, the divide was seen, but every solution and compromise given was only a band-aid solution. The south wanted to keep their slaves at all costs and expand (and no, there was no other true major cause for the war. 'States rights' is a confederate apologists view, and Im saying that as a southerner), while the North wanted to limit or even abolish slavery. Im sorry, but the situation is not like today. Do we have congressmen beating each other in the House? No. Yes, the political divide is sharp, but it's not going to cause a civil war. At the same time, he said this; "Jackson was really angry that he saw what was happening with regard to the Civil War." which sounds like he thinks Jackson was around at that time. Considering the biggest political minds of the day were trying to prevent it? I hiiiiighly doubt Jackson could have done literally anything even if he gave it his full.
Ridley, you don't need to defend and white knight everything Trump says. Sometimes he does just say stuff that is wrong. https://www.washingtonpost.com/graphics/politics/trump-claims/
So, will the Senate save us, or will everyone who isn't rich and has pre-existing conditions be expected to go bankrupt from being in a high risk pool? Or maybe they just expect them to die quickly. I wonder if the rust belt realises that diabetes is considered a pre-existing condition?
I'm not really sure what to think about the whole pre-existing condition thing. On the one hand, yeah. It's pretty crappy not to cover someone because of a genetic issue, an injury, or anything else beyond their control. On the other hand, it also kinda pisses me off that I have to pay so much for insurance just because Obamacare required these companies to cover people who drank, smoked, snorted, and shot up their way to poor health. Maybe there should be more than one class of pre-existing condition. If you're sick because of your own bad decisions, it's on you.
The AHCA is evil. Did you know about this? It says being raped or being the victim of sexual assault puts you in the pre existing group. So as a result of getting raped, you also get health insurance rates that are unaffordable. WTF?!? There is no defending this, this is pure evil. Every congress person in the house that voted for this is a horrible excuse for a person. http://www.marieclaire.com/politics/news/a26992/viral-twitter-thread-healthcare-bill/
heres a more reputable source breaking down the AHCA http://www.npr.org/sections/health-...-whats-in-the-house-approved-health-care-bill and have some fact checks http://www.politifact.com/florida/s...ew-version-ahca-still-cover-pre-existing-con/ http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-m...nes-say-gop-bill-makes-sexual-assault-pre-ex/ Basically, check your sources, keep to reputable ones, and dont make up stuff to make an already bad bill (for reasons like making healthcare more expensive) seem worse
Eh, sorry. Fell for the clickbait while I was on my phone at work. So, it's just evil, not pure-evil. However, that waiver thing... I fully expect a boatload of states to apply for waivers if this thing gets through the senate.
This is exactly where "lesser evil" politics leads. Trump didn't fall from the sky; the way was paved for him by Obama and the rest of the Democrats. Tax cuts for the rich are a driving factor behind "Trumpcare". Trump cannot be fought with what is responsible for his rise in the first place. It's high time to break with the Democrats and Republicans and fight for things like single payer, not reactionary policies that benefit a tiny minority of wealthy parasites.
Im not exactly sure where youre suddenly coming around with that. How exactly did the Dems pave the way for Trump? By not turning out in very notable numbers in the last election? Again, what do you think caused his rise? Because his rise can be and is attributed to misinformation becoming widespread, mixed with there being too many others to mount a defense against him (in the case of the republican primaries), and a faltering democratic turnout in the general election. I definitely won't disagree that we need more parties than just the Dems and Republicans (although our system is not set up in a way to allow that at all), but you seem to be blaming democrats for republicans being obsessed with cutting taxes on the rich at basically every possible turn.
http://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-trump-comey-idUSKBN1852MV So this just happened also; http://www.cnn.com/2017/05/09/politics/senate-russia-investigation-donald-trump/index.html
Listen to the first segment of the Mark Levin Show for 5/9/2017. It brakes down exactly why Comey was fired and it had nothing to do with Russia. http://www.marklevinshow.com/
Believe what you want. But perception is everything, and this timing looks really bad. Did you see the schedule of when Comey was to testify? Sessions was the one recommending that he is fired and who was he in the middle of investigating? I'm just saying. Like whatever he was finding was worse than how this looks?
First off; http://www.cnbc.com/2017/05/09/just...p-with-reasons-to-fire-comey-reports-say.html Secondly; The official reason had to do with how he handled Clinton's emails...Im sorry Lio, but thats preeetty freaking flimsy considering that happened months ago. Third; the guy you linked supports Ted Cruz. And Im sorry, if someone supports Cruz, they are an idiot or they are untrustworthy. Plain and simple. Because thats what Cruz is. Also; http://www.msnbc.com/rachel-maddow-show/sean-spicer-spent-several-minutes-hidden-the-bushes
Right, left wing sources known for bias are trust worthy, but a guy on the Radio who talks against both sides of the isle is a moron and untrustworthy. Did you listen to the first thirty minutes? He quotes both Republicans and Democrats, on their opinion of Comey.
That bias has nothing to do with either Republicans or Democrats. If you listen him as much as I do, he doesn't like career politicians on either side of the isle. He wants to give power back where it belongs. In some cases it's the States, in others it's the people.
I find it a tad ironic that when the Dems were blaming Comey for Hillary's loss, he was vilified and hated; now that Trump's fired him, he's suddenly a martyr to the cause, held up as proof of the Evil Mr. Trump's corruption.
