fooz said:

---

Stopped reading at "Barr"

---

Interesting how there was much love for Barr before he started disagreeing with Trump. I don't think he's wrong and its exactly one of the reasons Desantis is the better option.

Pookers said:

---

BoerneGator said:

---

Quote:

---

General Sherman in the battle of Atlanta

---

Battle? Did you mean to type "burning" of Atlanta? There was no real battle…

---

Indeed, Sherman was a war criminal. The propaganda around the civil war is crazy.

---

I strongly disagree with this. I use to think this. Read the aforementioned book.
Sherman waged total war as a means of ending the war succinctly. He was successful. The fact that Lincoln got assassinated and war secretary Stanton was able to grab more military power from Sherman led to the destruction of any reconciliation (which sherman pushed for in similar ways as lincoln).

BluHorseShu said:

---

fooz said:

---

Stopped reading at "Barr"

---

Interesting how there was much love for Barr before he started disagreeing with Trump. I don't think he's wrong and its exactly one of the reasons Desantis is the better option.

---

What did Barr accomplish? He had good sound bites and a funny gif. In a way that is the posterboy for middle class' frustration toward the republican party. They act as if in a movie, they don't actually DO anything.

captkirk said:

---

I want the "system" blown up. Who is the best guy for that?

---

If you just want things blown up, I think Trump could do that...My bigger concern is who is the best guy to put it back together. Too many talk about draining the swamp or blowing up the existing status quo...okay, but who actually has detailed plan beyond just chaos? I would trust Desantis to methodically dismantle, as opposed to just lobbing a grenade in a 4 year term with now reformative action and then saying 'Thank you, good night' and living comfortably with support from the tax payers for the rest of their life.

texagbeliever said:

---

Pookers said:

---

BoerneGator said:

---

Quote:

---

General Sherman in the battle of Atlanta

---

Battle? Did you mean to type "burning" of Atlanta? There was no real battle…

---

Indeed, Sherman was a war criminal. The propaganda around the civil war is crazy.

---

I strongly disagree with this. I use to think this. Read the aforementioned book.
Sherman waged total war as a means of ending the war succinctly. He was successful. The fact that Lincoln got assassinated and war secretary Stanton was able to grab more military power from Sherman led to the destruction of any reconciliation (which sherman pushed for in similar ways as lincoln).

---

Here's a good book from a Lolbertarian perspective on the war that covers Sherman's little march through the south and Lincoln's dirtbaggery.

Quote:

---

If you think you're getting legislation with Desantis, I've got some ocean front property in Arizona to sell you.

---

If you truly think there aren't moderate Dems, and because of that no conservative leaning legislation could ever be passed, then this discussion and all others like it are irrelevant. Dont vote ever again. What would be the point?

And if that were the case, I think it makes the case for DeSantis over Trump that much more. Why invite the chaos and yo-yo effect, that results in all these EOs?

But obviously that's not the case. It's about leverage. Always has been. Get leverage, and you get agendas passed.

We need brains in office, not brashness.

Pookers said:

---

texagbeliever said:

---

Pookers said:

---

BoerneGator said:

---

Quote:

---

General Sherman in the battle of Atlanta

---

Battle? Did you mean to type "burning" of Atlanta? There was no real battle…

---

Indeed, Sherman was a war criminal. The propaganda around the civil war is crazy.

---

I strongly disagree with this. I use to think this. Read the aforementioned book.
Sherman waged total war as a means of ending the war succinctly. He was successful. The fact that Lincoln got assassinated and war secretary Stanton was able to grab more military power from Sherman led to the destruction of any reconciliation (which sherman pushed for in similar ways as lincoln).

---

Here's a good book from a Lolbertarian perspective on the war that covers Sherman's little march through the south and Lincoln's dirtbaggery.

---

Sherman saw that by bringing the war to the economic and social heart of the South he would pull the Southern army away from the front lines and push them back home. This idea that he could have just fought a decisive battle and won the war flies in the face of almost all war history.

Wars are won by attacking economic/social targets. The opposing army generally either overreacts and takes an ill-advised fight and gets crushed (this happened repeatedly to Confederate army opposite sherman) or they under react and see the will to fight the war collapse and with it lose the war.

We saw this happen in WW1. The British blockade starved the Germans to death causing a social revolution which led to the German capitulation. Yet no one ever complains about how bad it was to starve the German civilians. War is hell.

texagbeliever said:

---

Pookers said:

---

texagbeliever said:

---

Pookers said:

---

BoerneGator said:

---

Quote:

---

General Sherman in the battle of Atlanta

---

Battle? Did you mean to type "burning" of Atlanta? There was no real battle…

---

Indeed, Sherman was a war criminal. The propaganda around the civil war is crazy.

---

I strongly disagree with this. I use to think this. Read the aforementioned book.
Sherman waged total war as a means of ending the war succinctly. He was successful. The fact that Lincoln got assassinated and war secretary Stanton was able to grab more military power from Sherman led to the destruction of any reconciliation (which sherman pushed for in similar ways as lincoln).

---

Here's a good book from a Lolbertarian perspective on the war that covers Sherman's little march through the south and Lincoln's dirtbaggery.

---

Sherman saw that by bringing the war to the economic and social heart of the South he would pull the Southern army away from the front lines and push them back home. This idea that he could have just fought a decisive battle and won the war flies in the face of almost all war history.

Wars are won by attacking economic/social targets. The opposing army generally either overreacts and takes an ill-advised fight and gets crushed (this happened repeatedly to Confederate army opposite sherman) or they under react and see the will to fight the war collapse and with it lose the war.

We saw this happen in WW1. The British blockade starved the Germans to death causing a social revolution which led to the German capitulation. Yet no one ever complains about how bad it was to starve the German civilians. War is hell.

---

Thanks for telling me how wars work, I had no clue. The book I linked might challenge your viewpoints if that is of any interest to you. Otherwise, thanks for trotting out the talking points I've heard since middleschool on the subject.

Logos Stick said:

---

AgGrad99 said:

---

96AgGrad said:

---

Barr is a snake, but he's not wrong. Trump would be a lame duck President from day one.

More temporary EO's and a decent foreign policy are nice, but I think DeSantis can do better.

---

This is where I'm at.

We need legislation, not temporary EO's. Trump doesn't even have the support from a lot of his own party.

Love him or hate him, he will have a much harder time actually enacting real. change.

Barr is a turd, but he's not wrong.

---

If you think you're getting legislation with Desantis, I've got some ocean front property in Arizona to sell you.

In case you guys missed it, there are no more moderate Dems. They are all Marxists to one degree or another. It is the party of ISM now, eg Marxism, wokeism, transgenderism etc

---

Well you know you won't get any with Trump, he won't even be able to get Republicans on board and every Dem will oppose everything he does. So all he can do is EO's and fire people but then he doesn't have anyone to replace them with that's worth a damn. That's why it won't work.

DeSantis didn't just walk in and get to where he is now with a completely compliant Leg that will pass his entire agenda. He started off hitting popular and specific issues where he had the high ground. He had his team scour through Florida law extensively to understand exactly what powers he had and didn't have and didn't hesitate when he had the high ground. He had a strict "no leaks" policy and immediately fired anyone who had a separate agenda setting an example for others and then keeping drama to a minimum within his admin. That also allowed him to stay on offense with the press and keep his opponents off guard because they couldn't see his strategy until he hit them over the head.

It takes strategy and discipline and knowing which battles to fight and when. If you don't have that you will get quickly thrown off course and lose which is exactly what happened to Trump. That's why I said do you want Pinochet or Reagan. If you pick Pinochet understand that is just a fantasy though because it will never happen in the US.

Agree to disagree.

texagbeliever said:

---

Agree to disagree.

---

Sounds good.

Barr is a poon wallering in the swamp.

Quote:

---

Well you know you won't get any with Trump, he won't even be able to get Republicans on board and every Dem will oppose everything he does. So all he can do is EO's and fire people but then he doesn't have anyone to replace them with that's worth a damn. That's why it won't work.

---

This is hard to argue against, because we've already seen it...and this time, it would be a lame duck term.

I get why people love Trump. But I wish his most ardent supporters can appreciate some of the things he did, while also recognizing the slim likelihood of him being elected again. No one is going to change their mind about Trump. People have formed their opinions about him. There aren't swaths of voters in the middle, who are undecided, like you'd have with other candidates.

Just like many voted against Trump last time, people are tired of Biden and many will vote against him....unless the other option is a candidate they dont like even more.

Quote:

---

Sherman waged total war as a means of ending the war succinctly.

---

Total war = euphemism for burning and pillaging un-defended major cities and plantations occupied by innocent women and children (non-combatants).

You've bought into the re-writing of history.

Jeeper79 said:

---

Barr is not wrong. I'm just surprised that a Republican would actually come out and say it. I guess he's not trying to win votes so he's free to be honest.

---

Barr isn't a republican.

Ellis Wyatt said:

---

I'm not sure if you or eric curl into the fetal position more quickly when Trump's name is brought up. He really hurt you.

---

wow- a Trumper not actually able to debate issues but can only come with the personal insults and attacks.

you seem like just a real humanitarian and overall great guy.

TRADUCTOR said:

---

Barr is a poon wallering in the swamp.

---

like many of the Trumpers who have to focus on Barr being appointed Attorney General by George HW Bush -

conveniently ignoring that DONALD TRUMP selected and appointed and did not fire Barr

really interesting none of the Trumpers can be bothered to respond to that "inconvenient fact"

It's interesting that nearly 100% of Trump's former cabinet members think he's a moron.

But no the problem definitely is not Trump, it just they are all swamp creatures.

<insert Principal Skinner meme>

BoerneGator said:

---

Quote:

---

Sherman waged total war as a means of ending the war succinctly.

---

Total war = euphemism for burning and pillaging un-defended major cities and plantations occupied by innocent women and children (non-combatants).

You've bought into the re-writing of history.

---

The purpose of war is to win. This innocent and noble view of war is probably the biggest culprit of America's war failures. War is not 2 great armies lining up and waging battle. Band of Brothers is a great series but it isn't how wars are won.

War is economic, political, social and military. China is raging war against us by corrupting our politicians, controlling our entertainment and destroying our education. They are directly bringing war to the common person.

From a review of the book "The Real Lincoln":

Quote:

---

In The Real Lincoln, author Thomas J. DiLorenzo uncovers a side of Lincoln not told in many history books--and overshadowed by the immense Lincoln legend. Through extensive research and meticulous documentation, DiLorenzo portrays the sixteenth president as a man who devoted his political career to revolutionizing the American form of government from one that was very limited in scope and highly decentralizedas the Founding Fathers intendedto a highly centralized, activist state. Standing in his way, however, was the South, with its independent states, its resistance to the national government, and its reliance on unfettered free trade. To accomplish his goals, Lincoln subverted the Constitution, trampled states' rights, and launched a devastating Civil War, whose wounds haunt us still. According to this provacative book, 600,000 American soldiers did not die for the honorable cause of ending slavery but for the dubious agenda of sacrificing the independence of the states to the supremacy of the federal government, which has been tightening its vise grip on our republic to this very day.

---

And look at where "we" are today, as a nation. Thanks a lot Abe!

Forum Troll said:

---

It's interesting that nearly 100% of Trump's former cabinet members think he's a moron.

But no the problem definitely is not Trump, it just they are all swamp creatures.

<insert Principal Skinner meme>

---

Ever ask why?

He was made politically toxic by the Democrats (illegally)and a media that wouldn't tell the whole truth. Politicians susceptible at reelection could not align with him.

As a step back I view the civil war as a war between the plantation owners and the factory owners. The two groups who held most of the economic power in their respective regions. The clear economic divide corresponding with geographic conditions is why war and sides became possible.

In some regards that power was concentrated and held by the North after the Civil War. I dont think that was Lincoln's intention. His reconciliation plan would have been a move against the northern factory owners. That is because by spending money to restore the south and bring online more export goods causing GDP to rise and the $ to strengthen the northern commerce would take a hit. Which was actually the original qualm of the war. Favor the South or exports or the North manufacturing.

But to the point. A stronger South through proper reconciliation would have moved power more quickly and effectively into those states. For power lies in the ownership of production and distribution of goods and services.

So I feel as though Lincoln is judged because he only got through 50% of his plan. The real blame should lie on War Secretary Stanton.

BoerneGator said:

---

From a review of the book "The Real Lincoln":

Quote:

---

In The Real Lincoln, author Thomas J. DiLorenzo uncovers a side of Lincoln not told in many history books--and overshadowed by the immense Lincoln legend. Through extensive research and meticulous documentation, DiLorenzo portrays the sixteenth president as a man who devoted his political career to revolutionizing the American form of government from one that was very limited in scope and highly decentralizedas the Founding Fathers intendedto a highly centralized, activist state. Standing in his way, however, was the South, with its independent states, its resistance to the national government, and its reliance on unfettered free trade. To accomplish his goals, Lincoln subverted the Constitution, trampled states' rights, and launched a devastating Civil War, whose wounds haunt us still. According to this provacative book, 600,000 American soldiers did not die for the honorable cause of ending slavery but for the dubious agenda of sacrificing the independence of the states to the supremacy of the federal government, which has been tightening its vise grip on our republic to this very day.

---

And look at where "we" are today, as a nation. Thanks a lot Abe!

---

A lot of harsh truth there. In the end you can talk about slavery but the Civil War was about "Preserving the Union" in spite of the fact that every state that seceded literally had a 2/3rds vote to leave so it was against every principle of the Declaration of Independence and Constitution from a Legal perspective. Lincoln refused to let them go and the slavery issue had a lot more to do with breaking the South and enriching the North than it did with the small minority of abolitionists. Most people in the North didn't give a damn about slavery and they hated Black people every bit as much if not more.

The Civil War was much more about Manifest Destiny and the North not wanting to lose their control than any noble goals.

aggie93 said:

---

BoerneGator said:

---

From a review of the book "The Real Lincoln":

Quote:

---

In The Real Lincoln, author Thomas J. DiLorenzo uncovers a side of Lincoln not told in many history books--and overshadowed by the immense Lincoln legend. Through extensive research and meticulous documentation, DiLorenzo portrays the sixteenth president as a man who devoted his political career to revolutionizing the American form of government from one that was very limited in scope and highly decentralizedas the Founding Fathers intendedto a highly centralized, activist state. Standing in his way, however, was the South, with its independent states, its resistance to the national government, and its reliance on unfettered free trade. To accomplish his goals, Lincoln subverted the Constitution, trampled states' rights, and launched a devastating Civil War, whose wounds haunt us still. According to this provacative book, 600,000 American soldiers did not die for the honorable cause of ending slavery but for the dubious agenda of sacrificing the independence of the states to the supremacy of the federal government, which has been tightening its vise grip on our republic to this very day.

---

And look at where "we" are today, as a nation. Thanks a lot Abe!

---

A lot of harsh truth there. In the end you can talk about slavery but the Civil War was about "Preserving the Union" in spite of the fact that every state that seceded literally had a 2/3rds vote to leave so it was against every principle of the Declaration of Independence and Constitution from a Legal perspective. Lincoln refused to let them go and the slavery issue had a lot more to do with breaking the South and enriching the North than it did with the small minority of abolitionists. Most people in the North didn't give a damn about slavery and they hated Black people every bit as much if not more.

The Civil War was much more about Manifest Destiny and the North not wanting to lose their control than any noble goals.

---

The book really is good. Audible version is also fantastic.

texagbeliever said:

---

BluHorseShu said:

---

fooz said:

---

Stopped reading at "Barr"

---

Interesting how there was much love for Barr before he started disagreeing with Trump. I don't think he's wrong and its exactly one of the reasons Desantis is the better option.

---

What did Barr accomplish? He had good sound bites and a funny gif. In a way that is the posterboy for middle class' frustration toward the republican party. They act as if in a movie, they don't actually DO anything.

---

You just described half of congress

eric76 said:

---

From https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/2023/05/07/bill-barr-donald-trump-2024/70192252007/

Quote:

---

"If you believe in his policies, what he's advertising is his policies, he's the last person who could actually execute them and achieve them," Barr responded. "He does not have the discipline, he does not have the ability for strategic thinking and linear thinking or setting priorities or how to get things done in the system."

"It is a horror show when he is left to his own devices," Barr added.

If Trump were to reclaim the White House in 2024, Barr warned of "chaos" and the potential for Trump to self-sabotage his own agenda as president.

"You may want his policies, but Trump will not deliver Trump policies. He will deliver chaos and, if anything, lead to a backlash that will set his policies much further back than they otherwise would be."

---

That this is a very likely result if Trump should win in 2024 should be no surprise.

Fortunately, he is hardly likely to win unless he is running against Hillary or Biden. Unfortunately, he has a chance at winning the Republican nomination.

---

Trump already implemented his promised policies in 2017. They were great for the USA and therefore the world. Barr is a HUGE SWAMP CRITTER! F Barr.

BoerneGator said:

---

From a review of the book "The Real Lincoln":

Quote:

---

In The Real Lincoln, author Thomas J. DiLorenzo uncovers a side of Lincoln not told in many history books--and overshadowed by the immense Lincoln legend. Through extensive research and meticulous documentation, DiLorenzo portrays the sixteenth president as a man who devoted his political career to revolutionizing the American form of government from one that was very limited in scope and highly decentralizedas the Founding Fathers intendedto a highly centralized, activist state. Standing in his way, however, was the South, with its independent states, its resistance to the national government, and its reliance on unfettered free trade. To accomplish his goals, Lincoln subverted the Constitution, trampled states' rights, and launched a devastating Civil War, whose wounds haunt us still. According to this provacative book, 600,000 American soldiers did not die for the honorable cause of ending slavery but for the dubious agenda of sacrificing the independence of the states to the supremacy of the federal government, which has been tightening its vise grip on our republic to this very day.

---

And look at where "we" are today, as a nation. Thanks a lot Abe!

---

Lincoln was a Henry Clay sycophant. Henry Clay's "American System" was a Hamiltonian big government wet dream. The Republican party is the OG big government statist party.

The true political divide in this nation was always Hamiltonian vs Jeffersonian. The two "parties" we have today are both Hamiltonian.

DD88 said:

---

Ducks4brkfast said:

---

He's a negotiator, not a politician. Give him the keys back to the castle. Lfg.

---

Negotiating away our Constitutional Rights is a disqualifier.

---

I think you may have killed a few brain cells.

Tom Kazansky 2012 said:

---

Jeeper79 said:

---

Barr is not wrong. I'm just surprised that a Republican would actually come out and say it. I guess he's not trying to win votes so he's free to be honest.

---

Barr isn't a republican.

---

Feel free to outline any liberal positions Barr has.

J. Walter Weatherman said:

---

Tom Kazansky 2012 said:

---

Jeeper79 said:

---

Barr is not wrong. I'm just surprised that a Republican would actually come out and say it. I guess he's not trying to win votes so he's free to be honest.

---

Barr isn't a republican.

---

Feel free to outline any liberal positions Barr has.

---

Barr is a Neocon, so yeah, a republican.

BluHorseShu said:

---

texagbeliever said:

---

BluHorseShu said:

---

fooz said:

---

Stopped reading at "Barr"

---

Interesting how there was much love for Barr before he started disagreeing with Trump. I don't think he's wrong and its exactly one of the reasons Desantis is the better option.

---

What did Barr accomplish? He had good sound bites and a funny gif. In a way that is the posterboy for middle class' frustration toward the republican party. They act as if in a movie, they don't actually DO anything.

---

You just described half of congress

---

Yes I did. That is why Trump got the disengaged/disenfranchised voters to vote. To go to rallies. They saw their vote meant nothing because the simpel logical answers were never implemented.

That is the movement in a nutshell. The problem is that you are being screwed on one side that yells at you and then screwed by the other side that acts like they are your friend. Really both just think they are a class above you and that you just need to shut up and be thankful for the peanuts they give to you.

Pookers said:

---

BoerneGator said:

---

From a review of the book "The Real Lincoln":

Quote:

---

In The Real Lincoln, author Thomas J. DiLorenzo uncovers a side of Lincoln not told in many history books--and overshadowed by the immense Lincoln legend. Through extensive research and meticulous documentation, DiLorenzo portrays the sixteenth president as a man who devoted his political career to revolutionizing the American form of government from one that was very limited in scope and highly decentralizedas the Founding Fathers intendedto a highly centralized, activist state. Standing in his way, however, was the South, with its independent states, its resistance to the national government, and its reliance on unfettered free trade. To accomplish his goals, Lincoln subverted the Constitution, trampled states' rights, and launched a devastating Civil War, whose wounds haunt us still. According to this provacative book, 600,000 American soldiers did not die for the honorable cause of ending slavery but for the dubious agenda of sacrificing the independence of the states to the supremacy of the federal government, which has been tightening its vise grip on our republic to this very day.

---

And look at where "we" are today, as a nation. Thanks a lot Abe!

---

Lincoln was a Henry Clay sycophant. Henry Clay's "American System" was a Hamiltonian big government wet dream. The Republican party is the OG big government statist party.

The true political divide in this nation was always Hamiltonian vs Jeffersonian. The two "parties" we have today are both Hamiltonian.

---

You do realize without Henry Clay America wouldn't have been able to expand west of the Mississippi right? He actually opposed those who were willing to cede that to Britain in name of keeping trade (thus those who had economic power on the line) open with Britain.

texagbeliever said:

---

As a step back I view the civil war as a war between the plantation owners and the factory owners. The two groups who held most of the economic power in their respective regions. The clear economic divide corresponding with geographic conditions is why war and sides became possible.

In some regards that power was concentrated and held by the North after the Civil War. I dont think that was Lincoln's intention. His reconciliation plan would have been a move against the northern factory owners. That is because by spending money to restore the south and bring online more export goods causing GDP to rise and the $ to strengthen the northern commerce would take a hit. Which was actually the original qualm of the war. Favor the South or exports or the North manufacturing.

But to the point. A stronger South through proper reconciliation would have moved power more quickly and effectively into those states. For power lies in the ownership of production and distribution of goods and services.

So I feel as though Lincoln is judged because he only got through 50% of his plan. The real blame should lie on War Secretary Stanton.

---

Lincoln had many opportunities for a peaceful settlement but he wanted war and to crush the South. He was willing to kill a significant percentage of the entire US population rather than let the South be independent and come up with a peaceful separation. You can spin it however you want but that's the reality. It's true we will never know what Reconstruction would have looked like had Lincoln not been assassinated but it is also true that Lincoln would not negotiate before or during the war and he was willing to sacrifice as many people as necessary to achieve his goals. He also said he was willing to keep slavery legal if it meant the South didn't secede. Lincoln absolutely believed in destroying the Constitution in order to save the Union.

AgGrad99 said:

---

96AgGrad said:

---

Barr is a snake, but he's not wrong. Trump would be a lame duck President from day one.

More temporary EO's and a decent foreign policy are nice, but I think DeSantis can do better.

---

Trump doesn't even have the support from a lot of his own party.

---

That is not his fault. Trump is a complete mess, but other republicans' refusal to represent America is solely on them and their constituents.

eric76 said:

---

From https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/2023/05/07/bill-barr-donald-trump-2024/70192252007/

Quote:

---

"If you believe in his policies, what he's advertising is his policies, he's the last person who could actually execute them and achieve them," Barr responded. "He does not have the discipline, he does not have the ability for strategic thinking and linear thinking or setting priorities or how to get things done in the system."

"It is a horror show when he is left to his own devices," Barr added.

If Trump were to reclaim the White House in 2024, Barr warned of "chaos" and the potential for Trump to self-sabotage his own agenda as president.

"You may want his policies, but Trump will not deliver Trump policies. He will deliver chaos and, if anything, lead to a backlash that will set his policies much further back than they otherwise would be."

---

That this is a very likely result if Trump should win in 2024 should be no surprise.

Fortunately, he is hardly likely to win unless he is running against Hillary or Biden. Unfortunately, he has a chance at winning the Republican nomination.

---

To understand Barr's statement I would really need to understand what he means by "strategic thinking and linear thinking".

If it means eliminating some profoundly idiotic attacks on people, determining who in the upper administration needs **** canning, OK.

If it means backdoor deals with the corrupt unethical bull**** Democratic Party and their minions in the bureaucracies, then no.