One of my coworkers is like that. He wants to start a YouTube channel about it.

i think you have to be much much more of a narcissist to convince yourself that your own personal apotheosis constitutes an emancipatory movement unto itself.

I like the way you phrased this.

With as his running mate.

Bipartisanship is when war criminals from different parties come together to stop another war criminal because he's not letting the "smart and respectable" people do the war crimes according to the "rules."

I really doubt that. There was still a frontier to contain class conflict vis-a-vis the settler release valve. They would have only come for Lincoln if he has lost the war.

I'm getting Vivziepop vibes from this anthro. Probably because the avian traits. Also barn owls just rock in general.

Unfortunately, this was the only way they could build antislavery coalition to win the White House in 1860. The new Republican Party couldn't just win on appealing to the moral sentiments of middle class religious people alone but, also had to appeal to the material interests of racist white settlers to push an antislavery agenda. The results of which we are still trying to grapple with as we try to formulate a basic platform for a liberatory political movement.

In addition to my other comments on Lincoln's support of the American Colonization Society in this thread, I'd also like to add here my criticism of how the Republican (and Democratic) parties at the time also set the foundation for the Guilded Age monopolies that would come after Lincoln with regards to their railroad policy which was tied to their general homesteading policy. They kinda screwed their own voters a generation later when the railroad monopolies started charging all those Republican-voting farmers in Kansas high rates on freight. Lincoln, being a product of Illinois politics like his Democratic contemporary, Stephen Douglas, was a product of that environment that was heavily influenced by budding railway interests.

I don't think that Lincoln was that inflexible. Clinton would not have even tried trial runs of compensated emancipation. She would have probably been a doughface that would have been even more prideful and arrogant than James Buchanan.

I'd argue his opposition to slavery was out of morality but, his liberal obsession with protecting property rights made him never advocate for uncompensated abolition until he had near total power to do so, and then he still tried at first to pay the slave owners for emancipation (which they refused). He was always at least held antislavery positions for his entire political career, and for a long time held the same political positions on emancipation as his political hero Henry Clay.

If you want to criticize Lincoln's emancipation politics there, you can especially criticize his long-standing belief that America could not be a multiracial society, and that freedmen should all be sent to Liberia, something he also adopted from Clay. He pursued and promoted this colonization plan well into the later parts of the war. And while he became more accepting towards the idea of voting rights for freedmen towards the end of his life, it still only extended towards veterans and those white society seemed to be exceptionally intelligent.

We should also keep in mind that Marx did not necessarily believe that slavery's extinction in the United States was inevitable. One great fear of his was that it would somehow be incorporated into developing American capitalism, maybe along the lines of George Fitzhugh, or something. It's one reason why he supported Lincoln during the Civil War.

In all, I somehow feel kinda relieved we had Lincoln, when you compare his flexible approach to some of the completely inflexible white supremacists that came both immediately before (James Buchanan) and after him (Andrew Johnson). Though I wish we had someone more radical than even that, someone who could pursue land redistribution for freedmen, or even scrap the old Constitution.

Apparently Charizard is taller than Fiorello LaGuardia. Lol.

I love my Torterra.

The glow of atomic fires makes this guy look like the Mouth of Sauron after getting out of a tanning booth.

Maybe I'll try it differently next time. I just kinda was afraid of trauma dumping with her like I did with this one guy I clicked with and later lost interest in me (to be fair, he told me first about plenty of his problems, which in my opinion, were worse than mine). That experience kinda made me wary of revealing too much about myself. So I rejected the offer of friendship because she included with it and offer to help me work on my social anxiety and other things. I felt that was putting too much on her.

If I have her as a friend, there will be the temptation to tell her about my problems, which is wrong in my opinion. I think she has more important problems for herself to worry about than I do. I have a relatively privileged position in comparison.

In terms of friendships, I'm wary of making friends in any context because I always feel that they'll lose interest over time, while I end up having to initiate all the social interactions. I don't want to do that. It is just so draining.

I love listening to these.

It's a return of the potato tank.

Lol.

Well, my date went well, we both agreed on that but, when it came to moving forward, she said while she really likes talking to me, she didn't feel attracted. She offered to be friends, help me navigate my social anxiety, and later consider dating me again but, I told her it was best if I don't burden her with emotional labor. Instead I said we should just part ways on good terms. Well, that was how the second date in my life went.

Including this one?

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=HrKNukKlhzE