SoTier

Actually, the Civil War wasn't fought to "end slavery forever". The reality is that it was fought to perpetuate slavery forever. Lincoln and the Republicans did not run on the idea of ending slavery. They did not oppose slavery in the states where it already existed but wanted to stop slavery from spreading into the western territories. The people of the north and the west fought the Civil War to preserve the Union, not end slavery. The southern states that seceded sought to protect and expand slavery by leaving the Union and establishing a country where slavery would not only be the law of the land, it couldn't ever be abolished. The Confederate Constitution is almost a carbon copy of the US Constitution except in 2 main instances: states rights and slavery ... except that when it came to slavery, states had no rights to regulate or eliminate it. Slavery was the cause of the Civil War, but ending slavery was a consequence of the southern rebellion. It never was a Union war aim. In fact, early in the war, it was common practice for the Union Army to return slaves who had escaped to their lines to their masters, but Union General Benjamin Butler famously declared 3 escaped slaves "contraband of war", ie, war materiel. This was controversial at first, but as politicians and military men realized that the Confederates were using slaves in the war effort, slaves who escaped to the Union lines were employed in the Union war effort as manual laborers, teamsters, etc and even as spies. The longer the war continued, the more accepting of the idea of freeing the slaves northerners became. By 1863, the Union was recruiting ex-slaves as soldiers. By the end of the war, more than 185,000 Black men, mostly ex-slaves, had fought for the Union cause. The Union's strategy was to strangle the South and force a rebel surrender. The first step was to blockade southern ports to prevent the export of cotton and the importation of military goods. The second part was to deprive the Confederacy of access to trade through Texas (from ships that came into Mexican ports) by establishing control of the Mississippi River. Lincoln's Emancipation Proclamation was another part of that effort; depriving the Confederacy of a reliable labor supply to produce foodstuffs and military supplies as well as support for the southern armies. The Proclamation only freed slaves in areas not under Union control, ie, the Confederate states. It did not free slaves in the slave states of Delaware, Kentucky, Maryland, and Missouri which hadn't joined the Confederacy. The Thirteenth Amendment ended slavery for all time in the US.

Ain't unregulated public utilities great?

Agreed. People don't pack up their lives to move to a new country unless they are very determined to change their lives. That was as true in the 1840s and 1890s and 1920s as it is today. I think that it's the ambition and success of immigrants that has fired up anti-immigration feeling among native born Americans (nativism) throughout US history, especially among those who are struggling economically for whatever reason. Immigrants are easy targets, especially when they come in large numbers and seem "alien" like Irish Catholics, Chinese, Catholics and Jews from Southern and Eastern Europe, Mexicans and other Hispanics, etc.

You are correct. Fairness Doctrine The fairness doctrine of the United States Federal Communications Commission (FCC), introduced in 1949, was a policy that required the holders of broadcast licenses to both present controversial issues of public importance and to do so in a manner that was honest, equitable, and balanced. The FCC eliminated the policy in 1987 and removed the rule that implemented the policy from the Federal Register in August 2011.[1] The fairness doctrine had two basic elements: It required broadcasters to devote some of their airtime to discussing controversial matters of public interest, and to air contrasting views regarding those matters. Stations were given wide latitude as to how to provide contrasting views: It could be done through news segments, public affairs shows, or editorials. The doctrine did not require equal time for opposing views but required that contrasting viewpoints be presented. The demise of this FCC rule has been considered by some to be a contributing factor for the rising level of party polarization in the United States.[2][3] The main agenda for the doctrine was to ensure that viewers were exposed to a diversity of viewpoints. In 1969 the United States Supreme Court, in Red Lion Broadcasting Co. v. FCC, upheld the FCC's general right to enforce the fairness doctrine where channels were limited. However, the Court did not rule that the FCC was obliged to do so.[4] The courts reasoned that the scarcity of the broadcast spectrum, which limited the opportunity for access to the airwaves, created a need for the doctrine. The fairness doctrine is not the same as the equal-time rule. The fairness doctrine deals with discussion of controversial issues, while the equal-time rule deals only with political candidates. Equal Time Rule The equal-time rule specifies that U.S. radio and television broadcast stations must provide an equivalent opportunity to any opposing political candidates who request it. This means, for example, that if a station gives a given amount of time to a candidate in prime time, it must do the same for another candidate who requests it, at the same price if applicable. This rule originated in §18 of the Radio Act of 1927; it was later superseded by the Communications Act of 1934. A related provision, in §315(b), requires that broadcasters offer time to candidates at the same rate as their "most favored advertiser". The equal-time rule was created because the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) was concerned that broadcast stations could easily manipulate the outcome of elections by presenting just one point of view and excluding other candidates. There are four exceptions to the equal-time rule. If the airing was within a documentary, bona fide news interview, scheduled newscast, or an on-the-spot news event, the equal-time rule does not apply. Since 1983, political debates not hosted by the media station are considered "news events," and as a result, they are not subject to the rule. Consequently, these debates may include only major-party candidates without having to offer air time to minor-party or independent candidates. Talk shows and other regular news programming from syndicators, such as Entertainment Tonight, are also declared exempt from the rule by the FCC on a case-by-case basis. The equal-time rule was temporarily suspended by Congress in 1960 to permit the Kennedy-Nixon debates to take place.

My personal opinion is that the time for reparations to slaves is about 150 years too late. Giving some kind of compensation to men and women who actually suffered from slavery would have been pretty straight forward and would have been akin to the Japanese Claims Act of 1948. There actually were proposals for reparations to ex-slaves during Reconstruction. The most well known -- and popular among ex-slaves themselves -- was the one that would break up plantations to give ex-slaves a farm plot and the supplies to become subsistence farmers. This plan was popularly described as "forty acres and a mule". It obviously never went very far. The problem with making reparations today is that they would be extraordinarily complicated and somewhat unfair to many Black Americans. Millions of Black Americans are not descendants of people who were enslaved in the US as there's been significant immigration of Blacks from the Caribbean islands like Haiti, Jamaica, and Cuba as well as more recently from Africa itself. Millions more Black Americans would probably have difficulty proving that they descended from slaves. If reparations would be given en masse -- given to every Black American -- it would open the can of worms of "who's actually Black?". At present, the definition is fairly open -- if you identify as Black, then you're Black. With money involved, I don't think that would be good enough. Certainly, those that are left out of the reparations would feel cheated. It would divide Black communities just as the Native American gaming industry dividing many Native American communities over who was a tribal member and who wasn't.

Claiming to support "kindness" while thinking that Limbaugh was a "cool and a wonderful guy" suggests that hypocrisy is your stock in trade.

The little city I live in, Jamestown, has had "public power", ie government owned electric system, since the 1890s. It has provided cheap, reliable power to both the City of Jamestown and the Town of Ellicott for 130 years. There are a number of small scale publicly-owned electric utilities and co-operatives scattered throughout upstate NY.

It's a state version of the TVA, which isn't surprising since it was created in 1931 by then NY governor Franklin Roosevelt. It produces some of the lowest cost electricity in the nation, about 70% of it from renewable energy produced by its massive hydroelectric generating facilities at Niagara Falls and Massena. It sells power to consumers via private electric utility companies such as National Grid which are required to pass those savings on to their customers. I believe it also sells low cost power directly to large industrial facilities within the state.

Pot meet kettle. All levels of government -- federal, state, local -- have a responsibility to "provide for the general welfare" which includes protecting residents of their jurisdictions from natural or man-made dangers that can be anticipated. Which level of government has the most responsibility depends upon whether the problem affects people in numerous states or within one state or within a local area within a state. In the case of Texas, 150 power plants of nearly 700 in the state have failed -- apparently all within the Texas grid -- which puts the problem on the state level. The Texas electric grid has failed twice before under severe winter weather, in 1989 and again in 2011, so the state can't pretend this failure couldn't have been anticipated, and the solution would have been to require the power plants in Texas to be winterized as they obviously have been in neighboring states like Oklahoma. That's where the government of Texas failed its residents. It created its own in-state power grid to avoid federal regulation and then created a non-profit organization to manage the Texas grid to absolve the state from its responsibility.

Ultimate political correctness, Wacko Trumpist style.

As the song by country group Rascal Flatts says, "You're gonna leave a legacy, no matter what you do It ain't a question of if they will It's how they remember you ... Did you stand or did you fall? Build a bridge or build a wall? " There was nothing civil about the venom that Limbaugh spread for three decades. Death doesn't absolve people for the evil they do when they're alive.

Sorry, but a person is known by the company he or she keeps. Supporting Trump is tacitly supporting white supremacists, misogynists, and other assorted fascists he embraces as "patriots". If you don't like being lumped in with such, then maybe you should take a critical look at the person you're supporting.

Actually, this is exactly the kind of "freedoms" that these Wacko Trumpists are whining about losing. Men can no longer beat or rape their wives or girlfriends. Parents no longer have the right to abuse their children in the name of "discipline". Whites no longer have the right to insult, intimidate, assault or lynch Blacks, Asians, Latinos or Native Americans. Straights can no longer bash gays, lesbians, transsexuals with impunity. The entire "loss of freedoms" meme among conservatives is really a whine that straight white males, especially those with limited education and skills, are rapidly losing their privileges and have to compete with the untermenschen.

Because Texas wants to perpetuate the myth of Texas being big enough to be its own country? I don't know but the areas of the Panhandle and East Texas may have power outages because the ice brought down power lines, not because they're suffering rolling blackouts because their utility companies can't meet the demand for electricity. The utilities in those two areas simply by extra powers from their grid partners. Solar energy isn't that complicated. Solar technology has advanced so much in the last decade that even in cloudy WNY, producing electricity from solar panels is feasible and dependable.

Maybe Texas should manage its power grid better. Most of Texas is under the ERCOT grid, which is the only "standalone" state power grid. All the other states and the Texas Panhandle belong to large multi-state power grids that share power so that when there's a big problem in one area, they can get power and other resources from unaffected areas ... which is why when there's a hurricane in Florida, power companies from New York or Kentucky send crews to help restore the grid in the affected areas. Who's to Blame for Texas Power Outages?

Are you interested in purchasing a recently rehabbed bridge over Chautauqua Lake? Anybody believing that Trump was ever motivated by anything except his own self interest would certainly jump at the chance to buy my bridge. Trump went to Washington to feed his ego, and promote his "brand". Trump has NEVER done anything for anybody unless it benefited himself. It wasn't Washington that "isn't built for getting things done", it was Trump who was too stupid and too lazy to deal with the real problems the country faced. Trump basked in the rabid support of his radical right zombies and bullied anyone who dared to stand up to him. Trump's central purpose became remaining in power at any cost. When he was voted out of office by the American people, the courts wouldn't overturn the election results for him, and he couldn't threaten state officials to change election results, he attempted to send his zombie army to stage a coup d'etat. He's a traitor.

I wrote "most" not "all". Nobody said Trump was responsible for the coronavirus. Trump never worked "behind the scenes to get infrastructure in place". He left state and local officials to deal with the crisis as best they could, from acquiring PPE to requiring mask wearing. Instead of using the "bully pulpit" that the POTUS has, Trump used it to lie about the danger that the pandemic presented even before there were confirmed cases in the US; he continuously downplayed the seriousness of the pandemic to public health such as comparing it to the seasonal flu and claiming it would just "disappear" to the very end of his administration; he politicized mitigation practices like mask wearing and social distancing; Trump promoted unproven and sometimes dangerous "cures" for the coronavirus like hydroxychloroquine or injecting bleach; he repeatedly held campaign rallies and other events without requiring masks or social distancing, some of which turned out to be super spreader events; and, finally, while Trump bragged about the rapid development of covid 19 vaccines, his administration failed to create serious plans for vaccine distribution. What is silly about your posts is the mental gymnastics you've engaged in to excuse Trump's mishandling of the American response to the coronavirus.

Why don't you tell us, Blitzy? Name them. Brian Sicknick died from injuries that he suffered in defending the US Capitol from the right wing domestic terrorists that Trump sicced on Congress in his failed coup attempt on January 6, 2020. Two other police officers committed suicide immediately after the Capitol invasion. More than 140 police officers were seriously injured during the coup attempt.

Right-o. We all know that Antifah dominates the Democratic Party the way that Wacko Trumpists espousing white supremacy, anti-Semitism, and fascism dominate the Republican Party.

Trump had a year to deal with Covid 19. He chose to lie about pandemic's seriousness and politicize practices that have been proven to mitigate the spread of the disease. 400,000 Americans died while Trump was POTUS, and since deaths from Covid lag behind infections and hospitalization, most of the deaths from Covid that occurred since January 20, 2021 resulted from infections that occurred weeks or months before. Covid Deaths on Trump's Watch

my mistake... April 17-20, 1961

If Kennedy was so prescient that he could see 60 years into the future, why wasn't he prescient enough to see that the Bay of Pigs invasion was doomed before it started? FYI ... the Bay of Pigs invasion began on April 17, 1963 and ended on April 20, 1961. Edit: should be 1961

I don't pretend to know. What I do know is that the only Republican presidential candidate to win the popular vote in the last 28 years was George W Bush in 2004 who was the antithesis of Trump and Trumpism. Trump lost the popular vote by 3 million votes in 2016 and by more than 7 million votes in 2020 despite "energizing" his base. The problem is that Trump's base is the Wacko Trumpists who espouse an American version of fascism, which alienates not only Democrats and left leaning Independents but also Bush style Republicans. Excuse me, but the only individual who tried to change "the constructs" of the US Constitution was Donald J Trump who sicced his version of storm troopers on the US Capitol in an attempt to overturn the 2020 election which he lost by more than 7 million votes. It was Trump's mob who wanted to lynch Mike Pence for not doing Trump's bidding and assassinate Nancy Pelosi for being Trump's "enemy". Trump's treason failed because unlike Trump, the Capitol and Metro police, Secret Service, and other federal staffers took their oaths seriously, and the US Congress refused to be cowed by a bully. Your "expertise" in recognizing Nazis under every cabbage leaf seems to stem from your allegiance to a self-serving would-be fascist dictator.