Posted on 08/11/2016 1:08:04 PM PDT by NotchJohnson
When Donald Trump mucks things up, the first person to let him know is usually Republican Party boss Reince Priebus. Almost every day, Trump picks up his cell phone to find Priebus on the line, urging him to quash some feud or clarify an incendiary remark.
The Wisconsin lawyer has been a dutiful sherpa to the Manhattan developer, guiding him through the dizzying altitude of the presidential race and lobbying the GOP to unite behind a figure who threatens its future.
(Excerpt) Read more at time.com ...
What meltdown?
So what did McCain and Mittens do Reice? Every day the rethuglicans give more and more proof that they are nothing more than a corrupt political machine that doesn’t give a rip about the American people AKA the grubered serfs.
It’s the media and political class having meltdowns. They’re trying make others thing it’s Trump having one. But millions of people know they’re lying.
I suspect Mr Priebus has had NO influence on the Trump campaign. Trump is not so stupid as to take the advice of a gope.
It won’t be a (clean election). Trump has to win so ovrwhelmingly that the Clintobamanites deem it prudent for their own physical safety to allow him to win a declared “squeaker.”
Yup, as you can see, it’s 2011. I don’t know what the original source is. I’ve seen it here and on reddit. Maybe someone will update it sometime.
Except for that whole slavery thing. Had they won they would happily kept on enslaving other human beings.
What melt down????
Man the msm keeps trying
Slavery was on the way out no matter what because technology was making it obsolete.
there isn’t any Trump meltdown.
This is a lie trying to be concocted by the media.
Even the local media/tv is in on the job...not that there is necessarily a “conspiracy” that is overt....just the idiot mentality that the young reporters in the media try to emulate their betters in the Washington DC media—
I noticed a local Miami reporter today try and “correct” Donald Trump by showing some Muslim kook as the “founder” of ISIS.
Every single sentient being KNOWS that Donald Trump meant Obama and Hitlery’s feckless foreign policy decisions led to the creation of ISIS. And yet, this child who is a “journalist” for the local news—who no doubt yearns to sit in Don Lemon’s seat—thinks he can “educate” everyone about who is the REAL founder of the terror group.
Laughable.
Considering who TIME is for perhaps people shouldn't give too much credence to the rag.
Yes...not because it was immoral to them.
Holy shit.
Time still exists.
Who knew.
IF he doesn’t win, which he will, this isn’t over by a longshot.
Trump started something that’s NOT going away.
The path will jut be a WHOLE LOT EASIER when Trump wins.
I picked up a copy at my eye Dr. office. Its about 20 pages, half advertisements.
The fact that he has a Time magazine in his office is causing me to rethink having him as a doctor
Time magazine is an expert on meltdowns: they are down to 10 pages.
What a lot of people do not understand is that had the North won quickly, they too would have happily kept spending that import money made from enslaving other human beings.
What my research has shown is that the war was fought to prevent that loss of money to the New England/New York area. 3/4ths of all the governments revenue came from slave labor. When the war began, the government was not so concerned about the welfare of slaves as they were about the loss of that slave earned money.
The "We fought to make other men free" spiel didn't start until 18 months into the war, and was done more for reasons of bracing up political support and out of revenge than for any real concern for the slaves.
General Sherman makes this point quite clearly in his speech before the members of a Southern town he occupied. (1864)
"Three years ago, by a little reflection and patience, they could have had a hundred years of peace and prosperity; but they preferred war. Last year they could have saved their slaves, [That would have been 1863, two years after the war started] but now it is too late,--all the powers of earth cannot restore to them their slaves any more than their dead grandfathers."
Lincoln also said they could keep slavery if they would just stop fighting for independence.
If there be those who would not save the Union unless they could at the same time destroy slavery, I do not agree with them. My paramount object in this struggle is to save the Union, and is not either to save or to destroy slavery. If I could save the Union without freeing any slave I would do it, and if I could save it by freeing all the slaves I would do it; and if I could save it by freeing some and leaving others alone I would also do that.
So ironically, the only reason slaves became free is because the South fought so hard to win independence. Had the South merely prostrated itself before the Power of Washington D.C., the Union would have kept slavery in place.
And why not? It was earning HUGE revenues for both the US Government and the New England economy. What they were actually fighting over was that $200 million of import value earned by southern slaves. (GDP at that time was only 4.5 billion, and includes Gold and Silver from California and Nevada. That $200 million of import value represented a Huge amount of economic activity for the New England area. )
Southern Independence would mean bankruptcy for a large segment of the New York/New England economy.
New York is as wealthy as it is today because of the Civil War. Had the South successfully achieved independence, Much of the Wealth and power currently possessed by New York would be concentrated 800 miles to the South in Charleston South Carolina.
The "We fought to end Slavery" was just public relations spin intended to justify after the fact, the disaster that was the Civil War. They had no intentions of ending slavery for the first 18 months of the war.
Not exactly, Yes the economic factor was there no doubt. But you’re sort of cherry picking your facts.
Slavery was phased out in the North for both Moral and Monetary reasons.
My point was the people in the South had ZERO moral reservations about what they were doing.
The election of Abraham Lincoln in 1860 was the immediate cause of southern resolutions of secession. He was the nominee of the Republican party with an anti-slavery expansion platform, he refused to acknowledge the right to secession, and he would not yield federal property within Southern states. Numerous historians have explored the reasons so many white Southerners adopted secessionism in 1860.[32] Bertram Wyatt-Brown argues that secessionists desired independence as necessary for their honor. They could no longer tolerate northern attitudes that regarded slave ownership as a great sin and Northern politicians who insisted on stopping the spread of slavery.[33][34] Avery Craven argues that secessionists believed Lincoln’s election meant long-term doom for their peculiar social system. These terms placed issues beyond the democratic process, and they placed “the great masses of men, North and South, helpless before the drift into war.”[35]
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.