How come Lincoln got away with shutting down hundreds of newspapers and jailed journalists

[NightFox]

It's a logical fallacy of comparison.

False equivalence - Wikipedia

But it might be an interesting topic if the OP sought to compare the causes of Lincoln's call to violate personal liberties to Trump's. And I would submit that Trump's are less egregious and he has less personal knowledge of personal liberties than did Lincoln

False equivalence, "two wrongs make a right" and presentism.

Again, that was not my intention. 2 wrongs do not make a right. I am not justifying trumps actions. I am calling out the hypocrisy against them.
Trump talks, lincoln jailed and shut down.
As steve mcgarrets sock g5000 says
BIG FUCKING DIFFERENCE

Is your argument that a failure to criticize Lincolns actions regarding the press degrades the validity of criticisms regarding Trumps actions regarding the press?

I am saying the America ranks linoln as number 1 or 2 on the list of best presidents.
He shut down hundreds of newspapers and jailed thousands of journalists.
Trump talks shit.
As OL has pointed out, people are saying what he said about CNN is unprecedented and a danger to society. Just his words, not actions.
I know you understand wher ei come from. You trash the TDS sufferers every day.
There is PLENTY to blast that piece of shit about. No need to be fucking retarded about it.
I respect intellectual consistency

He's not rated as number 1 or 2 because of the way he handled the press, He's ranked there because he was the CIC during the civil war and thus credited with preventing the dissolution of the Union and bringing an end to slavery.

You can argue all day about Lincolns actions being tyrannical and I'll probably agree with you on many points regarding that subject but to bring them into the context of what Trump is doing TODAY regarding the press IMHO makes no sense at all.

 

[there4eyeM]

In the very middle of a Civil War, the Union held elections. Show another example of such a thing in history! Lincoln did things no one would agree with except in a dire situation where anyone who wanted to hold the United States together would have had to do the same or very similar. The rebellion had to be put down for the Republic to survive. The rebellion justified being ended.

Well, i guess its good he didnt trash the ENTIRE constitution! Lol
So you completely support a leader doing WHATEVER he feels he needs to do, to do what he thinks is right for his countrymen, correct? Screw laws and limitations of his power, correct?

It isn't necessary to absurdly exaggerate the meaning of a post in order to receive a response.
Fact, political power exists.
Fact, people occupy positions where they control some of that power.
Fact, a few people obtain positions of great power.
Fact, people in positions of great power use that power to achieve what they deem best.
Fact, historians and others trot along afterward and tack their opinions onto the history.
Fact, real tyrants use the power they have for self aggrandizement and the accumulation of ever more power.
Fact, many of us do not like what power does to people and would rather that such power not be available.
Fact, the majority want to be led and demand political institutions, where power exists.
How 'great' a historical figure is always has many angles to look at it. The South should never have rebelled. That was the threat to the nation. It called for very unwelcome measures. No other President before Lincoln could have handled the situation better, and likely none since. America was preserved.

 

[TNHarley]

It's a logical fallacy of comparison.

False equivalence - Wikipedia

But it might be an interesting topic if the OP sought to compare the causes of Lincoln's call to violate personal liberties to Trump's. And I would submit that Trump's are less egregious and he has less personal knowledge of personal liberties than did Lincoln

False equivalence, "two wrongs make a right" and presentism.

Again, that was not my intention. 2 wrongs do not make a right. I am not justifying trumps actions. I am calling out the hypocrisy against them.
Trump talks, lincoln jailed and shut down.
As steve mcgarrets sock g5000 says
BIG FUCKING DIFFERENCE

Is your argument that a failure to criticize Lincolns actions regarding the press degrades the validity of criticisms regarding Trumps actions regarding the press?

I am saying the America ranks linoln as number 1 or 2 on the list of best presidents.
He shut down hundreds of newspapers and jailed thousands of journalists.
Trump talks shit.
As OL has pointed out, people are saying what he said about CNN is unprecedented and a danger to society. Just his words, not actions.
I know you understand wher ei come from. You trash the TDS sufferers every day.
There is PLENTY to blast that piece of shit about. No need to be fucking retarded about it.
I respect intellectual consistency

He's not rated as number 1 or 2 because of the way he handled the press, He's ranked there because he was the CIC during the civil war and thus credited with preventing the dissolution of the Union and bringing an end to slavery.

You can argue all day about Lincolns actions being tyrannical and I'll probably agree with you on many points regarding that subject but to bring them into the context of what Trump is doing TODAY regarding the press IMHO makes no sense at all.

A journalist gets jailed for supporting someone. Newspapers get shut down. People actually fucking die.
Trump talks shit when they make up stuff and threatens to kick them out of a press briefing they have no constitutional right to be at.
Excellent point. I also have to assume that ANY journalist, from any media are allowed in the press briefings, correct? Or do only certain ones get passes? Im not sure hwo that works.
So they rated him and didnt even consider his entire presidency? Is that what you are saying?
We will just have to agree that we disagree on this, my man.
We cant agree on everything!

 

[TNHarley]

In the very middle of a Civil War, the Union held elections. Show another example of such a thing in history! Lincoln did things no one would agree with except in a dire situation where anyone who wanted to hold the United States together would have had to do the same or very similar. The rebellion had to be put down for the Republic to survive. The rebellion justified being ended.

Well, i guess its good he didnt trash the ENTIRE constitution! Lol
So you completely support a leader doing WHATEVER he feels he needs to do, to do what he thinks is right for his countrymen, correct? Screw laws and limitations of his power, correct?

It isn't necessary to absurdly exaggerate the meaning of a post in order to receive a response.
Fact, political power exists.
Fact, people occupy positions where they control some of that power.
Fact, a few people obtain positions of great power.
Fact, people in positions of great power use that power to achieve what they deem best.
Fact, historians and others trot along afterward and tack their opinions onto the history.
Fact, real tyrants use the power they have for self aggrandizement and the accumulation of ever more power.
Fact, many of us do not like what power does to people and would rather that such power not be available.
Fact, the majority want to be led and demand political institutions, where power exists.
How 'great' a historical figure is always has many angles to look at it. The South should never have rebelled. That was the threat to the nation. It called for very unwelcome measures. No other President before Lincoln could have handled the situation better, and likely none since. America was preserved.

I dont feel like i exaggerated it.
Either you support any leader doing what HE thinks he needs to do, law and rights be damned. Or you support tyranny when your agenda or beliefs are being pushed forward.
Thats the only two things i can gather from your post.

 

[OldLady]

He's a reb, so Lincoln can do no right. But he's got a point about the press thing. Pretty interesting.

whats a reb?

What would you prefer? I'm too old fashioned for you, I know.

I reckon lol

You want me to call you ireckon?

No. I was agreeing you are too old fashioned. I still dont know what reb means

rebel

 

[iceberg]

and trump cant whine about fake news without being accused of being a tyrant? Lincoln actually WAS a tyrant.
Geez, americans are so disingenuous
America's Greatest President: Abraham Lincoln
http://ocean.otr.usm.edu/~w304644/ajha/americanjournalism/fall09.pdf
Im not even going to get started on lincoln sending out sherman to rape, murder pillage and kill livestock and all of his other unconstitutional acts
Im very interested. TIA

What's your logic here? Because Lincoln did it , it's okay for any other President to do it? Trump didn't just "whine" about the press, he's threatened to remove "credentials" from those that he doesn't like and that undermines the principles of the freedom of the press. I realize that much of the media is biased, disingenuous and outright malicious but the fact of the matter is that using the bully pulpit to go after the news outlets you don't like is a quick and efficient way to arrive at state controlled media.

The fucked up "he did it therefore it's okay for me to do it" logic is a large contributing factor that got us into this Imperial Presidency-Irrelevant Legislative Branch mess in the first place.

been saying that for years. when we let someone break the laws cause we like them or hate who it negatively impacts, you dont win a thing.

yoy merely allow the other side to do the same and they will push it more.

rinse n repeat.

 

[gipper]

and trump cant whine about fake news without being accused of being a tyrant? Lincoln actually WAS a tyrant.
Geez, americans are so disingenuous
America's Greatest President: Abraham Lincoln
http://ocean.otr.usm.edu/~w304644/ajha/americanjournalism/fall09.pdf
Im not even going to get started on lincoln sending out sherman to rape, murder pillage and kill livestock and all of his other unconstitutional acts
Im very interested. TIA

Good links, TN

Our most beloved president was a murderous tyrant.
MURICA!!

He was by far our WORST president. He is solely responsible for 850k dead Americans and decades of racial strife that still lingers. F him!

 

[TNHarley]

and trump cant whine about fake news without being accused of being a tyrant? Lincoln actually WAS a tyrant.
Geez, americans are so disingenuous
America's Greatest President: Abraham Lincoln
http://ocean.otr.usm.edu/~w304644/ajha/americanjournalism/fall09.pdf
Im not even going to get started on lincoln sending out sherman to rape, murder pillage and kill livestock and all of his other unconstitutional acts
Im very interested. TIA

Good links, TN

Our most beloved president was a murderous tyrant.
MURICA!!

He was by far our WORST president. He is solely responsible for 850k dead Americans and decades of racial strife that still lingers. F him!

Agreed.
I understand his goals and why he wanted them. But i do NOT agree with how he did it. I never support tyranny

 

[Stormy Daniels]

and trump cant whine about fake news without being accused of being a tyrant? Lincoln actually WAS a tyrant.
Geez, americans are so disingenuous
America's Greatest President: Abraham Lincoln
http://ocean.otr.usm.edu/~w304644/ajha/americanjournalism/fall09.pdf
Im not even going to get started on lincoln sending out sherman to rape, murder pillage and kill livestock and all of his other unconstitutional acts
Im very interested. TIA

Anyone who supports the rape of livestock should not have their face on Mr. Rushmore.

 

[gipper]

and trump cant whine about fake news without being accused of being a tyrant? Lincoln actually WAS a tyrant.
Geez, americans are so disingenuous
America's Greatest President: Abraham Lincoln
http://ocean.otr.usm.edu/~w304644/ajha/americanjournalism/fall09.pdf
Im not even going to get started on lincoln sending out sherman to rape, murder pillage and kill livestock and all of his other unconstitutional acts
Im very interested. TIA

Good links, TN

Our most beloved president was a murderous tyrant.
MURICA!!

He was by far our WORST president. He is solely responsible for 850k dead Americans and decades of racial strife that still lingers. F him!

Agreed.
I understand his goals and why he wanted them. But i do NOT agree with how he did it. I never support tyranny

He was without question, a murdering corrupt scumbag, not unlike many of our presidents. Just the most murderous. He killed fellow Americans which is the exact definition of treason. He did it solely to enrich his wealthy donors.

 

[NightFox]

False equivalence, "two wrongs make a right" and presentism.

Again, that was not my intention. 2 wrongs do not make a right. I am not justifying trumps actions. I am calling out the hypocrisy against them.
Trump talks, lincoln jailed and shut down.
As steve mcgarrets sock g5000 says
BIG FUCKING DIFFERENCE

Is your argument that a failure to criticize Lincolns actions regarding the press degrades the validity of criticisms regarding Trumps actions regarding the press?

I am saying the America ranks linoln as number 1 or 2 on the list of best presidents.
He shut down hundreds of newspapers and jailed thousands of journalists.
Trump talks shit.
As OL has pointed out, people are saying what he said about CNN is unprecedented and a danger to society. Just his words, not actions.
I know you understand wher ei come from. You trash the TDS sufferers every day.
There is PLENTY to blast that piece of shit about. No need to be fucking retarded about it.
I respect intellectual consistency

He's not rated as number 1 or 2 because of the way he handled the press, He's ranked there because he was the CIC during the civil war and thus credited with preventing the dissolution of the Union and bringing an end to slavery.

You can argue all day about Lincolns actions being tyrannical and I'll probably agree with you on many points regarding that subject but to bring them into the context of what Trump is doing TODAY regarding the press IMHO makes no sense at all.

A journalist gets jailed for supporting someone. Newspapers get shut down. People actually fucking die.
Trump talks shit when they make up stuff and threatens to kick them out of a press briefing they have no constitutional right to be at.
Excellent point. I also have to assume that ANY journalist, from any media are allowed in the press briefings, correct? Or do only certain ones get passes? Im not sure hwo that works.
So they rated him and didnt even consider his entire presidency? Is that what you are saying?
We will just have to agree that we disagree on this, my man.
We cant agree on everything!

*Sigh*
Let me see if I can help you understand the point by using a more ludicrous example:

George Washington is often ranked as #1 or #2 on "Best Presidents" lists....
George Washington owned slaves... therefore
If Trump just talks about wanting to own slaves then it's hypocritical to criticize him for it....

IMHO This argument contains several logical fallacies
It presupposes that the fact that George Washington's ownership of slaves is a contributing factor in his being ranked #1 or #2 OR that it's not considered against all other factors in calculating that ranking, false equivalence
It implies that two wrongs make a right because after all Trump just TALKS about which isn't the same thing as actually owning slaves like Washington did (in other words talking about it is okay).
It involves presentism because it requires that Washington's ownership of slaves be evaluated using present day values and circumstances

Hope that helps.

 

[there4eyeM]

In the very middle of a Civil War, the Union held elections. Show another example of such a thing in history! Lincoln did things no one would agree with except in a dire situation where anyone who wanted to hold the United States together would have had to do the same or very similar. The rebellion had to be put down for the Republic to survive. The rebellion justified being ended.

Well, i guess its good he didnt trash the ENTIRE constitution! Lol
So you completely support a leader doing WHATEVER he feels he needs to do, to do what he thinks is right for his countrymen, correct? Screw laws and limitations of his power, correct?

It isn't necessary to absurdly exaggerate the meaning of a post in order to receive a response.
Fact, political power exists.
Fact, people occupy positions where they control some of that power.
Fact, a few people obtain positions of great power.
Fact, people in positions of great power use that power to achieve what they deem best.
Fact, historians and others trot along afterward and tack their opinions onto the history.
Fact, real tyrants use the power they have for self aggrandizement and the accumulation of ever more power.
Fact, many of us do not like what power does to people and would rather that such power not be available.
Fact, the majority want to be led and demand political institutions, where power exists.
How 'great' a historical figure is always has many angles to look at it. The South should never have rebelled. That was the threat to the nation. It called for very unwelcome measures. No other President before Lincoln could have handled the situation better, and likely none since. America was preserved.

I dont feel like i exaggerated it.
Either you support any leader doing what HE thinks he needs to do, law and rights be damned. Or you support tyranny when your agenda or beliefs are being pushed forward.
Thats the only two things i can gather from your post.

You're exaggerating again. Look at what I said, not what you want to imagine. Nothing I said supports tyranny. What do you want to achieve by saying that?
You certainly are familiar with Machiavelli. Certain aspects of power are similar to laws of nature, and he spelled that out. Like Sun Tzu and the so-called "Art of War" (war is not art!), he isn't encouraging these things, merely pointing out that they are 'realities'. I don't like that things are that way. I don't like that people are that way. People and things are that way!

 

[TNHarley]

Again, that was not my intention. 2 wrongs do not make a right. I am not justifying trumps actions. I am calling out the hypocrisy against them.
Trump talks, lincoln jailed and shut down.
As steve mcgarrets sock g5000 says
BIG FUCKING DIFFERENCE

Is your argument that a failure to criticize Lincolns actions regarding the press degrades the validity of criticisms regarding Trumps actions regarding the press?

I am saying the America ranks linoln as number 1 or 2 on the list of best presidents.
He shut down hundreds of newspapers and jailed thousands of journalists.
Trump talks shit.
As OL has pointed out, people are saying what he said about CNN is unprecedented and a danger to society. Just his words, not actions.
I know you understand wher ei come from. You trash the TDS sufferers every day.
There is PLENTY to blast that piece of shit about. No need to be fucking retarded about it.
I respect intellectual consistency

He's not rated as number 1 or 2 because of the way he handled the press, He's ranked there because he was the CIC during the civil war and thus credited with preventing the dissolution of the Union and bringing an end to slavery.

You can argue all day about Lincolns actions being tyrannical and I'll probably agree with you on many points regarding that subject but to bring them into the context of what Trump is doing TODAY regarding the press IMHO makes no sense at all.

A journalist gets jailed for supporting someone. Newspapers get shut down. People actually fucking die.
Trump talks shit when they make up stuff and threatens to kick them out of a press briefing they have no constitutional right to be at.
Excellent point. I also have to assume that ANY journalist, from any media are allowed in the press briefings, correct? Or do only certain ones get passes? Im not sure hwo that works.
So they rated him and didnt even consider his entire presidency? Is that what you are saying?
We will just have to agree that we disagree on this, my man.
We cant agree on everything!

*Sigh*
Let me see if I can help you understand the point by using a more ludicrous example:

George Washington is often ranked as #1 or #2 on "Best Presidents" lists....
George Washington owned slaves... therefore
If Trump just talks about wanting to own slaves then it's hypocritical to criticize him for it....

IMHO This argument contains several logical fallacies
It presupposes that the fact that George Washington's ownership of slaves is a contributing factor in his being ranked #1 or #2 OR that it's not considered against all other factors in calculating that ranking, false equivalence
It implies that two wrongs make a right because after all Trump just TALKS about which isn't the same thing as actually owning slaves like Washington did (in other words talking about it is okay).
It involves presentism because it requires that Washington's ownership of slaves be evaluated using present day values and circumstances

Hope that helps.

Ok, i get what you are saying now. But now i feel like that is a false equivalency lol
Trump was talking about kicking out an outlet from the WH press briefing. Lincoln jailed and shut down newspapers.
Has trump mentioned arrest, suspension of habeas corpus without congressional approval or shutting down outlets?
Is what Trump mentioned unconstitutional? Will it involve wrongful imprisonment?
Maybe im getting too semantic but i feel like the differences are huge.

 

[TNHarley]

In the very middle of a Civil War, the Union held elections. Show another example of such a thing in history! Lincoln did things no one would agree with except in a dire situation where anyone who wanted to hold the United States together would have had to do the same or very similar. The rebellion had to be put down for the Republic to survive. The rebellion justified being ended.

Well, i guess its good he didnt trash the ENTIRE constitution! Lol
So you completely support a leader doing WHATEVER he feels he needs to do, to do what he thinks is right for his countrymen, correct? Screw laws and limitations of his power, correct?

It isn't necessary to absurdly exaggerate the meaning of a post in order to receive a response.
Fact, political power exists.
Fact, people occupy positions where they control some of that power.
Fact, a few people obtain positions of great power.
Fact, people in positions of great power use that power to achieve what they deem best.
Fact, historians and others trot along afterward and tack their opinions onto the history.
Fact, real tyrants use the power they have for self aggrandizement and the accumulation of ever more power.
Fact, many of us do not like what power does to people and would rather that such power not be available.
Fact, the majority want to be led and demand political institutions, where power exists.
How 'great' a historical figure is always has many angles to look at it. The South should never have rebelled. That was the threat to the nation. It called for very unwelcome measures. No other President before Lincoln could have handled the situation better, and likely none since. America was preserved.

I dont feel like i exaggerated it.
Either you support any leader doing what HE thinks he needs to do, law and rights be damned. Or you support tyranny when your agenda or beliefs are being pushed forward.
Thats the only two things i can gather from your post.

You're exaggerating again. Look at what I said, not what you want to imagine. Nothing I said supports tyranny. What do you want to achieve by saying that?
You certainly are familiar with Machiavelli. Certain aspects of power are similar to laws of nature, and he spelled that out. Like Sun Tzu and the so-called "Art of War" (war is not art!), he isn't encouraging these things, merely pointing out that they are 'realities'. I don't like that things are that way. I don't like that people are that way. People and things are that way!

This got me
Lincoln did things no one would agree with except in a dire situation where anyone who wanted to hold the United States together would have had to do the same or very similar.

 

[Bootney Lee Farnsworth]

This got me
Lincoln did things no one would agree with except in a dire situation where anyone who wanted to hold the United States together would have had to do the same or very similar.

It was tyranny for a good cause.


That good cause was to force independent states to remain in a union against their will.

Then, the cause shifted to slavery when support for the war to force the above good cause had waned.

Lincoln didn't give a rat fuck about the slaves.

Regardless, "good cause" is NEVER offered as a reason for tyranny, right?

 

[there4eyeM]

The secessionists didn't give anything for their word, their promise or their signature on an agreement. They attempted to destroy their nation. There was no tyranny involved in suppressing the rebellion. There may have been excesses; that is debatable. Lincoln was by no meaningful definition of the term a tyrant.
Of course, there are those who seek to destroy words to further an agenda.

 

[Bootney Lee Farnsworth]

The secessionists didn't give anything for their word, their promise or their signature on an agreement. They attempted to destroy their nation. There was no tyranny involved in suppressing the rebellion. There may have been excesses; that is debatable. Lincoln was by no meaningful definition of the term a tyrant.
Of course, there are those who seek to destroy words to further an agenda.

So, your argument is that, at the time the States were asked to ratify the constitution that formed the union, it was made clear that their membership in the union was irrevocable and perpetual?

 

[TNHarley]

This got me
Lincoln did things no one would agree with except in a dire situation where anyone who wanted to hold the United States together would have had to do the same or very similar.

It was tyranny for a good cause.


That good cause was to force independent states to remain in a union against their will.

Then, the cause shifted to slavery when support for the war to force the above good cause had waned.

Lincoln didn't give a rat fuck about the slaves.

Regardless, "good cause" is NEVER offered as a reason for tyranny, right?

Union forces were segregated

The secessionists didn't give anything for their word, their promise or their signature on an agreement. They attempted to destroy their nation. There was no tyranny involved in suppressing the rebellion. There may have been excesses; that is debatable. Lincoln was by no meaningful definition of the term a tyrant.
Of course, there are those who seek to destroy words to further an agenda.

ty·rant
ˈtīrənt/
noun

1. 1.
   a cruel and oppressive ruler.

Very true! I guess its subjective if wrongful imprisonment, shutting down of businesses, murder, rape, destruction of property, ignoring the supreme court etc is considered "cruel and oppressive"
"do as i say, or go to prison!" I bet Gandhi wished he thought of that

 

[Crepitus]

and trump cant whine about fake news without being accused of being a tyrant? Lincoln actually WAS a tyrant.
Geez, americans are so disingenuous
America's Greatest President: Abraham Lincoln
http://ocean.otr.usm.edu/~w304644/ajha/americanjournalism/fall09.pdf
Im not even going to get started on lincoln sending out sherman to rape, murder pillage and kill livestock and all of his other unconstitutional acts
Im very interested. TIA

It's not 1865 any more.

 

[TNHarley]

The secessionists didn't give anything for their word, their promise or their signature on an agreement. They attempted to destroy their nation. There was no tyranny involved in suppressing the rebellion. There may have been excesses; that is debatable. Lincoln was by no meaningful definition of the term a tyrant.
Of course, there are those who seek to destroy words to further an agenda.

So, your argument is that, at the time the States were asked to ratify the constitution that formed the union, it was made clear that their membership in the union was irrevocable and perpetual?

Excellent.
There was a supreme court ruling on this but it happened AFTER the fact.