spez

Nah, it's staying in control of the mods, and people who aren't associated with the ownership of Reddit. THey have no David Bowie power over us.

Hey I've returned to Discord after a month and for some reason I was no longer subbed to this channel. Who can help me? I've already been vetted

What are you trying to do?

Do I need to be vetted again?

Hi team.

i have literally 0 social media - is there any way to be vetted still?

(just came to the discord, reddit refugee)

i have a reddit account but ive always been a lurker

hrm. dank memes? dunno

i have a maga hat with me now, and the time ive been subscribed

never bothered with cuckbook

on an unrelated note

are they still removing mods?

i dont see lalicat, sheguevara, eatonfools

yes.. /td will be taken over by tomorrow it seems

so many comment locked posts

https://www.reddit.com/r/The_Donald/comments/f9gv3q/

so guys what's with the lincoln bashing?

reddit doesn't want to lose the revenue source from t_d

@christiam seems pretty self evident from the comments? some people believe that his expansion of federal powers was ultimately a sore spot on his legacy

As if that's bad in wartime.

Well, there's certainly an argument for it being wrong at ANY time. And technically war was optional. (im not endorsing any particular view)

Yes, but that argument also concedes that the United States would've been dissolved or weakened.

Secession was also never mentioned in the constitution regardless, as if the South even had a guaranteed right.

Arguably it doesn't have to be. A social contract can be cancelled at any time, although ideally upon violation of it by one of the relevant parties. So essentially, there's no such thing as secession being illegal. The South said, our deal is over, the Constitution does not apply to me. The North then simply declared war (since there is now no existing agreement between the entities) and conquered the South.

This is not right or wrong by itself, absent context. This is law of the wild among states.

This wasn't a social contract, it was a political contract between numerous political entities.

Furthermore, if political entities have complete autonomy and self-decision, then it was the North's right to conquer the South.

I don't understand your semantic argument. A social contract is what legitimizes government in the first place. Political entities have complete autonomy and self decision, that is correct. That includes the freedom to declare war and impose that will on others. Nobody has a right to be defenseless.

So yes, it was the North's right, we are in complete agreement.

A social contract is an agreement between the state and a person, a political contract is an agreement between two political entities.

Ok - I accept your definitions. Nevertheless, a political contract between STATES in a FEDERAL system is much like a social contract.

Each state acted much like an individual would, giving up a small amount of its own liberty for greater security and cohesion as a whole.

Off topic but nice pfp Struth

heh, thanks

(i had to google pfp, i dont use social media)

Ouef

Same on social media

Hi I exist

The reason is unknown but hi.