Ask Me Anything

[Conservatopia]

Why do you want to own slaves?

Same things I told Virginia and Sol:

Two things to be said here -

1.) I actually threw that in there to see what reaction it got. I wasn't really being serious or anything.
2.) The truth is, a decent number of people who currently say they hate slavery (I hate slavery myself) might actually get roped into owning slaves were they wealthy and in the 1800s. The only difference is, while most of those who might are in denial, some are more honest, such as KoopaDaQuick, who acknowledged the possibility and said that was why they wanted to avoid that option:

I initially wanted to say rich in 1850, but I'm too afraid of getting Monkey's Paw'd into owning the largest plantation in the United States, so eh.

Hmm. I'm not convinced.
I'll be requesting a ban for you post-haste.

What?
If my comment was that offensive to you, and my explanation insufficient, then I don't know what to say or do, only that I don't think I should be banned for making it, since it was less in seriousness and more just to guage reaction.

I think you should do the following:
1. Create a thread apologising for your past support of slavery
2. Change your signature to make it clear that whilst you used to support slavery you don't anymore
3. Edit your display name to that of a prominent abolitionist from history
4. Admit to any other prejudices you doubtless hold and apologise for them too

By doing this maybe, just maybe, you can avoid a ban.

No, for the simple reason I've never, ever supported slavery. I wasn't being serious when I wrote that comment, as I've said multiple times, and to be honest, I don't think you are at this point, either. I'm confused because I'm unsure whether you're actually serious about this, or are doing it in jest. Please begin by clarifying that. If you're doing it in jest, it was a good joke. If not, then we need to continue this conversation.

It's in jest. Same as 90% of my posts.

[Schiff for Senate]

Why do you want to own slaves?

Same things I told Virginia and Sol:

Two things to be said here -

1.) I actually threw that in there to see what reaction it got. I wasn't really being serious or anything.
2.) The truth is, a decent number of people who currently say they hate slavery (I hate slavery myself) might actually get roped into owning slaves were they wealthy and in the 1800s. The only difference is, while most of those who might are in denial, some are more honest, such as KoopaDaQuick, who acknowledged the possibility and said that was why they wanted to avoid that option:

I initially wanted to say rich in 1850, but I'm too afraid of getting Monkey's Paw'd into owning the largest plantation in the United States, so eh.

Hmm. I'm not convinced.
I'll be requesting a ban for you post-haste.

What?
If my comment was that offensive to you, and my explanation insufficient, then I don't know what to say or do, only that I don't think I should be banned for making it, since it was less in seriousness and more just to guage reaction.

I think you should do the following:
1. Create a thread apologising for your past support of slavery
2. Change your signature to make it clear that whilst you used to support slavery you don't anymore
3. Edit your display name to that of a prominent abolitionist from history
4. Admit to any other prejudices you doubtless hold and apologise for them too

By doing this maybe, just maybe, you can avoid a ban.

No, for the simple reason I've never, ever supported slavery. I wasn't being serious when I wrote that comment, as I've said multiple times, and to be honest, I don't think you are at this point, either. I'm confused because I'm unsure whether you're actually serious about this, or are doing it in jest. Please begin by clarifying that. If you're doing it in jest, it was a good joke. If not, then we need to continue this conversation.

It's in jest. Same as 90% of my posts.

Phew. I was actually worried you might be serious about having me banned.

[Fuzzy Bear Loves Christian Missionaries]

Why are you not a Democrat, given your issue positions?

[Schiff for Senate]

Why are you not a Democrat, given your issue positions?

As I explained in a prior post:

And an unrelated question:

@Centrist Republican - would you ever consider leaving the GOP becoming an Independent or a Democrat, for example?

Yes, I have done so multiple times. Aside from its history as the antislavery party, the real reason I am still affiliated with the Republican Party is complicated. To put it simply I am affiliated with the GOP precisely because I disagree with many of its talking points: I am proudly pro-mask, anti-Trump and anti-Big Lie, for gun control, and pro-environment. All of these are anethma to the current GOP and welcome in the Democratic Party. But if I were a Democrat, no one would notice the views I am most proud of (being pro-mask, anti-Trump, anti-sedition, anti-gun, pro-environment) since that is the case for the generic Democrat; they'd notice my views that aren't commonly associated with the Democrats, and which I don't hold as proudly or as fervently: my opposition to transgenders, my opposition to welfare, my opposition to affirmative action, my opposition to wokeness. That's not to say I am ashamed of any of these views, but these would be the views I would be known for - not for being pro-mask/anti-Trump/anti-sedition/anti-gun/pro-environment. But I have considered leaving the GOP numerous times at seeing it devolving into a glorified, mad Trumpish cult. I still remain in it for the purposes of my forum, but in practice, you could consider me a centrist Democrat if you'd prefer to. For instance, in an election featuring a generic Democrat and a generic Republican, I'd likely lean toward the Democrat, unless the GOP candidate was moderate or centrist like I am.

[TML]

If you could appoint judges, would you rather appoint people who previously served as public defenders/civil rights attorneys or people who previously served as prosecutors/corporate attorneys?

[President Johnson]

What relation to you have to India? It's quite ironic we already have two blue avatars (OSR and PQG) with a relation, whom are good posters as well.

Who's your favorite 20th century Republican?

[Schiff for Senate]

What relation to you have to India? It's quite ironic we already have two blue avatars (OSR and PQG) with a relation, whom are good posters as well.

Who's your favorite 20th century Republican?

1. Most of my family resides there. Both my parents were born there. I lived there for over half my life. My family's mostly from the New Dehli area (I lived in nearby Gurgaon, though I believe the name was later changed to Gurugram).

2. Honestly, not 100% sure. Presidentially speaking, I liked most of the GOP presidents of the 1900s, with some exceptions (prominently, Harding, both as a person and president). The Republicans of the 20th century were not that great, however; the Republicans of the 1800s were much better.

[Schiff for Senate]

If you could appoint judges, would you rather appoint people who previously served as public defenders/civil rights attorneys or people who previously served as prosecutors/corporate attorneys?

I'm truly sorry I didn't respond to this in all this time...I don't know how, but somehow I didn't notice this question and didn't return to this thread as it got buried in the board. Recently I returned to the thread just to look at it again, and I noticed your post. Apologies...it's been nearly a month since you posted it, but nonetheless, now that it's come to my attention and I finally noticed it, I will respond.

Probably a mixture, depending on circumstances and specifics, but probably about a 50-50 split or so since both groups have their biases: we all know the former would lean liberal and have a liberal bias based on their experiences, while the latter would lean conservative and have a conservative bias based on their experiences. Both groups of people have unique perspectives and ideas worth hearing, and I don't honestly think one group should be favoured over the other. It would, as I said, depend on specifically who you are talking about, but I'd favour appointing a roughly equal number of people from both groups. Or maybe something like if the outgoing judge is in the latter category, I'll make their successor from that same category, while if they are in the former category, I'll make their successor be from the same category. Something like that, but as I said, I don't have particularly strong views on this either way and would honestly appreciate the views/experiences of both groups and types.

EDIT: By the way, this honestly isn't some conspiracy/attempt to revive this thread, in case anyone thinks that (it does look kind of like that's the case, I realize). I honestly just happened to find this post, and felt bad I hadn't responded to it yet, but decided the question shouldn't be ignored and replied.