Obama Closes Gitmo

[Adavardes]

Please don't paint all US soldiers and sailors with this same broad negative brush. I have met and worked with plenty of service men and women who are good, honest, law-abiding citizens who want to make a positive difference. Assuming all military personnel are disreputable based on the negative actions of a few is patently incorrect and unfair.

 

If I ever suggested that all US soldiers were bad people, or cruel people, let me please formally apologise. There are many that are very good, kind, honest, and strong-willed individuals that do something I could never do.

 

That said, Garfield was implicating that merely because these individuals were caught on a battlefield, we should assume they are terrorists targeting civilians, because our soldiers said so. Not only does this provide heresay as evidentiary material, it lends itself to the probable honesty of US soldiers, which, frankly, is a shot in the barrel risk at best. We know that there are cruel and dishonest soldiers, so based on that alone, we can't just assume that the soldier that captured an inmate at Guantanamo was being fair or honest about what that inmate was really doing on the battlefield. And all of this is really irrelevant when you consider the fact that heresay has not mattered in the court of law for decades upon decades, so unless he can provide me evidence that proves an inmate's guilt to these accusations, then the inmate is not guilty of anything.

 

That means they need a fair trial. At gitmo, they didn't get that.

[GarfieldJL]

If I ever suggested that all US soldiers were bad people, or cruel people, let me please formally apologise. There are many that are very good, kind, honest, and strong-willed individuals that do something I could never do.

 

That said, Garfield was implicating that merely because these individuals were caught on a battlefield, we should assume they are terrorists targeting civilians, because our soldiers said so. Not only does this provide heresay as evidentiary material, it lends itself to the probable honesty of US soldiers, which, frankly, is a shot in the barrel risk at best. We know that there are cruel and dishonest soldiers, so based on that alone, we can't just assume that the soldier that captured an inmate at Guantanamo was being fair or honest about what that inmate was really doing on the battlefield. And all of this is really irrelevant when you consider the fact that heresay has not mattered in the court of law for decades upon decades, so unless he can provide me evidence that proves an inmate's guilt to these accusations, then the inmate is not guilty of anything.

 

That means they need a fair trial. At gitmo, they didn't get that.

 

First you apologize and then you go right back to doing the same thing... First of all, they would never be convicted in a civilian court because we captured them on a battlefield and didn't read them their rights, a left wing activist judge can arbitrarily throw the case out on that alone... Second the overwhelming majority of the people at Gitmo were not waterboarded. There were only a handful of people that were and those were high profile leaders and the results were that we managed to bust up several terrorist plots.

 

Which would you rather have, one terrorist leader getting waterboarded, or a couple hundred innocent civilians die here in the United States because our Intelligence Ops are too afraid to even question the people captured because they are afraid of criminal prosecution?

 

Seriously, that's what this boils right down to, which do you want to happen.

 

I'd quite frankly like to know if innocent people were waterboarded, that's a legitimate concern, but I have absolutely no sympathy for the man that masterminded 9/11.

 

I think that things like waterboarding should only be able to be authorized by the President in an extreme circumstance, and certain key members of congress should be able to review that decision.

[Adavardes]

First you apologize and then you go right back to doing the same thing... First of all, they would never be convicted in a civilian court because we captured them on a battlefield and didn't read them their rights, a left wing activist judge can arbitrarily throw the case out on that alone... Second the overwhelming majority of the people at Gitmo were not waterboarded. There were only a handful of people that were and those were high profile leaders and the results were that we managed to bust up several terrorist plots.

 

1. No I didn't. I said that allowing heresay from soldiers shouldn't be taken as truth automatically because we know that some soldiers, not all, but some, have been cruel for no reason. There is evidence that proves that above, in the video links I provided.

 

2. You mean a Judge following constitutional law might throw a case out because they weren't arrested in a way that followed said law?

 

3. You don't know what you're claiming about waterboarding. Sorry, you don't.

 

Which would you rather have, one terrorist leader getting waterboarded, or a couple hundred innocent civilians die here in the United States because our Intelligence Ops are too afraid to even question the people captured because they are afraid of criminal prosecution?

 

Seriously, that's what this boils right down to, which do you want to happen.

 

This is reliant on the idea that these prisoners are all terrorists. Frankly, none of them have been proven to be terrorists, not in a way that is satisfactory to me, and also happens to be satisfactory to the US Supreme Court. So, I'd like to see what inmates are actually terrorists, if any of them are.

 

I'd quite frankly like to know if innocent people were waterboarded, that's a legitimate concern, but I have absolutely no sympathy for the man that masterminded 9/11.

 

Based on my argument above, you have no idea for an actual fact that any of them had anything to do with 9/11, let alone if they masterminded it.

 

I think that things like waterboarding should only be able to be authorized by the President in an extreme circumstance, and certain key members of congress should be able to review that decision.

 

I think it should never be allowed to happen. Period.

[jrrtoken]

You're completely missing the point, and are seemingly regurgitating previous information.

Which would you rather have, one terrorist leader getting waterboarded, or a couple hundred innocent civilians die here in the United States because our Intelligence Ops are too afraid to even question the people captured because they are afraid of criminal prosecution?

That's something incredibly ignorant, and you know it. By actively torturing suspected terrorists with practices that go back towards the inquisition, the US is stooping to the same level as the terrorists, by using pain and aggression to get what they want.

[GarfieldJL]

1. No I didn't. I said that allowing heresay from soldiers shouldn't be taken as truth automatically because we know that some soldiers, not all, but some, have been cruel for no reason. There is evidence that proves that above, in the video links I provided.

 

And those links are genuine, somehow I doubt it because those soldiers would be up on charges by now.

 

2.You mean a Judge following constitutional law might throw a case out because they weren't arrested in a way that followed said law?

 

If I understand what you're saying the way you want them tried is saying that even Afghanistan isn't a war it's just a police action. Seriously, if they went through the traditional stuff we'd see with a police officer we'd end up with a lot more fatalities.

 

3. You don't know that. Sorry, you don't.

 

And neither do you, the burden of proof is on you, our troops are innocent until proven guilty.

 

This is reliant on the idea that these prisoners are all terrorists. Frankly, none of them have been proven to be terrorists, not in a way that is satisfactory to me, and also happens to be satisfactory to the US Supreme Court. So, I'd like to see what inmates are actually terrorists, if any of them are.

 

So you're telling me the mastermind behind 9/11 isn't a terrorist, just some farmer that the US rounded up and tortured for fun is that it? Because that's what you're implying you just apologized for insulting US Troops and you go right back to doing it all over again.

 

 

Based on my argument above, you have no idea for an actual fact that any of them had anything to do with 9/11, let alone if they masterminded it.

 

It's called they bragged about it beforehand, it's stuff we probably also gained from the wiretaps that people are against even though they were overseas.

 

I think it should never be allowed to happen. Period.

 

And I must disagree.

 

 

That's something incredibly ignorant, and you know it. By actively torturing suspected terrorists with practices that go back towards the inquisition, the US is stooping to the same level as the terrorists, by using pain and aggression to get what they want.

 

[sarcasm]Yeah I'm sure Bin Laden's driver is just a poor peasant that didn't know whom he was driving around.[/sarcasm]

[jrrtoken]

If I understand what you're saying the way you want them tried is saying that even Afghanistan isn't a war it's just a police action. Seriously, if they went through the traditional stuff we'd see with a police officer we'd end up with a lot more fatalities.

Where have you been?

Show spoiler

(hidden content - requires Javascript to show)

And neither do you, the burden of proof is on you, our troops are innocent until proven guilty.

Same thing with the detainees, except they ain't American, so screw 'em.

So you're telling me the mastermind behind 9/11 isn't a terrorist, just some farmer that the US rounded up and tortured for fun is that it? Because that's what you're implying you just apologized for insulting US Troops and you go right back to doing it all over again.

I don't think several hundred foreigners all masterminded 9/11, k?

Yeah I'm sure Bin Laden's driver is just a poor peasant that didn't know whom he was driving around.

Pretty close, but yeah. Oh, and thanks for completely ignoring my point.

[EnderWiggin]

And you're happy with Gitmo closure without knowing what's going to happen to the people there?

Damn right I am. Not satisfied, no, but certainly happy. It's a step in the right direction.

You have no interest in how the detainees/POWs/combatants/novel new term du jour are going to be treated elsewhere?

 

I'm going to go out on a limb and say that Achilles is going to answer that he does has an interest (as do I).

 

The point is, there needs to be a certain amount of politicking as well as resolution to problems. Now, if Obama came out and said "Well, folks, we've fixed Gitmo and we're giving them a fair trial and we've stopped torturing! Have a nice January!" I feel like it wouldn't have had the same effect as what he did, completing those objectives (by year's end) and letting everyone walk around saying "Obama closed Gitmo!"

 

Second the overwhelming majority of the people at Gitmo were not waterboarded. There were only a handful of people that were and those were high profile leaders and the results were that we managed to bust up several terrorist plots.

 

Oh, well then. Could you please give (read: make up) a percentage of those in this "overwhelming majority"? And maybe even specific plots stopped by torture. Thanks.

Which would you rather have, one terrorist leader getting waterboarded, or a couple hundred innocent civilians die here in the United States because our Intelligence Ops are too afraid to even question the people captured because they are afraid of criminal prosecution?

Do you know why they're afraid of criminal prosecution? Because, in 2006, the case Hamdan v. Rumsfeld decided (that would be our Supreme Court, by the way) that all "enemy combatants" are entitled to Article 3 of the Geneva Conventions (i.e. no waterboarding).

[They] shall in all circumstances be treated humanely, including prohibition of outrages upon personal dignity, in particular humiliating and degrading treatment. The passing of sentences must also be pronounced by a regularly constituted court, affording all the judicial guarantees which are recognized as indispensable by civilized peoples.

 

Also, re: all those who are being held without charges, see the case Boumediene v. Bush, which decided that "the prisoners had a right to the habeas corpus under the United States Constitution and that the MCA was an unconstitutional suspension of that right."

 

_EW_

[Adavardes]

Oh man, I've been waiting for this:

 

So you're telling me the mastermind behind 9/11 isn't a terrorist

 

And neither do you, the burden of proof is on you, our troops are innocent until proven guilty.

 

Take your own advice and prove to me he's the mastermind. I want to hear those recorded confessions, or read a confirmation from the Supreme Court that says the confessions exist and are valid.

 

Oh, and as for proof against some soldiers' cruelty, *points at videos*. NOW, MOVING ON.

 

Because that's what you're implying you just apologized for insulting US Troops and you go right back to doing it all over again.

 

Again, stop insulting me by oversimplifying what I've said, because you assume that a soldier will stand trial for committing acts of cruelty (doubtful with Bush). I insulted the soldiers that committed those crimes, not the soldiers that did not.

[GarfieldJL]

The point is, there needs to be a certain amount of politicking as well as resolution to problems. Now, if Obama came out and said "Well, folks, we've fixed Gitmo and we're giving them a fair trial and we've stopped torturing! Have a nice January!" I feel like it wouldn't have had the same effect as what he did, completing those objectives (by year's end) and letting everyone walk around saying "Obama closed Gitmo!"

 

And next we'll see them be released and they go right back to trying to kill Americans all over again.

 

Oh, well then. Could you please give (read: make up) a percentage of those in this "overwhelming majority"? And maybe even specific plots stopped by torture. Thanks.

 

Oh you mean the fact there was only 3 terrorists that were waterboarded total?

 

But there was one spy chief on the Hill this week with good news. CIA Director Michael Hayden confirmed that the CIA has used waterboarding and that it works prodigiously. The agency only used this technique of simulated drowning three times since September 11, 2001, saving it for terror leaders who have posed the utmost threat to our security, Abd al-Rahim al-Nashiri, mastermind of attack on the USS Cole, Abu Zubaydah, the brains behind the thwarted millennium attacks, and Khalid Sheikh Mohammed, who directed September 11 — as deserving a trio of barbarians as any waterboardist can imagine.

 

From these brutes — and in the wink of an eye — Mr. Hayden reports the CIA got a quarter of all the human intelligence it obtained from 2002 to 2006. Now we also know that this impressive interrogation technique was undertaken not only with the knowledge of the Bush administration but also that of then House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi and then ranking Senate Intelligence Committee member Jay Rockefeller.

--Washington Times

 

 

How many people are imprisoned at Gitmo? Cause only 3 people have been waterboarded.

 

Do you know why they're afraid of criminal prosecution? Because, in 2006, the case Hamdan v. Rumsfeld decided (that would be our Supreme Court, by the way) that all "enemy combatants" are entitled to Article 3 of the Geneva Conventions.

 

And what does it say about deliberately targetting innocent civilians, particularly children. Seriously, the Supreme Court in this case was wrong because they were not enemy soldiers in uniform.

 

Also, re: all those who are being held without charges, see the case Boumediene v. Bush, which decided that "the prisoners had a right to the habeas corpus under the United States Constitution and that the MCA was an unconstitutional suspension of that right."

 

And in this case we are at war, if you study your history you'd find that Abraham Lincoln suspended Habeas Corpus during the Civil War.

[Det. Bart Lasiter]

And in this case we are at war, if you study your history you'd find that Abraham Lincoln suspended Habeas Corpus during the Civil War.

and it was ruled unconstitutional

[GarfieldJL]

But you're not a member of military.

 

Yes, I know that Jimbo is (works in the dentist's office, correct?), however the point remains that you fail your own test. It would seem that people outside the military are capable of understanding certain things, regardless of your opinions

 

P.S. My brother-in-law is a drill seargent, but I don't pretend that the association somehow bolsters my credentials to speak on military topics. Doing so would make me guilty of introducing appeal to authority flavored arguments.

 

So what, I have a cousin in the military, plus I had two grandparents in the military, that doesn't make you an expert in military affairs, nor would your brother-in-law necessarily have a clue, because the Army field manual has nothing to do with the CIA.

 

I read every post that I respond to at least twice. Had I found any valid arguments there, I would've responded to them, just as I have with every one of your posts that I've ever replied to.

 

To contradict you, Jae's arguments seemed perfectly logical and valid to me.

 

And you missed the point again. By moving the prisoners, they directly address the underlying illegal activities. Again, unless you want to argue that torture and illegal detention are legal within the U.S..

 

And to again to contradict you, it doesn't do anything but create more problems because there isn't a facility that is as secure as Gitmo. If you send them stateside you're gonna end up with all kinds of other problems.

 

And before you're tempted to reply with intentionally murky point that bases are U.S. soil, please consider why the Bush Administration selected Gitmo and other CIA "black sites" in foriegn countries if they could have just done it all right here.

 

That would in theory have been part of it, the bigger part was that if they escaped they wouldn't be in the states so they'd have a harder time attacking our citizens. It's kinda hard to swim through shark infested waters in the middle of the Gulf of Mexico.

 

My points are right there any time you chose to address them. Or continue your hand-waving. Either option is fine with me.

 

Your points quite frankly appear naive, the idea that simply moving them with no idea as to where to move them solves anything is quite frankly ridiculous. As I've just shown there have only been three people waterboarded total. And there are probably over 300 prisoners at Gitmo, that's less than 1%. Three people, you're making it sound like every other prisoner is being waterboarded.

 

You want to see human rights abuses visit a prison in China.

 

Well, I guess I'd have to know how many Gitmo-style interrogations take place within the "CONUS" before I could see your point, let alone respond to it.

 

The type of interrogations you're referring to was only 3 total. That's hardly what you're making it out to be.

 

I am highly suspicious that gnomes steal my underwear.

 

Okay?

 

POWs? Even the ones that don't meet the criteria for POW status?

 

Hmmm. If they were captured during "the war on terror", wouldn't that make them "terrorists"? Terrorists don't qualify for POW status, so based on the pretenses that Bushy, Cheney, and Rumey offered, none of them are POWs. Why are you calling them something they are not?

 

Terrorists also aren't under the protection of the Geneva Convention, under your own statements you just threw out your own argument.

 

Jae, how could I possibly identify all your mistakes unless I read your posts carefully? Accusing me of sloppy work hurts my feelings.

 

How about you stop bashing Jae, while Jae and I disagree a lot, I won't sit idly by and watch somebody treat someone like the way you're treating Jae right now.

 

Which, of course, presumes that closing Gitmo moves the torture problem. If you remove that premise, the argument falls apart.

 

Which fails to address my argument about it being grossly irresponsible.

 

Yep. Unequivocally. If for no other reason than the "token" reason you've derided here, which is that it's no longer a rallying cry for Al-Qaeda. Sometimes symbolic gestures have meaning unto themselves. And ignoring this one sounds like something a conservative would do in an attempt to trivalize the efforts of the new President. My 2 cents.

 

Oh, so now we're going to have attempts to bust out their cohorts and escapes in the middle of the US and potentially people being killed by these lunatics.

 

 

and it was ruled unconstitutional

After the war was over, and if you'll look at the ruling about the suspension it was kinda interesting and you can honestly compare Bush to Abraham Lincoln, both were liberators, both led the nation under crisis. The court was concerned about future Presidents that might lack Lincoln's integrity.

[Adavardes]

After the war was over, and if you'll look at the ruling about the suspension it was kinda interesting and you can honestly compare Bush to Abraham Lincoln, both were liberators, both led the nation under crisis. The court was concerned about future Presidents that might lack Lincoln's integrity.

 

No. Never. Ever. No.

 

1. Lincoln was a democrat. Yes, his party was called the Republican party at the time, but they became the democrat party, and the Whigs became the Republican party. He was the old equivalent of a democrat. Bush is a modern Republican, the old equivalent of a Whig.

 

2. Lincoln suspended certain acts of habeas corpus, but in the long run of his term, drastically improved and expanded rights for all citizens of the US, most notably African Americans. Bush worked to drastically reduce rights in all cases for all human beings.

 

3. Lincoln ended a war that was, at the time of his inaguration, unavoidable, and worked to resolve the economic hardships caused by it. Bush started a war over literally nothing and caused us to go into economic hardship with a war debt that is in the trillions.

 

Bush will never, ever be considered at the level Lincoln was. Bush lacked every ounce of integrity he showed, and I assure you that history will show it.

[EnderWiggin]

And in this case we are at war, if you study your history you'd find that Abraham Lincoln suspended Habeas Corpus during the Civil War.

If you would read what I write, you'll find that I said the same earlier, that the President can in a State of Emergency revoke the right of Habeas Corpus. However, the Boumediene v. Bush case is quite clear in saying that what Bush did was unconstitutional (due to the manner in which he did it, I think). Thank goodness for judicial review.

 

So what, I have a cousin in the military, plus I had two grandparents in the military, that doesn't make you an expert in military affairs, nor would your brother-in-law necessarily have a clue, because the Army field manual has nothing to do with the CIA.

 

That was his point

 

And what does it say about deliberately targetting innocent civilians, particularly children. Seriously, the Supreme Court in this case was wrong because they were not enemy soldiers in uniform.

 

Listen closely, please. This supreme court decision decided that the people captured were entitled to Article 3, which says that "Noncombatants, combatants who have laid down their arms, and combatants who are hors de combat (out of the fight) due to wounds, detention, or any other cause" are awarded the rights I previously posted.

 

"out of the fight due to... detention" would be the key phrase there.

 

Even you can't dispute that they're combatants that are detained.

 

1. Lincoln was a democrat. Yes, his party was called the Republican party at the time, but they became the democrat party, and the Whigs became the Republican party. He was the old equivalent of a democrat. Bush is a modern Republican, the old equivalent of a Whig.

 

Not quite, but points for being close. The Republican party (the one in the 1860 election) had already overtaken the Whig party as the opposition to the 1860 Democrats.

 

_EW_

[Det. Bart Lasiter]

After the war was over, and if you'll look at the ruling about the suspension it was kinda interesting and you can honestly compare Bush to Abraham Lincoln, both were liberators, both led the nation under crisis. The court was concerned about future Presidents that might lack Lincoln's integrity.

bush didnt free anyone. to use a dnd analogy, he changed things in afghanistan and iraq from lawful evil to chaotic evil.

[Adavardes]

 

Not quite, but points for being close. The Republican party (the one in the 1860 election) had already overtaken the Whig party as the opposition to the 1860 Democrats.

 

_EW_

 

My bad. XD

[Det. Bart Lasiter]

liberal slander

[EnderWiggin]

My bad. XD

 

Not a big deal. Lincoln was actually a whig anyway just in Republican clothes.

 

_EW_

[GarfieldJL]

1. Lincoln was a democrat. Yes, his party was called the Republican party at the time, but they became the democrat party, and the Whigs became the Republican party. He was the old equivalent of a democrat. Bush is a modern Republican, the old equivalent of a Whig.

 

Adavardes, I'm going to call you out on this one, because I've studied Constitutional History. The Republican Party is the party of Lincoln, that is a fact and no amount of attempts to rewrite history will change that. The Republican Party was created in 1854 and it still exists as the Republican Party today.

 

2. Lincoln suspended certain acts of habeas corpus, but in the long run of his term, drastically improved and expanded rights for all citizens of the US, most notably African Americans. Bush worked to drastically reduce rights in all cases for all human beings.

 

I didn't realize the right to vote was reducing the rights of human beings.

 

3. Lincoln ended a war that was, at the time of his inaguration, unavoidable, and worked to resolve the economic hardships caused by it. Bush started a war over literally nothing and caused us to go into economic hardship with a war debt that is in the trillions.

 

Actually the Dems got us into the economic hardship with their bad loan practices with Freddie Mac and blocking the Republicans attempts to fix things.

 

Bush will never, ever be considered at the level Lincoln was. Bush lacked every ounce of integrity he showed, and I assure you that history will show it.

 

Oh you mean like how Reagan was supposed to be a lousy President and it turned out he was one of our best Presidents. Seriousily, stop blaming everything on Bush.

 

Not a big deal. Lincoln was actually a whig anyway just in Republican clothes.

 

Calling you out on this one too, because the Whig party had fallen apart, Lincoln joined the Republican Party, which was for ending slavery. I took a history course on this so I know quite a bit about the topic.

[jrrtoken]

Adavardes, I'm going to call you out on this one, because I've studied Constitutional History. The Republican Party is the party of Lincoln, that is a fact and no amount of attempts to rewrite history will change that. The Republican Party was created in 1854 and it still exists as the Republican Party today.

Yeah, except Lincoln was a bona-fide liberal.

Oh you mean like how Reagan was supposed to be a lousy President and it turned out he was one of our best Presidents. Seriousily, stop blaming everything on Bush.

Yeah, except Reagan gutted all of the important government programs, except for defense, which he overloaded. He's also credited for winning the Cold War, which makes sense, especially when he essentially made the USSR compete with the US's arsenal, except Gorbachev was the one who helped Russia turn into a democracy.

[GarfieldJL]

Yeah, except Lincoln was a bona-fide liberal.

 

Actually, by today's standards Lincoln would be a Conservative, he was against slavery, it was just considered to be way out there at the time by Democrats to be against slavery.

 

Yeah, except Reagan gutted all of the important government programs, except for defense, which he overloaded. He's also credited for winning the Cold War, which makes sense, especially when he essentially made the USSR compete with the US's arsenal, except Gorbachev was the one who helped Russia turn into a democracy.

 

What did he gut, seriously give me a list please? And Reagan caused the USSR to spend itself to death.

[EnderWiggin]

Calling you out on this one too, because the Whig party had fallen apart, Lincoln joined the Republican Party, which was for ending slavery. I took a history course on this so I know quite a bit about the topic.

Lincoln was in politics before the election of 1860, right? Well, what party do you think he was a part of beforehand? The Dems? False.

 

He was a Whig who became part of the Republicans when the issue of slavery splintered the Whigs into multiple pieces.

 

I passed high school history too.

 

_EW_

[Jae Onasi]

Feel free to discuss Whig/Republican/liberal conservative stuff, but let me know if you all want the thread split here to continue that particular branch of discussion.

[GarfieldJL]

Lincoln was in politics before the election of 1860, right? Well, what party do you think he was a part of beforehand? The Dems? False.

 

He was a Whig who became part of the Republicans when the issue of slavery splintered the Whigs into multiple pieces.

 

I've taken classes too, but nice try.

 

_EW_

 

While I know he was a Whig, before that party fell apart fact is though, he chose to join the Republican party because it fit his ideology. Lincoln is the icon that makes up the Republican Party.

 

Furthermore it was Republicans in Congress when President Johnson was in office, to push through Civil Rights Legislation for Johnson to sign. The Democrats were notably absent in supporting that legislation.

 

I'm a Republican because I believe a person shouldn't be judged by the color of their skin. People shouldn't get special treatment for their skin color, nor should they be discriminated against.

 

Also, you may have been in High School History, but I took Constitutional History at College. The formation of the Republican Party is something that a lot of Democrats of the time were extremely dismayed.

[EnderWiggin]

While I know he was a Whig, before that party fell apart fact is though, he chose to join the Republican party because it fit his ideology. Lincoln is the icon that makes up the Republican Party.

 

I agree, here.

 

But I hope you'll also agree that the only reason that he joined the Republican party was because A) it was just like the Whig party and B) it opposed slavery while the Whigs did not necessarily.

 

The only reason the Whigs stopped being a worthwhile party was because they began to run two different platforms, the pro-slavery Whigs and the pro-abolitionism Whigs. This allowed the Republican party, which had a centralized platform of anti-slavery and opposition to the Democrats, to move in and take the place of the Whigs, creating the GOP we know today.

 

_EW_

 

EDIT:: In response to your ninja:

Also, you may have been in High School History, but I took Constitutional History at College. The formation of the Republican Party is something that a lot of Democrats of the time were extremely dismayed.

 

My point was that it only required rudimentary knowledge of United States History to understand how the Whigs became the Republicans. And of course the democrats were dismayed.

[GarfieldJL]

But I hope you'll also agree that the only reason that he joined the Republican party was because A) it was just like the Whig party and B) it opposed slavery while the Whigs did not necessarily.

 

He joined the party because it fit his values, that's why he didn't join the Democrats. It was also why he was nominated as the Presidential Candidate for the Republican Party.

 

The only reason the Whigs stopped being a worthwhile party was because they began to run two different platforms, the pro-slavery Whigs and the pro-abolitionism Whigs. This allowed the Republican party, which had a centralized platform of anti-slavery and opposition to the Democrats, to move in and take the place of the Whigs, creating the GOP we know today.

 

Well to add to that it was also Anti-Slavery Democrats that joined the Republicans.

 

 

My point was that it only required rudimentary knowledge of United States History to understand how the Whigs became the Republicans. And of course the democrats were dismayed.

 

Well there is more to it than that, the Democrat Chief Justice tried to through the Dredd Scott case, cause the Republican Party to implode by settling the slavery issue once and for all, it ended up backfiring.

 

My point was that the idea that Lincoln was a Democrat is factually incorrect.