Gov. Bill Lee signs Nathan Bedford Forrest Day proclamation, is not considering law change

  
Via:  atheist  •  one month ago  •  112 comments

Gov. Bill Lee signs Nathan Bedford Forrest Day proclamation, is not considering law change
"I signed the bill because the law requires that I do that and I haven’t looked at changing that law," Lee said Thursday.

S E E D E D   C O N T E N T


Gov. Bill Lee has proclaimed Saturday as Nathan Bedford Forrest Day in Tennessee, a day of observation to honor the former Confederate general and early Ku Klux Klan leader whose bust is on display in the state Capitol.

Article is Locked by Moderator

Find text within the comments Find 
 
Atheist יוחנן בן אברהם אבינו
1  seeder  Atheist יוחנן בן אברהם אבינו    one month ago

This is too funny for words and learning things like this sometimes tempts me to rethink my atheism in that  there may be one god:  Pan--the one of mischief.  All the work of Southern apologists (and you know who you are) who've built up this house of cards that racism, slavery, Jim Crow was all "Democrats" and the Republicans have always been completely blameless and honorable just goes gushing down the drain.  Of course the usual suspects will point out that this practice (which may not be just confined to TN) began with segregationist Dems in the past but then why, if Republicans aren't just the new name for the same old dog, didn't they do away with this monument to slavery and brutality of that past?  We've been hearing forever about Forrest was a Dem and all Dems everywhere are responsible for racism yet there are no tributes to Lee, Forrest or any of the other champions of torture, bondage and death of millions of blacks for hundreds of years in the North, or West, or East.  I can hardly wait for the histrionic denials and counter-attacks from those same people (always the same) to come.  Let the lying, denying, rationalizing, false accusations, lame excuse making  begin once again. 

 
 
 
XDm9mm
2  XDm9mm    one month ago

Oop's a day late and a dollar short.  OLD NEWS.

Tennessee Governor Declares Day (July 13) Honoring Confederate General And Early Ku Klux Klan Leader

Community » Discussions » Category » News & Politics » Discussion » Tennessee Governor Declares Day (July 13) Honoring Confederate General And Early Ku Klux Klan Leader
like.png?skin=ntNewsTalkers3&v=156235521 2 
  
flag.png?skin=ntNewsTalkers3&v=155208290
Via:  john-russell  •  2 days ago  •  36 comments 

_v=63f541563155964
96
"I signed the bill because the law requires that I do that and I haven't looked at changing that law," Lee said Thursday.  According to The Tennessean, Lee declined to say if he thought the state law should be changed — something Tennessee Democrats have been hoping would happen. Previous efforts by Democrats have failed
 
 
 
Atheist יוחנן בן אברהם אבינו
3  seeder  Atheist יוחנן בן אברהם אבינו    one month ago

Kudos to JR.  I'm honored to come in second.  The story is no less true than it was when JR posted his article.  I see you don't have any response to how it's Republicans in the South (as the reincarnation of racist Southern Dems) who have continued honoring racists, murderers and traitors from their part of the country.  Probably good idea to keep it that way.  

 
 
 
XDm9mm
3.1  XDm9mm  replied to  Atheist יוחנן בן אברהם אבינו @3    one month ago
I see you don't have any response

Nope.  I don't play your race baiting games.  Try that with someone else.

Oh, it was signed as it's the law.  If you don't like it, move to Tennessee, vote your favorite candidate in and change the law.  See how simple that solution is?

 
 
 
Atheist יוחנן בן אברהם אבינו
3.1.1  seeder  Atheist יוחנן בן אברהם אבינו  replied to  XDm9mm @3.1    one month ago
Oh, it was signed as it's the law.  If you don't like it, move to Tennessee, vote your favorite candidate in and change the law.  See how simple that solution is?

Why would I want to move to a Republican controlled state that still honors racists, murderers, slavery and treason?  My question to you (and those like you who dare to come on this or JR's article) is why aren't you outraged that your Republicans are now the heirs to all of that and that you can't keep falsely accusing Dems anywhere now or in the past anymore.  That baggage is all yours now whether you admit it or not. 

 
 
 
bugsy
3.1.2  bugsy  replied to  Atheist יוחנן בן אברהם אבינו @3.1.1    one month ago

This legislature was signed into law in 1971. Governors are required by this to sign it each year. From that time, there have been 3 democratic governors, the latest was Phil Bredenson, who left in 2011. Why do I not remember ever seeing you call him or the previous democratic governors racist? Afterall, that governor and the other 2 democrats before him "honored racists, murderers, slavery and treason".

I guess you were OK with that type of "racism, murders and treason", or in other words, accepted democratic atrocities against minorities..

 
 
 
Texan1211
3.1.3  Texan1211  replied to  bugsy @3.1.2    one month ago
This legislature was signed into law in 1971. Governors are required by this to sign it each year. From that time, there have been 3 democratic governors, the latest was Phil Bredenson, who left in 2011. Why do I not remember ever seeing you call him or the previous democratic governors racist? Afterall, that governor and the other 2 democrats before him "honored racists, murderers, slavery and treason".

Aw, come on, man! Isn't the faux-poutrage a LITTLE amusing after so many decades of staying silent?

 
 
 
bugsy
3.1.4  bugsy  replied to  Texan1211 @3.1.3    one month ago

What is even more faux outrage is that democrats controlled the Tennessee state government in 1971 when the law was passed, and essentially had full control until the mid 90s. This was well after the supposed "party switch" during the civil rights era. If there was so much outrage over this, they sure had plenty of time to overturn it, but never did. Democrats have always been anti civil rights and the party of racism. .

 
 
 
Texan1211
3.1.5  Texan1211  replied to  bugsy @3.1.4    one month ago

To hear a few tell it, the Democratic Party has always been clean and pure as driven snow. Every one of those nasty, racist Democrats in the south all magically became Republicans and yet, still voted for Democrats.

Weird shit right there!

I am left wondering why the Democratic Party never severed itself from the south.

 
 
 
Dismayed Patriot
4  Dismayed Patriot    one month ago

What I find rather hilarious is that this is just another example of the Republican party supporting, defending and advocating for worthless confederates and those who actually started the KKK even though at the time they called themselves "Southern Democrats". Well the Democrat party dropped that torch more than half a century ago and have been fighting for equality and the removal of any statues or plaques honoring those who attacked our nation just so they could continue owning other humans as cattle. But the GOP picked up that torch dropped by those Southern Democrats and like racist moths to a flame those who love and revere the confederacy and gnash their teeth at the fact that their ancestors lost the war now flock around that beacon of bigotry.

We saw them in Charlottesville, literally with torches, confederate flags flying along with swastikas and MAGA hats, and now we have a GOP Governor signing into law an actual day of celebration for one of those vile slavery defending confederate bigots. Some claim their defense of the confederate monuments is because it would be, as GOP Governor Bill Lee said "a mistake to whitewash history", but leaving the bust of a confederate general and former leader of the KKK up in front of the Tennessee State capital isn't about remember our past mistakes, we have places like the holocaust museum to remember horrid people and the vile things they did to other humans, we don't need a large bronze bust of a KKK leader in front of a government building just to remember what the confederacy or the KKK did. But that has been the go to defense for many Republicans, all while claiming they aren't the descendants of those former Southern Democrats and had nothing to do with any of that long racist history in the States the GOP is now the majority party.

They'll tell you that somehow all those Dixiecrats must have moved out or died or something, because now the white Christian population in the southern States say they have little to no connection to those Southern Democrats who fought for the confederacy and started the KKK. No, now they're Lincoln praising Republicans who just also still happen to live in those same Southern Democrat bastions and defend the confederate monuments on principle, not because they actually still harbor those same racist beliefs as their confederate ancestors. And they want you to believe they hated President Obama on "principle" as well, not just because having a black man as President went against every indoctrinated prejudiced bone in their bodies. Sure, they were screaming about him being a Kenyan Muslim, but that was all on principle, right? /s

 
 
 
JohnRussell
4.1  JohnRussell  replied to  Dismayed Patriot @4    one month ago
What I find rather hilarious is that this is just another example of the Republican party supporting, defending and advocating for worthless confederates and those who actually started the KKK even though at the time they called themselves "Southern Democrats".

That kind of says it all.

 
 
 
Atheist יוחנן בן אברהם אבינו
4.1.1  seeder  Atheist יוחנן בן אברהם אבינו  replied to  JohnRussell @4.1    one month ago

Sorry, JR.  I didn't see your earlier article or would have deferred to it. 

 
 
 
Dismayed Patriot
4.1.2  Dismayed Patriot  replied to  JohnRussell @4.1    one month ago

Just to be clear, I do not believe all republicans are confederate loving bigots. It just seems rather obvious that the GOP did pick up that racist torch which attracts all the confederate loving bigots and they know if they were to throw the torch away and completely and unequivocally condemn white supremacy, the KKK, the confederacy and all it stood for, they would likely lose a quarter of their party thus resigning themselves to never winning another election. Since that's simply not an option, I believe many Republicans who don't share those prejudiced views but support the fiscal conservatism of the GOP, hold their noses and stick with the quarter of their party that reeks of racism.

 
 
 
JohnRussell
4.1.3  JohnRussell  replied to  Atheist יוחנן בן אברהם אבינו @4.1.1    one month ago

no problem

 
 
 
Atheist יוחנן בן אברהם אבינו
4.1.4  seeder  Atheist יוחנן בן אברהם אבינו  replied to  Dismayed Patriot @4.1.2    one month ago
Just to be clear, I do not believe all republicans are confederate loving bigots.

Since the Tea Party took over that party, I can't think of a single remaining R in Congress who hasn't been tainted or cowed by them.  I'll use Lindsey Graham as the most egregious case-in-point.  That one-time best friend of John McCain has become one of the most obsequious, cowardly, dishonest and morality-free POS on two legs.  

I'd be tempted to give Ted Cruz a slow-motion hand clap for calling this out, but I have no doubt he'll soon come out with the inevitable filthy finger-pointing doing at past mostly dead Dems being the real guilty

 
 
 
1stwarrior
4.2  1stwarrior  replied to  Dismayed Patriot @4    one month ago

What I find hilarious are the folks who are so freakin' blind and don't know their history.

Founded in 1865, the Ku Klux Klan (KKK) extended into almost every southern state by 1870 and became a vehicle for white southern resistance to the Republican Party’s Reconstruction-era policies aimed at establishing political and economic equality for blacks. Its members waged an underground campaign of intimidation and violence directed at white and black Republican leaders. Though Congress passed legislation designed to curb Klan terrorism, the organization saw its primary goal–the reestablishment of white supremacy–fulfilled through Democratic victories in state legislatures across the South in the 1870s. After 1870, Republican state governments in the South turned to Congress for help, resulting in the passage of three Enforcement Acts, the strongest of which was the Ku Klux Klan Act of 1871.

The DEMOCRATS started the KKK - not the whatever name you wanna call them Republicans.

https://www.history.com/topics/reconstruction/ku-klux-klan

 
 
 
Atheist יוחנן בן אברהם אבינו
4.2.1  seeder  Atheist יוחנן בן אברהם אבינו  replied to  1stwarrior @4.2    one month ago
The DEMOCRATS started the KKK - not the whatever name you wanna call them Republicans.

But Republicans own it all now, 1W.  No way to squirm out of it anymore.  

 
 
 
XDm9mm
4.2.2  XDm9mm  replied to  Atheist יוחנן בן אברהם אבינו @4.2.1    one month ago
now

When exactly did "now" start?

 
 
 
1stwarrior
4.2.3  1stwarrior  replied to  Atheist יוחנן בן אברהם אבינו @4.2.1    one month ago

How 'bout showing so PROOF of your accusations - you know - links to articles/reports.  Would really like to see them.

 
 
 
Atheist יוחנן בן אברהם אבינו
4.2.4  seeder  Atheist יוחנן בן אברהם אבינו  replied to  XDm9mm @4.2.2    one month ago
When exactly did "now" start?

When Republicans took control of the South.

 
 
 
Atheist יוחנן בן אברהם אבינו
4.2.5  seeder  Atheist יוחנן בן אברהם אבינו  replied to  1stwarrior @4.2.3    one month ago

You're asking me to prove that Republicans now control every level of government in TN?  That's the kind of ridiculous demand for proof of a self-evident fact that, if repeated, is  trolling.  

 
 
 
1stwarrior
4.2.6  1stwarrior  replied to  Atheist יוחנן בן אברהם אבינו @4.2.4    one month ago

Ohhhh - that "Reconstruction" law thingy that Congress passed in 1868 - 3 years AFTER the Civil War ended.

 
 
 
XDm9mm
4.2.7  XDm9mm  replied to  Atheist יוחנן בן אברהם אבינו @4.2.4    one month ago
When Republicans took control of the South.

When EXACTLY was that?   You did make the proclamation "now", so put a date to it with your vast expertise and knowledge.

 
 
 
Dismayed Patriot
4.2.8  Dismayed Patriot  replied to  1stwarrior @4.2    one month ago
The DEMOCRATS started the KKK

Apparently you chose not to read my post since I never said any differently. I agree, the Southern Democrats that also had their own Presidential candidate in the 1860 election who supported slavery did in fact found the KKK and pushed racist, bigoted ideologies far into the middle of the 20th century. What you seem to be ignoring is all the evidence that the Democrat party as a whole discarded that prejudiced torch that some of their southern members were carrying when the 1964 civil right act was written by a Democrat President (JFK), then it was passed by a majority of Democrats and signed into law by a Democrat President.

I think the actual 1964 Civil Rights Act vote by party & region tells the real story.

Note: "Southern", as used in this section, refers to members of Congress from the eleven states that had made up the Confederate States of America in the American Civil War. "Northern" refers to members from the other 39 states, regardless of the geographic location of those states.

The original House version:

  • Southern Democrats: 7–87   (7–93%)
  • Southern Republicans: 0–10   (0–100%)
  • Northern Democrats: 145–9   (94%–6%)
  • Northern Republicans: 138–24   (85–15%)

The Senate version:

  • Southern Democrats: 1–20   (5–95%)
  • Southern Republicans: 0–1   (0–100%)
  • Northern Democrats: 45–1   (98%–2%)
  • Northern Republicans: 27–5   (84–16%)

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Civil_Rights_Act_of_1964

You'll notice 100% of Southern Republicans voted against the civil rights act. I'm sure that impressed many of their constituents.

Let's see how Republican operatives viewed the situation in the South and what tactic they employed to rebuild their minority party at the time into a majority:

Nixon's Republican strategist Kevin Phillips stated his analysis based on studies of ethnic voting:

"From now on, the Republicans are never going to get more than 10 to 20 percent of the Negro vote and they don't need any more than that... but Republicans would be shortsighted if they weakened enforcement of the Voting Rights Act. The more Negroes who register as Democrats in the South, the sooner the Negrophobe whites will quit the Democrats and become Republicans. That's where the votes are. Without that prodding from the blacks, the whites will backslide into their old comfortable arrangement with the local Democrats"

"In the 1964 presidential election, Goldwater ran a conservative campaign that broadly opposed strong action by the federal government. Although he had supported all previous federal civil rights legislation, Goldwater decided to oppose the Civil Rights Act.

Goldwater's position appealed to white Southern Democrats and Goldwater was the first Republican presidential candidate since Reconstruction to win the electoral votes of the Deep South states (Louisiana, Georgia, Alabama, Mississippi and South Carolina). Outside the South, Goldwater's negative vote on the Civil Rights Act proved devastating to his campaign."

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Southern_strategy

The facts are clear no matter how far someone wants to stuff their heads up the backside of a prejudiced ex-landlord who paid hundreds of thousands in fines and penalties after being caught refusing to rent to black Americans.

https://www.vox.com/2016/7/25/12270880/donald-trump-racist-racism-history

 
 
 
1stwarrior
4.2.9  1stwarrior  replied to  Dismayed Patriot @4.2.8    one month ago

100 years difference - one resulted in the Civil War -the other the Civil Rights "fights" which are still ongoing.

 
 
 
1stwarrior
4.2.10  1stwarrior  replied to  Atheist יוחנן בן אברהם אבינו @4.2.5    one month ago

So you can't/won't provide proof and would rather attack a pertinent question?

 
 
 
Dismayed Patriot
4.2.11  Dismayed Patriot  replied to  1stwarrior @4.2.9    one month ago
100 years difference - one resulted in the Civil War -the other the Civil Rights "fights" which are still ongoing.

I'm not following you. What "one" resulted in the civil war? Do you mean the Southern Democrat party with their Presidential candidate John C. Breckinridge? Or the opposing Northern Democrat party and their candidate Stephen A Douglas? Or perhaps it was the Constitutional Union Party candidate John Bell?

And yes, 100 years does make a difference. Much like how the Democrat party of today looks nothing like the Southern Democrat party of that time, the GOP of today do not resemble, even in the slightest, the party of Lincoln who fought to defeat slavery and prejudice in America.

 
 
 
Atheist יוחנן בן אברהם אבינו
4.2.12  seeder  Atheist יוחנן בן אברהם אבינו  replied to  Dismayed Patriot @4.2.8    one month ago
Goldwater decided to oppose the Civil Rights Act.

 Exploitation of white anger against the civil rights laws and ongoing movement in the South was the key to all of those Republican victories (1968,1972, 1980 and 1984)  just as it remains so today. 

 
 
 
Atheist יוחנן בן אברהם אבינו
4.2.13  seeder  Atheist יוחנן בן אברהם אבינו  replied to  1stwarrior @4.2.6    one month ago

Well, that has fuck-all to do with this topic so, of course, you'd need to throw it in.  But since you did, let's fast forward to the 1876 election--another one that went to the EC which required a shameful amount of horse trading to get Republican Hayes installed as President.  All he had to do to get the necessary EVs was to promise to pull US troops out of the South much earlier than had been planned, thus leaving giving the KKK and its political supporters at every level of government in the South a free hand to begin its 100 year reign of terror over its black citizens.  Another "proud" moment in the history of Republicans and their so-called commitment to civil rights. 

 
 
 
1stwarrior
4.2.14  1stwarrior  replied to  Atheist יוחנן בן אברהם אבינו @4.2.13    one month ago

Off topic

 
 
 
Sean Treacy
4.2.15  Sean Treacy  replied to  Atheist יוחנן בן אברהם אבינו @4.2.13    one month ago

Psst.. If Tilden had won the election in 1876, reconstruction was over as well. 

Although blaming Republicans for Democrats   "100 year reign of terror" over  black citizens is pretty funny.

 
 
 
JohnRussell
4.2.16  JohnRussell  replied to  Sean Treacy @4.2.15    one month ago

Atheist isnt here. 

This seed should be locked in his abscence. 

 
 
 
Atheist יוחנן בן אברהם אבינו
4.3  seeder  Atheist יוחנן בן אברהם אבינו  replied to  Dismayed Patriot @4    one month ago

Just look at the first two pitiful rightwing responses to this article...one calling it "old news" (it will be fresh as long as these practices continue under Republican rule) and the other still pretending what's going on now doesn't matter--only what happened 150 years ago.  They simply cannot face the truth.  

 
 
 
XDm9mm
5  XDm9mm    one month ago

Why was there no umbrage when the Democrats signed this law as Governor Lee and previous governors have?

The one and simple answer is selective outrage.  If it's done by a Democrat, the left turns a blind eye.  If it's done by a Republican, the left is enraged with hate.  

Governor's Name State Time in Office Party
Gov. Phil Bredesen Tennessee (2003 - 2011 ) Democrat
Gov. Don Sundquist Tennessee (1995 - 2003 ) Republican
Gov. Ned Ray McWherter Tennessee (1987 - 1995 ) Democrat
Gov. Lamar Alexander Tennessee (1979 - 1987 ) Republican
Gov. Ray Blanton Tennessee (1975 - 1979 ) Democrat
Gov. Bryant Winfield Culberson Dunn Tennessee (1971 - 1975 ) Republican
Gov. Earl Buford Ellington Tennessee (1959 - 1963 )
(1967 - 1971 )
Democrat
Gov. Frank Goad Clement Tennessee (1953 - 1959 )
(1963 - 1967 )
Democrat
Gov. Jim Nance McCord Tennessee (1945 - 1949 ) Democrat
 
 
 
Atheist יוחנן בן אברהם אבינו
5.1  seeder  Atheist יוחנן בן אברהם אבינו  replied to  XDm9mm @5    one month ago

Ah, now we have three pitiful rightwing attempts.  We already stipulated that it happened under Dems in the past so we knew you'd try this dodge.  If Republicans were really the "Party of Lincoln" (I can almost hear the ghost of Lincoln wailing in agony at having to hear that) why do they keep honoring his and the country's his murdering, slaving, racist traitor enemies?  Give up the sham, XDetc.  Your cover was blown perhaps before you were born when Dixiecrats took over and created today's disgusting Republican Party. 

 
 
 
1stwarrior
5.1.1  1stwarrior  replied to  Atheist יוחנן בן אברהם אבינו @5.1    one month ago

By February 1854, anti-slavery Whigs had begun meeting in the upper midwestern states to discuss the formation of a new party. One such meeting, in Wisconsin on March 20, 1854, is generally remembered as the founding meeting of the Republican Party.

The Republicans rapidly gained supporters in the North, and in 1856 their first presidential candidate, John C. Fremont, won 11 of the 16 Northern states. By 1860, the majority of the Southern slave states were publicly threatening secession if the Republicans won the presidency.

So I guess, by your logic then, that Democrats started the Civil War, right?  I mean Fremont won 11 of 16 Northern States and the Southerners, (they were the Democratic Party), not only threatened secession if the Repubs won - but they did secede, at a cost of over 500,000 lives, when Fremont and Lincoln won the Presidential elections.

 
 
 
Atheist יוחנן בן אברהם אבינו
5.1.2  seeder  Atheist יוחנן בן אברהם אבינו  replied to  1stwarrior @5.1.1    one month ago
So I guess, by your logic then, that Democrats started the Civil War, right? 

It's not logic but cold fact that the Civil War was started by SOUTHERN Democrats. 

 
 
 
Atheist יוחנן בן אברהם אבינו
5.1.3  seeder  Atheist יוחנן בן אברהם אבינו  replied to  1stwarrior @5.1.1    one month ago
I mean Fremont won 11 of 16 Northern States and the Southerners, (they were the Democratic Party)

WTF election are you talking about?  1856?

 
 
 
1stwarrior
5.1.4  1stwarrior  replied to  Atheist יוחנן בן אברהם אבינו @5.1.3    one month ago

1856 and 1860 - Fremont and then Lincoln.  You'll note my comment above listed both.  Please read - don't react.

 
 
 
Sparty On
5.1.6  Sparty On  replied to  1stwarrior @5.1.4    one month ago

Don't bother 1st.

It's not worth it.

 
 
 
1stwarrior
5.1.7  1stwarrior  replied to  Sparty On @5.1.6    one month ago

I and others have noticed.

 
 
 
JohnRussell
5.1.8  JohnRussell  replied to  Sparty On @5.1.6    one month ago

I'd like one of you to make a coherent argument on the topic of which party in 2019 is the party that wants to help African Americans. 

As I showed on another thread, since 19-fucking -30 ,    95% of blacks elected to Congress have been Democrats.  Thats 89 years. 

Do any of you right wingers have anything remotely relevant to the topic to say or are you just going to keep spinning yourselves in circles?

If Democrats are the real confederates why werent they out at Charlottesville protesting over the removal of the Robert E Lee statue? 

You have no answers for this stuff, you just have these pitiful attempts at bamboozling. 

 
 
 
Sean Treacy
5.1.9  Sean Treacy  replied to  JohnRussell @5.1.8    one month ago
Do any of you right wingers have anything remotely relevant to the topic to say or are you ju

Why are blacks fleeing Democratic strongholds like Chicago for southern states run by Republicans, do you imagine?  If Democrats are such friends of blacks and  Republicans oppress them, why is the great reverse migration taking place? 

 
 
 
Atheist יוחנן בן אברהם אבינו
5.1.10  seeder  Atheist יוחנן בן אברהם אבינו  replied to  1stwarrior @5.1.4    one month ago

Okay, I'll allow you this irrelevancy of bringing Frémont into this discussion and still trying ride the Lincoln train again long past the time when that left the station without any current Republicans on board even though it's a patent and pitiful attempt to misdirect away from the topic  since it's clearly done out of desperation.  Any time you feel like stopping the flailing maybe we could discuss the fact behind this article--Republicans now own the heritage of the Dixiecrats. 

 
 
 
JohnRussell
5.1.11  JohnRussell  replied to  Sean Treacy @5.1.9    one month ago

Your "argument" is that America's blacks are anxious to turn republican in 2019?   Hold on to that dream Sean. 

 
 
 
Dismayed Patriot
5.1.12  Dismayed Patriot  replied to  1stwarrior @5.1.1    one month ago
So I guess, by your logic then, that Democrats started the Civil War, right?

Considering there was a Northern Democrat Presidential candidate in the 1860 election, Stephen A. Douglas, who was against keeping slavery as it was, it's rather hard to simplify which "party" backed slavery and started the civil war. The Southern Democrat candidate for President in 1860, John C. Breckinridge, certainly supported slavery as virtually all white Southern Democrats (who would later become known as 'Dixiecrats') did.

I know it's hard for some to get their heads around how a Greek word like "Demokratia", "Democracy" or "Democrat" (literally 'rule by people') could be used by many different groups with differing ideals, but it's really not that complicated and shouldn't be that hard for anyone with more than half a brain to understand. Considering "Democracy" just means 'rule by people", there can be as many different "Democrats" as there are differing people and ideologies. One group can be staunchly against prejudice and racism and work hard towards equality for all, while another with the same name could be championing racial superiority and a privileged place in society for those that look like them or worship like they do.

 
 
 
Atheist יוחנן בן אברהם אבינו
5.1.13  seeder  Atheist יוחנן בן אברהם אבינו  replied to  Dismayed Patriot @5.1.12    one month ago

Nevermind that fact that it was Southern Dems and they only who pushed for and got secession.  The importance of slavery to the point that the South was willing to start a war to protect and extend it is the South's crime and the South's alone to bear, then, now and forever. No amount of lying can ever change that.  The fact that modern Republicans who still pretend they're the heirs of Lincoln continue to honor those who committed the crimes before and after that war is nothing short mockery of the man who created that once decent party. 

 
 
 
Sparty On
5.1.14  Sparty On  replied to  JohnRussell @5.1.8    one month ago

You know John, for someone who insists people stay on topic in your seeds, you sure like to go off the rails on others seeds.

That said, your comment is much to do about nothing.   I do however suspect African Americans are pretty happy with their record low unemployment these days.   Brought to them by Trump and company.

 
 
 
Sean Treacy
5.1.15  Sean Treacy  replied to  Dismayed Patriot @5.1.12    one month ago
mocrat Presidential candidate in the 1860 election, Stephen A. Douglas, who was against keeping slavery as it was..

Well, yeah. Douglas like other northern Democrats worked to  allow slavery to expand out of the traditional South.  But, that of course, is not what you meant.  Douglas, attacked Lincoln as a "Black Republican" and an abolitionist.  He led the repeal of the 1820 Compromise to allow slavery to be extended into states like Kansas and worked to ensure slavery was extended to the territories  conquered from Mexico. 

 President Buchanan, another northern Democrat even tried to force Kansas to be admitted to the Union as a slave state. And of course, Northern Copperhead Democrats did their best for the Confederacy during the Civil War. 

her hard to simplify which "party" backed slave

Scary to think you may have graduated high school.  The last three Democratic candidates before the civil war, e Douglas, Pierce and Buchanan, northern democrats all,  did their best to ensure slavery was extended across the Continent. The Buchanan wing of the party even tried to force Kansas into the Union as a slave state, against the will of it's people.  

 
 
 
Sean Treacy
5.1.16  Sean Treacy  replied to  JohnRussell @5.1.11    one month ago

no John. Why are blacks physically leaving areas governed by Democrats for generations like Chicago for areas governed by Republicans? 

What's happened to the black population of Chicago over the last 50 years of Democratic rule? 

 
 
 
XDm9mm
5.1.17  XDm9mm  replied to  Sparty On @5.1.6    one month ago
Don't bother 1st. It's not worth it.

It's never worth it.  Not with the Race Baiter in Chief.  It's simply capitulate to me and my belief structure or you are forever a NAZI, KKK, inbred Southern Racist Republican.

 
 
 
Atheist יוחנן בן אברהם אבינו
5.1.18  seeder  Atheist יוחנן בן אברהם אבינו  replied to  Sparty On @5.1.6    one month ago

If you're tired of seeing your ridiculously false and weak arguments  get hammered I don't blame you for being discouraged.   You could try to do better but retreating is so much less work, right? 

 
 
 
JohnRussell
5.1.19  JohnRussell  replied to  Sparty On @5.1.14    one month ago

I think I understand the topic much better than you do Sparty. But ask the seeder. 

 
 
 
Dismayed Patriot
5.1.20  Dismayed Patriot  replied to  Sean Treacy @5.1.15    one month ago
Douglas like other northern Democrats worked to  allow slavery to expand out of the traditional South

"Douglas articulated the Freeport Doctrine, holding that the people in federal territories had "the lawful means to introduce [slavery] or exclude it as they please, for the reason that slavery cannot exist a day or an hour anywhere, unless it is supported by local police regulations. Those police regulations can only be established by the local legislature; and if the people are opposed to slavery, they will elect representatives to that body who will by unfriendly legislation effectually prevent the introduction of it into their midst." Thus, Douglas argued that territories could effectively exclude slavery despite the Dred Scott decision".

He didn't support slavery but felt banning it outright wasn't the path to take. He debated Lincoln over this and I don't support his position, but it certainly wasn't "pro-slavery". He, like many who found slavery distasteful, felt it would eventually be weeded out of society as public opinion turned away from it and local legislatures stopped supporting it. He felt that the Freeport Doctrine (effectively based on States rights) would prevent the horrors of war, which it might have, but would have extended the horrors of slavery for decades or even longer.

I don't share Stephen A Douglas's view, I was simply pointing out how it was very different than Southern Democrat Presidential candidate John C Breckinridge who supported the "Crittenden Compromise" which stated:

  1. Slavery would be prohibited in any territory of the United States "now held, or hereafter acquired," north of latitude 36 degrees, 30 minutes line. In territories south of this line, slavery of the African race was "hereby recognized" and could not be interfered with by Congress. Furthermore, property in African slaves was to be "protected by all the departments of the territorial government during its continuance." States would be admitted to the Union from any territory with or without slavery as their constitutions provided.
  2. Congress was forbidden to abolish slavery in places under its jurisdiction within a slave state such as a military post.
  3. Congress could not abolish slavery in the District of Columbia so long as it existed in the adjoining states of Virginia and Maryland and without the consent of the District's inhabitants. Compensation would be given to owners who refused consent to abolition.
  4. Congress could not prohibit or interfere with the interstate slave trade.
  5. Congress would provide full compensation to owners of rescued fugitive slaves. Congress was empowered to sue the county in which obstruction to the fugitive slave laws took place to recover payment; the county, in turn, could sue "the wrong doers or rescuers" who prevented the return of the fugitive.
  6. No future amendment of the Constitution could change these amendments or authorize or empower Congress to interfere with slavery within any slave state

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crittenden_Compromise

So while Douglas was no Saint, he certainly was no Breckinridge who even went on to serve as the Confederate Secretary of War.

 
 
 
Sparty On
5.1.21  Sparty On  replied to  JohnRussell @5.1.19    one month ago

I think I understand the topic much better than you do Sparty

Of course you would but you don't.

And there is no point to asking the seeder.   I don't goose-step even remotely to his tune like you do so there is no way he'll ever side with me.

Ever

 
 
 
r.t..b...
5.1.22  r.t..b...  replied to  XDm9mm @5.1.17    one month ago
Not with the Race Baiter in Chief.

...remarkably accurate. What is surprising is the number of folks willing to overlook his obvious failings. What is disconcerting is the number of folks more than willing to buy into the hate he is peddling. 

 
 
 
Sean Treacy
5.1.23  Sean Treacy  replied to  Dismayed Patriot @5.1.20    one month ago
 position, but it certainly wasn't "pro-slavery".

He repeatedly fought to allow  the expansion of slavery through out his career. That's pretty much the definition of pro-slavery, especially when another political party was doing everything in it's power to keep slavery contained to the south.   The extremism of others like Breckenridge doesn't erase years of Douglas' work to expand slavery.   That's like saying Trump isn't pro-tax cuts, because some  others wanted bigger tax cuts. 

Douglas was just one of many northern Democrats who worked to allow the expansion of  slavery. To claim that it's "hard to simply which party backed slavery" is simply irresponsible and dishonest. 

 
 
 
Sean Treacy
5.1.24  Sean Treacy  replied to  Sean Treacy @5.1.23    one month ago

The other thing to keep in mind about 1860 is the southerners walked out of the democratic convention. The rump Democratic Party,  consisting mainly of northern Democrats, were free to nominate anyone they wanted with the southerners departure. Given that Lincoln pledged to maintain slavery and enforce the fugitive slave act, northern  Democrats could easily have nominated a candidate more anti-slavery than  Lincoln.  If Northern Democrats actually believed the things their latter day defenders claim they did, they could have nominated an abolitionist, or even someone sharing Lincoln's  beliefs.

Instead, they nominated Stephen Douglas, the man whose entire career was spent working to allow the expansion of slavery into new territories and who ridiculed and attacked Lincoln at every opportunity for supporting blacks.   That's who Northern Democrats, and northern Democrats alone wanted, a virulent racist who had no problem with slavery expanding across the continent. 

 
 
 
Dismayed Patriot
5.1.25  Dismayed Patriot  replied to  Sean Treacy @5.1.23    one month ago
irresponsible and dishonest

...are the attempts to deflect from a GOP Governor signing a bigoted confederate memorial bill into law while trying to paint modern day Democrats with the racist slaver paint exclusive to the now ex-Democrat southerners ancestors.

Douglas was pushing for States rights which included, in his mind and many others of the time, laws regarding slavery and race. Again, I'm not defending his stance, it was just very different than that of the Southern Democrat party who wanted to protect their right to own slaves federally which is what Douglas opposed. Much like Republican Rand Paul said "I don’t like the idea of telling private business owners - I abhor racism - I think it’s a bad business decision to ever exclude anybody from your restaurant. But at the same time I do believe in private ownership.". I disagree with both Douglas and Rand Paul's opinions, I think it's a legitimate use of the federal government to protect the civil rights of Americans regardless of whether they want to discriminate against blacks or gays or any other law abiding tax paying citizen. Northern Democrats back in 1860 didn't want to expand slavery, but much like Rand Paul, they didn't feel it was the federal government right to tell States what laws they were allowed to pass thus they supported the right of States to make that decision for themselves. I disagree with this as I've stated, but to pretend like it wasn't any different than the Southern Democrat position is truly irresponsible and dishonest.

 
 
 
Sean Treacy
5.1.26  Sean Treacy  replied to  Dismayed Patriot @5.1.25    one month ago

y pretend like it wasn't any different than the Southern Democrat position n is truly irresponsible and dishonest.

Good thing no one is.  I expressly said the the Breckenridge/Buchanan (another northern Democrat) wing was more extreme than Douglas. President Buchanan of Pennsylvania, of course, endorsed Breckenridge. 

But you claimed, falsely, that Douglas wanted to keep slavery as it is. His record was the exact opposite.  To claim the main who brokered the repeal of the Missouri Comprise in order to allow the expansion of slavery wanted to keep slavery "as it is" is as brazen a attempt at fabricating history as I've ever seen. Well, we get to your next claim that it's hard to say which party backed slavery.  That's just makes me sad for the American educational system that such a claim would ever be made in public.  Just open a history book and look at how the Democrats , north and south alike, from the beginnings of the party served the interests of slavery through the civil war, when northern copperheads worked to defeat the Union. 

 
 
 
Dismayed Patriot
5.1.27  Dismayed Patriot  replied to  Sean Treacy @5.1.26    one month ago
Well, we get to your next claim that it's hard to say which party backed slavery.  That's just makes me sad for the American educational system

It's sad that I was taught the truth behind the numerous different parties at that time and understood that each had very different views on slavery? You do realize it wasn't a two party system back then, right?

But back to the point of the article which you continue to avoid, how do you feel about the GOP Governor signing into law the "Nathan Bedford Forest Day"? How do you feel about the defense Republicans have made of the confederacy and all the confederate monuments to traitors that most Americans want to see removed?

https://hyperallergic.com/397792/polls-americans-confederate-statues-removal/

 
 
 
Sean Treacy
5.1.28  Sean Treacy  replied to  Dismayed Patriot @5.1.27    one month ago
ehind the numerous different parties at that time and understood that each had very different views on slavery?

But, again, the Democratic party always supported slavery. . If you can't see the difference the gulf that separates Lincoln from Douglas on slavery, you really don't understand the time period.  At the most simple level, I'd expect people to understand the Lincoln Douglas debates aren't famous because two candidates agreed about slavery. 

 
 
 
Atheist יוחנן בן אברהם אבינו
6  seeder  Atheist יוחנן בן אברהם אבינו    one month ago

Face it rightwingers.  With David Duke in it, Republican states still honoring the heroes treason, slavery lynchings and murders and Shitbag telling the country that they're "very fine people" the KKK and  now belongs to the Republican party. 

 
 
 
Sean Treacy
6.1  Sean Treacy  replied to  Atheist יוחנן בן אברהם אבינו @6    one month ago
David Duke in it

David Duke endorsed a Democrat in 2020.   Too funny. 

 
 
 
Tessylo
6.1.1  Tessylo  replied to  Sean Treacy @6.1    one month ago

Which democrat was that?  And who is to say that they sought the scumbag's endorsement?

 
 
 
Atheist יוחנן בן אברהם אבינו
6.1.2  seeder  Atheist יוחנן בן אברהם אבינו  replied to  Sean Treacy @6.1    one month ago
David Duke endorsed a Democrat in 2020.   Too funny.

Who would that be and was it accepted?   It'd be just like Duke, still a Republican, to use an endorsement as a poison pill.  Wow, your desperation reeks. 

 
 
 
Atheist יוחנן בן אברהם אבינו
6.1.3  seeder  Atheist יוחנן בן אברהם אבינו  replied to  Sean Treacy @6.1    one month ago

Never mind answering:

Tulsi Gabbard denounces David Duke, rejects his endorsement

Another limp "arrow" from you Sean.  Beyond pathetic.  [deleted] you and your buds have done to yourselves over the years and years of false smears and outright lies.  You had to have known those would come back and bite your asses.  If you didn't know that was coming you should have.

 
 
 
Sean Treacy
6.1.4  Sean Treacy  replied to  Atheist יוחנן בן אברהם אבינו @6.1.3    one month ago
  You know this display just shows how much self-inflicted damage you and your buds have done to yourselves over the years and years of false s

you make me laugh.  Now your standard is that the canddite "accepted" Duke's endorsement. When did Trump or any Republican President accept his? 

Face it, Duke's a Democrat. 

 
 
 
Atheist יוחנן בן אברהם אבינו
6.1.5  seeder  Atheist יוחנן בן אברהם אבינו  replied to  Sean Treacy @6.1.4    one month ago
Face it, Duke's a Democrat. 

He's a registered Republican who runs for office on  Republican tickets.  He's your boy now, Sean.  Embrace him.  [deleted]

 
 
 
Atheist יוחנן בן אברהם אבינו
6.1.6  seeder  Atheist יוחנן בן אברהם אבינו  replied to  Tessylo @6.1.1    one month ago

[deleted]

 
 
 
Sparty On
6.1.7  Sparty On  replied to  Atheist יוחנן בן אברהם אבינו @6.1.3    one month ago

Lol .... yeah, it's a limp arrow when it skewers you directly through the heart.   /S

Hilarious!!!!

 
 
 
Atheist יוחנן בן אברהם אבינו
6.1.8  seeder  Atheist יוחנן בן אברהם אבינו  replied to  Sean Treacy @6.1.4    one month ago
Now your standard is that the canddite "accepted" Duke's endorsement. When did Trump or any Republican President accept his? 

No, Shitbag got Duke's endorsement but lied and claimed he'd never heard of him.  Tellingly, he never actually rejected the endorsement probably because he knew it would help him.  So, yes rejecting an unsolicited endorsement from someone like Duke is what decent politicians do.  Of course, Shitbag could never possibly measure up to that minimal standard of decency. 

 
 
 
Tessylo
6.1.9  Tessylo  replied to  Atheist יוחנן בן אברהם אבינו @6.1.6    one month ago

jrSmiley_91_smiley_image.gif

 
 
 
Atheist יוחנן בן אברהם אבינו
6.1.10  seeder  Atheist יוחנן בן אברהם אבינו  replied to  Sparty On @6.1.7    one month ago

You've gone deeper into your pretend-world, Sean.  We can't discuss anything rationally in your usual state but once you've gone to your safe-space it's impossible to discuss anything in any manner.  Please stop commenting until you can compose yourself. 

 
 
 
Atheist יוחנן בן אברהם אבינו
6.1.11  seeder  Atheist יוחנן בן אברהם אבינו  replied to  Atheist יוחנן בן אברהם אבינו @6.1.5    one month ago
we wouldn't be able to tell who was who. 

Actually, Duke's might seem more reasonable considering how this convo is going. 

 
 
 
Sean Treacy
6.1.12  Sean Treacy  replied to  Atheist יוחנן בן אברהם אבינו @6.1.8    one month ago

Tellingly, he never actually rejected the endorsemen

You lose again:

"David Duke endorsed me? OK, all right. I disavow, OK?"

Donald Trump 2/28/2016

Step up your game son. This is too easy. 

 
 
 
Dismayed Patriot
6.1.13  Dismayed Patriot  replied to  Sean Treacy @6.1.4    one month ago
Face it, Duke's a Democrat.
Born
David Ernest Duke

(1950-07-01) July 1, 1950 (age 69)Tulsa, Oklahoma, U.S.
Political party American Nazi (before 1975)Democratic (1975–1988) 13 years
Populist (1988–1989)
Republican (1989–1999; 2016–present) 13 years and counting...

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_Duke

He was a Nazi before becoming a Democrat, then he became a Republican like so many bigoted Democrats before him who couldn't stand that the Democrat party had become a champion for equal rights. Now he's been a registered Republican longer than he was a Democrat and he ran for the Louisiana House of Representatives and won as a Republican.

 
 
 
Sparty On
6.1.14  Sparty On  replied to  Atheist יוחנן בן אברהם אבינו @6.1.10    one month ago

I'm not Sean.   Have another doobie, brother.

 
 
 
Sean Treacy
6.1.15  Sean Treacy  replied to  Dismayed Patriot @6.1.13    one month ago

 Republicans don't endorse Democrats for President. Democrats do.

It's funny to watch. 

Republicans are evil because David Duke supports them! 

Wait? Duke endorsed a Democrat in 2020? 

Well, who Duke supports doesn't matter.  Duke is still a Republican, even if he supports a Democrat!

 
 
 
Atheist יוחנן בן אברהם אבינו
6.1.16  seeder  Atheist יוחנן בן אברהם אבינו  replied to  Sean Treacy @6.1.12    one month ago
"David Duke endorsed me? OK, all right. I disavow, OK?"

First look up the word "disavow" and then take note of how Shitbag finally used it in his off-hand exasperation for having to address the matter again which he'd hoped his earlier lie would have prevented.  Contrast that with the immediate, unequivocal and angry rejection that Gabbard gave.  That's the response of  a decent, straight-talking politician as opposed to the snivelling chickenshit that your Shitbag is. 

 
 
 
Atheist יוחנן בן אברהם אבינו
6.1.17  seeder  Atheist יוחנן בן אברהם אבינו  replied to  Dismayed Patriot @6.1.13    one month ago
Now he's been a registered Republican longer than he was a Democrat and he ran for the Louisiana House of Representatives and won as a Republican.

Wait for it...........

 
 
 
†hε pε⊕pレε'š ƒïšh
6.1.18  †hε pε⊕pレε'š ƒïšh  replied to  Sean Treacy @6.1.15    one month ago

Bigots of a feather, flock together.

Don't forget this beauty.

512

https://www.apnews.com/a97b8b2d48c163c5965c2574ccbbe3d3

 
 
 
Atheist יוחנן בן אברהם אבינו
6.1.19  seeder  Atheist יוחנן בן אברהם אבינו  replied to  Sparty On @6.1.14    one month ago
I'm not Sean.   Have another doobie, brother.

Same difference. 

 
 
 
Sean Treacy
6.1.20  Sean Treacy  replied to  Atheist יוחנן בן אברהם אבינו @6.1.16    one month ago

Keep moving those goalposts...

Just once, argue honestly.  You'd probably be less  angry if you stopped constantly making yourself look foolish in support of a silly political party. 

 
 
 
Sparty On
6.1.21  Sparty On  replied to  Atheist יוחנן בן אברהם אבינו @6.1.19    one month ago

More doobie brother ... less obstinacy.

 
 
 
Sparty On
6.1.22  Sparty On  replied to  †hε pε⊕pレε'š ƒïšh @6.1.18    one month ago

Duke might not be a moonbat but he sure is a fruitbat ..... always has been IMO.

 
 
 
Atheist יוחנן בן אברהם אבינו
6.1.23  seeder  Atheist יוחנן בן אברהם אבינו  replied to  Sean Treacy @6.1.20    one month ago
Keep moving those goalposts...

Except for the fact that that's both a strawman and your own tactic that's just such a pathetic way to surrender, Sean.  I accept it but it's pitiful. 

 
 
 
Atheist יוחנן בן אברהם אבינו
6.1.24  seeder  Atheist יוחנן בן אברהם אבינו  replied to  Sparty On @6.1.22    one month ago

[deleted]

 
 
 
Atheist יוחנן בן אברהם אבינו
6.1.25  seeder  Atheist יוחנן בן אברהם אבינו  replied to  Sparty On @6.1.21    one month ago
More doobie brother ... less obstinacy.

More sense, kid.....less BS. 

 
 
 
Atheist יוחנן בן אברהם אבינו
6.1.26  seeder  Atheist יוחנן בן אברהם אבינו  replied to  †hε pε⊕pレε'š ƒïšh @6.1.18    one month ago

This is yet another disgusting anti-semitic* and racist offering from the usual suspect. [deleted] In fact, it's right out of the Goebbel's playbook.  One of his ilk just tried to get away with the same tactic against Tulsi Gabbard.  To accept David Duke's filth as anything to believe much less spread is to declare to be his man or woman.  

*I remind everyone that this commenter [deleted] in the past with comments about George Soros that could have lifted verbatim from the famously and viciously antisemitic Protocols of the Elders of Zion.  We've heard it: the international Jewish banking scheme  world economic domination---that nasty shit.  

 
 
 
†hε pε⊕pレε'š ƒïšh
6.1.27  †hε pε⊕pレε'š ƒïšh  replied to  Atheist יוחנן בן אברהם אבינו @6.1.26    one month ago

So let's take a closer look at this. Sean is destroying you in the debate, as your straw ship sinks you start floating insults. A clear sign of someone throwing in the white debate towel.

Then I share a tweet by David Duke admiring Ilhan Omar and calling her the most important congressperson because they share a passion for bigotry and common interest in Antisemitism.

Your retort? Float more insults and then make the Soros allegation. You and I both know I've never made those statements on this forum. I've asked you to prove it and you never do. That is not in my conspiracy wheelhouse, I'm not a Soros conspiracy theorist.

Forum history though shows that when you are losing a debate and getting angry this is what you do, hurl ridiculous insults.

This is just embarrassing.

 
 
 
JohnRussell
6.1.28  JohnRussell  replied to  †hε pε⊕pレε'š ƒïšh @6.1.27    one month ago
Sean is destroying you in the debate,

LOL. See a physician or psychologist about those hallucinations. 

Sean claims David Duke is a Democrat.   That is delusional. 

Before 1975, Duke was a member of the American Nazi party. From 1975–1988 he was a Democrat, then a Populist ‘88-’89, then a Republican ‘89-’99, then a Reform party member ‘99-’01, not sure what party affiliation between ’01 and ‘16, then he became a Republican again in 2016 to run for Senate.

Currently, I believe he’s still a Republican.

https://www.quora.com/Is-David-Duke-a-Democrat-or-a-Republican

David Duke is not a Democrat, but Sean insists in the face of plain fact that he is, and you are impressed with Sean's 'argument.' Yikes. 

You are a moderator BF. You are not supposed to be trying to bamboozle people. 

 
 
 
†hε pε⊕pレε'š ƒïšh
6.1.29  †hε pε⊕pレε'š ƒïšh  replied to  JohnRussell @6.1.28    one month ago

It doesn't matter what his political affiliation is John, he admires the new bigotry with the fabulous four in congress. Kind of hard to argue with that fact.

Nice try though.

Rule of thumb, race baiting and decrying everyone else is the racist rarely works out.

 
 
 
JohnRussell
6.1.30  JohnRussell  replied to  Sean Treacy @6.1.12    one month ago
Washington (CNN)Donald Trump issued a crystal clear disavowal Thursday of former Ku Klux Klan Grand Wizard David Duke after stumbling last weekend over a question about the hate group leader on CNN.
"David Duke is a bad person, who I disavowed on numerous occasions over the years," Trump said on MSNBC's "Morning Joe."
"I disavowed him. I disavowed the KKK," Trump added. "Do you want me to do it again for the 12th time? I disavowed him in the past, I disavow him now."
The uproar started on Sunday when Trump was asked by CNN's Jake Tapper on "State of the Union" if he would disavow Duke and other white supremacist groups supporting his campaign.
"Just so you understand, I don't know anything about David Duke, OK?" Trump responded.
The next day, Trump blamed a "bad earpiece" during an appearance on NBC's "Today" show.
It took Trump four days to make a clear disavowal of Duke's endorsement. At first he had "amnesia", then a "bad earpiece". jrSmiley_10_smiley_image.gif
 
 
 
Sean Treacy
6.1.31  Sean Treacy  replied to  JohnRussell @6.1.28    one month ago

Generally, people don't endorse candidates from other parties.  Republicans don't endorse Democrats for President, and Democrats don't endorse Republicans. Is that controversial? Do you wait with baited breath to see if Chuck Schumer is going to endorse a Republican in 2020?  

The only person this really matters to is those who live and die with the guilt by association tactic.  

 
 
 
Sean Treacy
6.1.32  Sean Treacy  replied to  JohnRussell @6.1.30    one month ago
rump four days to make a clear disavowal of Duke's endorsement

No it didn't.

 
 
 
JohnRussell
6.1.33  JohnRussell  replied to  Sean Treacy @6.1.32    one month ago

It did. 

 
 
 
JohnRussell
6.1.34  JohnRussell  replied to  Sean Treacy @6.1.31    one month ago
Generally, people don't endorse candidates from other parties.  Republicans don't endorse Democrats for President, and Democrats don't endorse Republicans. Is that controversial? Do you wait with baited breath to see if Chuck Schumer is going to endorse a Republican in 2020?   The only person this really matters to is those who live and die with the guilt by association tactic. 

Ridiculous. Any number of prominent Republicans openly disavowed the Republican candidate in 2016. 

You have taken the low road a lot since Trump took office but claiming Duke is a Democrat is low even for you. 

 
 
 
KDMichigan
6.1.35  KDMichigan  replied to  Tessylo @6.1.1    one month ago
And who is to say that they sought the scumbag's endorsement

As usual you totally miss the point.

The point is that your scumbag agrees with your democratic values.

 
 
 
Tessylo
6.1.36  Tessylo  replied to  KDMichigan @6.1.35    one month ago

WTF are you talking about?

 
 
 
KDMichigan
6.1.37  KDMichigan  replied to  Tessylo @6.1.36    one month ago
WTF are you talking about?

I'm sorry is this easier for you to understand?

jrSmiley_91_smiley_image.gif

 
 
 
Sean Treacy
6.1.38  Sean Treacy  replied to  JohnRussell @6.1.34    one month ago

ny number of prominent Republicans openly disavowed the Republican candidate in 2016

Saying I won't vote for X is not the same as actively endorsing Y.

You are how you vote.  If you endorse a Democrat for President , publicly support a Democrat for President, you pretty much are a democrat. Maybe an independent. But not a Republican. 

 
 
 
Sean Treacy
6.1.39  Sean Treacy  replied to  JohnRussell @6.1.33    one month ago

It did. 

Only if you dishonestly ignore the other times he did both before and after the Tapper interview. 

 
 
 
JohnRussell
6.1.40  JohnRussell  replied to  Sean Treacy @6.1.38    one month ago

BF might be impressed with your nonsense about David Duke, but I'm not. 

 
 
 
Paula Bartholomew
6.1.41  Paula Bartholomew  replied to  JohnRussell @6.1.30    one month ago

He didn't know anything about Duke like he knew nothing of Wikileaks.

 
 
 
Texan1211
6.1.42  Texan1211  replied to  Paula Bartholomew @6.1.41    one month ago

Damn, he should have been watching the news like his predecessor did to find stuff out!

 
 
 
Atheist יוחנן בן אברהם אבינו
7  seeder  Atheist יוחנן בן אברהם אבינו    one month ago

[deleted]

 
 
 
PJ
7.1  PJ  replied to  Atheist יוחנן בן אברהם אבינו @7    one month ago

Well this is disappointing.  Sorry to see you go but I understand how you've reached your limit.

 
 
 
r.t..b...
7.2  r.t..b...  replied to  Atheist יוחנן בן אברהם אבינו @7    one month ago
A

Konnichiwa...may the force be with you.

 
 
 
Tessylo
7.3  Tessylo  replied to  Atheist יוחנן בן אברהם אבינו @7    one month ago

I couldn't see your comment as it was removed.  

It does appear though that the lunatics have taken over the asylum here.

I'd hate to see you go though.  There are so few rational and truthful and sane folks left around here 

 
 
 
KDMichigan
7.4  KDMichigan  replied to  Atheist יוחנן בן אברהם אבינו @7    one month ago

Don't go away mad, You bring so much to the table in discussions. 

 
 
 
Texan1211
7.4.1  Texan1211  replied to  KDMichigan @7.4    one month ago

LOL!!

 
 
Loading...
Loading...

Who is online


Willjay9
JohnRussell
devangelical
JumpDrive
Karri
Tacos!
Sister Mary Agnes Ample Bottom
Texan1211


351 visitors