MAGA is a fine example of what happened to the party of Lincoln - Politics Discussion

[–] B1cKsurN (14875) 24 days ago

https://media1.giphy.com/media/v1.Y2lkPTc5MGI3NjExb2JoczZsbXY1Y2puMXhmdnVkMDdibXUyanJ4YjNhb3UwYmRtc3I4bCZlcD12MV9naWZzX3NlYXJjaCZjdD1n/Ve9pOjJRxkW2c/200.gif

_______________________________________________
Current MC Posters with B1cKsurN Derangement Syndrome
Keelai
robocat893

reply

[–] BKB (6204) 24 days ago

Let me ask you something: The Eclipse and it's lasting effects clearly brought out your TDS this morning and all of this Trump is KKK crap, but how come you and every other sniveling liberal defends Joe Biden when he tells the black community that they're not black unless they vote for him or Democrat in general?? Well?? Are you aware as to how Racist THAT sounds??

reply

[–] Rorikon (16427) 22 days ago

I don't recall ever 'defending' Biden. I despise him too. You do realize they're both the most unpopular presidents in recent history, right? The difference with the black community is the right is open about their discrimination and racism (only have to watch Faux Newz) while the left hides it and still holds true today from Malcolm X's words.

reply

[–] maixiu (537) 24 days ago

The Party of Lincoln? You mean the man who wed his interests to the most radical of moral Puritans in the North? The man who extinguished the lives of hundreds of thousands of men in the cause of depriving the Southern States of free determination? The man who ripped apart the Constitution and ended the Republican experiment of America?

That may sound extreme, but it's high time we reevaluated our love affair with Lincoln. All the poison seeds that he planted in our nation are now bearing fruit.

reply

[–] UncleRuckis (2554) 24 days ago

in the cause of depriving the Southern States of free determination?

Free determination to deprive freedom to others you mean!

reply

[–] maixiu (537) 24 days ago

I don't deny that's one aspect of what happened. But the slave system would have died out not long after secession no matter what happened. On the other hand, we now have the legacy of American interventionism - something that the likes of Washington and John Quincy Adams warned strongly against. Lincoln set the precedent whereby an offense against the morality of the ruling class is grounds for military intervention. Started with the Civil War and has continued through WWI, Vietnam, Iraq, and now The Ukraine. The American people have no interests in these battles but have been asked repeatedly to send their sons to die on behalf of whatever crusade our rulers find worthy of pursuing.

What gave Lincoln the right to kill 400,000+ men in order to forcibly bind an entire nation of people to his morality?

reply

[–] UncleRuckis (2554) 24 days ago

The people gave him that power when they elected him and the Constitution gave him the right, so to say washington or Adams didn't intend for that to be a possibility is bullshit!

The slave states had engaged in a centuries long campaign of atrocities and human rights violations! Who gives a shit if it might have just eventually gone away on it's own(which doesn't even make sense as they had just committed treason and went to war to ensure that didn't happen). That's cold comfort to people that suffered in a daily hell.

If ever there was a war where one side clearly had the moral high ground, it's the Civil war.

reply

[–] maixiu (537) 24 days ago

So, the people gave Lincoln the right to invade and militarily subjugate a foreign nation because they were doing something he didn't like. How far does that right extend?

reply

[–] UncleRuckis (2554) 24 days ago

The powers of the President allow him to make war for 60 days as per the constitution. More importantly, enforcing the rule law is the primary function of the executive branch. So yes, the people absolutely gave him that power when they elected him.

That said, war powers wouldn't even apply as the Confederacy was never recognized as a foreign country. Just a very large rabble of traitors that needed to be taken down!

reply

[–] maixiu (537) 23 days ago

What article of the Constitution gives the President the power to make war for 60 days? What does that even mean?

reply

[–] Heretic (303) 22 days ago

It doesn't. At all.

What he's referring to (and apparently doesn't even know himself) is the War Powers Act of 1973 that allows the President to send troops up to 60 days under certain conditions.

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

Of course, Biden has torn up the constitution as he re-invaded Somalia, attacked Yemen, reinforced Israel and propped up the corrupt Ukraine government. He's the most prolific war criminal alive. And this is just the current wars, as I won't even get into his huge roles in Iraq, Syria, Libya, and others.

The Constitution makes it very clear that only the Senate is supposed to declare wars.

reply

[–] Information-Police (4082) 22 days ago

"But the slave system would have died out not long after secession no matter what happened"

But the people supporting slavery wanted to expand it into new territories and states. Lincoln never advocated for abolishing slavery until later. He campaigned on containing slavery and letting it die out instead of spread.

Lincoln had great respect for the Constitution and the limits it put on the Presidency. He did not think the president had the power to abolish slavery, EXCEPT as part of his war powers, which is why the emancipation proclamation only applied within states in rebellion and was justified in terms of recruiting escaped slaves into the Union Army. Before it, the Union Army was actually charged with returning escaped slaves to their owners, as US law mandated.
As the war was ending he knew that his proclamation would expire and so pushed for a constitutional amendment abolishing slavery.

Abolition not an outrageous idea at the time and slavery was not just an obsession of the ruling class. England and other European nations had already outlawed slavery. They US had long since abolished the African slave trade.

It's really abhorrent to be an apologist for American slavery

reply

[–] maixiu (537) 22 days ago

Yes, what tremendous respect he had for the Constitution. You could feel the love for it pouring off him when his administration suspended habeas corpus and muzzled the press.

Abolition as a concept was not an outrageous idea, but the vanguard of abolitionists in America were moral crusaders who caused the deaths of 400,000+ young men in this country - with Lincoln squarely in that camp. I don't take that very lightly or consider it an innately noble, just, or necessary thing to have done.

You were doing very well up to that last sentence, when you went completely off the rails.

reply

[–] Rorikon (16427) 22 days ago

True it would've eventually died out but that'd be a whole more decade or so of suffering for the slaves. Hell, it might've just transitioned to a more traditional slave/master relationship of today like maids/butlers but the abuse would be apparent. Just the way they talk of them now just shows they still think of them as having a lack of merit (besides sports). I think of it as them as oil barons still clinging to the old ways and refusing to change until political pressure affects them.

If I recall, it is illegal to secede from the Union under the constitution so that's where the war played out. It still plays out today in the south where Texas talks of secession when they disagree with a policy imposed by a Democratically elected leader.

reply

[–] maixiu (537) 22 days ago

No, there's nothing in the Constitution that makes it "illegal" to secede. In fact, in 1848, Lincoln said this from the floor of Congress, "Any people anywhere, being inclined and having the power, have a right to rise up and shake off the existing government and form a new one that will suit them better."

And the state that's been most vocal about secession in recent years has been California, not that we'd miss them. In fact, the future of America is in a fracturing of its regions. We can't continue on like as things are.

reply

[–] Lige (303) 24 days ago

CSA started the war and got smoked.

Take the L and move on.

reply

[–] maixiu (537) 24 days ago

Ah, our failing schools have produced another historical illiterate.

reply

[–] Thaisticks (2578) 24 days ago

You say the type of shit that has made this place go way down on my list of sites I want to visit. You and your slimy ilk have no sense of decency--mini-tRumps is all you are.

reply

[–] maixiu (537) 23 days ago

"At long last, have you left no sense of decency??"

It was poison theater the first time it was said, and you did nothing to improve on it.

reply

[–] Thaisticks (2578) 23 days ago

So now you're supporting Sen. McCarthy?

reply

[–] maixiu (537) 23 days ago

Still fighting the battles of the Truman years? How bizarre.

reply

[–] Thaisticks (2578) 23 days ago

You're the one that brought out that quote from the McCarthy hearings (see above, two posts ago), so I would say you're the bizarro! And blocked!

reply

[–] maixiu (537) 23 days ago

You said that before and then replied to me anyway (after editing the post to remove it). Do you actually mean it this time or will you stealth edit your post again?

reply

[–] Rorikon (16427) 22 days ago

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

Could be a byproduct offspring.

reply

[–] Lige (303) 22 days ago

Yet you didn't dispute the facts and went straight to name calling.

Not surprising.

reply

[–] Corbell (8383) 24 days ago

This country has had a bi-partisan consensus on equality for blacks since hte mid 60s.

Since then the debate has only been about HOW to help the blacks and HOW MUCH to discriminate against whites to do so.

The South moved into play because the whites of the south became less racist and the old message of the Racist Dem party stopped working.

reply

[–] Grifterhunter (609) 24 days ago

Just because that's a consensus does it mean it was honored. This point has been debunked before. Quit using it. That's like saying the law treats everyone the same because you know it's a law.

reply

[–] Corbell (8383) 24 days ago

Every Presidential election, BOTH parties platforms included planks on HOW they would work to help blacks, and EVERYONE of them, supported some level of discriminating AGIANST WHITES, in order to do it.

In every case, since the mid 60s, all the winners, ie the actual presidents, DID support policies and programs that worked to help blacks and discriminated against whites to do so.

This is that consensus being "honored", so, your claim that my point was "debunked" is false.

reply

[–] Grifterhunter (609) 24 days ago

I thought you said it had an agreement on equality for blacks since the 60's? Now you are saying the consensus is favoring blacks over whites since the 60's. So um which is it? You just contradicted yourself. So no action should have been taken after the 60's for blacks then? Even the ones who were affected by the unfairness normally and legally? Ok consensus passed so that makes up for the injustices those properties faced as soon as the consensus was reached?

reply

[–] Corbell (8383) 24 days ago

The concensus contained a serious contradiction. The idea was to discriminate in favor of blacks to help them reach "equality" while somehow NOT discriminating or admitting to discrimination against whites.

It is clearly impossible to discriminate in favor on one group of people, without discriminating against another, but the consensus was... at best vague on that, or outright dishonest.

Indeed, this is still the basis of our national laws and policies on the issue.

BTW, your other stupid questions that are built on deciding what I meant and then asking me to defend the positiosn you assigned to me? I'm ignoring them because I have limits to how much retard I can deal with at once, and not because I am trying to evade them.

Spread out the stupid, and I can deal with it in smaller amounts at a time.

reply

[–] Grifterhunter (609) 24 days ago

So then no action should have been taken to help the blacks affected by the injustices then?

So then your claim the consensus was about equality wasn't true. So make your claim honest. State that blacks have had an advantage over whites since the 60's, since that is what you really mean.

Also you are evading the questions because you have no answer for them. I'm not buying your reasons. You are full of shit.

reply

[–] Corbell (8383) 24 days ago

1. I said nothing of that.

2. I was clear. THe consensus was on a policy that was contradictory. That is not me making a false claim, but the reality of the policy being confused. Would you like to address that, the reality of the long standing policy, or make some more silly points against me, based on you pretending to not understand what I said, because, THAT'S really interesting and important.

3. I explicitly stated that i did not have the information on the one question you asked me and thus did not know whether it was a policy that should be redone. You LIED and said I had no answer. That is you being an ass. I;m sure you have an excuse for being an asshole. DON'T BORE ME WITH IT.

reply

[–] Grifterhunter (609) 24 days ago

You implied it. So what should have been done for the blacks affected by those injustices?

No it was you making a false claim. Be upfront about what you mean.

Because all you offer up is bullshit. I ask you to give me solutions and you provide none.

reply

[–] Corbell (8383) 24 days ago

1. Dude. YOu SUCK at understanding me. Trust me, if you think I "implied" something, ASK FOR A CLARIFICATION.

2. No, it wasn't. As I explained. Deal with it, or fuck off. Don't waste my time acting retarded.

3. I don't have all the solutions. Never claimed to. Sometimes my answer will be I don't know. That you choose to have a hissy fit in response, is you being a whiny girl.

reply

[–] Grifterhunter (609) 24 days ago

Funny you didn't ask about what you think I imply? You assumed therefore I threw it back at you. Don't throw around assumptions if you don't like it done to you.

Yeah it was. You got called on your bullshit. Eat it.

If you have no solutions and just want to complain then you can keep your mouth shut. I offer up solutions you don't.

reply

[–] Corbell (8383) 24 days ago

1. Then be more clear and concise. Less spamming of stupid shit.

2. No, it wasn't. As I explained. Deal with it, or fuck off. Don't waste my time acting retarded.

3. If I have complaints, and I want to, I will make them. If this might bother you, that is a risk I am willing to take.

reply

[–] Grifterhunter (609) 24 days ago

No. Don't throw out assumptions if you can't take it.

Nope you got called on your bullshit. Deal with it.

Then they are empty and will fall on deaf ears. I want solutions not just bitching.

reply

[–] Corbell (8383) 24 days ago

1. LOL. If I misinterprete something you said, you can correct me and we can move on. If you misinterprete something, you ignore my corrections and whine like a fag about it for weeks.

2. No, it wasn't. As I explained. Deal with it, or fuck off. Don't waste my time acting retarded.

3. What you want, does not matter much to my actions. The world does not revolve around you, snowflake.

reply

[–] Grifterhunter (609) 24 days ago

Lol no. If you don't want it done to you don't do it to others it's that simple.

Nope you got called on your bullshit.

Likewise. I have the right to voice my opinion on what goes on in this country like you do. I also support people to make whatever they want to artistic wise. You don't.

reply

[–] Corbell (8383) 24 days ago

1. I am not a fag to people, the way you are being to me. SO, your message, "if you don't like it..." makes no sense here.

2. I was clear. THe consensus was on a policy that was contradictory. That is not me making a false claim, but the reality of the policy being confused. Would you like to address that, the reality of the long standing policy, or make some more silly points against me, based on you pretending to not understand what I said, because, THAT'S really interesting and important.

3. I support artistic expression. I do not support political propaganda. You are lying.

reply

[–] Grifterhunter (609) 24 days ago

Um yeah you are. I seen you tell someone to kill themselves on here. So spare me your Christian bullshit! I respect a Christian who is genuine telling people to kill themselves over a message board disagreement? You have no moral high ground here.

No it wasn't. Anyway though I will bypass it and address it unlike you. I agreed on an overreach. Which is why I asked should anything have been done for the victims of racism in that era? If so what? How if so do you do it without discrimination? If the answer is no that's a pretty cavalier take when you aren't in that situation.

An artist is free to make whatever the hell they want. So is there religious propaganda? Should that be allowed also?

reply

[–] Corbell (8383) 24 days ago

1. That person was being a complete asshole and deserved harsh language in response.

2. Are you admitting the generations of consensus?

3. The producers and writers have professional and ethical responsibilities to their investors and their fans and their fellow workers. If they betray those, so that htey can instead make political propaganda instead of what they were supposed to be doing, that is morally and ethically wrong.

reply

[–] Grifterhunter (609) 24 days ago

Being an asshole is not grounds or give you a pass to tell someone to kill themselves. That's not Christian. I have friends who are Christian who would never do that even if someone was being rude. So bullshit on your attempt to excuse that absolutely vile behavior!

Is that a yes or no question?

Nope! As an artist you are free to make what you want. It doesn't need to line up with your religious, or political ideology to be acceptable. Deal with it.

reply

[–] Corbell (8383) 24 days ago

1. FUck him.

2. I thought so, but I would accept any honest answer that is a clear answer.

3. That makes no sense. The investors, their co-workers, the fans, all should be treated accordingly.

reply

[–] Grifterhunter (609) 24 days ago

Like I said you have no moral.high ground. Don't be preaching about Christianity. You won't find one post of me telling anyone to kill themselves. Even if I think they are an asshole.

I already answered it. So read over what I said.

Fans pay to see something. It's a choice whether you see the movie or not. No one is forcing you to watch a film.

reply

[–] Corbell (8383) 24 days ago

1. I disagree. Pieces of shit need pushback of some kind.

2. Sorry, I don't understand the answer. Please clarify.

3. Even so, the creative type has ethical and moral and professional responsibilities.

reply

[–] Grifterhunter (609) 24 days ago

Pushback sure. Telling someone to kill themselves? Funny what happened to love one another? Love your neighbor as yourself? Is telling someone to kill themselves loving? Curious do you tell people at your congregation that you tell this to people?

Nah I don't think I will. Since you wouldn't do it for George Floyd I will leave with what you got.

So it's unethical to make something that goes against a fans religious or political ideology? Hmmm? You wouldn't be able to make anything then because not everyone's religious or political ideologies is the same. Bad take on that one partner.

reply

[–] Corbell (8383) 24 days ago

1. I'm not sure where you got the idea that I am a practicing Christian. You sure make a lot of wrong assumptions.

2. And you hide behind shit talk. OK. in the real world, this nation has been working together, both parties, for racial equality for blacks since the mid 60s and anyone that says otherwise, is a shit talker.

3. I said nothing like that, now or every. The way that you need to make up shit and pretend I said it, that is you revealing how terrified you are of what I actually say.

reply

[–] Grifterhunter (609) 24 days ago

You are Christian though right? So if you are not practicing that makes it okay to tell someone to kill themselves?

Asked and answered brother.

Yeah you did. What is the investors are liberal? And it's in their interest to insert their ideology into the story? Funny you are against propaganda when it is not your ideology being inserted. You are fine though if it's propaganda towards your group.

reply

[–] Corbell (8383) 24 days ago

1. Culturally. But I haven't been a church for a service for twenty years.

2. in the real world, this nation has been working together, both parties, for racial equality for blacks since the mid 60s and anyone that says otherwise, is a shit talker.

3. No, I didn't. Indeed, I specifically stated ways in which making strong political messages would be legit. You have the reading comprehension of a monkey. And not one of the smarter monkeys, but on of the one who's mom smoked crack while pregnant.

reply

[–] Grifterhunter (609) 24 days ago

So back to my question then. Since you are not practicing that makes it okay to tell someone to kill themselves?

Asked and answered brother.

Yeah you did. I just saw through your shit and you are angry. This chimp is smarter than you are. Don't start throwing shit now! You as a fan are not forced to watch these films. Therefore you aren't owed anything. Deal with it.

reply

[–] Corbell (8383) 24 days ago

1. That is not what makes it ok.

2. in the real world, this nation has been working together, both parties, for racial equality for blacks since the mid 60s and anyone that says otherwise, is a shit talker.

3. No, I didn't. Indeed, I specifically stated ways in which making strong political messages would be legit. You have the reading comprehension of a monkey. And not one of the smarter monkeys, but on of the one who's mom smoked crack while pregnant.

reply

[–] Grifterhunter (609) 24 days ago

Then you telling someone to do that is unacceptable by your beliefs correct?

Asked and answered brother.

We going to copy and paste now? Cause I can do that for days if you like?

reply

[–] Corbell (8383) 24 days ago

1. I think leftard trolls are subhuman pieces of shit that deserve to be treated like sub human pieces of shit.

2. in the real world, this nation has been working together, both parties, for racial equality for blacks since the mid 60s and anyone that says otherwise, is a shit talker.

3. If all you are doing is stonewalling, then nothing has changed so, the answer is the same.

reply

[–] Grifterhunter (609) 24 days ago

Didn't answer my question. You think because someone is an asshole that gives you a pass to tell them to kill themselves? What if someone said that about republicans?

Asked and answered. I answered this question already you are the one stonewalling.

You stonewalled first. You didn't like that I didn't give you a yes or no answer. I answered now deal with it. If you stonewall I will do the same.

reply

[–] maixiu (537) 24 days ago

No, favoring blacks over whites should not have been done. I'm not sure why for some people that's so hard to say, but your premise that they were owed something is a notion that sits outside historical norms. It's only the innate decency of Northern Europeans that has allowed them to be exploited so badly, for so long.

Further, we know that this "help" will never cease. If white Americans went to blacks and said, "OK, tell us what dollar amount will make you whole? Let us know how to make good on past wrongs and we'll do it...the only catch is all racial grievance ends right on the spot. No more diversity quotas, no more Great Society handouts, no more white guilt," it would be rejected out of hand. The grift will never end because that demographic needs to be white adjacent.

This is why the most egregious consequence of the Civil Rights movement was the destruction of the right to free association. We mistakenly believe ourselves to be possessed of many rights, but we don't have the right to put our body next to -- or not next to - the person(s) we choose. That's as fundamental a right as could exist, but it was taken away from white people as a concession to blacks. Sure, blacks can have all-black dorms, all-black graduation ceremonies, hiring preferences based entirely on race, etc., but the same is denied to whites.

reply

[–] Grifterhunter (609) 24 days ago

Which then leads back to the question I asked him. So the blacks that were affected by the injustices het nothing done? So Emmit Till's mom gets to just face an injustice? Well yeah that's easy to say when you aren't on the receiving end of the injustice.

reply

[–] Corbell (8383) 24 days ago

He gave you his answer and explained it.

For you to repeate your question as though he didn't, is you being an assshole.

If you disagree, express your disagreement and explain it, don't act the fag as though he didn't already answer it.

reply

[–] Grifterhunter (609) 24 days ago

He is a big boy. He doesn't need you to speak for him. You guys say no help. So I'm asking should any help go to those affected by the racism. You get quiet. You know you are full of shit.

reply

[–] Corbell (8383) 24 days ago

He gave you a clear answer in the first sentence and then gave you three more paragraphs explaining his reasoning.

For you to claim he "got quiet" is you being a fag.

Why are you being a fag?

reply

[–] Grifterhunter (609) 24 days ago

No the answer was bullshit. You just get upset that I don't accept bullshit. I ask you guys not a out current bld jd but the victims of past racism getting anything and you say nothing. Which leads me to believe you don't give a shit what happened to people like Emmit Till or his mom. You just go yeah well tough shit get over it. You wouldn't have that mindset if you were affected by it. Turns out you aren't so why care right?

reply

[–] Corbell (8383) 24 days ago

If you disagree with his answer, than stop being a pussy, express your disagreement and explain why you think he is wrong.

repeating your question and acting like he didn't already answer is you being a pussy.

reply

[–] Grifterhunter (609) 24 days ago

I did dumbass. Even if something was done for a victim of past racism during that era you guys would bitch. I think it's messed up to offer those victims like Emmit Till's mom nothing for compensation. If you were in that position you would feel the same. Since you aren't you don't give a shit about the victims.

reply

[–] Corbell (8383) 24 days ago

My position is that it is time to stop now.

It is worth noting that the GOP under Trump is still supporting the consensus including the discriminating against whites.

So this whining like a fag over "the party of lincoln" as though we/they are somehow fighting equality, is a fag lie by fag assholes.

reply

[–] Grifterhunter (609) 24 days ago

Not what I asked. I asked if anything should have been done for the victims of racism during that era?

reply

[–] Corbell (8383) 24 days ago

In the previous post, you actually didn't ask anything, just made a number of assertions about what you thought my position was.

So, it was completely reasonable of me to give my actual position on the issue.

As to my answer to your question now?

I don't feel a need to investigate the situation of the time enough to answer that question.

I AM sure, that the time is long past when any such actions should be stopped now.

reply

[–] Grifterhunter (609) 24 days ago

But see there just it. You would have been in favor of no action taken if it was present. That's the type of person you are. You only care when it affects you. If it's others you don't give a shit.

reply

[–] Corbell (8383) 24 days ago

I am not happy with the increasing racial strife we see from the weaponized race baiting that has become almost universial in our society.

The act of trying to fix past injustices, seems to be the basis for modern and future racial strife.

That is my concern for the well being of myself and my fellow Americans.

There is nothing wrong with that.

That you try to spin it as bad, is you being an asshole.

reply

[–] Grifterhunter (609) 24 days ago

Which is why we study history. So I ask again should any action have been taken for the victims? As it stands you basically have the well they just needed to eat it mentality. Just know that's fine but don't get upset when someone doesn't care about your situation.

reply

[–] Corbell (8383) 24 days ago

I don't understand your answer.

HOw does "The act of trying to fix past injustices, seems to be the basis for modern and future racial strife."

lead to "which is why we study history"?

And that is not what I said. Why are you incapable of actually addressing what I said?

Am I that brilliant that you are that terrified of me?

reply

[–] Grifterhunter (609) 24 days ago

Because we learn to understand other people situations and views. We figure out what lead to certain things. It gets us to understand it and learn from it on the future.

reply

[–] Corbell (8383) 24 days ago

Actuallly studying and understanding history would be celebrating the massive majority consensus in favor of equality for blacks,

not playing the race mongerin games that divide US today.

reply

[–] Grifterhunter (609) 24 days ago

No remember not equality, advantage according to you. No understanding history would be also looking at how certain groups still have an advantage even with that consensus in place.

reply

[–] Corbell (8383) 24 days ago

1. Correct. consensus on equality but advantage in practice.

2. Agreed. The reality of it, not just using it as an excuse for racist indoctrination.

reply

[–] Grifterhunter (609) 24 days ago

Then state that. It makes it more clear.

I can agree for once.

reply

[–] Corbell (8383) 24 days ago

1. If you were operating in good faith, it would not have been that much of an issue. You were looking for an excuse to have a hissy fit.

2. The vast majority of whites in this country have been supportive of legal and economic equality for blacks since the mid 60s. SO, the common... response of blaming "white racism" or "white supremacy" is clearly NOT a factor. IMO, the big one is lack of fathers.

reply

[–] Grifterhunter (609) 24 days ago

Nope. I saw through the deception is all.

But you want to use that as an excuse to dismiss any claim of racism. That's deceptive and sneaky. And are you talking equality or advantage? Let's be clear on this.

reply

[–] Corbell (8383) 23 days ago

1. Fag.

2. No, I don't. But with the massive support that the consensus has recieved from whites, it is clear that white racism is NOT the factor causing the problems.

3. The goal of the consensus was equality. THe methodes used ended up being racist discrimination in favor of blacks and against whites. Unintended consequences. Is this really the first time you have run into this idea? Stop the shit talk.

reply

[–] Grifterhunter (609) 23 days ago

Your ad hominem attack showcases I am correct.

Yeah you do. It gives you an out to cling to that anytime racism of any kind against blacks occurs. Consensus means nothing if it's not honored. Like I said before you saying the law applies to every group of people the same? Answer that. I don't believe it is honored in every scenario.

Like I said. If it was up to you, you would leave the victims out to dry. You don't care what happened to Emmit Tills mom. You are the person who goes well the laws are different now so tough shit deal with it. You better hope you are never in a situation like that and people have your same attitude. It's very callus.

reply

[–] maixiu (537) 23 days ago

Emmit Till? Ah yes, another "gentle giant", a poor misunderstood choir boy who dindu nuffin'!

reply

[–] Grifterhunter (609) 23 days ago

Interesting. So are you saying Emmit Till deserved what happened to him?

reply

[–] maixiu (537) 23 days ago

I'm saying that it's mistake to use him as the face of black grievance. But that's something that continues today. From Trayvon Martin to Michael Brown to George Floyd, the emblems of black discrimination are perpetually those of men with, to put it mildly, checkered pasts, engaged in questionable activities at the time of their martyrdom.

reply

[–] Grifterhunter (609) 23 days ago

So because of a checkered past it makes it okay what happened to them? Who is talking about martyrdom? We are discussing simple right and wrong. What did Emmit Till do that was remotely close to what George Floyd did? I like how the past gets brought up in an attempt to gaslight and make vile actions ok. It's rather despicable and disgusting. If I see someone get wronged no matter who it is I don't gaslight like you folks do.

reply

[–] Rorikon (16427) 22 days ago

One's with checkered past do have redemption. I'm all for second chances and such. The only person I will agree with before their martyrdom would be Brown as his past was pretty recent before he died. Floyd's terrible past was awhile ago with the gun/pregnant woman robbery. The right loves to castrate someone Blue collar criminals on their past but brings on White collar criminals after they served their time to do book deals or talk about other White collar criminals. I'm speaking of Faux Newz specifically.

reply

[–] Corbell (8383) 23 days ago

1. Fag.

2. No, I don't. You are assuming based on your own being a dishonest person of bad faith.

3. I would "leave" them to improve their lot like the rest of US.

reply

[–] Grifterhunter (609) 23 days ago

Insult dismissed.

Yes you do. No I just know the scumbag you are.

With no help even though they were hindered by injustices out of their control. Nice logic.

reply

[–] Corbell (8383) 23 days ago

1, Fag.

2. No, I don't. You are projecting what a bad faith person YOU are.

3. "Were" past tense, now free to improve their lot like the rest of US.

reply

[–] Grifterhunter (609) 23 days ago

Insult dismissed.

Yes you do. I see through you.

Not what I was talking about. I said you wouldn't want any help for the victims that experienced that. Quite an asshole move from you.

reply

[–] Corbell (8383) 22 days ago

if you refuse to believe my own words about my own thoughts, then there is nothing to discuss.

reply

[–] Grifterhunter (609) 22 days ago

Because I can see through your lies.

reply

[–] Corbell (8383) 22 days ago

And all you have is insulting me, and ignoring what I say.

And that is enough for you to keep coming back...

reply

[–] Grifterhunter (609) 22 days ago

Nope I was able to debunk many pints you made. So yeah nice try but no.

reply

[–] Corbell (8383) 21 days ago

The thread is about an attack on MAGA as a sign of something bad happening to the "PARTY OF LINCOLN".

That is simply not true. Trump is a fine President, MAGA is a GOOD movement, and the people attacking US, are the bad guys.

reply

[–] Rorikon (16427) 22 days ago

I'm curious how you think helping POC or just Blacks in general is a discrimination against another race? Being more equal instead of another race holding most of the privilege is discrimination?

reply

[–] Corbell (8383) 21 days ago

If you give resources, such as money or jobs to ONE group, based on race, you are thus denying it to another, based on race.

Everytime a job is given to a black guy, because of the color of his skin, that is discrimination against the white guy that wasn't even considered.

Every time a government program is set up, using tax payer money to target BLACK communities and issues, because of RACE, that is money being taken from white people and given to black people based on RACE.

This is a simple concept. That we as a society have pretended to not understand it for so long, is a testimony to our ability to delude ourselves.

Time to wake up and stop fucking ourselves.

reply

[–] chilidoggg (13098) 23 days ago

"whites of the south became less racist and the old message of the Racist Dem party stopped working."

I did not know this.

reply

[–] Corbell (8383) 23 days ago

You can look at old elections maps BEFORE the consensus and see the solid south, cracking.

AND you can see AFTER the dems stopped the alliance with racism, that Southern dems with strong civil rights records, sometimes still won lots of southern states.

Check out the win of Jimmy Carter, or Bill Clinton.

reply

[–] Rorikon (16427) 22 days ago

https://www.nytimes.com/2023/02/28/us/politics/jimmy-carter-black-americans.html

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/White_Southerners#Historical_identity

You can see the less racist ones still stuck with the Democrat party while the racist ones switched parties in favor of the usual more traditionally southern identities.

reply

[–] Corbell (8383) 21 days ago

I went though the both articles pretty far, found nothing on the white vote in the South during 76.

My point was that Carter won the SOUTH, which was supposed flipped by the "southern strategy" of appealing to racists.

Jimmy Carter, LONG before he ran for the Presidency, had developed a strong record on civil rights. And he won the South.

And the souther whites didn't seem to care. This is strong evidence that the "southern strategy" is a myth or a conspiracy theory.

reply

[–] Lige (303) 22 days ago

It's revisionist history.

The Big Lie.

reply

[–] tvfan (8415) 24 days ago

Are you still falling for that party switch myth?! LMAO

reply

[–] Corbell (8383) 24 days ago

It is sad to see people pushing a conspiracy theory that has been so completely and repeatedly debunked.

reply

[–] tvfan (8415) 24 days ago

They never cared about the truth.

The lies make them feel good. The truth is uncomfortable to them and they must reject it at all costs.

It’s like the traitor in the Matrix that couldn’t handle reality and wanted back inside as an ignorant slave.

reply

[–] SamNoyoun (4467) 22 days ago

It is sad to see people pushing a conspiracy theory that has been so completely and repeatedly debunked.

Oh the irony!

https://protectdemocracy.org/work/what-is-the-big-lie/

reply

[–] Corbell (8383) 22 days ago

Yeah, the irony is great. Too bad it is beyond your grasp.

Was Jimmy Carter a racist? Or was he a strong supporter of Civil Rights?

reply

[–] Druff (1457) 22 days ago

I will give you $1000 cash for every current KKK member you can provide who is NOT also a hardcore card carrying Republican/member of the GOP.

reply

[–] maixiu (537) 22 days ago

You see KKK members and Nazis under your bed and behind every tree, right?

reply

[–] tvfan (8415) 22 days ago

Did you know that people can pretend and identify as something other than they are?
Did you know that people can play dress-up?
Did you know that some people are fake and frauds since they can misrepresent themselves?

reply

[–] Rorikon (16427) 22 days ago

And yet the KKK love to associate with the right and especially admirers of Trump, I wonder why...

reply

[–] maixiu (537) 22 days ago

Another one who sees Klansmen behind every tree.

reply

[–] tvfan (8415) 22 days ago

KKK has nothing to do with 'the right' or Trump. Anyone can falsely associate themselves. lol

reply

[–] Keelai (32008) 21 days ago

Former KKK Leader David Duke Says 'Of Course' Trump Voters Are His Voters
https://www.npr.org/sections/thetwo-way/2016/08/05/488802494/former-kkk-leader-david-duke-says-of-course-trump-voters-are-his-voters

Trump dines with white supremacist, renewing questions about GOP’s leadership and values
https://www.pbs.org/newshour/show/trump-dines-with-white-supremacist-renewing-questions-about-gops-leadership-and-values

Trump Reportedly Called White Supremacists “My People,” in Case It Wasn’t Clear He’s an Abject Racist
“These people love me. These are my people.”
https://www.vanityfair.com/news/2021/09/donald-trump-white-supremacists-my-people

reply

[–] tvfan (8415) 21 days ago

Propaganda.

reply

[–] Keelai (32008) 21 days ago

You're proof that your cult can't handle reality.

reply

[–] tvfan (8415) 21 days ago

You're proof that you are a propagandist. lol

reply

[–] GreenGoblinsOck8 (7413) 22 days ago

While I don't like Trump I'd rather have another 4 years with him than another 4 years of transgenderism getting taught to young kids, another 4 years of an insecure boarder, another 4 years of the push for electric cars, another 4 years of a bad economy, and another 4 years of getting told all republicans are evil. All those things are what you're voting for if you're voting for Biden. I don't think republicans should get all they want but I don't think democrats should get all they want either. As far as I'm concerned democrats getting everything they want is fascism. And the republicans getting everything they want is fascism. Democrats and republicans should compromise. But that's not happening under Biden.

reply

[–] maixiu (537) 22 days ago

This is something that the left doesn't understand. For all his personality faults, and for all his policy failings as President, the one thing a normal American can say is "at least Trump doesn't hate me." Despite growing up and living his entire life in extreme wealth, he actually relates to the common man. He doesn't think they're bitter clingers or deplorable. He's not calling them all bigots for wanting to preserve their way of life.

The Democrats haven't had someone with the common touch since Bill Clinton.

reply

[–] UncleRuckis (2554) 22 days ago

Its pretty damned sad that you think Trump, a man who is basically every negative personality trait condensed into human form, is what relates to the common man!

Also, your a fool if you think Trump gives two shits about any of his supporters or doesn't look down on them for being easily manipulatable idiots.

reply

[–] GreenGoblinsOck8 (7413) 22 days ago

Yeah. Cause a guy who hates on all republicans and makes up crap about them in front of the entire nation is so much better. Like this.

https://youtu.be/BKeYcFk3bTQ?si=zDOtO9Nnc7rfNJSP

reply

[–] Rorikon (16427) 22 days ago

I'm in-line with JW Rowling and likes on the trans issue so you can see at least the left can recognize their improprieties, not much can be said for the right though. I get it that Biden is more progressive than moderate and it's more about his wife and handlers moving things than him being able to without forgetting about what he was talking about. Imo it'd be worse with Trump with all the criminal trials and backdoor dealings with his nepo babies. Trust me, none of these idiots are favorable to say the least but they're the choice. Best to just not vote.

reply

[–] maixiu (537) 22 days ago

The Bidens take a backseat to no one when it comes to nepotism and graft.

But I'm on board with not voting. There are no actual alternatives in the system. It's all run by a uniparty.

reply