Is the left attempting to destroy America as we know it?

In America, Donald Trump is the head of the Executive Branch of government--which is one of three branches--but he is not a dictator.

You should know that.

But it is one thing to "question" him; it is quite another to resist him (as the left has consistently done), rather than to attempt to work with him...

 

You evidently missed the point completely.

 

The free citizens will make sure he never becomes a dictator for everyone's sake.

 

Gosh, by your logic that means you support violent communists. Whodathunk.

 

If this was happening after WWII when our fathers and grandfathers came back from fighting the nazis I am sure they would have shot this nazi scum parading around with swastika flags in charlottesville

 

You mean also the left wing scum that would have sided with Russia.

 

That is a silly response.

I seriously doubt that Donald Trump would even want to be a dictator.

And at least 99 percent of those who voted for him, in my opinion, would certainly not want that, either...

 

Yeah, there is no difference only to fools.

 

Definitely.What we are witnessing is a violent attempt by globalist sponsored anarchists,liberals,marxists and othef thugs to deny the will of American people and change the outcome of the presidential election by any means necessary.There is nothing democratic about democrats any longer.Potential Muslim terrorists are closer to them than their own hystorical characters who helped built the USA.Madness.

 

This **** went on DURING WW2

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/German_American_Bund

 

And the free citizens will make darn sure of it because of your "serious doubt".

 

totally agree, Trump is the first snowflake President, I have never seen a president that was such a bully and a snowflake at the same time before

yes, some monuments of the loosers of the civil war are going into storage or a museum, who cares, we do not need to put them on a pedestal, they are causing the white supremacists to become violent, time to get them out of site, keep the history of the loosers of that war to the history books and museums

 

Mass hysteria over those old white guys who were slave owners. Well lefties and deniers of past history; maybe some of you need a trip down memory lane. I won't post the whole article but attached is a reference for those who are not intellectually lazy and want to broaden their scope of reality.

Did black people own slaves? If so, why?

One of the most vexing questions in African-American history is whether free African Americans themselves owned slaves. The short answer to this question, as you might suspect, is yes, of course; some free black people in this country bought and sold other black people, and did so at least since 1654, continuing to do so right through the Civil War. For me, the really fascinating questions about black slave-owning are how many black "masters" were involved, how many slaves did they own and why did they own slaves?

In a fascinating essay reviewing this controversy, R. Halliburton shows that free black people have owned slaves "in each of the thirteen original states and later in every state that countenanced slavery," at least since Anthony Johnson and his wife Mary went to court in Virginia in 1654 to obtain the services of their indentured servant, a black man, John Castor, for life.

And for a time, free black people could even "own" the services of white indentured servants in Virginia as well. Free blacks owned slaves in Boston by 1724 and in Connecticut by 1783; by 1790, 48 black people in Maryland owned 143 slaves. One particularly notorious black Maryland farmer named Nat Butler "regularly purchased and sold Negroes for the Southern trade,"

"The free colored population [native] of Louisiana … own slaves, and they are dearly attached to their native land … and they are ready to shed their blood for her defense. They have no sympathy for abolitionism; no love for the North, but they have plenty for Louisiana … They will fight for her in 1861 as they fought [to defend New Orleans from the British] in 1814-1815."

3,776 free Negroes owned 12,907 slaves, out of a total of 2,009,043 slaves owned in the entire United States, so the numbers of slaves owned by black people over all was quite small by comparison with the number owned by white people.

It would be a mistake to think that large black slaveholders were only men. In 1830, in Louisiana, the aforementioned Madame Antoine Dublucet owned 44 slaves, and Madame Ciprien Ricard owned 35 slaves, Louise Divivier owned 17 slaves, Genevieve Rigobert owned 16 slaves and Rose Lanoix and Caroline Miller both owned 13 slaves, while over in Georgia, Betsey Perry owned 25 slaves. According to Johnson and Roark, the wealthiest black person in Charleston, S.C., in 1860 was Maria Weston, who owned 14 slaves and property valued at more than $40,000, at a time when the average white man earned about $100 a year. (The city's largest black slaveholders, though, were Justus Angel and Mistress L. Horry, both of whom owned 84 slaves.)

Advertisement




In Savannah, Ga., between 1823 and 1828, according to Betty Wood's Gender, Race, and Rank in a Revolutionary Age, Hannah Leion owned nine slaves, while the largest slaveholder in 1860 was Ciprien Ricard, who had a sugarcane plantation in Louisiana and owned 152 slaves with her son, Pierre — many more that the 35 she owned in 1830. According to economic historian Stanley Engerman, "In Charleston, South Carolina about 42 percent of free blacks owned slaves in 1850, and about 64 percent of these slaveholders were women."

https://www.theroot.com/did-black-people-own-slaves-1790895436

I'm in no way defending slavery but all this hysteria needs to be taken in context of the attitudes of the people of that era. Like the song by Joe South "Walk in my Shoes".

 

Maybe learn to do research. Especially since my comment derived from an article from HP.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/08/27/map-segregation-america-race_n_3824693.html

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/04/15/new-york-city-segregation-map_n_5153739.html

 

I suppose you prefer the Mexican flag.

 

Your post makes absolutely no sense.

 

Of course, it is about logic.

 

I did do research and the listings of the most segregated cities in the US weren't in any of the states that you derided.

You said states. Those map clearly shows a good deal of variation in those STATES that you declared to be highly segregated.

 

IMHO this is the major problem in our country.

The main difference between the parties is what involvement the federal government should have in peoples' lives.

Should government provide healthcare for all?

Should government regulate business and how much?

Does giving tax breaks to corporations and those in the 1% create more jobs and increases economic growth? How much should the tax rates be?

Does the 2nd amendment block the government from requiring back ground checks? Does it block the government from limiting what weapons are available to the public? Can the government deny weapons to certain people it deems a danger to themselves or others?

Here is something many seem to deny or ignore. People on both sides can love this country and support and defend the Constitution and have different opinions. They just have different ideas on what "promote the general welfare" entails.

 

I'm not Mexican. However, given a choice between the flags held sacred by the racist alt-right and a flag from another country, I'd choice the foreign flag most of the time.

 

Did you read your article bro?

"Johnita P. Due is Vice President and General Counsel for CNN.

In a controversial op-ed, she says she felt “punched in the stomach” when Virginia Governor Terry McAuliffe invoked the founding fathers as true patriots.

Ms. Due writes about what she calls Governor McAuliffe’s “painful gaffe” on Charlottesville:"

Your article then goes on to blame the entire left for the opinion of one person. Typical crazy right-wing article:
1: Quote a single liberal with a crazy opinion.
2: Blame the entire left for this single person's opinion.
3: Strawman complete!

I have seen so many threads like this here.

 

Must be an alt-right form of "logic". Sorry, I don't speak reich-wing. Perhaps you could elaborate on exactly what "logic" your post alludes to?

 

Both sides.

Indeed.

 

Don't worry, actual real world logic is at odds with liberal logic 101 like 'speech is violence'.

 

I have observed more on the right personally. It seems like there is one of these every week. lol.