The Right's Punishment For The Trump Era

Never will happen. Its par for the course. Why do you think they always try to float that idiotic "party swap" tripe?

 

Uh huh ...

I can read you like a book, Adolph.

 

The Constitution in 1860 said slavery was totally legal, blacks only counted as 3/5 of a human being, and only white, male land owners could vote. SOUTHERN CONSERVATIVES wanted to preserve that, NORTHERN LIBERALS did not. Conservatives REACTED to liberals gaining power by seceding. Northern liberals destroyed them for their arrogance, and CHANGED THE CONSTITUTION to make slavery illegal across the nation, and instituted RADICAL RECONSTRUCTION of the governments of the southern states. At the time, those Northern liberals were called Republicans, and those Southern conservatives were called Democrats. Those conservatives later went on to form the KKK, implement Jim Crow, and were the bad guys in pretty much the worst parts of the 1960's. Those liberals later went on to fight and defeat them at every turn. The ideologies of the North and South have remained basically unchanged, but the political party names attached to those ideologies have switched.

This is FACT. Deal with it.

Today, SOUTHERN CONSERVATIVES still resist the Civil Rights Act and the Voting Rights Act. They try to pass laws against women (INDIVIDUALS) having the right to determine the fate of their own bodies using religious justifications while pointing fingers at other religions that do the same. They whine about 'welfare' while being the biggest welfare recipients of all. Today, we call these Luddite *******s REPUBLICANS.

And still, liberals fight them at every turn. There are setbacks, there always will be, but in the end, American history has shown that the liberals will always win. It's just a matter of time.

 

That's what all the bigots tell themselves, Guno. Racist revelry is "legitimate political opinion".

 

Traditionally, Hispanic Americans have voted Democratic because the Republican Party has long been associated with Protestantism. Most Hispanics are Catholic. It is also why Jews have traditionally voted Democratic.

 

Not one of these statements is correct:

- Slavery was not "totally legal" as the importation of slaves was prohibited in 1808.
- The 3/5 refers to "other persons', referring to slaves of any color; freed blacks were counted as whole.
- Nothing in the constitution limited voting rights to whites, males, or land owners.

It seems there is much you do not know.

 

1)"Blacks" didn't count as 3/5ths, slaves did, this went for indentured servants too. Democrats wanted to keep slavery, and left the union because republicans were threatening to pass amendments to ban slavery. Again, this goes back to republicans following the constitution while dems throw hissy fits, take their ball a go home when they lose.

2)You keep using those terms of "liberal" and "conservatives" like they mean the same thing as they did back then. Again, Conservative today means totally different things to different people. Its not a catchall term. If you can't figure that out, you have no place in discussing politics.

3)The ideologies of the north and south have changed dramatically over 2 generations, and was changing before the CRA. Republicans moved from the large, democratic, high taxed areas of the north, which are still controlled by democrats today, and moved to the more economically free, less expensive, less intrusive rural and southern areas. Even blacks know its way better in the south now, that's why there is another migration of minorities to the south. Republicans brought their ideologies they have had since the parties founding to the south while the old Dixiecrats died off while still supporting their racist politicians who stayed democrats.

4)Show me one southern Republican conservative who resists the CRA or VRA. Again, if you can't actually see the difference of two different groups of people having two different ideologies on which they want to CONSERVE, then its pointless to talk to you since you will never own up to the FACTS that southern dems died as democrats, and were NEVER repenting of their ways. The party as a whole never repented for their ways.

 

I know exactly what it means, You have it too, and in a bad way.

 

While I have been scathingly critical of liberals and Democrats, especially in terms of their bottomless inability to mentally and emotionally cope with their stunning defeat in 2016, I have posted little to nothing in support of Trump - so I'm not sure if I should classify your post as a false statement, a fairy tail, or simple ignorance.
Help me out.

 

Okay I am now certain it's a troll no more food for you

 

1) And yet there were almost 4 million slaves in the south the day Ft. Sumter was attacked, and human beings were being bought and sold until the end of the Civil War. Hmmmm. I guess someone didn't get the memo..

2) The Three-Fifths Compromise was a compromise reached among state delegates during the 1787 United States Constitutional Convention. Whether, and if so, how, slaves would be counted when determining a state's total population for legislative representation and taxing purposes was important, as this population number would then be used to determine the number of seats that the state would have in the United States House of Representatives for the next ten years. The compromise solution was to count three out of every five slaves as a person for this purpose. Its effect was to give the southern states a third more seats in Congress and a third more electoral votes than if slaves had been ignored, but fewer than if slaves and free people had been counted equally, thus allowing the slaveholder interests to largely dominate the government of the United States until 1861. The compromise was proposed by delegates James Wilson and Roger Sherman.

Now, in 1860, there were around 4 million slaves, and about 475,000 free blacks. Sorry that I didn't note that 1.5% of blacks were counted as whole persons. How many of that 4 million weren't black, though? 1/10 of 1 percent? You're blatantly quibbling and deliberately ignoring the larger picture.

3) True. It was a state level issue at that time. However, until 1870, some or all of those restrictions existed in various states. The 15th Amendment guaranteed almost universal male suffrage, but SOUTHERN CONSERVATIVES were quick to enact Jim Crow laws, because their delicate little egos and inbred little minds couldn't cope with the idea of blacks actually being equal to them in any way. The 19th Amendment in 1920 guaranteed suffrage for women, and the 26th Amendment in 1971(!) lowered the voting age to 18. All of these changes were protested vociferously by conservatives of their day, with proclamations of the end of all that is American (sound familiar?) if such changes were allowed to happen.

Doesn't change the fact that in 1860, it was almost exclusively white men, and the majority of them property owners, that made up the body politic of the United States, something SOUTHERN CONSERVATIVES were willing to betray their nation and go to war over - much like today, it would appear.

And, every step of the way, liberals have been there, fighting them tooth and nail and WINNING in the end - every single time. It's always just a matter of time. Conservatives always have been, and always will be, fighting a losing battle. The desire to move beyond what is towards what can be will always triumph over the voices of fear, smugness and hatred that try to stop that forward momentum. It's why rational people revere Lincoln, and revile Jefferson Davis. It's why Kamala Harris is a senator, and David Duke is a joke. It's why Obama got a Nobel Prize and IQ45 got laughed out of the UN. It's why the posts of you and your ilk are so hateful and fearful.

Deep down, you know this to be true, and the inevitability of that truth terrifies you down to your shriveled little core...

 

This does not change the fact your statement was wrong; certain aspects of slavery were, indeed, illegal.

And thus, you admit your statement was wrong. Just as I said.

And thus, you admit your statement was wrong. Just as I said.

What do you know - I'm 3/3.
This is FACT. Deal with it.

 

You are obviously a sock puppet for our resident racist Jew hater....

 

I'm one of these. I think political parties should be outlawed.

 

Brewski Hall Putch....

 

1) WRONG. Indentured servants counted as whole persons. Here's the text: Representatives and direct Taxes shall be apportioned among the several States which may be included within this Union, according to their respective Numbers, which shall be determined by adding to the whole Number of free Persons, including those bound to Service for a Term of Years, and excluding Indians not taxed, three fifths of all other Persons.

Note that indentured servants were explicity listed with free people, and counted one for one. And the Democrats were the conservatives of their day. You can twist in directions that will make Gumby scream, and you won't be able to change that. It is reality, so suck it right on up.

2) CONSERVATIVE: holding to traditional attitudes and values and cautious about change or innovation, typically in relation to politics or religion.
synonyms: traditionalist, traditional, conventional, orthodox, old-fashioned, dyed-in-the-wool, hidebound, unadventurous, set in one's ways

LIBERAL: open to new behavior or opinions and willing to discard traditional values.
"they have more liberal views toward marriage and divorce than some people"

• (in a political context) favoring maximum individual liberty in political and social reform.
  "a liberal democratic state"
  synonyms: progressive, advanced, modern, forward-looking, forward-thinking, progressivist, enlightened, reformist, radical
  "a liberal social agenda"
  antonyms: reactionary, conservative

Do you have a different definition you'd like to share with the class?

3) Funny, but the political map shows the old Confederate states are die-hard conservatives, and the old Union states still lean heavily liberal. The party names have changed, of course. Republicans now dominate the south, and Democrats the north, but the old liberal/conservative, North/South divide that goes back to the Revolutionary War with the Patriots and the Tories remains. It's never gone away.

4) Every Republican State legislator who has voted to pass voter ID laws that have repeatedly run afoul of the VRA and the Governors who signed them, not to mention the Attorney Generals who tried to defend the laws in court and lost. Are you being cynically obtuse, or are you really that dense?

 

And you're not seeing the forest for the trees, while patting yourself on the back for being blind. True to form, I guess...

 

Supreme Court lets Wisconsin’s voter-ID law stand
https://www.washingtonpost.com/poli...ory.html?noredirect=on&utm_term=.8cb575576baf

Supreme Court Upholds Voter Identification Law in Indiana
https://www.nytimes.com/2008/04/29/washington/28cnd-scotus.html

Looks like you;re wrong again.
This is FACT. Deal with it.

 

That's a strange way to agree you were wrong.

 

And yet:


Strict North Carolina Voter ID Law Thwarted After Supreme Court Rejects Case


Federal judge overturns Kansas voter proof of citizenship requirement

Hmmmmm...

 

Hmm... you actually have a pretty good point. Many of those "voters" couldn't be voters in other states because...most of the country actually requires you to be an American citizen.

 

Nope, not me, although it’s funny to me how that’s the conclusion made by liberal boomer globalists, considering how Guno, Statistikhengst, PeppermintTwist, and other members of the forum who share the same ancestry as the OP, have made almost identical threads celebrating the declining white population.

 

Although I think this guy is a fake, his argument isn't. It's actually standard Democratic Party fare, going back to Ruy Texiera's 2002 book, The Emerging Democratic Majority. That book set out that demographics would inevitably lead to a permanent Democratic majority, just as we've witnessed in California. For obvious reasons, this wasn't discussed much outside of political and academic circles, but now, it's pretty safe to discuss since it is effectively too late to do anything about it.

Of course I suspect the future is going to be way more complicated than a simple numbers game.

 

It goes back a lot further than 2002.

 

That's an average, it could be much higher if you didn't lower that much the average.