POLL: How Bout An Official Gesture Of Atonement For Past Sins Against African Americans?...

[MarcATL]

MLK was killed by a white racist, a democrat KKK member.

Is that so?

Was this guy a liberal or a conservative?

 

[westwall]

MLK was working towards blacks and whites working together for the common good. That's why he was assassinated. JJ has done nothing to bring the races together and instead has worked to keep them apart. He has raked in millions and millions of dollars by doing so. JJ is about HIM. He could give a crap about the black population.

Who assassinated him, and why?

Sent from my SM-N910T using Tapatalk

The leaders who felt he was a threat. MOVE in Philly was likewise destroyed because they were NOT racist. They worked to bring all races together. The progressives of this world can't have that. The progressives rely on division to keep the races apart, to foment violence and hatred that they then use to advance their political agenda. It's as simple as that. The old saying "united we stand, divided we fall" is every bit as relevant today, as it was when it was uttered.

MOVE was certainly multiracial, but frankly they were also obnoxious. Not that that in any way justified the overreaction, but they made no bones about the fact that their strategy of blaring bullhorns into the neighborhood through the wee hours of the morning was deliberately designed to piss off the neighbors so that they, the neighbors, would rise up and take action. That was their thinking, and it's probably assuming too much of what cause-and-effect would be. It's assuming, "if we simply make our point, everyone will see and agree with it and take the action we predict" and didn't take into account human nature values of personal space.

In other words they assumed they could recruit people to activism by force.

Yes. Their force was loud speech. The police responded by dropping bombs on them, killing 11 and burning down a couple of blocks of Philadelphia. "Overreaction?" Get stuffed...

Yuh huh. You don't think burning down 63 houses is an overreaction?
That happen often in your neighborhood then?

I think "overreaction" is a ridiculous UNDERSTATEMENT, moron.

 

[westwall]

MLK was killed by a white racist, a democrat KKK member.

Is that so?

Was this guy a liberal or a conservative?

Which guy? MLK was both liberal and conservative, as any rational person is. Ray was non political as far as I have been able to determine. He was basically a poor white trash criminal. There is nothing even remotely political about his entire life until he murdered MLK.

 

[Pogo]

The leaders who felt he was a threat. MOVE in Philly was likewise destroyed because they were NOT racist. They worked to bring all races together. The progressives of this world can't have that. The progressives rely on division to keep the races apart, to foment violence and hatred that they then use to advance their political agenda. It's as simple as that. The old saying "united we stand, divided we fall" is every bit as relevant today, as it was when it was uttered.

Are you suggesting that it was a "PROGRESSIVE" group that was responsible for killing MLK? If so, 1. which group was that, and 2. where did you get that from?

MLK was killed by a white racist, a democrat KKK member.

Linkie?

 

[Pogo]

Who assassinated him, and why?

Sent from my SM-N910T using Tapatalk

The leaders who felt he was a threat. MOVE in Philly was likewise destroyed because they were NOT racist. They worked to bring all races together. The progressives of this world can't have that. The progressives rely on division to keep the races apart, to foment violence and hatred that they then use to advance their political agenda. It's as simple as that. The old saying "united we stand, divided we fall" is every bit as relevant today, as it was when it was uttered.

MOVE was certainly multiracial, but frankly they were also obnoxious. Not that that in any way justified the overreaction, but they made no bones about the fact that their strategy of blaring bullhorns into the neighborhood through the wee hours of the morning was deliberately designed to piss off the neighbors so that they, the neighbors, would rise up and take action. That was their thinking, and it's probably assuming too much of what cause-and-effect would be. It's assuming, "if we simply make our point, everyone will see and agree with it and take the action we predict" and didn't take into account human nature values of personal space.

In other words they assumed they could recruit people to activism by force.

Yes. Their force was loud speech. The police responded by dropping bombs on them, killing 11 and burning down a couple of blocks of Philadelphia. "Overreaction?" Get stuffed...

Yuh huh. You don't think burning down 63 houses is an overreaction?
That happen often in your neighborhood then?

I think "overreaction" is a ridiculous UNDERSTATEMENT, moron.

So you want to write my posts now?

meh. I'll pass, thanks. Fascist.

 

[MarcATL]

Well that could be what the problem is. You don't have sympathy. We have to overcome our hate and fear. We have to take a bold step. Let's as a collective nation, show African Americans that we do care about their past and present plight. A kind gesture can go a very long way.

^^^^^^^^^^^^ Perfect example of what is wrong with America roday.

Sometimes a kind gesture is all it takes. And that isn't happening enough these days. Too many are clinging to their old stubborn hate and pride. That's what's wrong with America today.

Is BLM making kind gestures? how about Sharpton? how about the black panthers? how about Farrakhan? How about Beyoncé and Jay Z? how about Whoopi?

Kind gestures have to go both ways, dude.

When someone steps on your toe, do you consider it offensive to tell that person, "Hey man, you're stepping on my toe, ease up!?"

 

[MarcATL]

Which guy? MLK was both liberal and conservative, as any rational person is. Ray was non political as far as I have been able to determine. He was basically a poor white trash criminal. There is nothing even remotely political about his entire life until he murdered MLK.

The guy that killed him.

Do keep up.

 

[Papageorgio]

The Election of 1860 [ushistory.org]
FTA: Democrats chose Douglas, while at a separate convention the Southern Democrats nominated then VICE-PRESIDENT JOHN C. BRECKENRIDGE.

You just proved my point. See the CAPITAL S? "Southern Democrats" is not the same as "southern Democrats". The latter describes "Democrats who happen to live in the South"; the former is the formal name of a short-lived political party -- in any area of the country. Fun fact: Breckinridge got more votes than Douglas in Pennsylvania, which you'll remember from our previous lesson, is not part of The South.

Stephen Douglas --- Democrat
John Breckinridge -- Southern Democrat
Competitors in the same election. Along with:
Bell --- Constitutional Union
and, in the North, Lincoln -- Republican
That's three different parties in the South, four in the North. And your own Encyclopedia Britannica link says just that -- where you copied the results, the political party follows the name. And they're on different lines, for different parties. Your own link.

NO political party runs multiple candidates against each other. Think about it. Breckinridge defeated Douglas in Texas; Douglas defeated Breckinridge in Missouri. If you're a political party, your objective is to win, and you can't win if you're spreading your vote among multiple candidates.

Teddy Roosevelt ran in 1912. TR had been a Republican. That didn't make him the Republican Party candidate -- that was Taft. John Anderson ran in 1980. He too was a Republican. That didn't make him the RP candidate -- that was Reagan. Ralph Nader, 2000, had been a Democrat. The DP candidate was Gore.

I can't believe it's necessary to rehash this basic level of English --- the words "democrat" and "republican" -- as generic terms, not proper names --- have been employed by myriad political parties, unrelated to each other. Thomas Jefferson's even used both of them together. We've also had for examples the National Republican Party, the Social Democratic Party and the American Republican Party, NONE of which, including Jefferson's, were related to the ongoing Duopoly.

Sheeeeeeeeeeeeeesh.

Again, argue with history not me.

 

[Pogo]

The Election of 1860 [ushistory.org]
FTA: Democrats chose Douglas, while at a separate convention the Southern Democrats nominated then VICE-PRESIDENT JOHN C. BRECKENRIDGE.

You just proved my point. See the CAPITAL S? "Southern Democrats" is not the same as "southern Democrats". The latter describes "Democrats who happen to live in the South"; the former is the formal name of a short-lived political party -- in any area of the country. Fun fact: Breckinridge got more votes than Douglas in Pennsylvania, which you'll remember from our previous lesson, is not part of The South.

Stephen Douglas --- Democrat
John Breckinridge -- Southern Democrat
Competitors in the same election. Along with:
Bell --- Constitutional Union
and, in the North, Lincoln -- Republican
That's three different parties in the South, four in the North. And your own Encyclopedia Britannica link says just that -- where you copied the results, the political party follows the name. And they're on different lines, for different parties. Your own link.

NO political party runs multiple candidates against each other. Think about it. Breckinridge defeated Douglas in Texas; Douglas defeated Breckinridge in Missouri. If you're a political party, your objective is to win, and you can't win if you're spreading your vote among multiple candidates.

Teddy Roosevelt ran in 1912. TR had been a Republican. That didn't make him the Republican Party candidate -- that was Taft. John Anderson ran in 1980. He too was a Republican. That didn't make him the RP candidate -- that was Reagan. Ralph Nader, 2000, had been a Democrat. The DP candidate was Gore.

I can't believe it's necessary to rehash this basic level of English --- the words "democrat" and "republican" -- as generic terms, not proper names --- have been employed by myriad political parties, unrelated to each other. Thomas Jefferson's even used both of them together. We've also had for examples the National Republican Party, the Social Democratic Party and the American Republican Party, NONE of which, including Jefferson's, were related to the ongoing Duopoly.

Sheeeeeeeeeeeeeesh.

Again, argue with history not me.

You're the one trying to argue with history by dismissing an uppercase proper name, Sparkles.

Why don't you just essplain to the class how a single political party can run two different candidates for the same job. What happens if one of them actually wins?

See? I run rings around you logically. You can't answer that.

 

[Papageorgio]

What type of reconciliation puts all of this to rest?

Post the definition of "GESTURE" and what you understand by the meaning of that term.

My thoughts have no bearing on the matter. I am not asking for anything. If the government made a public apology for its past actions and the way they horrible way they treated my race. If they apologize for the government allowing me and my race to be kept in slavery and how for over 200 years they have denied many of my right. including the right to vote, to work, to have equal pay for equal work, For profiling my race, for not treating me equally in a court of law, being deprived of an education based on my skin color, being judge solely on the color of my skin, I'd find the apology meaningless, an empty gesture. I wouldn't put any weight in it.

So I think an apology would be futile. So it goes back to what needs to be done, how do you reconcile over 200 years of mistreatment?

 

[Papageorgio]

The Election of 1860 [ushistory.org]
FTA: Democrats chose Douglas, while at a separate convention the Southern Democrats nominated then VICE-PRESIDENT JOHN C. BRECKENRIDGE.

You just proved my point. See the CAPITAL S? "Southern Democrats" is not the same as "southern Democrats". The latter describes "Democrats who happen to live in the South"; the former is the formal name of a short-lived political party -- in any area of the country. Fun fact: Breckinridge got more votes than Douglas in Pennsylvania, which you'll remember from our previous lesson, is not part of The South.

Stephen Douglas --- Democrat
John Breckinridge -- Southern Democrat
Competitors in the same election. Along with:
Bell --- Constitutional Union
and, in the North, Lincoln -- Republican
That's three different parties in the South, four in the North. And your own Encyclopedia Britannica link says just that -- where you copied the results, the political party follows the name. And they're on different lines, for different parties. Your own link.

NO political party runs multiple candidates against each other. Think about it. Breckinridge defeated Douglas in Texas; Douglas defeated Breckinridge in Missouri. If you're a political party, your objective is to win, and you can't win if you're spreading your vote among multiple candidates.

Teddy Roosevelt ran in 1912. TR had been a Republican. That didn't make him the Republican Party candidate -- that was Taft. John Anderson ran in 1980. He too was a Republican. That didn't make him the RP candidate -- that was Reagan. Ralph Nader, 2000, had been a Democrat. The DP candidate was Gore.

I can't believe it's necessary to rehash this basic level of English --- the words "democrat" and "republican" -- as generic terms, not proper names --- have been employed by myriad political parties, unrelated to each other. Thomas Jefferson's even used both of them together. We've also had for examples the National Republican Party, the Social Democratic Party and the American Republican Party, NONE of which, including Jefferson's, were related to the ongoing Duopoly.

Sheeeeeeeeeeeeeesh.

Again, argue with history not me.

You're the one trying to argue with history by dismissing an uppercase proper name, Sparkles.

Why don't you just essplain to the class how a single political party can run two different candidates for the same job. What happens if one of them actually wins?

See? I run rings around you logically. You can't answer that.

I see what the history books report, it calls Breckenridge a Southern Democrat and Douglas as a pro-slavery Democrat, Bell was a middle road, not take a stand on the issue. Lincoln was anti-slavery.

Take it or leave it because you have failed to make any points. Beckenridge was listed as a Democrat and then a Southern Democrat. In 1956 Buchanan won all the southern states.

You have yet to disprove either statement, though you claim they aren't true.

 

[Pogo]

The Election of 1860 [ushistory.org]
FTA: Democrats chose Douglas, while at a separate convention the Southern Democrats nominated then VICE-PRESIDENT JOHN C. BRECKENRIDGE.

You just proved my point. See the CAPITAL S? "Southern Democrats" is not the same as "southern Democrats". The latter describes "Democrats who happen to live in the South"; the former is the formal name of a short-lived political party -- in any area of the country. Fun fact: Breckinridge got more votes than Douglas in Pennsylvania, which you'll remember from our previous lesson, is not part of The South.

Stephen Douglas --- Democrat
John Breckinridge -- Southern Democrat
Competitors in the same election. Along with:
Bell --- Constitutional Union
and, in the North, Lincoln -- Republican
That's three different parties in the South, four in the North. And your own Encyclopedia Britannica link says just that -- where you copied the results, the political party follows the name. And they're on different lines, for different parties. Your own link.

NO political party runs multiple candidates against each other. Think about it. Breckinridge defeated Douglas in Texas; Douglas defeated Breckinridge in Missouri. If you're a political party, your objective is to win, and you can't win if you're spreading your vote among multiple candidates.

Teddy Roosevelt ran in 1912. TR had been a Republican. That didn't make him the Republican Party candidate -- that was Taft. John Anderson ran in 1980. He too was a Republican. That didn't make him the RP candidate -- that was Reagan. Ralph Nader, 2000, had been a Democrat. The DP candidate was Gore.

I can't believe it's necessary to rehash this basic level of English --- the words "democrat" and "republican" -- as generic terms, not proper names --- have been employed by myriad political parties, unrelated to each other. Thomas Jefferson's even used both of them together. We've also had for examples the National Republican Party, the Social Democratic Party and the American Republican Party, NONE of which, including Jefferson's, were related to the ongoing Duopoly.

Sheeeeeeeeeeeeeesh.

Again, argue with history not me.

You're the one trying to argue with history by dismissing an uppercase proper name, Sparkles.

Why don't you just essplain to the class how a single political party can run two different candidates for the same job. What happens if one of them actually wins?

See? I run rings around you logically. You can't answer that.

I see what the history books report, it calls Breckenridge a Southern Democrat and Douglas as a pro-slavery Democrat, Bell was a middle road, not take a stand on the issue. Lincoln was anti-slavery.

Take it or leave it because you have failed to make any points. Beckenridge was listed as a Democrat and then a Southern Democrat. In 1956 Buchanan won all the southern states.

You have yet to disprove either statement, though you claim they aren't true.

I hate to break this to ya but Buchanan won no states at all in 1956. He was dead. And a hundred years before, as already repeatedly noted, he was effectively the only candidate in the South. Your option to show us how Millard Fillmore was a viable competitor is still on the table. Untouched.

And then there's 1860 and the mysterious uppercase letter you put in your own posts without getting the significance thereof. I need a history lesson from no one on this, thanks. You can't even comprehend the idea of a separate political party. Go look up the US political parties of the 19th century if you actually think that a political party has to last a century, or whatever it is you think in this utterly irrational tangent of yours.

Just for the sake of clarification, Douglas was wishy-washy on slavery; that's exactly why the Southerners who walked out and struck out on their own rejected him. After being defeated he worked with Lincoln to try to preserve the Union for the brief period he was alive. Bell was from a Whig/Know Nothing base, the former of which was also wishy-washy (that's why that party disintegrated) and the latter of which chose to ignore the question hoping it would go away. Breckinridge and Lincoln were of course unequivocal, representing opposite sides but at least taking a position. Actually Lincoln made some contradictory statements on the issue but his new political party had a position.

None of this is relevant to the fact of separate political candidates from separate parties, but it does demonstrate the superficiality of your homework. You get an "E", and that doesn't mean excellent.

 

[Conservative65]

Jeeebus what a dumb country...Thanks GOP. see sig. Nite.

Glad I block sig propaganda.

The USA is the only modern country in the world where full time workers live in poverty and have no health care (750k bankruptcies a year, most HAVE insurance - crap insurance!)After 30 years of Voodoo: worst min. wage, work conditions, illegal work safeguards, vacations, work week, college costs, rich/poor gap, upward social mobility, % homeless and in prison EVAH, and in the modern world!! And you complain about the victims? Are you an idiot or an A-hole?
Pubs have blocked EVERYTHING since 2/4/2010- don't be duped...again. Stimulus worked-ran out in 2010.
Total Pub Propaganda BS: ACORN, Kenyan Muslim Marxist,Tides, Mosque, Death Panel, lose your doctor, huge costs, DEBT CRISIS, Obama Recession, stimulus failed, Barney Frank, Nazi Soros, Nazi socialists, Volt suqs, Iran making bomb etc etc.
I'm sorry- dupes are lovely people- but I can't take their lazy, ignorant, careless, stupid politics a minute longer. Sorry

It's atonement for GOP racism and discrimination duh.

Yeah, that's exactly how it will be painted if it's ever passed, and that's why no Republican will ever vote for it.

It's already passed and approved by the SC...

You do make some valid points. I have to admit that. Just had a conversation with a relative about how high rents are now. Too many Americans can't afford such rents. It's just getting harder & harder for people to get by. We're going backwards as a nation.

Why are rents high? any idea?

do you understand that the owner of the property has to pay the property taxes? do you understand that he has to pay for repairs done by renters? Do you understand that he has to pay the mortgages even when renters don't pay? Do you understand that he has to pay for insurance on the property?

I can tell you from personal experience, owning rental property is neither profitable or easy.

Oh boy, not really in the mood to get into it with greedy white Republican dudes over this one. The poster Franco did make some valid points though. You guys don't care that so many Americans can't afford rents. 'They're lazy, it's their own fault'... Yada Yada Yada. Movin on...

Apparently the bleeding hearts like Franco don't care that people can't afford rent. If Franco did, the rent would be paid personally by Franco. Franco won't do that. Franco demands taxpayers be forced to do what Franco says should be done.

Hate to break it to you but in many cases the inability to pay one's bills is that one's fault. In fact, most people are where they are in life due to their own choices.

 

[Redfish]

MLK was killed by a white racist, a democrat KKK member.

Is that so?

Was this guy a liberal or a conservative?

"what difference, at this point, does it make?" Democrat and KKK member.

 

[Redfish]

What type of reconciliation puts all of this to rest?

Post the definition of "GESTURE" and what you understand by the meaning of that term.

My thoughts have no bearing on the matter. I am not asking for anything. If the government made a public apology for its past actions and the way they horrible way they treated my race. If they apologize for the government allowing me and my race to be kept in slavery and how for over 200 years they have denied many of my right. including the right to vote, to work, to have equal pay for equal work, For profiling my race, for not treating me equally in a court of law, being deprived of an education based on my skin color, being judge solely on the color of my skin, I'd find the apology meaningless, an empty gesture. I wouldn't put any weight in it.

So I think an apology would be futile. So it goes back to what needs to be done, how do you reconcile over 200 years of mistreatment?

who has been mistreated for over 200 years?

Obama?
Beyoncé?
Mohammed Ali?
Oprah?
Joe Lewis?
A Rod?
Sammy Davis Jr?
Loretta Lynch?
Michael Jordan?
Serena Willaims?
Elija Cumming?

This racial mistreatment BS is just that, BS.

 

[Pogo]

MLK was killed by a white racist, a democrat KKK member.

Is that so?

Was this guy a liberal or a conservative?

"what difference, at this point, does it make?" Democrat and KKK member.

Linkie?

Still waiting on 404 btw.

 

[Papageorgio]

The Election of 1860 [ushistory.org]
FTA: Democrats chose Douglas, while at a separate convention the Southern Democrats nominated then VICE-PRESIDENT JOHN C. BRECKENRIDGE.

You just proved my point. See the CAPITAL S? "Southern Democrats" is not the same as "southern Democrats". The latter describes "Democrats who happen to live in the South"; the former is the formal name of a short-lived political party -- in any area of the country. Fun fact: Breckinridge got more votes than Douglas in Pennsylvania, which you'll remember from our previous lesson, is not part of The South.

Stephen Douglas --- Democrat
John Breckinridge -- Southern Democrat
Competitors in the same election. Along with:
Bell --- Constitutional Union
and, in the North, Lincoln -- Republican
That's three different parties in the South, four in the North. And your own Encyclopedia Britannica link says just that -- where you copied the results, the political party follows the name. And they're on different lines, for different parties. Your own link.

NO political party runs multiple candidates against each other. Think about it. Breckinridge defeated Douglas in Texas; Douglas defeated Breckinridge in Missouri. If you're a political party, your objective is to win, and you can't win if you're spreading your vote among multiple candidates.

Teddy Roosevelt ran in 1912. TR had been a Republican. That didn't make him the Republican Party candidate -- that was Taft. John Anderson ran in 1980. He too was a Republican. That didn't make him the RP candidate -- that was Reagan. Ralph Nader, 2000, had been a Democrat. The DP candidate was Gore.

I can't believe it's necessary to rehash this basic level of English --- the words "democrat" and "republican" -- as generic terms, not proper names --- have been employed by myriad political parties, unrelated to each other. Thomas Jefferson's even used both of them together. We've also had for examples the National Republican Party, the Social Democratic Party and the American Republican Party, NONE of which, including Jefferson's, were related to the ongoing Duopoly.

Sheeeeeeeeeeeeeesh.

Again, argue with history not me.

You're the one trying to argue with history by dismissing an uppercase proper name, Sparkles.

Why don't you just essplain to the class how a single political party can run two different candidates for the same job. What happens if one of them actually wins?

See? I run rings around you logically. You can't answer that.

I see what the history books report, it calls Breckenridge a Southern Democrat and Douglas as a pro-slavery Democrat, Bell was a middle road, not take a stand on the issue. Lincoln was anti-slavery.

Take it or leave it because you have failed to make any points. Beckenridge was listed as a Democrat and then a Southern Democrat. In 1956 Buchanan won all the southern states.

You have yet to disprove either statement, though you claim they aren't true.

I hate to break this to ya but Buchanan won no states at all in 1956. He was dead. And a hundred years before, as already repeatedly noted, he was effectively the only candidate in the South. Your option to show us how Millard Fillmore was a viable competitor is still on the table. Untouched.

And then there's 1860 and the mysterious uppercase letter you put in your own posts without getting the significance thereof. I need a history lesson from no one on this, thanks. You can't even comprehend the idea of a separate political party. Go look up the US political parties of the 19th century if you actually think that a political party has to last a century, or whatever it is you think in this utterly irrational tangent of yours.

Just for the sake of clarification, Douglas was wishy-washy on slavery; that's exactly why the Southerners who walked out and struck out on their own rejected him. After being defeated he worked with Lincoln to try to preserve the Union for the brief period he was alive. Bell was from a Whig/Know Nothing base, the former of which was also wishy-washy (that's why that party disintegrated) and the latter of which chose to ignore the question hoping it would go away. Breckinridge and Lincoln were of course unequivocal, representing opposite sides but at least taking a position. Actually Lincoln made some contradictory statements on the issue but his new political party had a position.

None of this is relevant to the fact of separate political candidates from separate parties, but it does demonstrate the superficiality of your homework. You get an "E", and that doesn't mean excellent.

Buchanan won all the states in the south, did he not? Breckenridge ran as a Southern Democrat, did he not?

Bottom line, you lose.

 

[westwall]

Which guy? MLK was both liberal and conservative, as any rational person is. Ray was non political as far as I have been able to determine. He was basically a poor white trash criminal. There is nothing even remotely political about his entire life until he murdered MLK.

The guy that killed him.

Do keep up.

I referred to both of them so I am keeping up.

 

[Pogo]

You just proved my point. See the CAPITAL S? "Southern Democrats" is not the same as "southern Democrats". The latter describes "Democrats who happen to live in the South"; the former is the formal name of a short-lived political party -- in any area of the country. Fun fact: Breckinridge got more votes than Douglas in Pennsylvania, which you'll remember from our previous lesson, is not part of The South.

Stephen Douglas --- Democrat
John Breckinridge -- Southern Democrat
Competitors in the same election. Along with:
Bell --- Constitutional Union
and, in the North, Lincoln -- Republican
That's three different parties in the South, four in the North. And your own Encyclopedia Britannica link says just that -- where you copied the results, the political party follows the name. And they're on different lines, for different parties. Your own link.

NO political party runs multiple candidates against each other. Think about it. Breckinridge defeated Douglas in Texas; Douglas defeated Breckinridge in Missouri. If you're a political party, your objective is to win, and you can't win if you're spreading your vote among multiple candidates.

Teddy Roosevelt ran in 1912. TR had been a Republican. That didn't make him the Republican Party candidate -- that was Taft. John Anderson ran in 1980. He too was a Republican. That didn't make him the RP candidate -- that was Reagan. Ralph Nader, 2000, had been a Democrat. The DP candidate was Gore.

I can't believe it's necessary to rehash this basic level of English --- the words "democrat" and "republican" -- as generic terms, not proper names --- have been employed by myriad political parties, unrelated to each other. Thomas Jefferson's even used both of them together. We've also had for examples the National Republican Party, the Social Democratic Party and the American Republican Party, NONE of which, including Jefferson's, were related to the ongoing Duopoly.

Sheeeeeeeeeeeeeesh.

Again, argue with history not me.

You're the one trying to argue with history by dismissing an uppercase proper name, Sparkles.

Why don't you just essplain to the class how a single political party can run two different candidates for the same job. What happens if one of them actually wins?

See? I run rings around you logically. You can't answer that.

I see what the history books report, it calls Breckenridge a Southern Democrat and Douglas as a pro-slavery Democrat, Bell was a middle road, not take a stand on the issue. Lincoln was anti-slavery.

Take it or leave it because you have failed to make any points. Beckenridge was listed as a Democrat and then a Southern Democrat. In 1956 Buchanan won all the southern states.

You have yet to disprove either statement, though you claim they aren't true.

I hate to break this to ya but Buchanan won no states at all in 1956. He was dead. And a hundred years before, as already repeatedly noted, he was effectively the only candidate in the South. Your option to show us how Millard Fillmore was a viable competitor is still on the table. Untouched.

And then there's 1860 and the mysterious uppercase letter you put in your own posts without getting the significance thereof. I need a history lesson from no one on this, thanks. You can't even comprehend the idea of a separate political party. Go look up the US political parties of the 19th century if you actually think that a political party has to last a century, or whatever it is you think in this utterly irrational tangent of yours.

Just for the sake of clarification, Douglas was wishy-washy on slavery; that's exactly why the Southerners who walked out and struck out on their own rejected him. After being defeated he worked with Lincoln to try to preserve the Union for the brief period he was alive. Bell was from a Whig/Know Nothing base, the former of which was also wishy-washy (that's why that party disintegrated) and the latter of which chose to ignore the question hoping it would go away. Breckinridge and Lincoln were of course unequivocal, representing opposite sides but at least taking a position. Actually Lincoln made some contradictory statements on the issue but his new political party had a position.

None of this is relevant to the fact of separate political candidates from separate parties, but it does demonstrate the superficiality of your homework. You get an "E", and that doesn't mean excellent.

Buchanan won all the states in the south, did he not? Breckenridge ran as a Southern Democrat, did he not?

Bottom line, you lose.

Buchanan ran in the South effectively unopposed, did he not?

And yes, Breckinridge ran as a Southern Democrat -- with a capital S. Not as a "Democrat". Because as we know by now, Stephen Douglas had that position. That's history and you can't change it. You don't get to just make it up.

This is where you fucked up:

Breckinridge a Democrat won 72 electoral votes. Douglas won Missouri.

Wrong wrong wrong. Douglas was the Democrat; Breckinridge was the Southern Democrat.
One party.... another party. I even put them in different colors to dumb it down for you.


Bottom line, history wins, revisionists with no point fail to score.

 

[francoHFW]

BS ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ George H. W. Booosh and the GOP wrote it and then refused to follow thru on training Clinton wanted. Much like W and Ted and no child left behind. Scumbag GOP every time. Dupe.

Nope, Clinton wanted it, the GOP helped pass it, however, Clinton signed a bill if he vetoed would have been dead. Sorry, I know honesty and responsibility are not your strong suits. But you bastards are as guilty as the GOP, you really need to take some responsibility.

FUND THE TRAINING, dupe. DUH.

Funny how your narrative switched, lol!

Always exactly the same duh.

Keep moving the goal post bud, you are good at that. You haters are gonna hate. It's what you do.

Bush wrote it, Clinton signed it, GOP renegged on training. Facts don't change.