Republicans Introduce Legislation To Ban Democratic Party

[beautress]

GOP reps push resolution to ban Democratic Party over past slavery ties

A group of Republican House members, led by Rep. Louis Gohmert of Texas, introduced a resolution Thursday that would effectively ban the Democratic Party from the House or force a party name change over past slavery ties -- a response to the recent efforts to remove tributes to past members of...

www.foxnews.com

Brilliant move..... brilliant move.
I love it, and it is justified. There is nothing else in America that has more slavery/racism history than the Democratic Party.

Yep. Let's take a chisel and a hammer to that donkey statue and tear it up.

 

[Bush92]

Yeah, this will convince minorities to change their minds about Trumpsters.

Mac1958.... circa 2020, all he knows

View attachment 366727

Hey, tell me:

What is the ultimate goal here? What are they trying to accomplish?

What minds will be changed, and why? What is the point of this exercise?

The point is simple... Expose democrats for what they are and what they have been... If were canceling everything attached to racism in america then they need to go to...

And you think minorities will see this and vote for Trump?

Why vote for creepy Joe. Black people should not let their kids around him.

Because (a) many people agree with him on more on the issues, and (b) Trumpism is ugly.

Easiest question I'll get all day.

What issue's? Defunding law enforcement so criminals and anarchist can run roughshod over our cities? Raising taxes? Releasing child molesters because of fake COVID scare? Making our military weaker? Letting Iran go back to building a nuclear warhead? Kissing China's ass so we can lose more American job's? Giving reparations to people who don't deserve it? Sucking Obama's dick every chance he gets? You mean people agree with Biden on these issue's?

 

[Cellblock2429]

That's right, folks.

Any political party that was associated with slavery should be dismantled tomorrow.


"Rep. Louie Gohmert (R-Texas) introduced a House resolution Thursday calling on lawmakers to ban organizations or political groups that have historically supported the Confederacy or slavery in the U.S., a list he said includes the Democratic Party.

“A great portion of the history of the Democratic Party is filled with racism and hatred. Since people are demanding we rid ourselves of the entities, symbols, and reminders of the repugnant aspects of our past, then the time has come for Democrats to acknowledge their party’s loathsome and bigoted past, and consider changing their party name to something that isn’t so blatantly and offensively tied to slavery, Jim Crow, discrimination, and the Ku Klux Klan,” Gohmert said in a statement."

GOP’s Gohmert introduces resolution that would ban the Democratic Party

Rep. Louie Gohmert (R-Texas) introduced a House resolution Thursday calling on lawmakers to ban organizations or political groups that have historically supported the Confederacy or slave…

thehill.com

Once AGAIN the Confederacy had no political parties. It was not "supported" by Democrats. Fun fact: Lincoln's vice-president ....... was a Democrat. As for "ties to the Ku Klux Klan", Ed Jackson, Rice Means, George Luis Baker, Owen Brewster, D.C. Stephenson, Albert Johnston, Clarence Morley, Ben Paulen and David Duke find that faux pas hilarious.

It ain't surprising that this lunacy came from Louie Gohmert. That screwball's an embarrassment to Texas.

/——/ Yeah, right, you screwball. Southern Democrats - Wikipedia
In the 19th century, Southern Democrats were whites in the South who believed in Jacksonian democracy. In the 1850s they defended slavery in the United States, and promoted its expansion into the West against northern Free Soil opposition. The United States presidential election of 1860formalized the split in the Democratic Party and brought about the American Civil War. Stephen Douglas was the candidate for the Northern Democratic Party, and John C. Breckinridge represented the Southern Democratic Party, Abraham Lincoln, who opposed slavery was the Republican Party candidate.

**NONE** of this refutes or even addresses at all, anything I just laid out about the Confederacy not having political parties (there was no Confederacy in the 1850s), OR about the Klan.

/-----/ So you're saying the democRAT party disappeared during the Civil War and reemerged after the war ended?

Wow, did something actually sink in here?

Yep, Tennessee seceded in 1861. At that point it was no longer part of the United States. During the short term of the CSA, that country had no political parties. It was readmitted to this country in 1866. The Klan however was founded in `1865 --- outside the United States and outside of its political parties.

You don't have political parties in a place where you don't have political OFFICES. That's one reason I can challenge these yahoos to find any political party affiliation for the Klan founders I keep listing in detail. They can't. It doesn't exist.

/----/ The slave owners were democRATs before, during, and after the CW. Deal with it.

NOBODY was a slave owner after the CW. Linear time, deal with that. There's number one.

Inasmuch as the only slave owners DURING the CW who had a political party were in the North where their state's abolishment had not come into full effect, they could have had any party (fun fact: the last POTUS to have been a slaveowner was Ulysses Grant). That's number two.

At *NO* time before during or after the CW, OR before we were a country, was it necessary to affiliate with any political party at all. It simply isn't part of slaveowning and never has been. That's number two and a half.

And for the over three hundred years that there was slavery on this continent before there was a Democratic Party, by definition ZERO of those slaveowneers were "Democrats" --- again, simple case of that entity not existing. That's number three. And I believe we've covered Before, During and After. But perhaps there's another demention in Flooby Dust Land where we haven't touched.

Prove ANY of that wrong.

/----/ And then there is this tidbit they never taught you in school:
Brazil lured Confederate slave owners after the Civil War. Slavery was still legal there, and it was in wider swing than it ever had been in the US. About five million slaves had been sent across the Atlantic to Brazil—more than 10 times the number that had been sent to the US.

 

[Pogo]

That's right, folks.

Any political party that was associated with slavery should be dismantled tomorrow.


"Rep. Louie Gohmert (R-Texas) introduced a House resolution Thursday calling on lawmakers to ban organizations or political groups that have historically supported the Confederacy or slavery in the U.S., a list he said includes the Democratic Party.

“A great portion of the history of the Democratic Party is filled with racism and hatred. Since people are demanding we rid ourselves of the entities, symbols, and reminders of the repugnant aspects of our past, then the time has come for Democrats to acknowledge their party’s loathsome and bigoted past, and consider changing their party name to something that isn’t so blatantly and offensively tied to slavery, Jim Crow, discrimination, and the Ku Klux Klan,” Gohmert said in a statement."

GOP’s Gohmert introduces resolution that would ban the Democratic Party

Rep. Louie Gohmert (R-Texas) introduced a House resolution Thursday calling on lawmakers to ban organizations or political groups that have historically supported the Confederacy or slave…

thehill.com

Once AGAIN the Confederacy had no political parties. It was not "supported" by Democrats. Fun fact: Lincoln's vice-president ....... was a Democrat. As for "ties to the Ku Klux Klan", Ed Jackson, Rice Means, George Luis Baker, Owen Brewster, D.C. Stephenson, Albert Johnston, Clarence Morley, Ben Paulen and David Duke find that faux pas hilarious.

It ain't surprising that this lunacy came from Louie Gohmert. That screwball's an embarrassment to Texas.

/——/ Yeah, right, you screwball. Southern Democrats - Wikipedia
In the 19th century, Southern Democrats were whites in the South who believed in Jacksonian democracy. In the 1850s they defended slavery in the United States, and promoted its expansion into the West against northern Free Soil opposition. The United States presidential election of 1860formalized the split in the Democratic Party and brought about the American Civil War. Stephen Douglas was the candidate for the Northern Democratic Party, and John C. Breckinridge represented the Southern Democratic Party, Abraham Lincoln, who opposed slavery was the Republican Party candidate.

**NONE** of this refutes or even addresses at all, anything I just laid out about the Confederacy not having political parties (there was no Confederacy in the 1850s), OR about the Klan.

/-----/ So you're saying the democRAT party disappeared during the Civil War and reemerged after the war ended?

Wow, did something actually sink in here?

Yep, Tennessee seceded in 1861. At that point it was no longer part of the United States. During the short term of the CSA, that country had no political parties. It was readmitted to this country in 1866. The Klan however was founded in `1865 --- outside the United States and outside of its political parties.

You don't have political parties in a place where you don't have political OFFICES. That's one reason I can challenge these yahoos to find any political party affiliation for the Klan founders I keep listing in detail. They can't. It doesn't exist.

/----/ The slave owners were democRATs before, during, and after the CW. Deal with it.

NOBODY was a slave owner after the CW. Linear time, deal with that. There's number one.

Inasmuch as the only slave owners DURING the CW who had a political party were in the North where their state's abolishment had not come into full effect, they could have had any party (fun fact: the last POTUS to have been a slaveowner was Ulysses Grant). That's number two.

At *NO* time before during or after the CW, OR before we were a country, was it necessary to affiliate with any political party at all. It simply isn't part of slaveowning and never has been. That's number two and a half.

And for the over three hundred years that there was slavery on this continent before there was a Democratic Party, by definition ZERO of those slaveowneers were "Democrats" --- again, simple case of that entity not existing. That's number three. And I believe we've covered Before, During and After. But perhaps there's another demention in Flooby Dust Land where we haven't touched.

Prove ANY of that wrong.

/----/ " NOBODY was a slave owner after the CW. Linear time, deal with that. "
I forgot I'm dealing with a public school-educated libtard moonbat and everything has to be spelled out for you. My bad.
An example: Bart Smith, was one of the slaveowners before, and during the CW. After the war, he was one of the old or former slave owners, but he would always be branded as such for the rest of his life. I can understand how you would be confused. Now a history lesson on how slavery continued after the end of the war:

10 Ways American Slavery Continued Long After The Civil War - Listverse

Slavery in America didn’t end with the Emancipation Proclamation. It lived on---even after the Civil War had ended and the 13th Amendment had been put

listverse.com

The 13th Amendment didn’t make all forms of slavery illegal. It kept one exception. Slavery, it ruled, was still permitted “as a punishment for crime.”

All the Southern states had to do was find a reason to arrest their former slaves, and they could legally throw them right back on the plantation. So, Southern politicians set up a series of laws called the “Black Codes” that let them arrest black people for almost anything.

In Mississippi, a black person could be arrested for anything from using obscene language to selling cotton after sunset. If he was as much as caught using a bad word, he could be charged, leased out as a slave laborer, and put to work in chain gangs and work camps on farms, mines, and quarries.

It happened a lot. By 1898, 73 percent of Alabama’s revenue came from leasing out convicts as slaves.[1]

Slavery was ILLEGAL after Amendment XIII and the seceded states had to agree to it as a condition for re-entry. They could, and did, and still do, use the prison system to effect the same system but that's institutional slavery.

I don't know, or care, who the fuck "Bart Smith" is or what political party affiliation he may or may not have/have had. It's irrelevant. The fact *REMAINS*, there were no political parties in the Confederacy *AND* no such party affiliation has ever been a requisite for practicing *ANY* kind of slavery, personal or institutional, *EVER*, *PERIOD*.

You seem to be bending over to Rubberman lengths just to be allowed to put together an Ass-ociation Fallacy which would be by definition fallacious anyway. Are you retarded? Want me to just go ahead and let you construct that fallacy and look even stupider than you already do?

 

[Pogo]

That's right, folks.

Any political party that was associated with slavery should be dismantled tomorrow.


"Rep. Louie Gohmert (R-Texas) introduced a House resolution Thursday calling on lawmakers to ban organizations or political groups that have historically supported the Confederacy or slavery in the U.S., a list he said includes the Democratic Party.

“A great portion of the history of the Democratic Party is filled with racism and hatred. Since people are demanding we rid ourselves of the entities, symbols, and reminders of the repugnant aspects of our past, then the time has come for Democrats to acknowledge their party’s loathsome and bigoted past, and consider changing their party name to something that isn’t so blatantly and offensively tied to slavery, Jim Crow, discrimination, and the Ku Klux Klan,” Gohmert said in a statement."

GOP’s Gohmert introduces resolution that would ban the Democratic Party

Rep. Louie Gohmert (R-Texas) introduced a House resolution Thursday calling on lawmakers to ban organizations or political groups that have historically supported the Confederacy or slave…

thehill.com

Once AGAIN the Confederacy had no political parties. It was not "supported" by Democrats. Fun fact: Lincoln's vice-president ....... was a Democrat. As for "ties to the Ku Klux Klan", Ed Jackson, Rice Means, George Luis Baker, Owen Brewster, D.C. Stephenson, Albert Johnston, Clarence Morley, Ben Paulen and David Duke find that faux pas hilarious.

It ain't surprising that this lunacy came from Louie Gohmert. That screwball's an embarrassment to Texas.

/——/ Yeah, right, you screwball. Southern Democrats - Wikipedia
In the 19th century, Southern Democrats were whites in the South who believed in Jacksonian democracy. In the 1850s they defended slavery in the United States, and promoted its expansion into the West against northern Free Soil opposition. The United States presidential election of 1860formalized the split in the Democratic Party and brought about the American Civil War. Stephen Douglas was the candidate for the Northern Democratic Party, and John C. Breckinridge represented the Southern Democratic Party, Abraham Lincoln, who opposed slavery was the Republican Party candidate.

**NONE** of this refutes or even addresses at all, anything I just laid out about the Confederacy not having political parties (there was no Confederacy in the 1850s), OR about the Klan.

/-----/ So you're saying the democRAT party disappeared during the Civil War and reemerged after the war ended?

Wow, did something actually sink in here?

Yep, Tennessee seceded in 1861. At that point it was no longer part of the United States. During the short term of the CSA, that country had no political parties. It was readmitted to this country in 1866. The Klan however was founded in `1865 --- outside the United States and outside of its political parties.

You don't have political parties in a place where you don't have political OFFICES. That's one reason I can challenge these yahoos to find any political party affiliation for the Klan founders I keep listing in detail. They can't. It doesn't exist.

/----/ The slave owners were democRATs before, during, and after the CW. Deal with it.

NOBODY was a slave owner after the CW. Linear time, deal with that. There's number one.

Inasmuch as the only slave owners DURING the CW who had a political party were in the North where their state's abolishment had not come into full effect, they could have had any party (fun fact: the last POTUS to have been a slaveowner was Ulysses Grant). That's number two.

At *NO* time before during or after the CW, OR before we were a country, was it necessary to affiliate with any political party at all. It simply isn't part of slaveowning and never has been. That's number two and a half.

And for the over three hundred years that there was slavery on this continent before there was a Democratic Party, by definition ZERO of those slaveowneers were "Democrats" --- again, simple case of that entity not existing. That's number three. And I believe we've covered Before, During and After. But perhaps there's another demention in Flooby Dust Land where we haven't touched.

Prove ANY of that wrong.

/----/ And then there is this tidbit they never taught you in school:
Brazil lured Confederate slave owners after the Civil War. Slavery was still legal there, and it was in wider swing than it ever had been in the US. About five million slaves had been sent across the Atlantic to Brazil—more than 10 times the number that had been sent to the US.

This too is not news. Brazil was the last place in the Americas to finally outlaw slavery, in 1888. Took them even longer than this country. Dafuck is your point here?

I'm afraid I know a bit about Brasil, almost certainly more than you do, because Brasil didn't "lure" slaveowners --- what would be the point in that? They CHOSE to go there. Here you find yourself in a hole and not only keep digging but dig a whole new hole.

 

[Mac1958]

Yeah, this will convince minorities to change their minds about Trumpsters.

Mac1958.... circa 2020, all he knows

View attachment 366727

Hey, tell me:

What is the ultimate goal here? What are they trying to accomplish?

What minds will be changed, and why? What is the point of this exercise?

To watch progressive morons, like you, go batshit crazy.

It's the best entertainment out there right now.

That's what I've figured.

Nothing constructive, just standard Trumpian playground stuff.

I appreciate your candor.

Pot, meet kettle. You're just too stupid to figure it out.

All you have is "orange man bad" ruling your tiny little brain.

Like I said before, you're a parrot. Nothing more.

You completely miss the fact, something I point out regularly, that my concern is with Trumpism, not Trump. A cultural, sociological, anthropological concern.

But that's okay, you're extra super smart 'n stuff. You just must have missed the memo.

 

[Mac1958]

Yeah, this will convince minorities to change their minds about Trumpsters.

Mac1958.... circa 2020, all he knows

View attachment 366727

Hey, tell me:

What is the ultimate goal here? What are they trying to accomplish?

What minds will be changed, and why? What is the point of this exercise?

The point is simple... Expose democrats for what they are and what they have been... If were canceling everything attached to racism in america then they need to go to...

And you think minorities will see this and vote for Trump?

Why vote for creepy Joe. Black people should not let their kids around him.

Because (a) many people agree with him on more on the issues, and (b) Trumpism is ugly.

Easiest question I'll get all day.

What issue's? Defunding law enforcement so criminals and anarchist can run roughshod over our cities? Raising taxes? Releasing child molesters because of fake COVID scare? Making our military weaker? Letting Iran go back to building a nuclear warhead? Kissing China's ass so we can lose more American job's? Giving reparations to people who don't deserve it? Sucking Obama's dick every chance he gets? You mean people agree with Biden on these issue's?

Yes, all those "issue's" (sic) that you like to distort for some unknown reason.

 

[2aguy]

That's right, folks.

Any political party that was associated with slavery should be dismantled tomorrow.


"Rep. Louie Gohmert (R-Texas) introduced a House resolution Thursday calling on lawmakers to ban organizations or political groups that have historically supported the Confederacy or slavery in the U.S., a list he said includes the Democratic Party.

“A great portion of the history of the Democratic Party is filled with racism and hatred. Since people are demanding we rid ourselves of the entities, symbols, and reminders of the repugnant aspects of our past, then the time has come for Democrats to acknowledge their party’s loathsome and bigoted past, and consider changing their party name to something that isn’t so blatantly and offensively tied to slavery, Jim Crow, discrimination, and the Ku Klux Klan,” Gohmert said in a statement."

GOP’s Gohmert introduces resolution that would ban the Democratic Party

Rep. Louie Gohmert (R-Texas) introduced a House resolution Thursday calling on lawmakers to ban organizations or political groups that have historically supported the Confederacy or slave…

thehill.com

Once AGAIN the Confederacy had no political parties. It was not "supported" by Democrats. Fun fact: Lincoln's vice-president ....... was a Democrat. As for "ties to the Ku Klux Klan", Ed Jackson, Rice Means, George Luis Baker, Owen Brewster, D.C. Stephenson, Albert Johnston, Clarence Morley, Ben Paulen and David Duke find that faux pas hilarious.

It ain't surprising that this lunacy came from Louie Gohmert. That screwball's an embarrassment to Texas.

/——/ Yeah, right, you screwball. Southern Democrats - Wikipedia
In the 19th century, Southern Democrats were whites in the South who believed in Jacksonian democracy. In the 1850s they defended slavery in the United States, and promoted its expansion into the West against northern Free Soil opposition. The United States presidential election of 1860formalized the split in the Democratic Party and brought about the American Civil War. Stephen Douglas was the candidate for the Northern Democratic Party, and John C. Breckinridge represented the Southern Democratic Party, Abraham Lincoln, who opposed slavery was the Republican Party candidate.

**NONE** of this refutes or even addresses at all, anything I just laid out about the Confederacy not having political parties (there was no Confederacy in the 1850s), OR about the Klan.

/-----/ So you're saying the democRAT party disappeared during the Civil War and reemerged after the war ended?

Wow, did something actually sink in here?

Yep, Tennessee seceded in 1861. At that point it was no longer part of the United States. During the short term of the CSA, that country had no political parties. It was readmitted to this country in 1866. The Klan however was founded in `1865 --- outside the United States and outside of its political parties.

You don't have political parties in a place where you don't have political OFFICES. That's one reason I can challenge these yahoos to find any political party affiliation for the Klan founders I keep listing in detail. They can't. It doesn't exist.

/----/ The slave owners were democRATs before, during, and after the CW. Deal with it.

NOBODY was a slave owner after the CW. Linear time, deal with that. There's number one.

Inasmuch as the only slave owners DURING the CW who had a political party were in the North where their state's abolishment had not come into full effect, they could have had any party (fun fact: the last POTUS to have been a slaveowner was Ulysses Grant). That's number two.

At *NO* time before during or after the CW, OR before we were a country, was it necessary to affiliate with any political party at all. It simply isn't part of slaveowning and never has been. That's number two and a half.

And for the over three hundred years that there was slavery on this continent before there was a Democratic Party, by definition ZERO of those slaveowneers were "Democrats" --- again, simple case of that entity not existing. That's number three. And I believe we've covered Before, During and After. But perhaps there's another demention in Flooby Dust Land where we haven't touched.

Prove ANY of that wrong.

/----/ " NOBODY was a slave owner after the CW. Linear time, deal with that. "
I forgot I'm dealing with a public school-educated libtard moonbat and everything has to be spelled out for you. My bad.
An example: Bart Smith, was one of the slaveowners before, and during the CW. After the war, he was one of the old or former slave owners, but he would always be branded as such for the rest of his life. I can understand how you would be confused. Now a history lesson on how slavery continued after the end of the war:

10 Ways American Slavery Continued Long After The Civil War - Listverse

Slavery in America didn’t end with the Emancipation Proclamation. It lived on---even after the Civil War had ended and the 13th Amendment had been put

listverse.com

The 13th Amendment didn’t make all forms of slavery illegal. It kept one exception. Slavery, it ruled, was still permitted “as a punishment for crime.”

All the Southern states had to do was find a reason to arrest their former slaves, and they could legally throw them right back on the plantation. So, Southern politicians set up a series of laws called the “Black Codes” that let them arrest black people for almost anything.

In Mississippi, a black person could be arrested for anything from using obscene language to selling cotton after sunset. If he was as much as caught using a bad word, he could be charged, leased out as a slave laborer, and put to work in chain gangs and work camps on farms, mines, and quarries.

It happened a lot. By 1898, 73 percent of Alabama’s revenue came from leasing out convicts as slaves.[1]

Democrats are simply evil........evil to their core.....

 

[westwall]

Yeah, this will convince minorities to change their minds about Trumpsters.

Mac1958.... circa 2020, all he knows

View attachment 366727

Hey, tell me:

What is the ultimate goal here? What are they trying to accomplish?

What minds will be changed, and why? What is the point of this exercise?

To watch progressive morons, like you, go batshit crazy.

It's the best entertainment out there right now.

That's what I've figured.

Nothing constructive, just standard Trumpian playground stuff.

I appreciate your candor.

Pot, meet kettle. You're just too stupid to figure it out.

All you have is "orange man bad" ruling your tiny little brain.

Like I said before, you're a parrot. Nothing more.

You completely miss the fact, something I point out regularly, that my concern is with Trumpism, not Trump. A cultural, sociological, anthropological concern.

But that's okay, you're extra super smart 'n stuff. You just must have missed the memo.

And all you have is "orange man bad" BS. You NEVER present why "trumpism" is so evil. You merely make vague statements about how bad it is but never point to a single fact to support your idiotic claim. Trumpism merely means to me that I support Trump in his efforts to save this Republic. We have actual real evidence of how the political elite are selling this country to the chinese and pootin and so called middle of the roader you merely grunt and go "orange man bad' instead of addressing the actual, real evidence that is presented.

That makes you nothing more than a progressive parrot with no critical thinking ability of your own.

 

[Mac1958]

Yeah, this will convince minorities to change their minds about Trumpsters.

Mac1958.... circa 2020, all he knows

View attachment 366727

Hey, tell me:

What is the ultimate goal here? What are they trying to accomplish?

What minds will be changed, and why? What is the point of this exercise?

To watch progressive morons, like you, go batshit crazy.

It's the best entertainment out there right now.

That's what I've figured.

Nothing constructive, just standard Trumpian playground stuff.

I appreciate your candor.

Pot, meet kettle. You're just too stupid to figure it out.

All you have is "orange man bad" ruling your tiny little brain.

Like I said before, you're a parrot. Nothing more.

You completely miss the fact, something I point out regularly, that my concern is with Trumpism, not Trump. A cultural, sociological, anthropological concern.

But that's okay, you're extra super smart 'n stuff. You just must have missed the memo.

And all you have is "orange man bad" BS. You NEVER present why "trumpism" is so evil. You merely make vague statements about how bad it is but never point to a single fact to support your idiotic claim. Trumpism merely means to me that I support Trump in his efforts to save this Republic. We have actual real evidence of how the political elite are selling this country to the chinese and pootin and so called middle of the roader you merely grunt and go "orange man bad' instead of addressing the actual, real evidence that is presented.

That makes you nothing more than a progressive parrot with no critical thinking ability of your own.

Okay got it!

 

[Kilroy2]

Sure the repub Lincoln free the slaves, but all that did was make them 2nd class citizens subject to the whims of the majority. Saturday night hangings and white and black establishments.

Still it was Kennedy and Johnson who push the civil rights act that gave them rights to be citizens on par with other citizens. A Democrat. It was the southern democrats who are now the republican base that tried to stop the civil rights bill. Eventually they broke away from the democrats and became the republican base and brought in Texas and Florida. They have never looked back.

Its hypocritical to blame democrats when the main haters are now republicans with right wing hate groups a central core of their own base.

It is so hilarious to think that repubs are now the savior when Trump now tries to squash BLM because he can't separate the trouble makers who are both white and black from the core BLM that wants something more than to loot and destroy.

 

[Mac1958]

It is so hilarious to think that repubs are now the savior...

This stuff is all pretty transparent. These folks are well aware of the sins of the modern-day Right (many of them no doubt participate, most of them enable it), so they're working overtime to deflect. Their current favored tactic is to bring up history. Fooling absolutely no one.

So now we have both the Regressive SJW Left and the Trumpster Right spraying the term "racism" around like water in an obvious effort to avoid looking in the mirror. How similar the two ends can be in their behaviors.

No honest conversation on race will take place in this country unless and until those two groups are recognized as the problem and marginalized.

 

[22lcidw]

That's right, folks.

Any political party that was associated with slavery should be dismantled tomorrow.


"Rep. Louie Gohmert (R-Texas) introduced a House resolution Thursday calling on lawmakers to ban organizations or political groups that have historically supported the Confederacy or slavery in the U.S., a list he said includes the Democratic Party.

“A great portion of the history of the Democratic Party is filled with racism and hatred. Since people are demanding we rid ourselves of the entities, symbols, and reminders of the repugnant aspects of our past, then the time has come for Democrats to acknowledge their party’s loathsome and bigoted past, and consider changing their party name to something that isn’t so blatantly and offensively tied to slavery, Jim Crow, discrimination, and the Ku Klux Klan,” Gohmert said in a statement."

GOP’s Gohmert introduces resolution that would ban the Democratic Party

Rep. Louie Gohmert (R-Texas) introduced a House resolution Thursday calling on lawmakers to ban organizations or political groups that have historically supported the Confederacy or slave…

thehill.com

Once AGAIN the Confederacy had no political parties. It was not "supported" by Democrats. Fun fact: Lincoln's vice-president ....... was a Democrat. As for "ties to the Ku Klux Klan", Ed Jackson, Rice Means, George Luis Baker, Owen Brewster, D.C. Stephenson, Albert Johnston, Clarence Morley, Ben Paulen and David Duke find that faux pas hilarious.

It ain't surprising that this lunacy came from Louie Gohmert. That screwball's an embarrassment to Texas.

Except the entire leadership from the President of the Confederacy on down were members of the democrat party....you dumb twit. The founders of the kkk were democrats.....former Confederate officers...yes...you will say they were republicans because we don't have their voter registration cards...but they were confederate officers who fought the republicans during the war...you doofus.

The Democrat Civil war began in 1948 and ended in 1964 when the Northern Democrats allied with the Northern Republican to overcome the Southern filibuster and pass the Civil Rights act.

Personally The country sees that Trumpybear turned most all the former Republicans into Banana Republicans, I think they will soon fade from history.

Actually I make it 1936 that the intraparty civil war started. That's when FDR, at the height of his power, got the party convention presidential nominating rules changed from a two-thirds majority to a simple (50% plus one) majority, which broke the stranglehold that the Southern contingent had held, especially in 1924, the longest political convention in history with over a hundred ballots, just because it was able to hold up the process.

After 1936 the Second World War intervened but then as noted above in 1948, the first convention after that war, that Southern contingent (or a large part of it) walked out after hearing too much about "civil rights" and ran its own candidates (shades of 1860), Thurmond and Wright. Thurmond next ran for Senate and the state Democratic Party kicked him off the ballot. So the seeds for that schism had been sown for a while -- 1936 if not 1924 if not 1860.

We can say many things. FDR was a globalist. We were kept in a false Depression until the Second World War was started and we became part of it. The end result was the further reorginization of the world order into less states with more alliances. This a further push from World War 1.

 

[Kilroy2]

It is so hilarious to think that repubs are now the savior...

This stuff is all pretty transparent. These folks are well aware of the sins of the modern-day Right (many of them no doubt participate, most of them enable it), so they're working overtime to deflect. Their current favored tactic is to bring up history. Fooling absolutely no one.

So now we have both the Regressive SJW Left and the Trumpster Right spraying the term "racism" around like water in an obvious effort to avoid looking in the mirror. How similar the two ends can be in their behaviors.

No honest conversation on race will take place in this country unless and until those two groups are recognized as the problem and marginalized.

Yet race has been so convenient as a way to draw the line in the sand. As the mainstream people slowly erase that line. The fringe people are pushed back and draw their own line, where hate is how they live and the bond they share with others with similar hate. It gives them a connection and that is what they want. This connection and bonding is dangerous especially when pushed into a corner. Talk will only work if there is a connection that can be made. I do not have an answer for what that connection can be.

Its clear political parties cannot erase hate. Can religion erase hate, well history shows that it can't completely erase it. Put them in jail , yeah as a punishment but that will just make it easier for them to form a connection with others with the same hate.

well going back to your thread topic, then should white people be held accountable for racism in the past slavery and racism?

If Trump was to say I'm sorry, I am so sorry , I am so hurt by this sorrow, would that be enough?

 

[Mac1958]

It is so hilarious to think that repubs are now the savior...

This stuff is all pretty transparent. These folks are well aware of the sins of the modern-day Right (many of them no doubt participate, most of them enable it), so they're working overtime to deflect. Their current favored tactic is to bring up history. Fooling absolutely no one.

So now we have both the Regressive SJW Left and the Trumpster Right spraying the term "racism" around like water in an obvious effort to avoid looking in the mirror. How similar the two ends can be in their behaviors.

No honest conversation on race will take place in this country unless and until those two groups are recognized as the problem and marginalized.

Yet race has been so convenient as a way to draw the line in the sand. As the mainstream people slowly erase that line. The fringe people are pushed back and draw their own line, where hate is how they live and the bond they share with others with similar hate. It gives them a connection and that is what they want. This connection and bonding is dangerous especially when pushed into a corner. Talk will only work if there is a connection that can be made. I do not have an answer for what that connection can be.

Its clear political parties cannot erase hate. Can religion erase hate, well history shows that it can't completely erase it. Put them in jail , yeah as a punishment but that will just make it easier for them to form a connection with others with the same hate.

The only answer that I can see -- and believe me, I'm not holding my breath on this -- is for each end of this thing to finally start holding its own side accountable for its actions.

When we refuse to honestly push back when our "side" does or says something that is clearly counter-productive, all we're doing is enabling more of that behavior. That's just standard human nature, in us from the day we're born.

But as an indication of how far we have to go, not only are both sides refusing to do that, they're both refusing to even admit that their end is doing anything wrong that would require accountability. Pure, abject denial. This is madness.

 

[iamwhatiseem]

Yeah, this will convince minorities to change their minds about Trumpsters.

Mac1958.... circa 2020, all he knows

View attachment 366727

Hey, tell me:

What is the ultimate goal here? What are they trying to accomplish?

What minds will be changed, and why? What is the point of this exercise?

To watch progressive morons, like you, go batshit crazy.

It's the best entertainment out there right now.

That's what I've figured.

Nothing constructive, just standard Trumpian playground stuff.

I appreciate your candor.

Pot, meet kettle. You're just too stupid to figure it out.

All you have is "orange man bad" ruling your tiny little brain.

Like I said before, you're a parrot. Nothing more.

You completely miss the fact, something I point out regularly, that my concern is with Trumpism, not Trump. A cultural, sociological, anthropological concern.

But that's okay, you're extra super smart 'n stuff. You just must have missed the memo.

Hahaha.... hilarious. Your being delusional. Seriously.
Anything and everything you don't like, in your mind, is instantly "Trumpism".... you have a one track mind now. Orange man bad.
Believe it or not, bad shit was around before Trump. And bad shit will be around after Trump.
Trump is a mere tiny blip on the screen of America.... except to those who have TDS. They see him as an all-encompassing super being devouring all that is known.

You should seek help to get rid of this delusion that Trump is anything more than an oddity that won the election because the Democrats put up a she-demon as a candidate because they wanted a woman so bad.

 

[Mac1958]

Yeah, this will convince minorities to change their minds about Trumpsters.

Mac1958.... circa 2020, all he knows

View attachment 366727

Hey, tell me:

What is the ultimate goal here? What are they trying to accomplish?

What minds will be changed, and why? What is the point of this exercise?

To watch progressive morons, like you, go batshit crazy.

It's the best entertainment out there right now.

That's what I've figured.

Nothing constructive, just standard Trumpian playground stuff.

I appreciate your candor.

Pot, meet kettle. You're just too stupid to figure it out.

All you have is "orange man bad" ruling your tiny little brain.

Like I said before, you're a parrot. Nothing more.

You completely miss the fact, something I point out regularly, that my concern is with Trumpism, not Trump. A cultural, sociological, anthropological concern.

But that's okay, you're extra super smart 'n stuff. You just must have missed the memo.

Hahaha.... hilarious. Your being delusional. Seriously.
Anything and everything you don't like, in your mind, is instantly "Trumpism".... you have a one track mind now. Orange man bad.
You used to be a pretty decent poster. Now, it is all just Trump! Trump! Trump!
You seriously give TDS a real meaning. An illustration really.
Believe it or not, bad shit was around before Trump. And bad shit will be around after Trump.
Trump is a mere tiny blip on the screen of America.... except to those who have TDS. They see him as an all-encompassing super being devouring all that is known.

You should seek help to get rid of this delusion that Trump is anything more than an oddity that won the election because the Democrats put up a she-demon as a candidate because they wanted a woman so bad.

Okay, I sure will.

 

[Kilroy2]

It is so hilarious to think that repubs are now the savior...

This stuff is all pretty transparent. These folks are well aware of the sins of the modern-day Right (many of them no doubt participate, most of them enable it), so they're working overtime to deflect. Their current favored tactic is to bring up history. Fooling absolutely no one.

So now we have both the Regressive SJW Left and the Trumpster Right spraying the term "racism" around like water in an obvious effort to avoid looking in the mirror. How similar the two ends can be in their behaviors.

No honest conversation on race will take place in this country unless and until those two groups are recognized as the problem and marginalized.

Yet race has been so convenient as a way to draw the line in the sand. As the mainstream people slowly erase that line. The fringe people are pushed back and draw their own line, where hate is how they live and the bond they share with others with similar hate. It gives them a connection and that is what they want. This connection and bonding is dangerous especially when pushed into a corner. Talk will only work if there is a connection that can be made. I do not have an answer for what that connection can be.

Its clear political parties cannot erase hate. Can religion erase hate, well history shows that it can't completely erase it. Put them in jail , yeah as a punishment but that will just make it easier for them to form a connection with others with the same hate.

The only answer that I can see -- and believe me, I'm not holding my breath on this -- is for each end of this thing to finally start holding its own side accountable for its actions.

When we refuse to honestly push back when our "side" does or says something that is clearly counter-productive, all we're doing is enabling more of that behavior. That's just standard human nature, in us from the day we're born.

But as an indication of how far we have to go, not only are both sides refusing to do that, they're both refusing to even admit that their end is doing anything wrong that would require accountability. Pure, abject denial. This is madness.

Indicating that it would take one side to take that initiative and the other side to accept that initiative.

Still it would have to be universal and not just a few. Can all humans reach a total consensus or do they have the capacity to reach such a consensus?

It will require some type of motivation. There really would have to be a grave threat to their existence or another few centuries of this and just get tired of it. Find something else to hate.

 

[Mac1958]

It is so hilarious to think that repubs are now the savior...

This stuff is all pretty transparent. These folks are well aware of the sins of the modern-day Right (many of them no doubt participate, most of them enable it), so they're working overtime to deflect. Their current favored tactic is to bring up history. Fooling absolutely no one.

So now we have both the Regressive SJW Left and the Trumpster Right spraying the term "racism" around like water in an obvious effort to avoid looking in the mirror. How similar the two ends can be in their behaviors.

No honest conversation on race will take place in this country unless and until those two groups are recognized as the problem and marginalized.

Yet race has been so convenient as a way to draw the line in the sand. As the mainstream people slowly erase that line. The fringe people are pushed back and draw their own line, where hate is how they live and the bond they share with others with similar hate. It gives them a connection and that is what they want. This connection and bonding is dangerous especially when pushed into a corner. Talk will only work if there is a connection that can be made. I do not have an answer for what that connection can be.

Its clear political parties cannot erase hate. Can religion erase hate, well history shows that it can't completely erase it. Put them in jail , yeah as a punishment but that will just make it easier for them to form a connection with others with the same hate.

The only answer that I can see -- and believe me, I'm not holding my breath on this -- is for each end of this thing to finally start holding its own side accountable for its actions.

When we refuse to honestly push back when our "side" does or says something that is clearly counter-productive, all we're doing is enabling more of that behavior. That's just standard human nature, in us from the day we're born.

But as an indication of how far we have to go, not only are both sides refusing to do that, they're both refusing to even admit that their end is doing anything wrong that would require accountability. Pure, abject denial. This is madness.

Indicating that it would take one side to take that initiative and the other side to accept that initiative.

Still it would have to be universal and not just a few. Can all humans reach a total consensus or do they have the capacity to reach such a consensus?

It will require some type of motivation. There really would have to be a grave threat to their existence or another few centuries of this and just get tired of it. Find something else to hate.

Yes, absolutely. Obviously one end of this would have to choose to be the adult and be the first.

Secondly, I imagine it would require some kind of signature event or crisis. Then it would require one well-known voice, then two, and then a momentum is created. Perhaps from a top politician, a business leader, or, given that we're such a celebrity-driven culture (sadly), it could come from sports or popular culture. A sustainable momentum has to be created.

I don't know how this happens otherwise. If ever.

 

[Canon Shooter]

Yeah, this will convince minorities to change their minds about Trumpsters.

Mac1958.... circa 2020, all he knows

View attachment 366727

Hey, tell me:

What is the ultimate goal here? What are they trying to accomplish?

What minds will be changed, and why? What is the point of this exercise?

It is brilliant. I love it.
In Chicago, in the middle of the night while no one was looking - city workers removed a statue of Columbus.
If the Democrats are going to insist on removing all traces of America's darker past, then they should look in the mirror and remove an organization with THE most racist past in U.S. history: The Democratic Party

You didn't answer my questions.

What do you think this will accomplish?

Well, if the left wants us to remove anything and everything which can be shown to have even a remote connection to slavery, and insists on removing statues of people who owned slaves from the public square, shouldn't we also target the very party which is so richly tied to racism?