So much for Republicans being at the forefront of civil rights in the 60

[Pogo]

Both Parties have histories of racism. But the Republican Party was doing Civil Rights when Democrats were still lynching African Americans. So one could legitimately claim that the Democratic Party is a 'Johnny-Come-Lately' on Civil Rights, when compared to the Republican Party.

One could claim that, rightly or wrongly, but effective CR became law under LBJ and the Dems with good GOP help from the north and the west.

lbj voted against every single civil rights law for the first 20 years he was in office...including the anti lynching laws....he saw the light when he realized blacks were eventually going to get to vote...and that if the democrats ever wanted to have power again....they needed black votes....

Trump is a lot like LBJ. I've said that many times. Except instead of a right winger pretending to be a left winger, Trump is a left winger pretending to be a right winger.

Trump spent his life as a far left liberal. He was a Democrat during the entire Bush Administration. He was "very pro-choice". He wanted Bush impeached. He wanted us to cut and run from Iraq. He thought Bill Clinton was a great President, and that Hillary would make a great President. He was in favor of an assault weapons ban.

He was a textbook New York limousine liberal, and a world class huckster.

Then Trump, who has always wanted to be President (he was the Reform Party candidate in 2000), saw the political handwriting on the wall. And, as a world class huckster, he knew it would be easy to con the pseudocon rubes who digest manufactured bullshit as part of their daily diet.

Hey, where do I register as a Republican?

True enough but I can't see Rump as a political person. And in the realm of political instincts he and LBJ are worlds apart. I see Rump much more simply as a Narcissist who's out for his own jollies and has no principles and is willing to say or do anything, even if it directly contradicts what he did or said yesterday, as long as it serves him personally in the moment. Johnson IOW saw the big picture, while Rump never does.

Most analysts I read are using Andrew Jackson for the closest comparator. Brash, uncouth and egocentric. Not sure how close that comparison is but so they say. I think Jackson actually had policies though. I don't see Rump having any policies per se. He's just a crapshooot. The inevitable effect of being a consummate con artist who will say or do whatever works in the moment.

 

[2aguy]

You must be one of those idiots that thinks all Democrats are liberals.

So you admit that the Southern Democrats were CONSERVATIVES for all those years they were slavers, and then KKK'ers and segregationists.

Excellent. Now get your RW numnut pals around here to admit the same thing.

Umm no Democrats have always been a group that took a liberal view towards the Constitution and freedoms of US citizens. That's how you idiots have been able to enslave people then and now.

A truly Liberal view would not have permitted slavery to exist. But it was already here -- slavery, and specifically African transatlantic slavery, was here for three hundred years before there was such a thing as "Democrats".

But the political party that kept slavery...that fought to restart the slave trade with Africa, that fought to have slavery in new states, that seceeded from the union because a Republican President, the party that opposed slavery, won the election...was the democrat party...who after losing the war and having their slaves freed, the democrat party enacted jim crow laws, and and fought to keep blacks from becoming full citizens......including supporting the attacks of the kkk....

Didn't I just school you on Martin van Buren? Or was that somebody else? Y'all ignorami all look alike to me.

No political party "supported slavery" as a whole. The Republican Party was founded specifically and primarily to end it, but that doesn't mean its alternative in the Duopoly of 2016 therefore must have been on the other side 150-200 years ago. Some Democrats supported it, some (as van Buren above) didn't. Just as some Whigs supported slavery, some didn't Here's the difference --- when the RP rose up to champion the cause of Abolition they had a principle to stand behind, and stood behind it. Democrats were doing what they always do, being wishy-washy, trying to be all things to all interest groups in a quest to amass power, which is after all what any political party's purpose is. With an 1860 Republican you knew where he stood; with an 1860 Democrat he'd tell you whatever you wanted to hear.

But wishy-washy has a cost, that being you get to a point where neither the wishy nor the washy gets what they want. So when the DP tried to placate the South, sometimes it worked as an uneasy truce between liberals and conservatives, while other times it didn't, and the South picked up and walked out. They did that in 1948 and they did it in 1860. When the South didn't hear what they wanted to hear from the DP in 1860 they disrupted the convention and forced it to be shut down; the whole affair had to be moved out of the South altogether. They then proceeded to run their own candidate, as they would again in 1948. But by '48 they had lost their veto power in the convention and were off their home turf.

You binary-bots who think the entire world is made up of only "Democrat" and "Republican" atoms and always has been, need to pick up what we call a 'history book' at some point. The first century of this country saw many political parties, major ones that held high offices. Most of them took no particular position on Slavery pro or con.

As for van Buren, who's credited with organizing the Jackson faction into the modern Democratic Party, he personally thought slavery was immoral but also saw it as protected by the Constitution (i.e. the same argument attributed to Barry Goldwater's vote against the 1964 CRA). He, like other POTUSes of the entire first half of the 19th century, tried to strike a balance between the head-butting tensions of Slave vs Free economies. That approach, it's easy to see from our latter-day perspective, was destined to fail. Arguably the Founders themselves erred in setting up those opposing dynamics and empowering the Slave faction in the first place, presumably expecting the situation would just "fix itself". It would not.

And btw another one of those political parties founded specifically to oppose Slavery was the Free Soil Party. Van Buren was its Presidential candidate in 1848.

Slavery had to go. It was already going in Europe and Latin America. It was just a matter of time before the hyperconservative South either saw the writing on the wall, or was forced to acknowledge it. Well, between those two options, I'm not sure if you can fully grok how challenging it is to get a hyperconservative to consider the fact that maybe where he's standing might be the wrong place.

So no, the "Democrat Party" (which does not actually exist) didn't secede --- the South had already seceded FROM the DemocratIC Party. Really the first stroke of that secession wasn't South Carolina declaring itself seceded, but rather the various Southern States running John Breckinridge for President against Lincoln, Bell and Douglas, in effect declaring itself independent from both the Democratic and Republican Parties.

Political parties don't go to war. Democrats already existed in the North as well as South, and many supported Lincoln and/or the Union staying together. Douglas was one of them and he was the Party's nominee.

Wrong.....the democrats in the south owned the slaves...no matter what the democrats in the north did......

 

[2aguy]

I am glad that 2aguy realizes that LBJ saw the light in doing the right thing, getting blacks the votes, just as did the liberal GOP after the Civil War because the GOP needed black votes. The difference is that the Dems have kept the black votes.

He didn't do the right thing.....the 1964 civil rights act gave the federal government enormous power over the individual...exactly what johnson wanted and it helped them get the black vote..which they have exploited to the detriment of blacks ever since....

The GOP wasn't racist. The GOP freed the slaves, fought for all of the civil rights acts including the anti lynching laws and protected the freed blacks from the democrats...

 

[JakeStarkey]

Of course LBJ did the right thing. Otherwise local elites would continue to persecute and steal from the locals, particularly the poor, based on race and origin, etc. The blacks as a whole are far better off than 50 years or more ago. Your binary falsehoods, considering most know the truth, are laughable.

 

[2aguy]

]Of course LBJ did the right thing. Otherwise local elites would continue to persecute and steal from the locals, particularly the poor, based on race and origin, etc. The blacks as a whole are far better off than 50 years or more ago. Your falsehoods, considering most know the truth, are laughable.

Yes...they just have to vote every two years for democrats...who ignore them now, instead of beating and lynching them....

 

[Pogo]

So you admit that the Southern Democrats were CONSERVATIVES for all those years they were slavers, and then KKK'ers and segregationists.

Excellent. Now get your RW numnut pals around here to admit the same thing.

Umm no Democrats have always been a group that took a liberal view towards the Constitution and freedoms of US citizens. That's how you idiots have been able to enslave people then and now.

A truly Liberal view would not have permitted slavery to exist. But it was already here -- slavery, and specifically African transatlantic slavery, was here for three hundred years before there was such a thing as "Democrats".

But the political party that kept slavery...that fought to restart the slave trade with Africa, that fought to have slavery in new states, that seceeded from the union because a Republican President, the party that opposed slavery, won the election...was the democrat party...who after losing the war and having their slaves freed, the democrat party enacted jim crow laws, and and fought to keep blacks from becoming full citizens......including supporting the attacks of the kkk....

Didn't I just school you on Martin van Buren? Or was that somebody else? Y'all ignorami all look alike to me.

No political party "supported slavery" as a whole. The Republican Party was founded specifically and primarily to end it, but that doesn't mean its alternative in the Duopoly of 2016 therefore must have been on the other side 150-200 years ago. Some Democrats supported it, some (as van Buren above) didn't. Just as some Whigs supported slavery, some didn't Here's the difference --- when the RP rose up to champion the cause of Abolition they had a principle to stand behind, and stood behind it. Democrats were doing what they always do, being wishy-washy, trying to be all things to all interest groups in a quest to amass power, which is after all what any political party's purpose is. With an 1860 Republican you knew where he stood; with an 1860 Democrat he'd tell you whatever you wanted to hear.

But wishy-washy has a cost, that being you get to a point where neither the wishy nor the washy gets what they want. So when the DP tried to placate the South, sometimes it worked as an uneasy truce between liberals and conservatives, while other times it didn't, and the South picked up and walked out. They did that in 1948 and they did it in 1860. When the South didn't hear what they wanted to hear from the DP in 1860 they disrupted the convention and forced it to be shut down; the whole affair had to be moved out of the South altogether. They then proceeded to run their own candidate, as they would again in 1948. But by '48 they had lost their veto power in the convention and were off their home turf.

You binary-bots who think the entire world is made up of only "Democrat" and "Republican" atoms and always has been, need to pick up what we call a 'history book' at some point. The first century of this country saw many political parties, major ones that held high offices. Most of them took no particular position on Slavery pro or con.

As for van Buren, who's credited with organizing the Jackson faction into the modern Democratic Party, he personally thought slavery was immoral but also saw it as protected by the Constitution (i.e. the same argument attributed to Barry Goldwater's vote against the 1964 CRA). He, like other POTUSes of the entire first half of the 19th century, tried to strike a balance between the head-butting tensions of Slave vs Free economies. That approach, it's easy to see from our latter-day perspective, was destined to fail. Arguably the Founders themselves erred in setting up those opposing dynamics and empowering the Slave faction in the first place, presumably expecting the situation would just "fix itself". It would not.

And btw another one of those political parties founded specifically to oppose Slavery was the Free Soil Party. Van Buren was its Presidential candidate in 1848.

Slavery had to go. It was already going in Europe and Latin America. It was just a matter of time before the hyperconservative South either saw the writing on the wall, or was forced to acknowledge it. Well, between those two options, I'm not sure if you can fully grok how challenging it is to get a hyperconservative to consider the fact that maybe where he's standing might be the wrong place.

So no, the "Democrat Party" (which does not actually exist) didn't secede --- the South had already seceded FROM the DemocratIC Party. Really the first stroke of that secession wasn't South Carolina declaring itself seceded, but rather the various Southern States running John Breckinridge for President against Lincoln, Bell and Douglas, in effect declaring itself independent from both the Democratic and Republican Parties.

Political parties don't go to war. Democrats already existed in the North as well as South, and many supported Lincoln and/or the Union staying together. Douglas was one of them and he was the Party's nominee.

Wrong.....the democrats in the south owned the slaves...no matter what the democrats in the north did......

Aaaaaand straight back to Binary-Bot mode.

Some Democrats in the South owned slaves. Some Federalists in the South owned slaves. Some Democratic-Republicans in the South owned slaves (three of them were elected President). Some Whigs in the South owned slaves (two of them were elected President and a third succeeded to the office). Some Know Nothings in the South owned slaves. Some Constitutional Unionists in the South owned slaves. And a whole slew of people with no political party owned slaves. Some of the same in the North owned slaves too, although it was abolished in the North before it was in the South.

John Bell, who won the 1860 electoral vote of Tennessee, Virginia and Kentucky, owned slaves and was simultaneously opposed to its expansion.

Sooner or later it's got to occur to even your tiny mind that Binary doesn't work.

 

[2aguy]

Umm no Democrats have always been a group that took a liberal view towards the Constitution and freedoms of US citizens. That's how you idiots have been able to enslave people then and now.

A truly Liberal view would not have permitted slavery to exist. But it was already here -- slavery, and specifically African transatlantic slavery, was here for three hundred years before there was such a thing as "Democrats".

But the political party that kept slavery...that fought to restart the slave trade with Africa, that fought to have slavery in new states, that seceeded from the union because a Republican President, the party that opposed slavery, won the election...was the democrat party...who after losing the war and having their slaves freed, the democrat party enacted jim crow laws, and and fought to keep blacks from becoming full citizens......including supporting the attacks of the kkk....

Didn't I just school you on Martin van Buren? Or was that somebody else? Y'all ignorami all look alike to me.

No political party "supported slavery" as a whole. The Republican Party was founded specifically and primarily to end it, but that doesn't mean its alternative in the Duopoly of 2016 therefore must have been on the other side 150-200 years ago. Some Democrats supported it, some (as van Buren above) didn't. Just as some Whigs supported slavery, some didn't Here's the difference --- when the RP rose up to champion the cause of Abolition they had a principle to stand behind, and stood behind it. Democrats were doing what they always do, being wishy-washy, trying to be all things to all interest groups in a quest to amass power, which is after all what any political party's purpose is. With an 1860 Republican you knew where he stood; with an 1860 Democrat he'd tell you whatever you wanted to hear.

But wishy-washy has a cost, that being you get to a point where neither the wishy nor the washy gets what they want. So when the DP tried to placate the South, sometimes it worked as an uneasy truce between liberals and conservatives, while other times it didn't, and the South picked up and walked out. They did that in 1948 and they did it in 1860. When the South didn't hear what they wanted to hear from the DP in 1860 they disrupted the convention and forced it to be shut down; the whole affair had to be moved out of the South altogether. They then proceeded to run their own candidate, as they would again in 1948. But by '48 they had lost their veto power in the convention and were off their home turf.

You binary-bots who think the entire world is made up of only "Democrat" and "Republican" atoms and always has been, need to pick up what we call a 'history book' at some point. The first century of this country saw many political parties, major ones that held high offices. Most of them took no particular position on Slavery pro or con.

As for van Buren, who's credited with organizing the Jackson faction into the modern Democratic Party, he personally thought slavery was immoral but also saw it as protected by the Constitution (i.e. the same argument attributed to Barry Goldwater's vote against the 1964 CRA). He, like other POTUSes of the entire first half of the 19th century, tried to strike a balance between the head-butting tensions of Slave vs Free economies. That approach, it's easy to see from our latter-day perspective, was destined to fail. Arguably the Founders themselves erred in setting up those opposing dynamics and empowering the Slave faction in the first place, presumably expecting the situation would just "fix itself". It would not.

And btw another one of those political parties founded specifically to oppose Slavery was the Free Soil Party. Van Buren was its Presidential candidate in 1848.

Slavery had to go. It was already going in Europe and Latin America. It was just a matter of time before the hyperconservative South either saw the writing on the wall, or was forced to acknowledge it. Well, between those two options, I'm not sure if you can fully grok how challenging it is to get a hyperconservative to consider the fact that maybe where he's standing might be the wrong place.

So no, the "Democrat Party" (which does not actually exist) didn't secede --- the South had already seceded FROM the DemocratIC Party. Really the first stroke of that secession wasn't South Carolina declaring itself seceded, but rather the various Southern States running John Breckinridge for President against Lincoln, Bell and Douglas, in effect declaring itself independent from both the Democratic and Republican Parties.

Political parties don't go to war. Democrats already existed in the North as well as South, and many supported Lincoln and/or the Union staying together. Douglas was one of them and he was the Party's nominee.

Wrong.....the democrats in the south owned the slaves...no matter what the democrats in the north did......

Aaaaaand straight back to Binary-Bot mode.

Some Democrats in the South owned slaves. Some Federalists in the South owned slaves. Some Democratic-Republicans in the South owned slaves. Some Know Nothings in the South owned slaves. Some Constitutional Unionists in the South owned slaves. And a whole slew of people with no political party owned slaves. Some of the same in the North owned slaves too, although it was abolished in the North before it was in the South.

John Bell, who won the 1860 electoral vote of Tennessee, Virginia and Kentucky, owned slaves and was simultaneously opposed to its expansion.

Sooner or later it's got to occur to even your tiny mind that Binary doesn't work.

And some nazis did not support the death camps......but no Jewish person today would ever become a member of the nazi party......democrats are the ones who owned the slaves and enacted jim crow......the party should be ended, and their resources spent to pay reparations...

 

[2aguy]

Umm no Democrats have always been a group that took a liberal view towards the Constitution and freedoms of US citizens. That's how you idiots have been able to enslave people then and now.

A truly Liberal view would not have permitted slavery to exist. But it was already here -- slavery, and specifically African transatlantic slavery, was here for three hundred years before there was such a thing as "Democrats".

But the political party that kept slavery...that fought to restart the slave trade with Africa, that fought to have slavery in new states, that seceeded from the union because a Republican President, the party that opposed slavery, won the election...was the democrat party...who after losing the war and having their slaves freed, the democrat party enacted jim crow laws, and and fought to keep blacks from becoming full citizens......including supporting the attacks of the kkk....

Didn't I just school you on Martin van Buren? Or was that somebody else? Y'all ignorami all look alike to me.

No political party "supported slavery" as a whole. The Republican Party was founded specifically and primarily to end it, but that doesn't mean its alternative in the Duopoly of 2016 therefore must have been on the other side 150-200 years ago. Some Democrats supported it, some (as van Buren above) didn't. Just as some Whigs supported slavery, some didn't Here's the difference --- when the RP rose up to champion the cause of Abolition they had a principle to stand behind, and stood behind it. Democrats were doing what they always do, being wishy-washy, trying to be all things to all interest groups in a quest to amass power, which is after all what any political party's purpose is. With an 1860 Republican you knew where he stood; with an 1860 Democrat he'd tell you whatever you wanted to hear.

But wishy-washy has a cost, that being you get to a point where neither the wishy nor the washy gets what they want. So when the DP tried to placate the South, sometimes it worked as an uneasy truce between liberals and conservatives, while other times it didn't, and the South picked up and walked out. They did that in 1948 and they did it in 1860. When the South didn't hear what they wanted to hear from the DP in 1860 they disrupted the convention and forced it to be shut down; the whole affair had to be moved out of the South altogether. They then proceeded to run their own candidate, as they would again in 1948. But by '48 they had lost their veto power in the convention and were off their home turf.

You binary-bots who think the entire world is made up of only "Democrat" and "Republican" atoms and always has been, need to pick up what we call a 'history book' at some point. The first century of this country saw many political parties, major ones that held high offices. Most of them took no particular position on Slavery pro or con.

As for van Buren, who's credited with organizing the Jackson faction into the modern Democratic Party, he personally thought slavery was immoral but also saw it as protected by the Constitution (i.e. the same argument attributed to Barry Goldwater's vote against the 1964 CRA). He, like other POTUSes of the entire first half of the 19th century, tried to strike a balance between the head-butting tensions of Slave vs Free economies. That approach, it's easy to see from our latter-day perspective, was destined to fail. Arguably the Founders themselves erred in setting up those opposing dynamics and empowering the Slave faction in the first place, presumably expecting the situation would just "fix itself". It would not.

And btw another one of those political parties founded specifically to oppose Slavery was the Free Soil Party. Van Buren was its Presidential candidate in 1848.

Slavery had to go. It was already going in Europe and Latin America. It was just a matter of time before the hyperconservative South either saw the writing on the wall, or was forced to acknowledge it. Well, between those two options, I'm not sure if you can fully grok how challenging it is to get a hyperconservative to consider the fact that maybe where he's standing might be the wrong place.

So no, the "Democrat Party" (which does not actually exist) didn't secede --- the South had already seceded FROM the DemocratIC Party. Really the first stroke of that secession wasn't South Carolina declaring itself seceded, but rather the various Southern States running John Breckinridge for President against Lincoln, Bell and Douglas, in effect declaring itself independent from both the Democratic and Republican Parties.

Political parties don't go to war. Democrats already existed in the North as well as South, and many supported Lincoln and/or the Union staying together. Douglas was one of them and he was the Party's nominee.

Wrong.....the democrats in the south owned the slaves...no matter what the democrats in the north did......

Aaaaaand straight back to Binary-Bot mode.

Some Democrats in the South owned slaves. Some Whigs in the South owned slaves. Some Federalists in the South owned slaves. Some Democratic-Republicans in the South owned slaves (three of them were elected President). Some Know Nothings in the South owned slaves. Some Constitutional Unionists in the South owned slaves. And a whole slew of people with no political party owned slaves. Some of the same in the North owned slaves too, although it was abolished in the North before it was in the South.

John Bell, who won the 1860 electoral vote of Tennessee, Virginia and Kentucky, owned slaves and was simultaneously opposed to its expansion.

Sooner or later it's got to occur to even your tiny mind that Binary doesn't work.

This member of the nazi party tried to stop the atrocities in Nanking, China...he even spoke out about the atrocities to nazi party officials........so you can prattle on about not all democrats owning slaves....but all of the slave owners were democrats...who then went on to enact jim crow laws, found the klan and oppress the blacks who the Republican party freed at the end of the war....


Do you think any Jewish people would ever belong to the nazi party?

John Rabe - Wikipedia

John Heinrich Detlev Rabe (November 23, 1882 – January 5, 1950) was a German businessman and Nazi Party member who is best known for his efforts to stop the atrocities of the Japanese army during the Nanking Occupation and his work to protect and help the Chinese civilians during the event. The Nanking Safety Zone, which he helped to establish, sheltered approximately 200,000 Chinese people from slaughter during the massacre. He officially represented Germany and acted as senior chief of the European–American establishment that remained in Nanjing, the Chinese capital at the time, when the city fell to the Japanese troops.

 

[Dragonlady]

John Lewis and the passive aggressive tactics of the Democrats.

"Passive aggressive"?? Do you even understand the meaning of those words. There is nothing passive about the resistance at all. It's going to be in your face, for however long TrumpleThinSkin stays in office.

 

[Dragonlady]

A truly Liberal view would not have permitted slavery to exist. But it was already here -- slavery, and specifically African transatlantic slavery, was here for three hundred years before there was such a thing as "Democrats".

But the political party that kept slavery...that fought to restart the slave trade with Africa, that fought to have slavery in new states, that seceeded from the union because a Republican President, the party that opposed slavery, won the election...was the democrat party...who after losing the war and having their slaves freed, the democrat party enacted jim crow laws, and and fought to keep blacks from becoming full citizens......including supporting the attacks of the kkk....

Didn't I just school you on Martin van Buren? Or was that somebody else? Y'all ignorami all look alike to me.

No political party "supported slavery" as a whole. The Republican Party was founded specifically and primarily to end it, but that doesn't mean its alternative in the Duopoly of 2016 therefore must have been on the other side 150-200 years ago. Some Democrats supported it, some (as van Buren above) didn't. Just as some Whigs supported slavery, some didn't Here's the difference --- when the RP rose up to champion the cause of Abolition they had a principle to stand behind, and stood behind it. Democrats were doing what they always do, being wishy-washy, trying to be all things to all interest groups in a quest to amass power, which is after all what any political party's purpose is. With an 1860 Republican you knew where he stood; with an 1860 Democrat he'd tell you whatever you wanted to hear.

But wishy-washy has a cost, that being you get to a point where neither the wishy nor the washy gets what they want. So when the DP tried to placate the South, sometimes it worked as an uneasy truce between liberals and conservatives, while other times it didn't, and the South picked up and walked out. They did that in 1948 and they did it in 1860. When the South didn't hear what they wanted to hear from the DP in 1860 they disrupted the convention and forced it to be shut down; the whole affair had to be moved out of the South altogether. They then proceeded to run their own candidate, as they would again in 1948. But by '48 they had lost their veto power in the convention and were off their home turf.

You binary-bots who think the entire world is made up of only "Democrat" and "Republican" atoms and always has been, need to pick up what we call a 'history book' at some point. The first century of this country saw many political parties, major ones that held high offices. Most of them took no particular position on Slavery pro or con.

As for van Buren, who's credited with organizing the Jackson faction into the modern Democratic Party, he personally thought slavery was immoral but also saw it as protected by the Constitution (i.e. the same argument attributed to Barry Goldwater's vote against the 1964 CRA). He, like other POTUSes of the entire first half of the 19th century, tried to strike a balance between the head-butting tensions of Slave vs Free economies. That approach, it's easy to see from our latter-day perspective, was destined to fail. Arguably the Founders themselves erred in setting up those opposing dynamics and empowering the Slave faction in the first place, presumably expecting the situation would just "fix itself". It would not.

And btw another one of those political parties founded specifically to oppose Slavery was the Free Soil Party. Van Buren was its Presidential candidate in 1848.

Slavery had to go. It was already going in Europe and Latin America. It was just a matter of time before the hyperconservative South either saw the writing on the wall, or was forced to acknowledge it. Well, between those two options, I'm not sure if you can fully grok how challenging it is to get a hyperconservative to consider the fact that maybe where he's standing might be the wrong place.

So no, the "Democrat Party" (which does not actually exist) didn't secede --- the South had already seceded FROM the DemocratIC Party. Really the first stroke of that secession wasn't South Carolina declaring itself seceded, but rather the various Southern States running John Breckinridge for President against Lincoln, Bell and Douglas, in effect declaring itself independent from both the Democratic and Republican Parties.

Political parties don't go to war. Democrats already existed in the North as well as South, and many supported Lincoln and/or the Union staying together. Douglas was one of them and he was the Party's nominee.

Wrong.....the democrats in the south owned the slaves...no matter what the democrats in the north did......

Aaaaaand straight back to Binary-Bot mode.

Some Democrats in the South owned slaves. Some Whigs in the South owned slaves. Some Federalists in the South owned slaves. Some Democratic-Republicans in the South owned slaves (three of them were elected President). Some Know Nothings in the South owned slaves. Some Constitutional Unionists in the South owned slaves. And a whole slew of people with no political party owned slaves. Some of the same in the North owned slaves too, although it was abolished in the North before it was in the South.

John Bell, who won the 1860 electoral vote of Tennessee, Virginia and Kentucky, owned slaves and was simultaneously opposed to its expansion.

Sooner or later it's got to occur to even your tiny mind that Binary doesn't work.

This member of the nazi party tried to stop the atrocities in Nanking, China...he even spoke out about the atrocities to nazi party officials...who then murdered him......so you can prattle on about not all democrats owning slaves....but all of the slave owners were democrats...who then went on to enact jim crow laws, found the klan and oppress the blacks who the Republican party freed at the end of the war....


Do you think any Jewish people would ever belong to the nazi party?

John Rabe - Wikipedia

John Heinrich Detlev Rabe (November 23, 1882 – January 5, 1950) was a German businessman and Nazi Party member who is best known for his efforts to stop the atrocities of the Japanese army during the Nanking Occupation and his work to protect and help the Chinese civilians during the event. The Nanking Safety Zone, which he helped to establish, sheltered approximately 200,000 Chinese people from slaughter during the massacre. He officially represented Germany and acted as senior chief of the European–American establishment that remained in Nanjing, the Chinese capital at the time, when the city fell to the Japanese troops.

The only reason that Republicans weren't slave owners in the South is because the Republican Party didn't exist in the South until after the Civil War.

But don't let facts get in the way of a pointless argument.

 

[2aguy]

But the political party that kept slavery...that fought to restart the slave trade with Africa, that fought to have slavery in new states, that seceeded from the union because a Republican President, the party that opposed slavery, won the election...was the democrat party...who after losing the war and having their slaves freed, the democrat party enacted jim crow laws, and and fought to keep blacks from becoming full citizens......including supporting the attacks of the kkk....

Didn't I just school you on Martin van Buren? Or was that somebody else? Y'all ignorami all look alike to me.

No political party "supported slavery" as a whole. The Republican Party was founded specifically and primarily to end it, but that doesn't mean its alternative in the Duopoly of 2016 therefore must have been on the other side 150-200 years ago. Some Democrats supported it, some (as van Buren above) didn't. Just as some Whigs supported slavery, some didn't Here's the difference --- when the RP rose up to champion the cause of Abolition they had a principle to stand behind, and stood behind it. Democrats were doing what they always do, being wishy-washy, trying to be all things to all interest groups in a quest to amass power, which is after all what any political party's purpose is. With an 1860 Republican you knew where he stood; with an 1860 Democrat he'd tell you whatever you wanted to hear.

But wishy-washy has a cost, that being you get to a point where neither the wishy nor the washy gets what they want. So when the DP tried to placate the South, sometimes it worked as an uneasy truce between liberals and conservatives, while other times it didn't, and the South picked up and walked out. They did that in 1948 and they did it in 1860. When the South didn't hear what they wanted to hear from the DP in 1860 they disrupted the convention and forced it to be shut down; the whole affair had to be moved out of the South altogether. They then proceeded to run their own candidate, as they would again in 1948. But by '48 they had lost their veto power in the convention and were off their home turf.

You binary-bots who think the entire world is made up of only "Democrat" and "Republican" atoms and always has been, need to pick up what we call a 'history book' at some point. The first century of this country saw many political parties, major ones that held high offices. Most of them took no particular position on Slavery pro or con.

As for van Buren, who's credited with organizing the Jackson faction into the modern Democratic Party, he personally thought slavery was immoral but also saw it as protected by the Constitution (i.e. the same argument attributed to Barry Goldwater's vote against the 1964 CRA). He, like other POTUSes of the entire first half of the 19th century, tried to strike a balance between the head-butting tensions of Slave vs Free economies. That approach, it's easy to see from our latter-day perspective, was destined to fail. Arguably the Founders themselves erred in setting up those opposing dynamics and empowering the Slave faction in the first place, presumably expecting the situation would just "fix itself". It would not.

And btw another one of those political parties founded specifically to oppose Slavery was the Free Soil Party. Van Buren was its Presidential candidate in 1848.

Slavery had to go. It was already going in Europe and Latin America. It was just a matter of time before the hyperconservative South either saw the writing on the wall, or was forced to acknowledge it. Well, between those two options, I'm not sure if you can fully grok how challenging it is to get a hyperconservative to consider the fact that maybe where he's standing might be the wrong place.

So no, the "Democrat Party" (which does not actually exist) didn't secede --- the South had already seceded FROM the DemocratIC Party. Really the first stroke of that secession wasn't South Carolina declaring itself seceded, but rather the various Southern States running John Breckinridge for President against Lincoln, Bell and Douglas, in effect declaring itself independent from both the Democratic and Republican Parties.

Political parties don't go to war. Democrats already existed in the North as well as South, and many supported Lincoln and/or the Union staying together. Douglas was one of them and he was the Party's nominee.

Wrong.....the democrats in the south owned the slaves...no matter what the democrats in the north did......

Aaaaaand straight back to Binary-Bot mode.

Some Democrats in the South owned slaves. Some Whigs in the South owned slaves. Some Federalists in the South owned slaves. Some Democratic-Republicans in the South owned slaves (three of them were elected President). Some Know Nothings in the South owned slaves. Some Constitutional Unionists in the South owned slaves. And a whole slew of people with no political party owned slaves. Some of the same in the North owned slaves too, although it was abolished in the North before it was in the South.

John Bell, who won the 1860 electoral vote of Tennessee, Virginia and Kentucky, owned slaves and was simultaneously opposed to its expansion.

Sooner or later it's got to occur to even your tiny mind that Binary doesn't work.

This member of the nazi party tried to stop the atrocities in Nanking, China...he even spoke out about the atrocities to nazi party officials...who then murdered him......so you can prattle on about not all democrats owning slaves....but all of the slave owners were democrats...who then went on to enact jim crow laws, found the klan and oppress the blacks who the Republican party freed at the end of the war....


Do you think any Jewish people would ever belong to the nazi party?

John Rabe - Wikipedia

John Heinrich Detlev Rabe (November 23, 1882 – January 5, 1950) was a German businessman and Nazi Party member who is best known for his efforts to stop the atrocities of the Japanese army during the Nanking Occupation and his work to protect and help the Chinese civilians during the event. The Nanking Safety Zone, which he helped to establish, sheltered approximately 200,000 Chinese people from slaughter during the massacre. He officially represented Germany and acted as senior chief of the European–American establishment that remained in Nanjing, the Chinese capital at the time, when the city fell to the Japanese troops.

The only reason that Republicans weren't slave owners in the South is because the Republican Party didn't exist in the South until after the Civil War.

But don't let facts get in the way of a pointless argument.

The Republican party was created to end slavery dipstick.....

 

[2aguy]

But the political party that kept slavery...that fought to restart the slave trade with Africa, that fought to have slavery in new states, that seceeded from the union because a Republican President, the party that opposed slavery, won the election...was the democrat party...who after losing the war and having their slaves freed, the democrat party enacted jim crow laws, and and fought to keep blacks from becoming full citizens......including supporting the attacks of the kkk....

Didn't I just school you on Martin van Buren? Or was that somebody else? Y'all ignorami all look alike to me.

No political party "supported slavery" as a whole. The Republican Party was founded specifically and primarily to end it, but that doesn't mean its alternative in the Duopoly of 2016 therefore must have been on the other side 150-200 years ago. Some Democrats supported it, some (as van Buren above) didn't. Just as some Whigs supported slavery, some didn't Here's the difference --- when the RP rose up to champion the cause of Abolition they had a principle to stand behind, and stood behind it. Democrats were doing what they always do, being wishy-washy, trying to be all things to all interest groups in a quest to amass power, which is after all what any political party's purpose is. With an 1860 Republican you knew where he stood; with an 1860 Democrat he'd tell you whatever you wanted to hear.

But wishy-washy has a cost, that being you get to a point where neither the wishy nor the washy gets what they want. So when the DP tried to placate the South, sometimes it worked as an uneasy truce between liberals and conservatives, while other times it didn't, and the South picked up and walked out. They did that in 1948 and they did it in 1860. When the South didn't hear what they wanted to hear from the DP in 1860 they disrupted the convention and forced it to be shut down; the whole affair had to be moved out of the South altogether. They then proceeded to run their own candidate, as they would again in 1948. But by '48 they had lost their veto power in the convention and were off their home turf.

You binary-bots who think the entire world is made up of only "Democrat" and "Republican" atoms and always has been, need to pick up what we call a 'history book' at some point. The first century of this country saw many political parties, major ones that held high offices. Most of them took no particular position on Slavery pro or con.

As for van Buren, who's credited with organizing the Jackson faction into the modern Democratic Party, he personally thought slavery was immoral but also saw it as protected by the Constitution (i.e. the same argument attributed to Barry Goldwater's vote against the 1964 CRA). He, like other POTUSes of the entire first half of the 19th century, tried to strike a balance between the head-butting tensions of Slave vs Free economies. That approach, it's easy to see from our latter-day perspective, was destined to fail. Arguably the Founders themselves erred in setting up those opposing dynamics and empowering the Slave faction in the first place, presumably expecting the situation would just "fix itself". It would not.

And btw another one of those political parties founded specifically to oppose Slavery was the Free Soil Party. Van Buren was its Presidential candidate in 1848.

Slavery had to go. It was already going in Europe and Latin America. It was just a matter of time before the hyperconservative South either saw the writing on the wall, or was forced to acknowledge it. Well, between those two options, I'm not sure if you can fully grok how challenging it is to get a hyperconservative to consider the fact that maybe where he's standing might be the wrong place.

So no, the "Democrat Party" (which does not actually exist) didn't secede --- the South had already seceded FROM the DemocratIC Party. Really the first stroke of that secession wasn't South Carolina declaring itself seceded, but rather the various Southern States running John Breckinridge for President against Lincoln, Bell and Douglas, in effect declaring itself independent from both the Democratic and Republican Parties.

Political parties don't go to war. Democrats already existed in the North as well as South, and many supported Lincoln and/or the Union staying together. Douglas was one of them and he was the Party's nominee.

Wrong.....the democrats in the south owned the slaves...no matter what the democrats in the north did......

Aaaaaand straight back to Binary-Bot mode.

Some Democrats in the South owned slaves. Some Whigs in the South owned slaves. Some Federalists in the South owned slaves. Some Democratic-Republicans in the South owned slaves (three of them were elected President). Some Know Nothings in the South owned slaves. Some Constitutional Unionists in the South owned slaves. And a whole slew of people with no political party owned slaves. Some of the same in the North owned slaves too, although it was abolished in the North before it was in the South.

John Bell, who won the 1860 electoral vote of Tennessee, Virginia and Kentucky, owned slaves and was simultaneously opposed to its expansion.

Sooner or later it's got to occur to even your tiny mind that Binary doesn't work.

This member of the nazi party tried to stop the atrocities in Nanking, China...he even spoke out about the atrocities to nazi party officials...who then murdered him......so you can prattle on about not all democrats owning slaves....but all of the slave owners were democrats...who then went on to enact jim crow laws, found the klan and oppress the blacks who the Republican party freed at the end of the war....


Do you think any Jewish people would ever belong to the nazi party?

John Rabe - Wikipedia

John Heinrich Detlev Rabe (November 23, 1882 – January 5, 1950) was a German businessman and Nazi Party member who is best known for his efforts to stop the atrocities of the Japanese army during the Nanking Occupation and his work to protect and help the Chinese civilians during the event. The Nanking Safety Zone, which he helped to establish, sheltered approximately 200,000 Chinese people from slaughter during the massacre. He officially represented Germany and acted as senior chief of the European–American establishment that remained in Nanjing, the Chinese capital at the time, when the city fell to the Japanese troops.

The only reason that Republicans weren't slave owners in the South is because the Republican Party didn't exist in the South until after the Civil War.

But don't let facts get in the way of a pointless argument.

Here...a quick lesson....

Republican Party (United States) - Wikipedia

Founded in the Northern states in 1854 by anti-slavery activists, modernizers, ex-Whigs, and ex-Free Soilers, the Republican Party quickly became the principal opposition to the dominant Democratic Party and the briefly popular Know Nothing Party.


The main cause was opposition to the Kansas–Nebraska Act, which repealed the Missouri Compromise by which slavery was kept out of Kansas.


The Northern Republicans saw the expansion of slavery as a great evil.

The first public meeting of the general "anti-Nebraska" movement where the name "Republican" was suggested for a new anti-slavery party was held on March 20, 1854 in a schoolhouse in Ripon, Wisconsin.[18] The name was partly chosen to pay homage to Thomas Jefferson's Republican Party.

The first official party convention was held on July 6, 1854, in Jackson, Michigan.[19] By 1858, the Republicans dominated nearly all Northern states.The Republican Party first came to power in the elections of 1860 when it won control of both houses of Congress and its candidate, Abraham Lincoln, was elected president. It oversaw the preserving of the union, the end of slavery, and the provision of equal rights to all men in the American Civil War and Reconstruction, 1861–1877.[20]

 

[Soggy in NOLA]

Lewis is a prime example of how every good cause eventually becomes a racket.

this from a guy who voted for the perpetrator of Trump University.

Yes, I voted for Trump. Why would anyone with at the very least a functioning brain stem vote for HRC?

 

[Dragonlady]

Didn't I just school you on Martin van Buren? Or was that somebody else? Y'all ignorami all look alike to me.

No political party "supported slavery" as a whole. The Republican Party was founded specifically and primarily to end it, but that doesn't mean its alternative in the Duopoly of 2016 therefore must have been on the other side 150-200 years ago. Some Democrats supported it, some (as van Buren above) didn't. Just as some Whigs supported slavery, some didn't Here's the difference --- when the RP rose up to champion the cause of Abolition they had a principle to stand behind, and stood behind it. Democrats were doing what they always do, being wishy-washy, trying to be all things to all interest groups in a quest to amass power, which is after all what any political party's purpose is. With an 1860 Republican you knew where he stood; with an 1860 Democrat he'd tell you whatever you wanted to hear.

But wishy-washy has a cost, that being you get to a point where neither the wishy nor the washy gets what they want. So when the DP tried to placate the South, sometimes it worked as an uneasy truce between liberals and conservatives, while other times it didn't, and the South picked up and walked out. They did that in 1948 and they did it in 1860. When the South didn't hear what they wanted to hear from the DP in 1860 they disrupted the convention and forced it to be shut down; the whole affair had to be moved out of the South altogether. They then proceeded to run their own candidate, as they would again in 1948. But by '48 they had lost their veto power in the convention and were off their home turf.

You binary-bots who think the entire world is made up of only "Democrat" and "Republican" atoms and always has been, need to pick up what we call a 'history book' at some point. The first century of this country saw many political parties, major ones that held high offices. Most of them took no particular position on Slavery pro or con.

As for van Buren, who's credited with organizing the Jackson faction into the modern Democratic Party, he personally thought slavery was immoral but also saw it as protected by the Constitution (i.e. the same argument attributed to Barry Goldwater's vote against the 1964 CRA). He, like other POTUSes of the entire first half of the 19th century, tried to strike a balance between the head-butting tensions of Slave vs Free economies. That approach, it's easy to see from our latter-day perspective, was destined to fail. Arguably the Founders themselves erred in setting up those opposing dynamics and empowering the Slave faction in the first place, presumably expecting the situation would just "fix itself". It would not.

And btw another one of those political parties founded specifically to oppose Slavery was the Free Soil Party. Van Buren was its Presidential candidate in 1848.

Slavery had to go. It was already going in Europe and Latin America. It was just a matter of time before the hyperconservative South either saw the writing on the wall, or was forced to acknowledge it. Well, between those two options, I'm not sure if you can fully grok how challenging it is to get a hyperconservative to consider the fact that maybe where he's standing might be the wrong place.

So no, the "Democrat Party" (which does not actually exist) didn't secede --- the South had already seceded FROM the DemocratIC Party. Really the first stroke of that secession wasn't South Carolina declaring itself seceded, but rather the various Southern States running John Breckinridge for President against Lincoln, Bell and Douglas, in effect declaring itself independent from both the Democratic and Republican Parties.

Political parties don't go to war. Democrats already existed in the North as well as South, and many supported Lincoln and/or the Union staying together. Douglas was one of them and he was the Party's nominee.

Wrong.....the democrats in the south owned the slaves...no matter what the democrats in the north did......

Aaaaaand straight back to Binary-Bot mode.

Some Democrats in the South owned slaves. Some Whigs in the South owned slaves. Some Federalists in the South owned slaves. Some Democratic-Republicans in the South owned slaves (three of them were elected President). Some Know Nothings in the South owned slaves. Some Constitutional Unionists in the South owned slaves. And a whole slew of people with no political party owned slaves. Some of the same in the North owned slaves too, although it was abolished in the North before it was in the South.

John Bell, who won the 1860 electoral vote of Tennessee, Virginia and Kentucky, owned slaves and was simultaneously opposed to its expansion.

Sooner or later it's got to occur to even your tiny mind that Binary doesn't work.

This member of the nazi party tried to stop the atrocities in Nanking, China...he even spoke out about the atrocities to nazi party officials...who then murdered him......so you can prattle on about not all democrats owning slaves....but all of the slave owners were democrats...who then went on to enact jim crow laws, found the klan and oppress the blacks who the Republican party freed at the end of the war....


Do you think any Jewish people would ever belong to the nazi party?

John Rabe - Wikipedia

John Heinrich Detlev Rabe (November 23, 1882 – January 5, 1950) was a German businessman and Nazi Party member who is best known for his efforts to stop the atrocities of the Japanese army during the Nanking Occupation and his work to protect and help the Chinese civilians during the event. The Nanking Safety Zone, which he helped to establish, sheltered approximately 200,000 Chinese people from slaughter during the massacre. He officially represented Germany and acted as senior chief of the European–American establishment that remained in Nanjing, the Chinese capital at the time, when the city fell to the Japanese troops.

The only reason that Republicans weren't slave owners in the South is because the Republican Party didn't exist in the South until after the Civil War.

But don't let facts get in the way of a pointless argument.

Here...a quick lesson....

Republican Party (United States) - Wikipedia

Founded in the Northern states in 1854 by anti-slavery activists, modernizers, ex-Whigs, and ex-Free Soilers, the Republican Party quickly became the principal opposition to the dominant Democratic Party and the briefly popular Know Nothing Party.


The main cause was opposition to the Kansas–Nebraska Act, which repealed the Missouri Compromise by which slavery was kept out of Kansas.


The Northern Republicans saw the expansion of slavery as a great evil.

The first public meeting of the general "anti-Nebraska" movement where the name "Republican" was suggested for a new anti-slavery party was held on March 20, 1854 in a schoolhouse in Ripon, Wisconsin.[18] The name was partly chosen to pay homage to Thomas Jefferson's Republican Party.

The first official party convention was held on July 6, 1854, in Jackson, Michigan.[19] By 1858, the Republicans dominated nearly all Northern states.The Republican Party first came to power in the elections of 1860 when it won control of both houses of Congress and its candidate, Abraham Lincoln, was elected president. It oversaw the preserving of the union, the end of slavery, and the provision of equal rights to all men in the American Civil War and Reconstruction, 1861–1877.[20]

In what way does this contradict what I posted?

 

[Pogo]

But the political party that kept slavery...that fought to restart the slave trade with Africa, that fought to have slavery in new states, that seceeded from the union because a Republican President, the party that opposed slavery, won the election...was the democrat party...who after losing the war and having their slaves freed, the democrat party enacted jim crow laws, and and fought to keep blacks from becoming full citizens......including supporting the attacks of the kkk....

Didn't I just school you on Martin van Buren? Or was that somebody else? Y'all ignorami all look alike to me.

No political party "supported slavery" as a whole. The Republican Party was founded specifically and primarily to end it, but that doesn't mean its alternative in the Duopoly of 2016 therefore must have been on the other side 150-200 years ago. Some Democrats supported it, some (as van Buren above) didn't. Just as some Whigs supported slavery, some didn't Here's the difference --- when the RP rose up to champion the cause of Abolition they had a principle to stand behind, and stood behind it. Democrats were doing what they always do, being wishy-washy, trying to be all things to all interest groups in a quest to amass power, which is after all what any political party's purpose is. With an 1860 Republican you knew where he stood; with an 1860 Democrat he'd tell you whatever you wanted to hear.

But wishy-washy has a cost, that being you get to a point where neither the wishy nor the washy gets what they want. So when the DP tried to placate the South, sometimes it worked as an uneasy truce between liberals and conservatives, while other times it didn't, and the South picked up and walked out. They did that in 1948 and they did it in 1860. When the South didn't hear what they wanted to hear from the DP in 1860 they disrupted the convention and forced it to be shut down; the whole affair had to be moved out of the South altogether. They then proceeded to run their own candidate, as they would again in 1948. But by '48 they had lost their veto power in the convention and were off their home turf.

You binary-bots who think the entire world is made up of only "Democrat" and "Republican" atoms and always has been, need to pick up what we call a 'history book' at some point. The first century of this country saw many political parties, major ones that held high offices. Most of them took no particular position on Slavery pro or con.

As for van Buren, who's credited with organizing the Jackson faction into the modern Democratic Party, he personally thought slavery was immoral but also saw it as protected by the Constitution (i.e. the same argument attributed to Barry Goldwater's vote against the 1964 CRA). He, like other POTUSes of the entire first half of the 19th century, tried to strike a balance between the head-butting tensions of Slave vs Free economies. That approach, it's easy to see from our latter-day perspective, was destined to fail. Arguably the Founders themselves erred in setting up those opposing dynamics and empowering the Slave faction in the first place, presumably expecting the situation would just "fix itself". It would not.

And btw another one of those political parties founded specifically to oppose Slavery was the Free Soil Party. Van Buren was its Presidential candidate in 1848.

Slavery had to go. It was already going in Europe and Latin America. It was just a matter of time before the hyperconservative South either saw the writing on the wall, or was forced to acknowledge it. Well, between those two options, I'm not sure if you can fully grok how challenging it is to get a hyperconservative to consider the fact that maybe where he's standing might be the wrong place.

So no, the "Democrat Party" (which does not actually exist) didn't secede --- the South had already seceded FROM the DemocratIC Party. Really the first stroke of that secession wasn't South Carolina declaring itself seceded, but rather the various Southern States running John Breckinridge for President against Lincoln, Bell and Douglas, in effect declaring itself independent from both the Democratic and Republican Parties.

Political parties don't go to war. Democrats already existed in the North as well as South, and many supported Lincoln and/or the Union staying together. Douglas was one of them and he was the Party's nominee.

Wrong.....the democrats in the south owned the slaves...no matter what the democrats in the north did......

Aaaaaand straight back to Binary-Bot mode.

Some Democrats in the South owned slaves. Some Whigs in the South owned slaves. Some Federalists in the South owned slaves. Some Democratic-Republicans in the South owned slaves (three of them were elected President). Some Know Nothings in the South owned slaves. Some Constitutional Unionists in the South owned slaves. And a whole slew of people with no political party owned slaves. Some of the same in the North owned slaves too, although it was abolished in the North before it was in the South.

John Bell, who won the 1860 electoral vote of Tennessee, Virginia and Kentucky, owned slaves and was simultaneously opposed to its expansion.

Sooner or later it's got to occur to even your tiny mind that Binary doesn't work.

This member of the nazi party tried to stop the atrocities in Nanking, China...he even spoke out about the atrocities to nazi party officials...who then murdered him......so you can prattle on about not all democrats owning slaves....but all of the slave owners were democrats...who then went on to enact jim crow laws, found the klan and oppress the blacks who the Republican party freed at the end of the war....


Do you think any Jewish people would ever belong to the nazi party?

John Rabe - Wikipedia

John Heinrich Detlev Rabe (November 23, 1882 – January 5, 1950) was a German businessman and Nazi Party member who is best known for his efforts to stop the atrocities of the Japanese army during the Nanking Occupation and his work to protect and help the Chinese civilians during the event. The Nanking Safety Zone, which he helped to establish, sheltered approximately 200,000 Chinese people from slaughter during the massacre. He officially represented Germany and acted as senior chief of the European–American establishment that remained in Nanjing, the Chinese capital at the time, when the city fell to the Japanese troops.

The only reason that Republicans weren't slave owners in the South is because the Republican Party didn't exist in the South until after the Civil War.

But don't let facts get in the way of a pointless argument.

True. The Republican Party made no particular effort in the South until after the War, working on the (correct, as well as obvious) assumption that their support lay in the North and Midwest. They didn't even run a Presidential ballot in the South until Grant in 1868. Before the War the RP was entirely regional. Which is interesting to ponder when one reads the endless doomsayers on this board about how the Democratic Party has become "regional", entirely forgetting their own party started out that way and to a much more extreme degree.

 

[Pogo]

John Lewis and the passive aggressive tactics of the Democrats.

"Passive aggressive"?? Do you even understand the meaning of those words. There is nothing passive about the resistance at all. It's going to be in your face, for however long TrumpleThinSkin stays in office.

"Trumple ThinSkin" -- I love it.

I'm stealing it too.

 

[Dragonlady]

John Lewis and the passive aggressive tactics of the Democrats.

"Passive aggressive"?? Do you even understand the meaning of those words. There is nothing passive about the resistance at all. It's going to be in your face, for however long TrumpleThinSkin stays in office.

"Trumple ThinSkin" -- I love it.

I'm stealing it too.

I stole it as well. I wish I could take credit for it, but I think it was John Oliver who originalted it.

I was about to comment on your sig line. "I never miss a golden opportunity". Well apparently not. Emphasis on "golden".

 

[mudwhistle]

This is the Congressman that lied about getting spit on. Former heros can still be assholes. Look at McCain.

And you know he wasn't spat on because you were watching from Canada. Alllllllt righty then.

Yeah....and he never missed an inauguration before this one too.

I believe he did. I believe it was you who brought that info in too.

Doesn't affect how Tinydancer can declare a negative on an event she wasn't there for now does it?

I think the point is that John Lewis is dishonest, so what he says needs to be taken as dubious at best.

 

[mudwhistle]

Are you trying to tell us Robert E. Lee was a liberal?

You must be one of those idiots that thinks all Democrats are liberals.

So you admit that the Southern Democrats were CONSERVATIVES for all those years they were slavers, and then KKK'ers and segregationists.

Excellent. Now get your RW numnut pals around here to admit the same thing.

Umm no Democrats have always been a group that took a liberal view towards the Constitution and freedoms of US citizens. That's how you idiots have been able to enslave people then and now.

A truly Liberal view would not have permitted slavery to exist. But it was already here -- slavery, and specifically African transatlantic slavery, was here for three hundred years before there was such a thing as "Democrats".

But the political party that kept slavery...that fought to restart the slave trade with Africa, that fought to have slavery in new states, that seceeded from the union because a Republican President, the party that opposed slavery, won the election...was the democrat party...who after losing the war and having their slaves freed, the democrat party enacted jim crow laws, and and fought to keep blacks from becoming full citizens......including supporting the attacks of the kkk....

Who killed Abraham Lincoln and Martin Luther King jr, two Republicans?

Democrats

 

[Pogo]

John Lewis and the passive aggressive tactics of the Democrats.

"Passive aggressive"?? Do you even understand the meaning of those words. There is nothing passive about the resistance at all. It's going to be in your face, for however long TrumpleThinSkin stays in office.

"Trumple ThinSkin" -- I love it.

I'm stealing it too.

I stole it as well. I wish I could take credit for it, but I think it was John Oliver who originalted it.

I was about to comment on your sig line. "I never miss a golden opportunity". Well apparently not. Emphasis on "golden".

Thanks for noticing. That's a triple tribute to the tributary of Watersportsgate.

The quote is from this old ad, which suddenly last week started getting reposted a lot:

​