The fascists are at it again

[JoeB131]

Thomas Jefferson became a member of the Virginia state legislature in 1769 and introduced legislation to outlaw slavery.

Sure he did. And then he went right home and freed all the slaves in Monticello.

Oh, no, wait, He didn't. He went home and raped Sally Hemings.

Well, not in 1769, she was probably pre-pubescent then... But he got around to it.

 

[P@triot]

Thomas Jefferson became a member of the Virginia state legislature in 1769 and introduced legislation to outlaw slavery.

Sure he did. And then he went right home and freed all the slaves in Monticello.

Oh, no, wait, He didn't.

And again...astounding ignorance of U.S. history. If people could simple “free their slaves”, there would be no need for legislation, stupid. It was illegal to free slaves. By the time George Washington died almost 30 years later, they had changed the law allowing for slaves to be freed upon the death of the owners. That’s why Washington freed his slaves.

However...they then found that that created a problem in society. These people were being released with absolutely no way to survive. They had no land. No personal property. No education. They instantly became a burden to society. So the law was changed yet again mandating that if one was to free their slaves, they must provide “x” amount of money to each slave (I forget the amount). Hence the reason Thomas Jefferson was unable to free his slaves upon his death. He was deeply in debt from all of his generosity.

 

[JoeB131]

And again...astounding ignorance of U.S. history. If people could simple “free their slaves”, there would be no need for legislation, stupid. It was illegal to free slaves. By the time George Washington died almost 30 years later, they had changed the law allowing for slaves to be freed upon the death of the owners. That’s why Washington freed his slaves.

They could have freed their slaves any time they wanted to. They could have outlawed slavery when they wrote the constitution.

THey didn't. They were making too much money off the hard work these people were doing.

That's the point, guy.

However...they then found that that created a problem in society. These people were being released with absolutely no way to survive. They had no land. No personal property. No education. They instantly became a burden to society. So the law was changed yet again mandating that if one was to free their slaves, they must provide “x” amount of money to each slave (I forget the amount). Hence the reason Thomas Jefferson was unable to free his slaves upon his death. He was deeply in debt from all of his generosity.

Yes, he pissed away all the money he had... and then sold off his slaves to pay his debts.

Except, oddly, the ones who were children of Sally Hemings, for some reason...

Hmmmmm....

 

[Seawytch]

Instead of tearing down confederate monuments, it's time to tear down the true last vestiges of slavery....The Electoral College.
How slavery birthed the electoral college

 

[P@triot]

And again...astounding ignorance of U.S. history. If people could simple “free their slaves”, there would be no need for legislation, stupid. It was illegal to free slaves. By the time George Washington died almost 30 years later, they had changed the law allowing for slaves to be freed upon the death of the owners. That’s why Washington freed his slaves.

They could have freed their slaves any time they wanted to.

Uh...no...they couldn't have. There were laws against that as people had done it.

They could have outlawed slavery when they wrote the constitution.

Now that is true. They could have done that. They just didn't have enough support at that time. Just like Thomas Jefferson couldn't get the support he needed in the Virginia state legislature when he introduced legislation to end slavery in state back in 1769.

 

[P@triot]

Violations of Emoluments clause in funneling federal monies to his properties.

Like all progressives - you literally have no idea what the Emoluments Clause actually is. You people are so desperate to “trump” up a charge against President Trump that you’re just throwing shit at the wall and praying that some of it sticks.

There hasn’t been a single instance of President Trump “funneling federal monies to his properties”. And even if there had been, that doesn’t even remotely approach the Emoluments Clause (you’d realize that if you had a clue of what it actually is rather than just latching on to progressive narratives fed to you and then parroting it).

Violation of the Emoluments Clause is what Hitlery Clinton did as Secretary of State when she received large payments in exchange for favors from her and her office. That is what the Emoluments Clause outlaws - selling your public office. It doesn’t state you can’t own a private business. You can. You just can’t sell your public office. You can’t accept money in exchange for using your office and subsequent power to provide the “buyer” with what they want.

The courts won’t even hear the case because it is idiotic...

Group That Tried to Sue Trump Over 'Emoluments' Clause Just Got Booted Out of Court

 

[P@triot]

Instead of tearing down confederate monuments, it's time to tear down the true last vestiges of slavery....The Electoral College.
How slavery birthed the electoral college

In other words - like all progressives - SW simply cannot accept the will of the American people.

The Electoral College was explicitly designed to protect the minority. The fact that you want to reverse that is very Democrat of you (that party has a long history of racism, slavery, and oppression).

 

[JoeB131]

Uh...no...they couldn't have. There were laws against that as people had done it.

So the people writing the highest law in the land couldn't write a law abolishing slavery.... Hmmmmm....

Now that is true. They could have done that. They just didn't have enough support at that time.

Because they were all a bunch of slave raping assholes!

How were they going to get any pussy if the woman had a say in the matter?

There hasn’t been a single instance of President Trump “funneling federal monies to his properties”. And even if there had been, that doesn’t even remotely approach the Emoluments Clause (you’d realize that if you had a clue of what it actually is rather than just latching on to progressive narratives fed to you and then parroting it).

You're kidding, right? Funnelling money to Trump Tower and Marg-a-Largo, charging the Secret Service to rent property on his property. This is a conflict of interest.

Violation of the Emoluments Clause is what Hitlery Clinton did as Secretary of State when she received large payments in exchange for favors from her and her office.

Except- again- nobody proved she did that.

Guy, here's the thing. Your sides have been charging this woman with stuff for the last 26 years.

And none of it has stuck.

So she's either a criminal mastermind, or you guys are just a bunch of misogynistic assholes.

I'm going with the later.

 

[JoeB131]

In other words - like all progressives - SW simply cannot accept the will of the American people.

The will of the American people was Hillary got 3 million more votes.

That's what the American People collectively wanted.

The Electoral College was explicitly designed to protect the minority.

But why does the "minority" deserve to be "protected"? At least not in this case. The president should be who the MAJORITY wanted, not who can manipulate a bad system created by slave rapists.

If anything, minorities are discrminated against by the EC. What about conservatives in CA or liberals in TX?

Also, if anyone should be worried about the EC, it should be conservatives. When Texas becomes a blue state again, because of the growth of the Hispanic population, it's going to be impossible for a Republican to in no matter how many dying rust belt states they can win over.

 

[Seawytch]

Instead of tearing down confederate monuments, it's time to tear down the true last vestiges of slavery....The Electoral College.
How slavery birthed the electoral college

In other words - like all progressives - SW simply cannot accept the will of the American people.

The Electoral College was explicitly designed to protect the minority. The fact that you want to reverse that is very Democrat of you (that party has a long history of racism, slavery, and oppression).

The Electoral College subverts the will of the people. The people voted for Hillary Clinton and Al Gore.

 

[P@triot]

The Electoral College subverts the will of the people.

It does no such thing. It ensures that one city doesn’t control the entire United States.

 

[P@triot]

Uh...no...they couldn't have. There were laws against that as people had done it.

So the people writing the highest law in the land couldn't write a law abolishing slavery.... Hmmmmm....

Laws aren’t written by a single person. They are voted on (be it a local city council, a state legislature, or Congress). Thomas Jefferson introduced legislation. He did what he could. He lost because there were more racist Democrats than there were liberty loving conservatives.

 

[P@triot]

There hasn’t been a single instance of President Trump “funneling federal monies to his properties”. And even if there had been, that doesn’t even remotely approach the Emoluments Clause (you’d realize that if you had a clue of what it actually is rather than just latching on to progressive narratives fed to you and then parroting it).

You're kidding, right? Funnelling money to Trump Tower and Marg-a-Largo, charging the Secret Service to rent property on his property. This is a conflict of interest.

Now that is 100% true. There is a conflict of interest there. But that’s not what the Emoluments Clause is about. Hitlery Clinton violated the Emoluments Clause by approving stuff like the sale of uranium to Russia in exchange for vast sums of money. It’s selling the power of your public office.

If you want to complain that there is a conflict of interest with some of President Trump’s actions - I’m with you. But you can’t declare it a violation of the Emoluments Clause because that is flat out inaccurate.

 

[P@triot]

Violation of the Emoluments Clause is what Hitlery Clinton did as Secretary of State when she received large payments in exchange for favors from her and her office.

Except- again- nobody proved she did that.

That’s kind of like saying “nobody proved that the sun came up this morning”. Uh...I saw it with my own eyes. Shortly after a massive “donation” to the Clinton Foundation by Uranium One, she inexplicably approved the sale of uranium mines to our enemies.

This is not coincidence. It’s not unrelated. It’s a blatant violation of the Emoluments Clause. You know it. I know it. Barack Insane Obama knows it. Bill Clinton knows it (and was almost certainly the architect behind the deal). And yes, even Hitlery Clinton knows it. You’re simply just not mature enough to admit it. Understandable - that’s the case for you millennials.

 

[JoeB131]

It does no such thing. It ensures that one city doesn’t control the entire United States.

One city can't control the United States. Not now, and certainly not then when cities were very small in a pre-industrial society.

Laws aren’t written by a single person. They are voted on (be it a local city council, a state legislature, or Congress). Thomas Jefferson introduced legislation. He did what he could. He lost because there were more racist Democrats than there were liberty loving conservatives.

Except the conservatives- by DEFINITION- were the ones who favored slavery. Slavery had already existed for centuries. the CONSERVATIVES wanted to maintain the status quo. The LIberal was the guy who said, "All Men Are Created Equal". The hypocrite was the guy who said that sort of thing, and then went home and plowed Sally Hemings.

Now that is 100% true. There is a conflict of interest there. But that’s not what the Emoluments Clause is about. Hitlery Clinton violated the Emoluments Clause by approving stuff like the sale of uranium to Russia in exchange for vast sums of money. It’s selling the power of your public office.

Except there was no evidence she did that. In fact, seven departments had to approve the Uranium One Sale... and she didn't run all of them.

If you want to complain that there is a conflict of interest with some of President Trump’s actions - I’m with you. But you can’t declare it a violation of the Emoluments Clause because that is flat out inaccurate.

Sure we can. He's personally profiting from his presidency. But I suspect he'll be removed for being crazy long before he gets impeached.

 

[P@triot]

Laws aren’t written by a single person. They are voted on (be it a local city council, a state legislature, or Congress). Thomas Jefferson introduced legislation. He did what he could. He lost because there were more racist Democrats than there were liberty loving conservatives.

Except the conservatives- by DEFINITION- were the ones who favored slavery. Slavery had already existed for centuries. the CONSERVATIVES wanted to maintain the status quo. The LIberal was the guy who said, "All Men Are Created Equal".

By DEFINITION - that is an egregious lie. By today’s definitions, Thomas Jefferson is a Tea Party “wing-nut” libertarian. It was the Democrats that attacked their own nation in order to keep black people enslaved. It’s a simple fact that even you are aware of and which clearly upsets you because it impedes the propaganda you so desperately want to peddle.

 

[JoeB131]

By DEFINITION - that is an egregious lie. By today’s definitions, Thomas Jefferson is a Tea Party “wing-nut” libertarian.

well, no, crazy old white guys who don't want to pay their taxes aren't Jefferson... sorry.

It was the Democrats that attacked their own nation in order to keep black people enslaved.

at the time, the Democrats were the conservative party. The Republicans were the LIBERAL party. If you had any understanding of history, you'd know these roles largely flipped when the GOP rejected Teddy Roosevelt and the Democrats embraced Franklin Roosevelt.

It’s a simple fact that even you are aware of and which clearly upsets you because it impedes the propaganda you so desperately want to peddle.

Not really. the thing was, nobody was seriously talking about ending slavery in 1776. I mean, they could say that "All Men Are Created Equal", but what they meant was "All White Men Are Created Equal, fuck the Negroes and the Indians".

The thing is, you want to use their flowery language to burnish your own batshit selfishness. Not face the reality that the American Revolution was actually regressive. The UK was more progressive than the US and remained so for some time.

 

[P@triot]

By DEFINITION - that is an egregious lie. By today’s definitions, Thomas Jefferson is a Tea Party “wing-nut” libertarian.

well, no, crazy old white guys who don't want to pay their taxes aren't Jefferson... sorry.

Snowflake...Thomas Jefferson vehemently opposed the U.S. Constitution because it expanded the federal government. He wanted to continue under the Articles of Confederation. You should stop commenting on stuff that you are uneducated about.

 

[P@triot]

It was the Democrats that attacked their own nation in order to keep black people enslaved.

at the time, the Democrats were the conservative party. The Republicans were the LIBERAL party. If you had any understanding of history, you'd know these roles largely flipped when the GOP rejected Teddy Roosevelt and the Democrats embraced Franklin Roosevelt.

Ah yes...the old “everybody agreed to flip sides” progressive wing-nut argument. Yawn. Nobody flipped sides, snowflake. There was no big conspiracy. The same GOP that freed the slaves is the same GOP that lead the Civil Rights movement and is the same GOP that Ronald Reagan lead.

And the same racist, hateful Dumbocrats who killed black people and attacked their own nation to keep blacks enslaved is the same Dumbocrats who vehemently opposed the Civil Rights Act and is the same Dumbocrats today who want to continue slavery in the form of welfare and other highly illegal, idiotic government “programs”.

 

[P@triot]

The thing is, you want to use their flowery language to burnish your own batshit selfishness. Not face the reality that the American Revolution was actually regressive. The UK was more progressive than the US and remained so for some time.

“Selfishness” - the hallmark of the left. The selfish progressive wing-nuts scream “you are selfish!” if someone refuses to provide for them like slaves.

You people refused to give up slavery in the 1860’s and you refuse to give it up to this very day. You keep finding new ways to force others to provide for you because the left is lazy, greedy, and selfish.