Ame®icano
Platinum Member
- Jul 8, 2008
- 24,750
- 7,531
Actually NOT.
You see red letters i highlighted above? That is exactly what Lysistrata and I were talking about.
latter part of the 20th Century
Moron.
McKinley and Bryan faced off in 1896. And again in 1900. That's the nineteenth century, not the 20th. And that **IS** what YOU were posting about when you got here. Roll tape.
↑
Republican party is established to stop expansion of slavery into territories and to abolish the slavery. If you were proponent of slavery or slave owner, you could not join the party, and party was primarily joined by northern Protestants, blacks, workers, farmers, former Whigs and, yes... some Democrats who were against the slavery. Democrats who supported slavery stayed in Democratic party. Just as racists stayed Democrats in south, despite leftist and revisionists today claim there was a imaginary "party switch". That means, all slaves in United States, some 4.5 million, at the brink of Civil war were owned by Democrats.
War Democrats were not against slavery, they were against Confederacy. Since they were pro slavery, they couldn't join Republican party, and those who supported Lincoln's Civil War policies joined Unionist party while avoiding being on "Republican" ticket. Therefore Lincoln's running mate was technically Unionist, formerly "War Democrat".
Click to expand...
And you never did prove your case when I demanded documentation that "you couldn't join the Republican party if you were pro-slavery".
Read bold red letters from Lysistrata... I don't care what you're talking about, I was replying to him on the subject.
"two parties switched sides and policies in the latter part of the 20th Century."
You missed it completely. Then accuse me of not being on subject. Loser.
I'm done with you.
"Him"?
READ YOUR OWN POST Dumbass. It's completely about the 19th century.
You're "done" because you got busted.
Read the red letters moron.
View attachment 305450
My reply to Lysistrata post was strictly to that.
So you're saying YOU derailed her to the nineteenth century?
Because that's what you wrote. Post 49 I believe it was. Same time I was writing post 50.
---- which is -- AGAIN -- when the parties "switched".
No moron, I posted the whole thing... here is the image of my reply to Lysistrata post, and you quoting us both...
In the image, nobody is talking about 19th century, but clearly about "two parties switched sides and policies in the latter part of the 20th Century."