The left must have an "enemy" to direct their hate at. Whether it be Trump, Gun Owners, the wealthy, or the U.S.A. itself.

You don't mind dishing it out, but can you cook it?

Oh sh*t.
Lol

Read a week's worth of tweets from the Hater-In-Chief. The right has nothing but hate. Just ask the mothers who will never see their children again.

Oh, you mean all those abortions. That's the left too.

Yes, ALL of them.

What planet are you from?

carrying*

You mean the children separated from their illegal immigrant parents during the Obama administration? That’s when it started, ya know.

False.

You can lie as much as you like, reality does not care. Ps your digidolls are still waiting

Wrong alt, champ.
Where has your 'shadow' been, btw? No mirrored tag teaming from you lately, I feel so lonely.

Shadow? Lol, between that and your delusion about my nationality, you must be on whatever Grind is on. Enjoy seeing things where there's nothing.

Yeah, I am what he's on, since I am of the GODda according to Grind and the rest of you astoundingly studly circle jerking fanboys.

Tell me, what ranking are you in terms of spunking one out with the spur lickers?

https://nypost.com/2019/02/21/the-list-of-bogus-hate-crimes-in-trump-era-is-long/?utm_medium=SocialFlow&utm_campaign=SocialFlow&sr_share=facebook&utm_source=NYPFacebook

That list isn't even close the number of fake hate crimes. Look at

http://www.fakehatecrimes.org/

shocking tho if the ny post published it.

The Democrats have always been the party of hate. Obvious Racists and hate mongers. The good news is that the American Voter hasn't fallen for it. *Except in Califonia and New York

Yeah, I would actually cite, THE CIVIL WAR on that one. That's basically what the country was fighting for at that time. Robert E Lee wasn't very keen on slavery but he had his side to defend none the less. It was a very unpopular position in the South of course because it was all related to commerce and the economics of paying workers versus having slave labor. Lincoln outwardly spoke against it and it's also clear in his correspondence what his positions were. I'm all for friendly debate on just about any topic but this is more than just self evident. The Emancipation Proclamation was the presidential order given by Lincoln that did free slaves in America. Millions of them actually. What are you actually challenging here ?

In April 1864, the Senate passed the Thirteenth Amendment to abolish slavery in the United States. Opposition from Democrats in the House of Representatives prevented the amendment from receiving the required two-thirds majority, and the bill failed.

Following his re-election in November 1864, Lincoln threw his weight behind the amendment. He persuaded eight House Democrats to switch their votes and encouraged several other Representatives who had missed the previous vote to support the amendment, which was finally passed on January 31, 1865. The Constitution does not require presidential signatures on amendments, but Lincoln added his, making it the only constitutional amendment to be later ratified that was signed by a president.

Sounds like he did quite a bit to stop it.

I was there/here... When you made that meme.

Not you that Octavio snowflake.

ah.. guess you hit the wrong reply button.
I was like uhh.. wondering wtf that had to do with my post. Lol
>.<

Also is the "snowflake" sh*t necessary??

^no offense but that was literally gay.

Then maybe you should stop being so whiny since we agree you are coming off weak and feeble. Or in your term. Gay.

Sorry. I didn't mean to offend you.

Great. I hate this stupid shirt. Lol! All good. Social media has that tendency.

The difference between us is that the right did NOT make public spectacles of ourselves by violently attacking Obama supporters or doing everything in our power to undermine the duly elected President of the United States.

I see your ante, and I raise you !

If being stupid means sticking with the party that freed the slaves and wants equality for ALL MEN, then I'm happy to be STUPID !

Well that was about two hundred years ago. When things like casual racism, opression of Women and the poor, low education rates and wars were still the norm. While the Republican party did free the slaves under Lincoln whi was technically a Republican. That said Republican ideals from two hundred years ago are not the same as today as the Republican party of old represented Progessives and liberalism, or the at the time eqvilant forms. The Republican party had so to say switched sides with the Democrats. So in conclusion bad comparison. P.s. no one is on any side here. We're all Americans... well you are I asume. I'm German

155 years ago.. and we're still happy to have Honest Abe in the party.. oddly enough in the 60's it was the GOP who was fighting for racial freedoms.. and it's still happening today.. Equal Rights For ALL, Special Rights For None..

A concept completely alien to the left, it would seem.

"and we're still happy to have Honest Abe in the party"

I do not understand what you are try to insinuate here. Any party should be proud of once having had a man such as Lincoln.

"oddly enough in the 60's it was the GOP who was fighting for racial freedoms.."

Never said the Switch was ancient or anything, as a matter of fact I have not stated when the switch happened. But honestly even if I stated any facts or figures would you belive me?

"and it's still happening today.. "

Yeah right.

"Equal Rights For ALL,"

Ha, nice one. Its a cheap joke though.

He was one of the most notable presidents our country has had. Mutually agreed upon to be a great person who fought for his country during one of our toughest times. Proud to be part of his party. The rest is not meant to be funny.. not in the least.. if you want equality you have to treat everyone equally.. In the "I Have a dream speech" Mlk says that he wants his children to be judged 'not by the color of their skin but by the content of their character'... couldn't agree more..

So Roosevelt was a right-leaning conservative? JFK? I mean, Republicans voted for civil rights AFTER both of these presidents, so if the parties switched that means that these two should be the equivalent of modern conservatives, no?

But oh wait, even in the 1930s the democrats were left-leaning socialists. So then, how is it that those left leaning, socialist, racist democrats of olden days of yore suddenly became right-wing, anti-socialist, racist republicans of today? And the small government, anti-racist, pro-equality republican party of the 1930s switched as well? Funny, seems their platforms are exactly the same to me. In the 50s and 60s Republicans voted in higher percentages than democrats to pass civil rights legislation. So when exactly did the switch happen? And who exactly switched?

Aha... I tip my hat at you and fart in your general Direction.

Seriously though, I don't give a damn. My point was that the ideals he spoke of are blurred at best and gone at worst in the Republican party of today

Legislation is passed by a tally of votes, not by percentages within parties which themselves were divided between Northern and Southern State lines.

Last time YOU YOURSELF cited a source indicating this.
Perhaps you should read it one day?

Okay, we can play that game.
"The Civil Rights Act -- which is best known for barring discrimination in public accommodations -- passed the House on Feb. 10, 1964 by a margin of 290-130. When broken down by party, 61 percent of Democratic lawmakers voted for the bill (152 yeas and 96 nays), and a full 80 percent of the Republican caucus supported it (138 yeas and 34 nays).

When the Senate passed the measure on June 19, 1964, -- nine days after supporters mustered enough votes to end the longest filibuster in Senate history -- the margin was 73-27. Better than two-thirds of Senate Democrats supported the measure on final passage (46 yeas, 21 nays), but an even stronger 82 percent of Republicans supported it (27 yeas, 6 nays)."

So of those who voted AGAINST the passage of the civil rights act, that's 117 democrats opposed with only 40 republicans opposed. Still isn't lookin' so great for you

VagabondSouffle logic

The number of ballots cast in California was greater than the number cast in Wyoming in the last election. Thus, California supports the election process more than Wyoming.

“It’s the number of votes cast. period”

What a dope :)

You're not going to post this anyway, so here it is.

There is no game, son.

NUMBERS OF VOTES CASSSSSSSSSSSSSST. PERIOD.

Sure thing, cupcake.

You can always post the chart I did showing the ACTUAL vote tally minus this ridiculously stupid spin based on percentages.

Or is stupid the only thing you can do?

Never mind.

Straight from the leftists handbook of instructions :)

It's like an entire decade that went by unnoticed by the surprisingly uninformed Trump base which incidentally voted for Trump because of his railing against Obama all these years but they forgot that too which is totaly understandable because memory requires thinking.

The Right made publuc spectacles of themselves every time Trump held a rally.

did you just seriously refer to your political leanings as "us"?
holy shit,you are a true blue believer ain't ya buddy?

And that’s just one that the leftist media couldn’t bury.

That's a lie.

Good one !

Do you even know what racism means?

The rally became violent when counter protesters, DRESSED IN BLACK, blocked the way and downed a rally organizer with pepper spray.

Once again, not racist, dipshit.

what are you trying to prove here?
that the pic I choose does not convey the full context? that maybe there is more to the story?

sure,gotcha,and if your investigative reporting is correct,then absolutely.

what I am struggling to understand is why this is so important to you?

is it your contention that racism does not exist?
or that trump supporters can not be racist?

your entire premise appears to be purely from a defense of trump supporters.
that somehow they are the victims and in no way that some may..possibly..be actually racist.

this,taken by itself is statistically impossible.

so I use ONE photo,and your little snowflake ass gets triggered,and you have to jump in and defend what is not controversial in the slightest.

so yeah..
you are a dipshit.

You should be asking yourself why you’re defending your picture and it’s text claiming that the Trump supporters in it are uncivil and racists.

Like the comment you replied to says, people who opposed Obama were not nearly as driven to undermine the sitting POTUS like the left is doing with Trump.

I’m not defending Trump but, rather, correcting your mislead perception that people who wear a MAGA hat must be racist.

Again, you have no idea what racism is, dipshit!

jesus,you are one special kind of dumbass ain;t ya?

So you’re not claiming Trump supporters are racists. Good to hear. Now you just need to show it by not trying to debate a statement with such a stupid reply like you did.

Maybe you’re not such a dipshit after all. :)

no back-pedaling.
already stated,and quite clearly,that not all trump supporters are racists,but they do exist,and they do wear a maga hat.

it appears that clarity or comprehension is not your strong suit.

but you go ahead and believe whatever you want to believe sweetheart.delusions can be fun!

“not all trump supporters are racists,but they do exist”

Oh wow, you really made a statement there. Just like not all Hillary supporters are racist, but they do exist.

No duh.

yikes

*doused