Black Girl Wat

REE REE REE

Why didn't Obama the Ultra progressive pick a female VP
Why didn't Clinton pick a female VP? He had the cigar ready

You have nothing but your typical BS talking points.

Now he's saying OP unfeatured his seethe_h, uh, cringe_hard post. Amazing, all those downvotes yet he doesn't have a comment timer like grind did. Guess they removed that? Gosh wouldn't kf seethe having to wait 36 minutes between comment?

It's time! Time for me to virtue signal!!!

How about it's time for the best person for the job instead of your incessant identity politics and virtue signalling? How 'bout dat?

Yes, the biggest qualification is someone that can help beat Trump. Not overall competence. She could be a crackhead with a 67 IQ YET if she can somehow help swing the election, it's all good.

No, no, no. Maybe she has dirt on Trump and will be particularly effective in torpedoing Trump?

See what I'm getting at?

I do, but this is like the pregnant lady gunned down on the way to the abortion clinic hypo

Vanishingly unlikely, and in this case I really don’t see any scenario in which this could possibly be true. A retarded crack w**re is not going to be VP.

If Trump fingered her behind a dumpster when she was 12 or whatever, then there are other ways of disseminating that dirt

The best candidate for Biden is a qualified woman who is electable. One NOT named HRC

That’s why I won’t agree to a statement of “most qualified” simply, since HRC probably is. But you have to throw in electability too. And she’s not.

See what I’m getting at?

pregnant lady gunned down on the way to the abortion clinic hypo, Irrelevant, Has nothing to do with the topic.

I really don’t see any scenario in which this could possibly be true. That's your opinion, Opinions aren't fact.

If Trump fingered her behind a dumpster when she was 12 or whatever. She wouldn't have waited to come forward until Trump's 2020 re-election. She would have been on CNN in 2015, 24/7 being represented by Michael Avenatti. Fact.

No one mentioned HRC, More irrelevant babble.

You won't agree because you have the focus of a squirrel on crack. You babbled about everything except the topic.

You won't see what I'm getting at. You're an arrogant obnoxious douche bag trying to manipulate the debate to fit your idiotic narrative.

Biden will nominate a qualified woman as VP.

That’s not opinion. That’s a prediction that’s overwhelmingly likely to be true.

We’ll see if I’m right.

What if I told you... Your opinion isn't fact. You'll ignore it and babble about something else.

What makes you think that when I state an opinion I believe it to be fact?

Re: Joe Biden will pick a qualified woman, you can’t prove I’m “wrong“ because it hasn’t happened yet. It’s not a falsifiable statement.

Objection, Fake lawyer, It is not incumbent on me to prove your statement as false, The burden is on you to provide proof of your statement as questioned.

Keep shifting, Lying, Deflecting. You can't back up your statement until he nominates his running mate.

Maybe he'll nominate Has-been Kylie Minogue, It's not like she has anything else to do now that she's a washed up nobody.

You would piss yourself silly if he did.
.

He’s going to pick a qualified woman. That is your opinion, Not fact.
You have zero evidence to back up your statement, You've repeated it multiple times throughout this thread.

Riddle me this, Fake lawyer.
If it's not a fact but your opinion, Then why do you keep repeating it in your arguments? Why do you insist everyone who's debated against you on this Meme is wrong?
Why have you wasted 3 days of your life arguing about your opinion?

A You're presenting your opinion as fact.
B You're desperate for attention, So you limp onto Memes to argue about your opinions.
B You're an arrogant douche bag that refuses to admit when you're wrong.
D All of the above

Re: Joe Biden will pick a qualified woman, you can’t prove I’m “wrong“ because it hasn’t happened yet. It’s not a falsifiable statement.

If you want to call that an “opinion” at this point, fine, but it’s overwhelmingly likely to come true for all the reasons I’ve discussed

We’ll see if I’m right

The answer was a yes with qualifications

I more carefully defined what “Best person for the job” was and answered yes

He’s going to pick a qualified woman

KylieClown retard logic Biden will chose a qualified woman because he's going to die of old age. The stupid just oozes out of you.

He’s going to pick a qualified woman, Because an arrogant fool on a Meme site said so.

Because he’s 78 and there’s a good chance he might not make it two terms

There you go again, Attempting to shift and control the debate.
Where did I mention Trump, Fake lawyer. Your rebuttal is immaterial.

I specifically mentioned Democrats, As per the aforementioned Democrat presidents as well as the Democrat in the Op Meme

No one mentioned (R )McCain. More submitted evidence from a moron that has nothing to do with the topic of the debate or the OP Meme in a failed attempt to prop up his failed argument.

It's time for a woman in the office of President or VP. The right woman, of course.

Biden didn't say the right woman, Fake lawyer. You're leading the witness. That is frowned upon by courts.

I never take him seriously, He has no credibility.
I figured out his nonsense long ago. I point out his tactics and he say's that's a legitimate way to debate.

“No one mentioned (R) McCain”

I did! And he’s automatically relevant in any discussion of female VP choices

Biden hasn’t chosen his VP yet, so we don’t know whether it’s the right woman or not, or whether these premature allegations of “sexism” will stick. You’re prejudging the evidence and that is frowned upon by courts.

I mentioned Geraldine Ferraro somewhere else

We could talk about her too

You mention irrelevant people/places/things to shift the debate to fit your ridiculous talking points. You can't actually debate anything without your BS tactics.

Discussions lead to different places sometimes. It happens

You’re shifting the debate to me as you always do

Anyway, I’m a lot less relevant in a discussion of female VP candidates than Sarah Palin or Geraldine Ferraro

Biden will pick a qualified woman

Pretty simple response to the OP. Said it many times and here again.

You have no facts to back up your claim.

What do you do.. You keep making the same claim without any facts, And strut around like you know what you are talking about.

So which lie are you telling now,
The lie that you're not presenting your opinion as fact, Or the lie to cover your lie that your opinion is fact?

Keep struggling KylieClown.

You attempt to lead the discussion to different places to avoid answering questions a child could answer.
You attempt to lead the discussion to different places to shift the debate to fit your narrative.

There you go again, Babbling about people that no one else has mentioned in a failed attempt to control the direction of the debate.

Biden will pick a qualified woman

Pretty simple response to the OP. Said it many times and here again.

Happy? Of course you’re not

“No one mentioned”

Also why am I apparently the only one not allowed to mention stuff

You're mentioning irrelevant people that have nothing to to with the topic, Because you can't debate.

Here you are struggling to change the topic because you can't defend your ridiculous arguments about the OP's Meme.

He’s going to pick a qualified woman

Qualifications, The ability to outlive a 78 year old candidate that has 1 foot in the grave.

You mentioned him to deflect and to try to control the debate.

(R) McCain” is irrelevant to the topic of Democrats and Bidens VP choice.
The debate isn't about nominated female VP's, It's about Bidens choice for VP.
The judge advises the Jury to disregard fake Counsels statement.

Biden didn't say he will chose the right woman, He said he will chose a woman. Period.

Conjecture is inadmissible, Fake lawyer.

You really suck at being a lawyer. That's probably why

Biden will choose a qualified woman as his VP. He didn't have to say the "right" woman, because it goes without saying. It would be kind of condescending to put it that way

"I commit to choosing a woman as my VP: The RIGHT woman! A QUALIFIED woman!"

The very act of selecting a VP will serve as evidence of Biden's belief that VP is, in fact, qualified.

Will she be truly qualified or not? That's for the rest of us to decide. But she will be. She has to be. Why? Because Biden will be 78 when he takes office, if he is elected: The oldest president ever to be inaugurated.

It really only takes a little bit of logic to figure this one out.

So McStain nominated a unqualified moron yet you know Quid Pro Joe will nominate someone qualified? Hmmm...

So since it hasn't come true yet KF, we should doubt Biden on his word? Or, maybe you're suggesting that he'll just "conveniently forget" that he made the promise?

The larger issue behind your meme is the pendulum effect, in which it's considered PC, or just plain OK, to have the pendulum swing over to the other side of whatever the discriminatory issue is, and almost always against white males, in order to balance out the discrimination that has occurred in the past.

I suppose there's some legitimacy to thinking that's okay, but for those who believe it, they should just be honest about it and admit that what they really believe in is an compensatory amount of sexism, discrimination, etc., for what has happened in the past.

In this case, to pretend Biden's requirement that his VP candidate be female isn't sexism is lying. Just call it what it is! Admit it's sexism, but sexism that's based on historical events, and is justified. At least justified for a little while. Good luck on getting those who are woke to agree on how long that should be.

Amusing meme. Only 9K?

I don't view him selecting a woman as oppressive against white males either. Quite honestly, no matter who his VP candidate is, I view his showboating promise in a debate to pick a woman as nothing more than him pandering to the Dems' woke, progressive base, even though doing so would be sexist, technically, in its purist form.

I was just joking about him forgetting, but even if he did forget, his *handlers* (aka DNC overlords) would make the choice for him.

Here's a crazy idea, which is actually pretty darn important considering how old and doddering uncle quid pro Joe is, why not select the most qualified *person* to be his VP candidate?

Sure, there's a huuuuuuuge (as the Tangerine Tornado might say) risk associated with that... what if it turns out to be another old (but still younger than Joe!), white, straight, male? Gawd forbid!

I don't know too much about Abrams, but I would check into her views if she becomes the VP candidate. Short of that, I don't have the bandwidth to stay current on the up and coming Dems... I'd rather stay here on the flip and destroy StanHalen.

I doubt it would be HRC, but if it is, Joe would likely slump into a depressed state shortly after the election, then there would reports of him becoming suicidal shortly after being sworn in, and then we'd hear the tragic news about how he 'Epsteined' himself before he had the chance to deliver his first SOTU address.

Lol.

There’s a strong case that the most “qualified” person, male or female, for Biden to pick would be HRC. But it would be an electoral disaster waiting to happen

I’m not going to get bogged down in “qualified” debates. I’m more interested in temperament and judgment. Trump has none of those three qualities and conservatives picked him anyway. So I especially do not take lectures from them on this.

You finally answered the question of a qualified Joe Biden female VP.
The qualifications needed is the ability to outlive 78 year old Joe Biden, Who you admit won't survive his Presidential term.

That is probably the stupidest thing you've said all week, And it's only Sunday. You have 5 days to outdo yourself, Your inflated ego won't let you walk away from a challenge like that.

It is sexist.

How is is fair that Joe Biden says a woman will be his pick for Vice President if he doesn’t mention qualifications needed to be Vice President? Genitalia shouldn’t be used to pick somebody, qualifications should be used instead.

If it turns out she's not qualified, then we can have this discussion.

But she will be.

Some are saying he'll pick AOC, but I highly, highly doubt it. She's generated a lot of buzz but she just isn't ready. And with Biden being the oldest President to ever take office if he's elected (he'd be 78 on Inauguration Day), everyone will be expecting Biden to pick a VP ready from Day 1 to step into the Presidency if needed.

WHO are saying AOC?

She's too young anyways.
Not to mention, the "Step aside so Bernie won't win" DNC would hardly want her for the gig.

No one I've heard. I've heard Abrams and Kamala *shudder*

Now I heard this only once, and I wasn't exactly paying attention, but it was that Biden wants someone who debated with the rest of them.

As much as I'm for Klobuchar, the aspect of her running with Biden has me torn, since I have no plans to vote for him.

And Kamala? Eww, yuck.
Love how these dolts so quickly forget what they tore into each other with. "That little girl was me, but you're totes ok in my book now. Let's toke to some Tupac and Biggie, bro."

I think I saw that too.

I'd feel better with the vp candidate not a radical. Maybe she could help Biden not be too influenced from morons like Beto that'll try to push him around.

Yeah, she's a slimeball. I was shocked that she didn't really get hurt by that hypocrisy. I wasn't impressed with Abrams shenanigans and classlessness after she lost in Georgia either.

Why would Biden be influenced by what's-his-name, or anyone else, for that matter?

HAA! Are you vaguely familiar on how the Georgia theft went down? Abrams should have taken that to court.

He already had Beto O'Cuck up at the podium saying Beta's going to solve the gun issue. The guy who said he wanted armed military personnel going door to door and confiscating guns. Better I guess then Swallowswell, who talked of using nukes on the public.

I can't remember the particulars.

Imagine Warren & him as the ticket?

I know I'm a righty and have a bias. I don't have a huge problem with classical liberalism. But that would bankrupt the system in 2 years. A government that ran on feelings over facts. And I don't think Warren is stupid. Just power mad.

Well the system is gone. One week barely shut anything, and already the 'fiscal conSWervatives' are floating a trillion to bail out the main beneficiaries of the massive tax cut because they gave all them savings to their lovely employees whom they are now firing and $1200 to those who were working because they forgot to put their extra dimes in the bank.

Let's see how much SocialismNO! they'll be tossing out NEXT month when the plague catches on and the next month and... PHEW! come November the entire planet will be indebted to Trump for putting them all on WelfXXX, the DolX, SocialiXX, for buying their sweet asses.

Humans - they're so cute when they stick their fingers in their eyes and pretend they don't lie.

Pretty sure you can bet ol' beto bettah not be picked because....

ok, I'll stop.

He was probably the biggest phony out of all the candidates.

As I explained above: she’s old enough to be VP but not old enough to assume the office of President

Have you read the Constitution?

I don’t care. Screenshot lmfao

Sometimes I’m wrong. Rare but it happens. When I am I admit it

This one isn’t all that important. Who thought AOC would have made a good VP choice anyway? Not I.

Just some dumb writer on Slate whose piece wasn’t edited properly

It’s not taught in con law. It’s just not that interesting or relevant in daily life.

Of the first Amendments we spent much more time 1st, 2nd, 4th, 5th, 6th, 7th, 8th, and especially the 14th, they’re super important

If you ever study con law you’ll be saddened to learn how little the 10th Amendment ever applies

In bar exams, the 10th Amendment is the quintessential classic “wrong” answer in multiple-choice questions

There you go: another piece of evidence for your Leftist conspiracy theory

You're wrong more than you'll ever admit, You're too arrogant to know when you're wrong

There you go again , Attempting to shift the debate by saying "This one isn’t all that important"
And then babble about AOC When Timber didn't ask about AOC.

And then you refer to a writer from Slate, Who isn't involved in the debate, To prop up your failed argument.

WTF does "shes old enough" have to do with Timbrers question? He specifically asked "How do you know who Biden is going to pick as VP". She isn't an answer.

Another failed attempt to shift the debate when you can't answer a question a child could answer.

KylieClown debate skills 101:
Conservative asks: Why is summer warmer than winter?
KylieClown answers: Because chocolate melts faster due to racism. And then he posts a link to a liberal run site that says chocolate is racist.
Conservative says you didn't answer the question, KylieClown says yes I did, What size shoe do I wear?

KylieClown uses his opinion as fact, When he is questioned he babbles about other topics to avoid answering. Then he'll say he's already answered.

How could it be AOC? Doesn't the VP have to be qualified, constitutionally speaking, to be president? She's only 30, but don't you have to be at least 35 to be president?

I don't think Biden will last that long!

I wondered that myself but didn't look it up. Here it is:

U.S. Constitution, Art. II, Sec. I: "No Person except a natural born Citizen, or a Citizen of the United States, at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution, shall be eligible to the Office of President; neither shall any person be eligible to that Office who shall not have attained to the Age of thirty five Years, and been fourteen Years a Resident within the United States."

I thought maybe this clause only applied to *elected* Presidents. But yes: That "35 years" requirement seems to rule out AOC becoming President through succession as well, at least during Biden's first term. (She's 30 now)

There's no age requirement for VP, so I suppose AOC could be appointed VP anyway - and then if something happens to Biden, then the Presidency goes to the next in line of succession, i.e. the Speaker of the House - but I doubt AOC would be chosen because of the constitutional questions that would raise.

And politically: There's a very good chance the Speaker of the House will be Republican at some point during a Biden presidency.

As well as all the other reasons not to choose AOC: inexperienced, divisive, etc etc.

I stand corrected!

And that folks is how you debunk me

Can’t wait for you to catch me saying something again in a couple months

I engage with real world news sources and research. I re-post and link them here for others to see. I do my best to vet them, but nobody is perfect. I admit when I’m wrong unlike pretty much everyone else.

You on the other hand will not permit yourself to be fact-checked. Mainly because the stream of musings you offer from your “constitutional conservative” thought bubble have no basis in fact, and do not really pretend to either. You just cited the Constitution to me and another time several months ago cited an opinion piece from the Jerusalem Post. Other than that it’s pretty much musings from the dome

The other problem with fact-checking you is that when challenged on any point, you resort to whining, logical fallacy-policing, and name calling rather than answering the damn question.

See below a non-exhaustive list of my questions still pending to you going back several months:

—is there such a thing as a “greenhouse gas”? If so, what are some of them?
—What is the chemical composition of smoke released by a coal-fired power plant?
—What would definitive proof of anthropogenic climate change look like to you?
—Is taxation theft?
—You said morality has an objective source. What is it? Is it written down anywhere? Can you link me a copy?
—You said sex workers were doing “lifetime and beyond damage” to themselves and others. Are prostitutes going to hell in your book? (Bonus question: how about their clients? Triple bonus: Porn actors and actresses?)
—You said Denmark isn’t socialist but Bernie Sanders is. What is a “socialist policy”?
—Define “Leftism” and who are the last three non-Leftist presidents we’ve had?
—This might be a new one: What are five to ten news sources you would consider “unbiased”?

Why does it feel that way?

“Hate kills much more readily than pride”

And you have quite a bit of both it appears, I meant to add

Still no answers

Color me surprised

Not to mention he thinks he knows if 'pretty much everyone here' has previously admitted to being wrong or not. With all his years of imgflip experience. What arrogance.

Exchanging facts and admitting error are hallmarks of a discussion that is actually leading somewhere

Here we have more insults, “virtue signaling” accusations, blah blah

Hate kills a lot more readily than pride

Can you point me in the direction of some unbiased news sources?

“You ARE me, 15 years ago.”

Except you are me 10 years ago, before I realized we live in a society

And I’m not quite sure you’ve learned the whole “not being a loud mouth know-it-all” lesson yet

I don’t seem to encounter these issues talking with 95% of memers, even those on the right when we disagree

You've been debunked numerous times by me, You usually crawl off the Meme and move onto the next Meme begging for attention. That's how you fill your days.

I caught you 5 times in the past 2 days.

I can list them with ease, But you'll make up BS excuses like you always do.

It would be interesting to see the constitutional craziness that would ensue, were he to choose her. I agree that it would never happen; she's too controversial, and choosing her would likely cement his impending defeat.

What has she done to earn this? How in the hell can there be this talk already about the former bartender? This truly is clown world. Cuz she has some twitter followers?

It is. I just don't get her popularity, especially after so much bs like cauliflower is a colonial oppressive vegetable. But I guess she's young female Bernie. The leftists only considers racism when it's committed by someone white. Unless it's their own.

LBJ lol can you imagine the reaction if Trump held interviews or conducted business while taking a foul dump?

Thought you were talking about Trump there for a sec.

Still haven't heard a pip of this from anyone but KyLie. It's nonsense.

Trump's had name recognition for decades. Ran before. He's not 30. But yes, he's an outlier, for sure.

I hear they hate her so much, they plan on redrawing her district.

AOC did NOT kill the Amazon deal with one amazing Tweet. The community who didn't want it in their communinity there killed it. Something about wanting to keep their own businesses going and not being forced to move so their homes can be turned into a parking lot. It's not even her district. That's 12, hers is 14.

YES, she's n DC all the time because that's where she LIVES and WORKS as she was elected to do. She's in Congress, not the NY State Senate or NYC City Council.
Again, she's over there and had nothing to do with the Amazon deal.

Further, Amazon IS setting up shop in Manhattan, and already has TWO distribution centers in NYC: Staten Island and, yup, Hunts Point, tha Bronx.

As a joke, yes. "Outlier" being something of a euphemism.

News to me, and I'm in her district which is a new one itself. Far easier to elect someone else than redraw it, fake as it is, bridging the LI Sound to connect parts of the Bronx & Queens that have nothing to do with each other. Haven't heard about hate for her here.

Hmmm, interesting. I thought I remembered hearing about how helping kill the Amazon deal and that she's in DC all the time was causing low approval numbers from her district.

AOC simply popped into my head as an example of a (probably) unqualified female, since folks were asking “why shouldn’t Biden consider someone qualified”?

Well: short answer is that most high-profile female Dems would in fact be well-qualified, with the possible exception of her

I got it from a dumb Slate article wrote by a probably jilted Bernie or Warren-supporting millennial writer that pitched AOC’s name, not something I’ve seen outside that.

Riiiiiiiiiiiiight, now she's unqualified according to you. [nods in getthafuqoutmyface]

I've said that from the beginning

You forgot to list retardation as a reason.

I'm not sure she's considered retarded, at least not clinically! Naive, ignorant, insanely annoying, horse toothed, etc., but probably not retarded.

Anyone who thinks the world will end in 11 years because climate change should be culled so as to not infect the gene pool. But yeah, probably not clinically.

Isn't it supposed to be ending right now?

You know what that means, right? It's break out the BBQ time!

I think it ended in 2012. Or was that Y2K?

She will be, Because a clown on a Meme site says so.

She will be because Biden will be 78 on Inauguration Day if he’s elected

There’s a high chance whoever he chooses as VP will one day be president. Voters will want to see someone qualified and ready to lead on Day 1 if needed

His age has nothing to do with a VP's qualifications. Another failed attempt at logic.

More failed KylieClown logic:
There’s a high chance whoever he chooses as VP will one day be president

America has had 49 Vice Presidents, Only 9 went on to become President. Using racist mathematics that is an 18%.of Bidens VP one day becoming President. The only thing high in your equasion is you. You're also assuming Biden is going to win the 2020 Presidential election, His chances are as bad as your math skills.

“Racist mathematics” lol wut.

VPs as a group are likely to become president one day than any other group of people.

That’s what I mean by “high chance.” Whoever Biden elevates to that role

And Biden has at least a 50% chance of winning in November.

This is KylieClowns logic for why Biden's Vp choice has a high probability of becoming President.

The only qualifications needed to be Biden's VP is the ability to outlive him.

You never heard the claim by unhinged leftists that math is racist?

You libtards say math is racist. I can link articles I know you'll ignore.

18% more likely, You're still struggling with math.

18% isn't a high chance of success, It's a high chance of failure.

The numbers say different, But you don't allow math a to interfere with your logic, You don't let facts get in the way of your opinion you use as facts.

There are hundreds of millions of Americans

If any one of them had an 18% chance of being president, the I’d say those are pretty good odds

And those odds would be much higher under the oldest President ever to take office

Math flusters you again. There's an age requirement to run for President.
Deduct the % of Americans that don't meet the age requirement.

Deduct the % of Americans that meet the requirements to run for President, That have no interest in running for President.

The odds are still 18% a VP will go on to be POTUS. History has proven that using math.
Math isn't your thing.

If those hundreds of millions of Americans you're using in your 3rd grade math skills decided to run, The odds would be greatly reduced from 18%.

You're as bad at math as you are at.... Everything.

So you're banking on Creepy Joe Biden winning the election, Then keeling over from old age, And his Female VP becoming POTUS. Only a retarded Democrat would conjure a ridiculous scenario like that.

Sexism in the past does not justify the use of sexism nowadays.

Yeah, It really is a weird thing to cry over sexism when SJW's claim gender can be chosen.

Ohhhh the hypocrisy.

Sexism exists and has existed

Transgender people exist (and so does discrimination against transgender people)

Mind blown yet?

But here you are again, shifting the focus of the debate when no one else mentioned transgenderism because you cannot win with your failed talking points

Liberals can't Meme
Is that child you used as a prop in your pitiful Meme transgendered? Does she share SJW warped ideology? You don't know and you didn't care.You chose a random photo and proceeded to whine.

Sexism exists and has existed, You prove it every time you use Has-been Kylie Minogue as a prop that has nothing to do with the relevancy of your garbage Memes.

"Why not both?" Your question is irrelevant and a failed attempt to shift the topic.

I didn't mention Transgendered people, I said " Gender is Fluid" Gender fluid and Transgender are two separate warped SJW ideologies.

Your mind is blown, You couldn't debate my Meme, So you attempted to change what I said to fit your narrative.

I didn't shift anything, Fake lawyer. I simply made a statement that exposes SJW talking points.
You keep attempting to project everything I say about the way you debate.

Show me exactly where I said transgenderism? Fake lawyer.

Total number of VP's throughout history has nothing to do with OP's post.
Biden stating he will pick his VP based on their gender however, that is blatant sexism.
It shouldn't matter what gender someone is. What matters is how a person acts and what they actually do.

And that gender was male

And for most of that time women could not even vote

So if this is now sexism color me unimpressed

It was sexism whether or not they recognized it as such

The slavery example might make it a little more clear to you what I'm saying here

And there were in fact quite a few folks as early as the 1700s who realized that slavery was racist and wrong. Should their forward-thinking opinions be sacrificed on the altar of "presentism"?

Yet I expect you'll either cry "presentist" again or perhaps toss "black-on-black slavery" at me or somesuch

To the black-on-black thing I'd say: slavery as it was actually practiced here in the States was overwhelmingly white owners, black slaves. And while the colonial slave trade with Africa (in which black Africans necessarily sold other black Africans to white Europeans) obviously got it started, slave *breeding* in the New World under white auspices was a big part of what kept it going.

Slavery was racist and barbaric back then too

Pardon me for not being so willing to excuse whatever silly fictions our forefathers told themselves to justify it

And by "our forefathers" I mean only those who actually supported slavery, because again: abolitionists existed as early as the 1700s

I've never heard that term before, but sure

Easy one

Your turn

You attempted to shift the topic of the debate when you couldn't defend your idiotic talking points.

Was it sexist that women did not have the right to vote?

Was slavery racist?

Was it sexist that women did not have the right to vote? Was slavery racist?
Your questions are irrelevant,They have nothing to do with the topic.
Once again you're attempting to shift the topic of the debate.

And that gender was male. Democrats refuses to allow women the right to vote, Let alone hold office.

And for most of that time women could not even vote, Democrats didn't believe in equality.
76% of Republican Senators voted in favor of the 19th amendment ,60% of Democrat Senators voted against allowing a US citizen the right to vote based on gender.
History FTW.

Your entire argument never mentions qualifications, Only gender, Color me shocked.

You are so obtuse you don't realize, Biden is only saying he will chose a female VP to pander to SJW's.
Here you are bleating like a sheep.

More Republicans supported the 19th Amendment because they used to be the “progressive“ party

Much has changed within the past 100 years

Your argument was pointless, So you attempted to shift the debate, It blew up in your arrogant face so you're attempting to shift it once again.

The topic wasn't about past and present, It was ONLY about the past as per your failed statement.

Not much has changed, Democrats are still the party of racism and hate. Here you are bleating their lying narrative like a good little sheep.

100 years ago both parties used to have some progressive factions, some conservative factions. We still have this to some degree today actually: AOC/Bernie supporters within the Democratic Party vs. Biden supporters.

Hyperpartisanship of the type we have today didn’t exist.

On the issue of female suffrage, according to chosanwan (and I’ll just assume what he said was true), more Republican Senators voted “progressively” than the Democrats. But there were still substantial minorities in both parties who voted the opposite way.

Due to hyperpartisanship, I can’t think of a single issue today that would produce the same large scale cross-partisan voting patterns.

Did Republicans used to be a progressive party?

Lmao everyone could where you were going with that question.

And you confirmed it in your reply so yeah.

Nobody knows if you can’t answer or won’t answer these questions because you haven’t answered

You can change your mind at any point, since my questions for you aren’t going to stop until you answer them like an adult

False. It was Confederate war veterans

https://www.politifact.com/factchecks/2018/oct/24/blog-posting/no-democratic-party-didnt-create-klu-klux-klan/

https://apnews.com/afs:Content:2336745806

Your move