They never really change...

Uh... Something tells me it's not the conservatives that are triggered...

When you just can't take innocent defenseless babies being born.

Bro doesn't realize Abraham Lincoln was the first republican

Also another point, if you support BLM why would you support the killing of innocent black babies?

Your logic here in this claim does not make sense. If you were to say you are pro-choice, that means you are in favor of people legally being able to kill babies. On the other hand if you are pro second amendment that does not mean you are in favor of legalizing school massacres. So legalizing pro-choice has a direct impact of the murdering of unborn children. And legalizing weapons for hunting, self-defense, etc. does not have a direct purpose of murdering school children, this applies no matter what your opinions on gun control or abortion are.

Also I have a Q, so do you consider an embryo a human? If not what do you consider it?

I think where we differ is a moral standpoint, because I believe that after a baby has a heartbeat then it is a living child, whereas you believe it's not a child yet.

But you don't care about the babies...?

They why do you support killing them?

I don’t.

Bro where are you getting this from xD

Ok so you say that a congresswoman slipping up one time is so bad yet Joe Biden literally messes up every other word and it's cool?*

"whoever has the youth has the future"? I don't get how that's bad... It's true and she was referring to liberals institutionalizing children in schools.

LBJ, who referred to it as "the n****r bill"? The Civil Rights Acts of '57, '60, and '64 that were all passed with proportionally more Republican support than Democrat support? The "Southern Strategy" that lost Nixon the Deep South in 1968?

Which justices lied, according to you?

Amazing you folks always leave this part out.

Actually if you look at it that's exactly what I said.

It is also worth noting that some Republicans who voted against the Civil Rights act of 1964, like Barry goldwater, we're in full support of the cause of civil rights. They just saw some clauses of the bill as unconstitutional. Barry Goldwater voted for the Civil Rights act of 1957 and the Civil Rights act of 1960.

The vote on the Civil Rights act of 1964 and Voting Rights act of 1965 was split along North/South lines, not party.

Do you see a certain pattern emerging throughout this thread?

Yes, I do see a pattern. You denying history.

He supported state’s rights and welcomed the Senate’s biggest segregationist, Strom Thurmond, to the party.

Strom Thurmond also had a change of heart once he became a republican. He hired black staff members and voted to make a Federal holiday out of MLK Jr day.

Reagan opposed it because of cost concerns, not because he was racist.

You must be trolling at this point.

https://www.voanews.com/a/usa_president-reagans-daughter-apologizes-fathers-racist-comments/6173092.html

Patti posed in Playboy just to further distance herself from Ronny, just like Jr stomped on his ties as well. My Nuclear Family's own kids hated his rancid guts.

I could say the same to you.

Clockwise from upper right:

Again, many Republicans did, but because they saw something me issues with the constitutionality of certain clauses.

Okay, I'll admit I didn't know about some of those, so I will do more research, as there might be some omitted context.

As for MLK Day, it was because of costs. Not that he was against MLK.

Stop. lying.

False.

Some democrats only voted for the bill after they were made aware of the political prospects of doing such, by people like Lyndon Johnson.

I don't know. I will have to do more research into Eisenhower's presidency. But there is lots of evidence to suggest that Lyndon B. Johnson and the Democrats that he convinced to support the bill only did so because they thought they would win the black vote.

No, there isn't.

Yes, there is

Post it. I'll wait.

*le sigh*

STILL Johnson STILL referred to it as "the n****r bill" STILL.

I would be just fine if LBJ had had a change of heart, like Thurmond, but he didn't. He was still racist. As for Lincoln, most of America thought that at his time. But he, too, had a change of heart. He became good friends with Frederick Douglass, for one. Also, the "not inherently bad" quote I was referring to was the "If I could save the union" quote, and I think you know that. You are still being selective.

It was actually fully in line with Republican values. They wanted to hinder it's westward expansion. If an opportunity presented itself to ban it in the South AND cripple their economy, that's a great deal.

We're not talking about Puerto Rico. Try to stay on-topic.

Anyone who makes their arguments then tells their opponent to stop talking generally doesn't have the best points. (And yes, I am your opponent in this argument.)

"These N*****s, they're getting pretty uppity these days and that's a problem for us since they've got something now they never had before, the political pull to back up their uppityness. Now we've got to do something about this, we've got to give them a little something, just enough to quiet them down, not enough to make a difference. For if we don't move at all, then their allies will line up against us and there'll be no way of stopping them, we'll lose the filibuster and there'll be no way of putting a brake on all sorts of wild legislation. It'll be Reconstruction all over again." [Said to Senator Richard Russell, Jr. (D-GA) regarding the Civil Rights Act of 1957]

"USA_Patriot76

I don't know. I will have to do more research into Eisenhower's presidency. But there is lots of evidence to suggest that Lyndon B. Johnson and the Democrats that he convinced to support the bill only did so because they thought they would win the black vote."

1957 is not 1964, and that one quote from that racist Texan is not "lots"
Further, LBJ pushed the Civil & Voting Rights Acts, without which voting would have turned iut differently.

Try again.

How is that not good enough for you, but one not even inherently bad Lincoln quote "definitive proof" of what a bad person Lincoln was? It seems you're being very selective.

Also, yes he is referring to the Civil Rights act 1957, but logically if that's the reason he supported that piece of legislation then he probably supported the Civil Rights act of 1964 for that same reason.

Oops.

*le sigh*

Because 1957 STILL is STILL not 1964 STILL, and that one quote from that racist Texan is not "lots" STILL.
Further, LBJ pushed the Civil & Voting Rights Acts, without which voting would have turned out differently STILL.

You say shitter Strom Thurmond gets a pass, and same for Abe's abhorently racist words, yet you say it seems I'M being very selective? Well, high five me, we agree, you are correct there, it would SEEM that way to someone who just referred to those vile words as a "not even inherently bad Lincoln quote" (which I reposted for all to see what you call a "not even inherently bad")

btw, LIncoln only moved towards freeing the slaves as a way to BREAK the South, give it a big thumb up the nose while destroying its economy, forever tethering the South to the North's teat, just like was done to Puerto Rico a couple of decades later with the US's dismantling of its sugar cane industry, its main economic base, which is still heavily subsidized for farming in Florida rather than do it the easy way in PR by just planting canes and letting them do their thing.

NEWS FLASH: In case ya pickin up on tha vibe, on my planet, a racist is a racist, regardless who their lovely lil' fanbase is, and that includes whatever fake sides and faux-deology 'either' of yous team players belong to.

I'd ask you to try again but you ain't gonna. Heck, I could find more from BOTH of those racist shitters in as many seconds as it took you hours to find just one. So let's not waste any more of my time, shall we?

Good grief.

You can stop cramming my notifs with your Southern fried claptrap now.

Uh-huh...

Use your main account or else... well you know the rest alt boi.

Liberals are so ignorant, and intentionally gullible: https://youtu.be/UiprVX4os2Y

Yes, those who were against racism decided to join up with the racists. Only a racist at heart would see nothing wrong with that idea.

You: "which is why you had to resort to ad hominem"

Also you: "you are a racist misogynist...You are a mental midget by comparison"

She’s not a real historian.

OOpsie daisie!

Haha

The Party of racists . . .

When you infantile liberals don't get your way, then the masks fall off, and we get to see the evil that lies behind them. The same group that allegedly feared for the end of our Democracy because of what happened on J6, are now ready to create murder and mayhem for the right to commit murder and mayhem in the womb.

The only person who does not realize how badly you have lost the argument, in light of reality, is you.

You know where I saw that tweet? All over left Twitter, where it was roundly criticized and condemned as stupid and racist. Do you think a single person speaks for an entire ideology?

here's you saying it never happened. now you say one. then you'll day 40 when given evidence. pathetic.

Haha you were the one that claimed no democrat used racial slurs about Thomas. YOU thought you were right because of a lack of evidence. Now being presented with examples, you deflect.

That logic work for you?

"Haha you were the one that claimed no democrat used racial slurs about Thomas"

I never claimed that no democrat ever did that

Wait, you asked for proof,
He couldn't come up with any,
Now your request for proof is proof of you doing what you asked proof of?

That proves it!

You asked the question, therefore the question proves you're guilty!

How does he know her party, for that matter?

The Party of Racism

John Corbett is a party? Also, he's not even a Democrat. He's Canadian.

I had to Google this person because I didn't even know who he was. That just goes to show how important he must be

Two random people

OR, your story about the parties switching is pure fantasy.

Which it is.

Pure fantasy.

You support the Party of racists, slavery, Jim Crow, segregation, the KKK, and baby murder.

You clearly didn’t open the link I sent you where Kevin Kruse details exactly how the party switch took place. You’re choosing to be ignorant here.

Ask him why southern conservatives used to vote Democrat and now they vote Republican if the party switch never happened. I guarantee you'll never get an answer to that question.

Name a single former president who switched parties after this so called party switch.

Senator Robert Byrd...

mic drop

sure they switched... LMAO

That the same guy who renounced his former views in the 80s?

Name a single former president who switched parties after this so called party switch.

LOL... so the 60's switch thing was BS?

OH MY!

It's a cope from democrats mad that their party fought for slavery, Jim Crow laws and the kkk.

Ahhh, the big switch lie. There were only two racist Dixiecrats that switched party's. Strom Thurmond in the Senate and Albert Watson in the House. All of the other Dixiecrats died as racist Democrats.

So then what exactly is your explanation for why southern conservatives used to vote Democrat and now they vote Republican?

There's nothing to be mad about. Modern day Democrats don't support any of those things. You have to bring up stuff from 150 years ago, which is pretty sad.

Meanwhile you've got Republicans here and now openly supporting white supremacists and making racist talking points

Byrd left the KKK in the 1940s and renounced the group for decades before he died

So can you explain why Southern conservatives used to vote Democrat and now they vote Republican? It's a very simple question.

sure thing... and he later wrote a letter to the group's grand wizard, saying, quote, "The Klan is needed today more as never before, and I am anxious to see its rebirth here in West Virginia,"

OOPS

Yes... I love how you ignore the truth...

Exactly