Maga whack jobs

Hmmmm...how you going to do that?

https://bensguide.gpo.gov/j-ways-to-amend-constitution

Still hasn't happened...won't happen in my life time.

I wouldn't be so sure. But amending the constitution is a difficult and lengthy process, which is why instead of actually trying to change it, libs tend to pretend it doesn't say things it clearly does (the right to bear arms) and try to claim it says things it doesn't (the "right" to an abortion).

You mean like ": A well regulated Militia"...... or "in order to defend a nation with no army"... times have changed.... its time to revisit the 2nd and repeal it.

oh and btw.... wrong on all counts. typical maga.

https://www.law.cornell.edu/supremecourt/text/410/113

Now, now, everyone knows it only has 5 words, you're just adding those to confuse everyone,,,

The Second Amendment is only 5 words long or are you a "libs"?

The irony,,,

Except you don't have a right to abortion. Show me where on the Amendments does it say you can have an abortion. Go on. I'll wait for you.

It doesn't say anybody has a right to abortion, just like it doesn't say anybody has a right to marriage. So you should be okay with all laws regarding marriage to be left up to the states, right? Which means the conservative Southern states would be able to re-criminalize interracial marriage like they did in the past.

Umm. You are wrong. The reason there was South hate in the past is thanks to your party of Democrats and the Dixiecrats. Despite what you think, Southerners don't look at people on skin color. There is no such thing as White Supremacy dear as much as you want to play off. It was in the past, but it wasn't Conservatives that did it, it was the democrats.

Once more remind the of the party that free slavery and also fought for Civil Rights? Republicans.

Liberals/Democrats have always been the party of hate and racism, and always will. I don't know why you keep believing all Southerns are racist, they were only so at the time because Democrats lived in the South and Republicans in the North. It wasn't till after Civil Rights came that the parties switched platforms with Democrats start being more North Incline with Republicans in the South. Even if parties change sides, their beliefs were the same. Your Lyndon Johnson was a notorious racist at that time after the passing of Civil Rights who jump on using and manipulating the African-Americans to the Democratic side.

"Umm. You are wrong. The reason there was South hate in the past is thanks to your party of Democrats and the Dixiecrats"

Back when they were conservatives, yes. If you go back and actually read my comment you'll see that I didn't say anything about political party.

"Despite what you think, Southerners don't look at people on skin color"

Now you're just out right denying history. Go read a history book and read about the laws Southern conservatives implemented to discriminate against non-white people. I don't know if you're new to the US or if you've never lived here, but anyone with any understanding at all of American history knows this.

"There is no such thing as White Supremacy"

Yes, the idea of white supremacy actuelly exists

"it wasn't Conservatives that did it, it was the democrats"

Once again you don't understand that those two things are not mutually exclusive. Democrats in the 1800s were conservative.

"Once more remind the of the party that free slavery and also fought for Civil Rights? Republicans."

Once more I never mentioned any political party in my comment

"Liberals/Democrats have always been the party of hate and racism, and always will"

No they haven't, and no they won't. First of all, "liberal" is not a political party. Second, liberals were the ones fighting to end slavery in the United States. Liberals were the ones fighting for civil rights in the United States. You can't point to any historical evidence that shows that it was liberals opposing civil rights and conservatives supporting civil rights.

Here's your opportunity. Show me actual historical evidence that it was conservatives in the South who supported the civil rights movement and liberals who opposed it.

"I don't know why you keep believing all Southerns are racist"

I never once said that, liar

"they were only so at the time because Democrats lived in the South and Republicans in the North. It wasn't till after Civil Rights came that the parties switched platforms with Democrats start being more North Incline with Republicans in the South"

So after Democrats moved to the north and Republicans to the south you're saying racism magically ended in the southern states? That's fascinating.

"Even if parties change sides, their beliefs were the same"

Nope, that's why the parties switched in the first place

'Now you're just out right denying history. Go read a history book and read about the laws Southern conservatives implemented to discriminate against non-white people. I don't know if you're new to the US or if you've never lived here, but anyone with any understanding at all of American history knows this.'

Wrong. Democrats were not conservatives. Maybe you need to go look at History. The REPUBLICANS were the CONSERVATIVE PARTY.

Which mind you again it was the Democrats back then preaching all the hate and not the Conservative Republican side. FFS, do you even bother to read anything about Lincoln? He said he was a Conservative and his party were Conservatives.

'Once again you don't understand that those two things are not mutually exclusive. Democrats in the 1800s were conservative.'

Wrong. Democrats were just Democrats back then. Once more the Conservatives were Lincoln's side. Because they were conserving the constitution, do I really need to keep linking you to the wikipedia page for this?

'No they haven't, and no they won't. First of all, "liberal" is not a political party. Second, liberals were the ones fighting to end slavery in the United States. Liberals were the ones fighting for civil rights in the United States. You can't point to any historical evidence that shows that it was liberals opposing civil rights and conservatives supporting civil rights.'

Wrong about Liberals fighting to end slavery and all that nonsense. Once more it was Conservatives, but keep trying sweetheart.

'Here's your opportunity. Show me actual historical evidence that it was conservatives in the South who supported the civil rights movement and liberals who opposed it.'

There were no Conservatives South at that time. It was Democrats. Republicans/Conservatives were in the North.

'I never once said that, liar'

You implied it by believing the Southern States will criminalize mix relations or interracial relations. Yea, you sure didn't say it, but you straight out implied it.

ALSO.

Here you go.

PROOF ONCE MORE.

Lincoln and REPUBLICAN Side at that time have and always will be conservatives.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cooper_Union_speech
He rebukes claims made by the Democrats that they are "conservative", arguing instead that the Republicans' position on slavery is in fact the "conservative" policy, as Lincoln claims it coincides with the views of the American founding fathers, who he said opposed slavery.

wow you are clueless.

https://www.livescience.com/34241-democratic-republican-parties-switch-platforms.html

You are.

Again. You ignore Lincoln claiming to be conservative and conserving the Amendments. Lincoln was Republican/Conservative then and he still is now.

Case in point, your MEME directed towards taking away gun rights isn't a very Conservative approach and something Lincoln wouldn't stand for today. Again. Read. HIS. VIEWS. IN. THE. COOPER. UNION. SPEECH.

So back to my earlier comment. Do you think southern states should be allowed to outlaw interracial marriage like they did in the past?

Who the hell even says the Southern States would outlaw interracial marriage? Do you forget the Deep South was full of democrats back then?

It is not going to happen. Again, believe it or not, but the Republican side doesn't see people for the color of their skin. They look towards people for their character. I think it is funny that you would even believe they would do so, again considering how it was Republicans who once more fought for and had civil rights passed.

Lily-White Movement Republicans, you wanna look that up first or maybe take a guess as to whom they wanted to exclude?

If the Republican 'side' doesn't see people for the color of their skin, why are they so obsessively focused on it?

There were a number of free blacks living in Springfield as well. Abraham and Mary Lincoln employed two black women as domestic servants in their home. Many of Lincoln’s professional and personal acquaintances employed blacks. By 1860, 311 free blacks lived in Sangamon County. At that time, there was no structured residential segregation, and 21 blacks lived within a three-block radius of Lincoln’s home. One black woman was a member of Mary Lincoln’s church and another drove Lincoln to the railroad station when he left for Washington in 1861.

During his law practice, Lincoln had black clients and participated in cases that benefited black Illinois residents, and his third law partner, William Herndon, defended fugitive slaves. Lincoln defended a black woman in a criminal trial, helped three individuals escape convictions for harboring fugitive slaves and handled the divorce case of a local black couple.

In an 1855 slander suit, Lincoln represented William Dungey, a man with a dark complexion, who was struggling to prove his whiteness and maintain the privileges of white citizenship. Whether Dungey was “black” or “mulatto,” Lincoln understood the importance of his client’s fight to hold on to his white identity in a society that would take away his freedoms if his accuser was successful in proving his blackness.

Lincoln represented his clients, regardless of their racial identities, to the best of his legal abilities and took seriously his responsibility to them. One of Lincoln’s long-term clients was a Haitian-born black man, William Florville, a Springfield barber who owned a great deal of land. Beginning as early as 1847, Lincoln became Florville’s attorney. During the time of their lawyer-client relationship, Lincoln represented Florville in three lawsuits. He also handled legal matters related to Florville’s land holdings, including tax payments.

In the 1858 campaign for the U.S. Senate, Douglas was a vocal proponent of white supremacy, and he was Illinois’ proslavery candidate. Abraham Lincoln did not advocate black and white equality, but he was Illinois’ antislavery candidate. Douglas won the election, but two years later the political climate had changed. In 1860, when Lincoln was the Republican Party’s candidate for president, he was, essentially, the same candidate he had been during his campaign for the Senate. He was still opposed to slavery, and he still did not embrace racial equality. This time, however, the party with the antislavery platform won the election.

Throughout his lifetime, Lincoln had contemporaries who were more radical on the question of race than he was, and he had contemporaries who were more conservative. Lincoln enjoyed meaningful personal and professional connections with individual black people, yet it took four years of bloody Civil War to begin to change his attitudes about the possibilities for black freedom and equality. Did these attitudes make Lincoln a racist? Or do they reveal complexities in his character?

If we employ our modern definitions of race and racism, we cannot see the complexities of Lincoln’s character and we cannot examine the contradictions within the man. If we dismiss Lincoln as a racist, then that is the end of the story because he was no different from the proslavery Douglas, for example, and there is no point in investigating the matter any further.

It is important to remember that human beings — in the present as well as in the past — are flawed, complicated and contradictory.

Lincoln was not immune from the complexities of human nature. In the end, the limitations of Lincoln’s own racial perspectives were an indictment of the larger society.

Much of American history was not pretty, but the complexities and the contradictions of the various historical experiences of the human condition provide a much more truthful picture of our racist past than does boiling down the details into one word with which we are only beginning to come to grips.

https://www.nprillinois.org/statehouse/2004-02-01/lincoln-race-the-great-emancipator-didnt-advocate-racial-equality-but-was-he-a-racist

So what I said then?

Look at the Lincoln meme again. See at bottom where it says the source of Lincoln's racist quote? Ring any bells when you copypasted that, or did you not bother reading your 'rebuttal'? Oh, that's right, you didn't.

Good gosh.

"I am naturally anti-slavery. If slavery is not wrong, nothing is wrong. I can not remember when I did not so think, and feel." Lincoln 1864

You realize that quote was before the civil war and before he got to spend more time fighting side by side with African Americans.

Yea, Lincoln was such a racist. That was why he freed slavenly. He was such a racist, that was why he helped and employ black people instead of enslaving them.

You don't even read quote year. 1858.

Civil War April 12, 1861 – April 9, 1865

Throughout his lifetime, Lincoln had contemporaries who were more radical on the question of race than he was, and he had contemporaries who were more conservative. Lincoln enjoyed meaningful personal and professional connections with individual black people, yet it took four years of bloody Civil War to begin to change his attitudes about the possibilities for black freedom and equality.

You're kidding, right?

Can you stop cramming my notifs with trying to argue against what you're actually agreeing with? That's just silly.

Again, believe it or not, but the Republican side doesn't see people for the color of their skin

LOLOLO(LOLO(LOLOLOLOOLL

Trump has already denounced years ago people doing this shit. I don't know why you bring it up.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/post-politics/wp/2017/08/14/trump-denounces-kkk-neo-nazis-as-justice-department-launches-civil-rights-probe-into-charlottesville-death/

Can't say the same for Biden and his family saying people aren't black if they don't vote for him or comparing Latinos to Tacos. Also how your side was throwing hate speech towards Clarence Thomas calling him N word and Uncle you know what after the whole abortion ruling. Funny how quick you are to attack African Americans when they don't agree to your party views with racism.

Donny 'Stand Back and Stand By' Trump denounced them only relunctantly, after being hammered for weeks to do so by even his own handlers. Same with endorsements form David Duke, or the Cali KKK Grand Wizard, or the KKK Gazette.

He never denounced Daddy Fred for it, and his first blip in the public eye was getting sued for racial discrimination against 'Blacks' in rentals by none other than Nixon's (NIXON!) DoJ in 1973, and in 1975 he was back for breaking terms of the settlement.

Hiring practices in his casinos in the 1980s all the way to that which propelled him into the White House in the first place, Birtherism, Mexicans, "shithole nations," etc, haven't exactly shown the racist buffoon to change his stripes - and don't bother saying that's just because they're hidden under that awful orange paint job.

https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2017/08/trump-defends-white-nationalist-protesters-some-very-fine-people-on-both-sides/537012/

btw... I dont have a "party"... more of a 'best person for the job' kinda guy.

Hes been a loud mouth ****ed up racist asshole his whole life. I have known/of him since the mid 1980's how about you?

https://www.politico.com/blogs/under-the-radar/2017/02/trump-fbi-files-discrimination-case-235067

ffs.

https://www.law.cornell.edu/supremecourt/text/410/113

The right to bear arms is actually in the constitution. Roe vs. Wade was a supreme court decision. It was a strained interpretation that attempted to infer a right that was not stated in the constitution. This latest court decision says that interpretation and inference was incorrect.
The right to abortion could be explicitly protected in the constitution if they were to pass a new amendment. If Democrats feel it is a right that needs to be protected at the federal level they need to stop f**king around and do it.
It is the supreme court's job to interpret existing laws, not write them.

Change the constitution. It's been done successfully 27 times.

But your side will not even try.

They know they will fail and have egg on their faces.

Truer words...