Black Dog

And it's a stupid system.

Because of the EC and the fact that 48 states have a winner take all system for apportioning their votes, every modern presidential election is decided by a handful of people in swing states while the votes of millions of Republican voters in California and New York and Dem voters in Texas and Florida are worthless. Cool system!

Looks like you're already there.

One person one vote is good enough for our country why not for the U.S.?

Based. Why do you hate democracy?

Ah your usual denial of reality when it slaps you across the face. Doesn't matter, unless she's a card-carrying member of the communist party one call her a Communists, those are your rules. LOL I literally refuted you. LOL no. The slaves were sold by the state. And yet when they announced they were seceding, the number one issue they mentioned was slavery. You haven't been able to refute any of my points or support your own, you're a fraud. LOL. LMAO. That's not what happened. The actual issue that spurred the southern states to secede was the election of Lincoln (who, by the way, never owned slaves) who the Southern slave states feared would prevent slavery from spreading into the future states of the west.

ftfy

You dumb c*nt. Me, I wouldn't say it's his "insult of choice" per se, but he uses it a lot in his various unhinged "old man yells at tv" rants. Yes he obviously is since he calls Harris a Communist and she is quite obviously not. LOL a book you haven't even read that doesn't actually seem to have been published at all. It's not on Amazon or Barnes and Noble and you can't even buy it from the author's own self-publishing site. Amateur hour stuff. My advice is to stick to the real thing by real scholars like Did Lincoln Own Slaves? by Gerald Prokopowicz an actual scholar of the Civil War. (Spoiler alert: the answer is no.) I literally just explained it. LOL you've been shown up but still double down because you are mentally a toddler with oppositional defiance disorder. Yeah the right to set their own laws and policies to own and sell slaves. Slavery was the primary issue that motivated the secessionists, just like racial superiority was the primary issue that motivated Hitler and the Nazis. I should start charging for this education.

1. Again, I didn't make the claim. 2. I gave you examples to educate your dumb ass. 3. You decided to pretend he doesn't mean what he says when he says what we all know he means. I'm claiming he's using communist as a short hand for anyone who is on the left/Democrats/not MAGA. The evidence for that is the fact he calls Kamala Harris, who is not a Marxist or a communist, a Marxist and communist. You really need to get out more. There's no actual evidence Lincoln owned slaves. The book you are citing doesn't have evidence Lincoln owned slaves. You can read the author's incredibly absurd rationalization for his claims here without wasting your money on the book, but his claim is that Lincoln's wife's father owned slaves, and when died that meant Abe inherited the family's slaves. However there's no actual documentation of that happening because, the authour claims, some pro Lincoln scholar stole it all. LOL. The single piece of evidence he did find is an affidavit from the law firm representing Lincoln and his wife which authorized the sale of her father's estate which included enslaved people. but it's clear from the document that they didn't have ownership of the slaves. The document reads they were "willing that the slaves mentioned in the bill shall be sold on such terms as the court may think advisable". But if the slaves were their property, what does the court have to do with it, and why would it dictate the terms? Well, it turns out that Mary Todd Lincoln's father died without leaving a will and so according to Kentucky law at the time, all his property had to be sold off in private sale or public auction and all the children had to approve. The slaves were apparently purchased by George, Mary Todd Lincoln's brother, and her step-mother. The slaves were never property of Mary Todd Lincoln or Abraham Lincoln. The most you can say is they may have profited from the sale of slaves, but that assumes they received any money from the deal and there's no evidence of that either. There. Done. QE f*ckin' D. I have no idea what any of this has to do with anything here, but Lee's personal feelings on slavery was that it was a necessary evil. Mind you he personally owned several slaves. Most notably leading an army of secessionists to defend the institution of slavery. lmaoooo you gotta be shitting me, did you go to school in Alabama or something? The cause of secession was slavery; specifically, the Southern states wanted to keep and expand it and the North did not. A lot of people also believe that slavery wasn't the cause of the Civil War because the same folks who put up Confederate Statues propagated that myth, but it's not true. But the statues aren't celebrating Mr. Robert E. Lee, private citizen and unifier. They are celebrating General Robert E. Lee, commander of the Confederate Army which staged a rebellion in defense of slavery. Have you considered reading an actual book for once in your life instead of getting all your education from equestrian sculptures?

Now I know you're going to do some splitting routine about "uh I said they weren't defined by it not that they weren't motivated by it" but IDGAF, it's clear you don't think racial supremacy was as important to the Nazis as economic issues which is laughable as hell. I mean you even argued that the Nazi's views on lebensraum weren't racially motivated and proved it by posting a link that detailed how the Nazi's views on lebensraum were explicitly racially motivated looool. Good times.

Ironic since this case your lack of knowledge (your professed ignorance of Trump's red scare rhetoric) is the issue here. Except who Trump consider communists and who you think he considers communists are not the same thing. Check the transcripts you dunderhead he trots out the same little routine "they tell me i shouldn't call her a Marxist, maybe she's a communist blah blah blah" at every rally in the. last few months. Nope. There's no valid evidence Lincoln owned slaves, just one kooks self-published book. If that's your standard of evidence, it does explain a lot. Nope, I didn't make that claim. someone else did, I simply provided examples of him saying it to educate your dumb ass. Literally all your MO, like I couldn't have described your usual behaviour better. Nope. Even if that were true and not absurd hyperbole, that's not what the statues in question are celebrating. They are celebrating his leadership of the army of traitors and slave mongers. We can talk about all those things, good and bad, without having statues celebrating the bad things up. It's pretty simple.

Oh goodie the guy who argued the Nazis were not motivated by racial supremacy is here to lecture about what the Nazis believed loooooooollllll

I dunno what this has to do with you using one of the wost racial slurs here and calling a black guy a monkey elsewhere.

"They're poisoning the blood of our country." Blood and soil!

"I'm not wrong I just don't know what I'm talking about" is one heckuva defense. 1. No, as I indicated he's not talking about actual communists when he talks about communists and everyone except you seems to know it. 2. Even if it was just one person, he uses it in every single one of his stump speeches. Do you think you look smart by admitting you don't pay attention to Trump's rhetoric but still opine on it? 1. That's where i came into this thread, to laugh your retarded claim about Lincoln. 2. We moved on because you surrendered. You couldn't produce any evidence to corroborate the claims in that book you clearly didn't read and so you gave up. Yes you're doing it right now by lying about how this thread has gone. Woof and here you are once again copying other people's more clever insults. Tearing down statues celebrating traitors and slavers for being traitors and slavers is only "erasing history" if you don't know how to read actual history books waitaminute I think I figured out your problem. Guy who is lying about Lincoln owning slaves is crying about rewriting history lol what a world.

The same holds for Trump except he actually explicitly articulates fascist ideas and rhetoric, man you're a dimwit. What the f*ck does this even mean lmao

Ah yes, Hitler of course being famous for not liking white supremacy lol you're such a clown.

Is that the speech where he talked about other races polluting the pure blood of the country, jailing his political opponents whom he calls "vermin," praises dictators who use violence and repression to retain power etc etc? Or is that the other guy who regularly uses fascist rhetoric and imagery in his speeches (when he's not rambling about fictional characters or liong dead TV personalities)?

You're a grown man scared of some red lights bro.

I keep seeing you dummies post this photo and I have no idea why it makes you soil your diapers. OOOOOH SCAWY

It's pretty straightforward: you claimed Trump doesn't use the terms marxist or Communist to describe his opponents. He does. A lot. You're wrong, as always. Well it all started with you claiming Abe Lincoln owned slaves lmao. The only person here trying to reshape the world to adhere to his own narratives is you. It's a form of denial that you should seek professional help for along with the host of other obvious mental conditions you suffer from.

That's what abortions are.

You said "she was fine" about a woman who was hemmoraghing. No I'm referring to one of the examples from the link i gave you and that you obviously didn't read lol. See, again, you have bvery poor logic skills. If you think abortions should only be provided when "medically necessary but don't think any of the examples i provided count, then you favour waiting until the complications are serious and potentially fatal to act. See I put "screw up" in scare quotes initially to convey that I doubt they were making mistakes, so much as acting as anyone would act given the intentional ambiguity of these laws. Again, I forget you're socially retarded and incapable of picking up such context clues. If that's a lie you need to tell yourself because you've been proven wrong again, there's nothing i can do to stop you. Nope. Do you not understand someone's life can be at risk if they continue a pregnancy even if that danger is not immediate. You support abortion bans.

Be honest: how excited were you to write out that racial slur? I bet you haven't been that aroused since that time you called the same Black poster a monkey.

Just a reminder that you said the same thing about the woman in the OP who was hemorrhaging, so i don't trust you have the medical knowledge to make that assessment here. Fail. The woman who almost died from a sepsis infection after her water broke at 18 weeks and she was denied abortion care would probably beg to differ. In any case, once a significant medical problem has been identified it makes no sense to delay taking action until someone's life is actually hanging in the balance, which is what you are advocating. That's like finding out someone has a cancerous growth but putting off treating it until they hit Stage 4. lol you didn't read any of these links at all did you. Blackmon v. State of Tennessee was originally filed by the Center in September 2023 to clarify the scope of the medical necessity exception to Tennessee’s criminal abortion ban. The case was filed on behalf of three Tennessee women who, like the plaintiffs joining the case today, were denied abortion care despite dangerous pregnancy complications, and two Tennessee physicians who have been prevented from offering their patients the medically indicated treatment during obstetrical emergencies. Doctors in Tennessee face loss of licensure, fines, and up to 15 years in prison for violating the ban, yet its vague language and non-medical terminology have left doctors uncertain about when they are legally able to provide abortion care without being prosecuted. I didn't switch the subject I assumed you'd be at least smart enough to understand the underlying reasons why these women were denied care was the abortion laws, but I'll never make that mistake again. Sorry spazzy, the evidence is there for all to see. Abortion laws are completely unnecessary and draconian violation of individual rights to obtain medically necessary healthcare.