Use the drop-down boxes above to navigate through the Website  
Return to Reasoning List

Here is a link to this page:

The Party Flip-Flop (Southern Strategy): Why 9 out of 10 Black Americans Vote Democrat. Is it real history or a convenient lie?

1 - 1011 - 2021 - 3031 - 32
Time Zone: EST (New York, Toronto)
Messenger: IPXninja Sent: 10/9/2019 1:51:08 PM


Thank you. Because of your ridiculous arguments, using sources that cherry pick history, you have unwittingly led me to a gem. And I gladly share this with you and the rest of the forum who may be interested.

now remember how you said there was no party flip flop...

This page clearly shows a string of politicians, almost ALL Democrats

But did you notice the DATE? Go on. Notice it. I'll wait.




Okay, you should have noticed that a lot of democrats where KKK back in the early 1900s.

in contrast...

The 1920 Republican Party platform, which essentially expressed Harding's political philosophy, called for Congress to pass laws combating lynching.[38] Harding was the first American President to publicly denounce lynching and did so in a landmark 21 October 1921 speech in Birmingham, Alabama, which was covered in the national press. Harding also vigorously supported an anti-lynching bill in Congress during his term in the White House. While the bill was defeated in the Senate, such activities would be in direct conflict with Klan membership.

So it seems that the majority of KKK were likely democrats based on this information and the opposition to them were on the republican side.

Now... I'm sure you can guess how KKK members might feel if they're republicans and republicans are attacking/opposing their organization. That might give them a reason to vote as a block, against them. Now if that's not true and racism was basically equal parts on both sides then it wouldn't matter which party a KKK member was in.

Why switch? Let's see if Truman has any insight.

"Harry S. Truman, the Democratic politician who became president in 1945, was accused by opponents of having dabbled with the Klan briefly. In 1924, he was a judge in Jackson County, Missouri. Truman was up for reelection, and his friends Edgar Hinde and Spencer Salisbury advised him to join the Klan. The Klan was politically powerful in Jackson County, and two of Truman's opponents in the Democratic primary had Klan support. Truman refused at first, but paid the Klan's $10 membership fee, and a meeting with a Klan officer was arranged.[42]"

Did you catch that? (this is all in the same Wikipedia article) Truman understood that the 1920 Klan in Jackson County, Missouri, were supporting his Democratic opponents in the primary. So he joined to cancel out that political advantage. Could he have been racist? Absolutely. This is not a zero sum game. Black people understand the pervasive nature of racism and the difference between overt and covert racism. We're not like you. Alex Jones has to tell you a conspiracy theory for you to believe its true. We don't need someone to tell us that a lot of whites are racists regardless of party. It's mainly about issues which I outlined in a previous post. But after this time period we don't see politicians in the democratic party joining the klan for political reasons because klan influence wasn't the same. Did it go away? Or did it start shifting to the Republican side?

An example of someone switching parties was David Duke.

David Duke, a politician who ran in both Democrat and Republican presidential primaries, was openly involved in the leadership of the Ku Klux Klan.[32] He was founder and Grand Wizard of the Knights of the Ku Klux Klan in the mid-1970s; he re-titled his position as "National Director" and said that the KKK needed to "get out of the cow pasture and into hotel meeting rooms". He left the organization in 1980. He ran for president in the 1988 Democratic presidential primaries. In 1989 Duke switched political parties from Democrat to Republican.[33] In 1989, he became a member of the Louisiana State Legislature from the 81st district, and was Republican Party chairman for St. Tammany Parish.[34]

Again, I ask the question I did about Byrd. She I judge him for who he was before or who he became before he died? Should I treat David Duke as a Democrat? Or the republican that he is? I don't see you running for the hills because David Duke is in your party now. So why should Democrats play Michael J. Fox in back to the future and believe their party CURRENTLY IS... the same that it was in the 1920s.

The reality is that there are other groups besides Democrats and Republicans and these groups (like the Masons) can join and hold influence in either party and use both to achieve their goals. This is why there was a FLIP and why the "Southern Strategy" now exists. Look at the full history and stop cherry picking.

Messenger: The BANNED -- Hemphill Sent: 10/9/2019 11:26:39 AM

David Duke is a Democrat. He is an operative of the left to try to make the right into what the leftist media says it is. Just like fake hate crimes. Watch Dukes interview with D'Souza wher he is exposed as a leftist. He loves Obama, hates the founding fathers, does not believe in god, and has a general distaste for America. None of which are conservative values. An operative through and through.

Hillary Clinton : 'Black people are super predators that need to be brought to heel'

Bill Clinton : Enacts crime bill that gives black people 3 times the sentence of a white person for the same drug crime.

But you LOVE em all the same. No matter their KKK affiliation..


Messenger: SunofMan Sent: 10/9/2019 1:36:47 PM

David Duke, ran for congress, and won, in Louisiana, as a Republican.

You already know this.

You also know the history of southern democrats and the party flip flop. Just cuz AJ likes to homebrew his history doesn't mean you have to drink the kool aid and regurgitate that bullshit for others. Everything you spin is a white supremacist tactic; your agenda is obvious.

When did the KKK switch from Democrats to republicans?

The switch started to happen earlier than people thought. During the “Second Klan” Era (from about 1920–1945) one started to see high profile Republicans joining especially in the mid-west where the Klan was famous for being violently anti-immigrant. At this time the Klan was trying to portray itself as a “moral-social klub” that was Pro-”Real Americans” IE “white Anglo-Saxon Protestants” defenders of “white womanhood” and enforcers of prohibition. They tended to downplay the rapes, terrorism and murders.

A good example is D.C. Stephenson. Though he started as a Democrat he became a Republican, was the “Grand Dragon” of the Klan in Indiana and encouraged the Klan in many other states and was considered the most powerful man in the state. His downfall was abducting a and raping a young woman who poisoned herself to get away from him.

The scandal turned public opinion against the Klan and it rapidly died out from it’s peak of 5 million in the Midwest in 1925.

D. C. Stephenson - Wikipedia

Keep in mind some of the early “shifts” between Democrats and Republicans started in the 1920s and especially in the 1930s. Woodrow Wilson even had to reach out to east-coast Republicans in 1918 who were showing a split with mid-west Republicans who had a fear of anything “European.”

FDR and his “new deal” drew in large numbers to the Democrats, and Truman was the one who began to make the Democrats (at least in the north) the party of Civil Rights when he integrated the military. Kennedy and Johnson helped keep that alive and Nixon courted angry southern whites and the switch was complete—more or less as “white citizen’s councils” in the 1960s were suddenly the “moral majority” hating gays in the ’70s and ‘80s.

Jerry Falwell - Wikipedia

Messenger: The BANNED -- Hemphill Sent: 10/9/2019 2:09:37 PM

You criticize my sources and rule them all out, and then you use Wikipedia!! Ahahahahahahaha

Besides you holding onto this democrat lie, you are missing a HUGE piece here. Republicans unilaterally condemn 'white supremacists' and all KKK activities; on the other hand, democrats openly endorse antifa, abortion, homosexuality, transgenderism, pedophilia, end of free speech, gun control, surveillance state, and promote the killing of Trump and conservatives.

You are ALL on the wrong side of history.


The bible has already told us who YOU are.


Messenger: SunofMan Sent: 10/9/2019 4:17:18 PM

U know what u can do with ur bible!?

Hehehe...what u call a Democrat lie is well documented historical fact. Prove your point with anything but AJs word salad.

Messenger: The BANNED -- Hemphill Sent: 10/9/2019 4:52:36 PM

Your version is a well documented lie and I already proved it and it wasnt from Alex Jones. But here is some since you asked. Even though tou wont read it and will dismiss it all as 'right wing propaganda' LOL

Confronting an Inconvenient History

Republicans and Democrats Did Not Switch Sides on Race

When confronted with inconvenient history of their party regarding the issue of race, the United States Democratic Party members and its sycophants insist that the Republican and Democratic Parties simply switched positions on race, after the Republicans had ushered in the Civil Rights Act of 1964. This ludicrous claim can easily be laid to rest with a few pertinent facts.

President Lyndon Johnson, a Democrat, signed the civil right bill in to law; however, Johnson himself had labored tirelessly against earlier civil rights legislation. By signing that bill, Johnson merely demonstrated that he had come to believe that the way for Democrats to get and keep power in future was to pacify and humor blacks, instead of denigrating them and segregating them from whites.

On January 1, 1863, President Abraham Lincoln signed the Emancipation Proclamation, which stated "that all persons held as slaves are, and henceforward shall be free." The country had already been suffering three years of a bloody Civi War to end slavery. Democrats had been lobbying for and passing legislation such as the Jim Crow laws and Black Codes for over a century—all designed to keep the black population from enjoying the fruits of citizenship.

Allegedly, Johnson quipped, “I'll have those ni**ers voting Democrat for the next 200 years.” That infamous statement clearly reveals where Johnson's loyalties lay: with acquiring power for the Democratic Party and not for the African American citizens.

In a feeble endeavor to deconstruct Johnson's racist position, David Emery at labels the claim regarding Johnson's remark "unproven." But then as he continues his biased analysis, Emery reveals other suggestions that make it clear that Johnson's beliefs rendered him the consummate racist. For example, Emery offers the report, in which according to Doris Kearns Godwin, Johnson quipped:

These N*****, 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.

After much useless bloviating, David Emery admits, "Circling back to the quote with which we started, it wouldn't have been entirely out of character for LBJ to have said something like, 'I'll have those n****** voting Democratic (sic) for 200 years'"; however, Emery doubts it, of course.

President Lyndon Johnson using the "N" word

House and Senate Vote Tally for the Civil Rights Act 1964
The following is a breakdown of the voting tally in the House and Senate for the Civil Rights Act of 1964:

Democrats: House 153 out of 244 = 63%
Republicans: House 136 out of 171 = 80%
Democrats: Senate 46 out of 67 = 69%
Republicans: Senate 27 out of 33 = 82%

While 80% of the Republicans in the House of Representatives voted for the Civil Rights Act of 1964, only 63% of the Democrats voted aye. Also while in the Senate, 82% percent of Republicans voted for the bill, only 69% of Democrats did.

KKK Formed by Former Democrats

Attempt to Rehabilitate by Geography
In order to try to rehabilitate the Democrats' negative voting record on civil rights, leftists have pointed out that when one accounts for geographical positioning of the members of the house and senate, the voting tallies this way:

The original House version:

Southern Democrats: 7–87 (7–93%)
Southern Republicans: 0–10 (0–100%)
Northern Democrats: 145–9 (94–6%)
Northern Republicans: 138–24 (85–15%)

The Senate version:

Southern Democrats: 1–20 (5–95%) (Ralph Yarborough of Texas voted yea)
Southern Republicans: 0–1 (0–100%) (John Tower of Texas voted nay)
Northern Democrats: 45–1 (98–2%) (Robert Byrd of West Virginiavoted nay)
Northern Republicans: 27–5 (84–16%)

This set of votes shows that no southern senate Republicans voted for the act, but there was only one southern Republican in the senate. And also no house Republican voted for the act, but again there were only ten southern Republicans in the house. This low number of Republicans in the house and senate when converted to percentages skews the reality of the fact that the overall vote, which is the vote that counts, clearly outs the Democrats as opposers of the act. And the Democrats' main reason for voting against the act was based on race, especially in the south; however, all of the Republican senators, both north and south, who voted against the act, did so because they favored Senator Barry Goldwater's position, who remained against the act, not because of racial animus but because of his belief that it was unconstitutional in usurping states' rights, especially in the area of private business (see below).

The senate Republicans voting against the act were Bourke B. Hickenlooper (IA), chairman of the Senate Republican Policy Committee; Norris Cotton of New Hampshire (NH), Edwin L. Mechem (NM), Milward L. Simpson (WY), and a John G. Tower (TX).

The history of the Republican Party begins with the fact that the party was established primarily for the abolition of slavery. Yet over a century later, modern-day Democrats such Charlie Rangel are pushing the notion that the Republican and Democratic parties simply "changed sides" in the 1960s on civil rights. This facile excuse is widely spewed by Democrats when confronted with their own undeniably racist past. However, the facts do not bare out but rather reveal the persistent inaccuracy that the parties simply switched sides.

Democrats Are The Real Racists

Three Events Misrepresented by Democrats
The persistent fantasy of the two party switching sides is partially based on three significant events that have been twisted and spun by Democrats and their sycophants in the biased liberal media:

1. Barry Goldwater’s position regarding the Civil Right Act of 1964. Goldwater did oppose that bill in its final form because he argued that it was unconstitutional, in that it usurped state and individual rights. Goldwater had helped found the Arizona’s NAACP, and he had voted for earlier versions of the civil rights legislation. Thus, Goldwater's opposition was not similar to the Democrats' opposition based on racism; Goldwater's opposition was based on the interpretation of the Constitution that guarantees basic individual rights.

2. The Southern Strategy. With this strategy, the Republican Party were attempting to demonstrate to southern Democrats that by continuing to vote for racist/socialist Democrats they were voting against their economic interests. What gave Democrats the opening to use this strategy against Republicans was that the Republicans utilized racist political bigots, who were, in fact, Democrats themselves, to help win votes for Republicans. This strategy prompted the GOP opponents to misrepresent the Republican's purpose and thus label it primarily racist, when it was, in fact, based on economic growth.

3. The American South turning to Red from Blue. This claim falls apart with the fact that the “Deep South” took 30 years to begin changing from Democrat to Republican. It was only in the peripheral South, which includes Tennessee, Texas, and Georgia, that many working-class transplants, relocating from the northern states as well as from other parts of the United States, understood that the Republican Party offered policies that promoted business, commerce, and entrepreneurial success. Those transplants, after all, had relocated south to improve their financial status through their new jobs. Racism at this point in the country's history had begun to wane as a political force. But the Democratic Party has continued to foment and fabricate unrest between the races in order to employ racism as an issue against their opponents in the Republican Party.

The Democrats Institutionalized Racism

Democratic Policies Have Kept Blacks in Poverty

The main reason the Democratic Party hatched the idea that the parties simply switched positions was to gain power. Reverend Wayne Perryman explains:

"Many believed the Democrats had a change of heart and fell in love with blacks. To the contrary, history reveals the Democrats didn’t fall in love with black folks, they fell in love with the black vote knowing this would be their ticket into the White House."

The economist Thomas Sowell has also shed light on the subject: "some of the most devastating policies, in terms of their actual effects on black people, have come from liberal Democrats." Sowell emphasizes that the "minimum wage laws" everywhere they have been established have a "track record of increasing unemployment, especially among the young, the less skilled and minorities."

According to "How the Liberal Welfare State Destroyed Black America," the "War on Poverty," the programs established by the Johnson administration brought about conditions which furthered the rise of poverty among black families. By discouraging marriage, these policies have resulted in out-of-wedlock birthrates that have skyrocketed, "among all demographic groups in the U.S., but most notably African Americans."

The U.S. out-of-wedlock birthrate in the 1960s hovered around 3% for whites and close to 8% for all Americans; that rate was around 25% for blacks. But, by the mid 1970s those rates had increased to 10% for whites, 25% for all Americans, and over 50% for blacks. Then by late 1980s, the birth-rate of unmarried black women had become greater than for married black women. Today the out-of-wedlock birth rate for blacks has climbed to almost 75%.

The Census Bureau maintains that poverty is closely associated with out-of-wedlock births ("Census Bureau Links Poverty With Out-of-Wedlock Births").

(Please Note: The link to the article, "Census Bureau Links Poverty With Out-of-Wedlock Births," is not broken, despite the continuing claim made by this site's broken link detector.)

Unfair Race Policies Have Been Unsystematized

There is no argument that stands up against the fact that racism as an issue of public policy has been unsystematized since the passage of the civil rights acts of the 1960s. No more Jim Crow laws or Black Codes anywhere call for racial discrimination as they had before the passage of those civil right laws. Before the passage of those bills, not only did racist laws exist, they were enforced by legal authorities as well as the Ku Klux Klan, which functioned as a "terrorist arm of the Democratic Party" to oppress black citizens.

Still, leftist historians such as Carole Emberton, an associate professor of history at the University at Buffalo, continue to use, "the party lines of the 1860s/1870s are not the party lines of today" bromide to attempt to separate the Democratic Party's engagement from the Ku Klux Klan, in the same breath as admitting, "that various 'Klans' that sprung up around the South acted as a 'strong arm' for many local Democratic politicians during Reconstruction."

Democrats continue to employ the fallacious claim that racism is still a "systemic" problem. They peddle this fiction so they can insist that only the Democratic Party is willing to fight against that fantasized systemic blight on society. But again and again, the Democratic Party's policies have been used as Lyndon Johnson used them to placate blacks by making them think they are getting something that no political party even has the power to give: financial security and equality with guaranteed outcomes.

Political parties, when in power, can help the voting public only by instituting policies that encourage financial success and individual freedom. They cannot guarantee that success. They cannot legislate individual success through identity politics.

Democrat Strategy to Gain Power

The Democratic Party and its allies continue to employ the false claim that the two parties exchanged positions on race, in an attempt to gain power and to rehabilitate the party's racist past. Party members and its minions continue to tie most issues to race because that tactic seems to have worked for gaining power. But when voters look at the basic facts, that claim begins to lose its strength.

For example, citing the voter ID issue as a racist Republican strategy simply bolsters the evidence that Republicans are, in fact, not racist. A majority of black citizens and voters also are in favor of the voter ID laws. However, the Democrats vehemently and inaccurately continues to rails again voter ID laws because they know that those laws would impede voter fraud—a staple in the machine to elect Democrats to government.

Democrats have been attempting to whitewash their racist past for decades; to do so, they often fabricate history. For example, as a candidate for the presidency in 2000, Al Gore falsely stated to the NAACP that his father, Al Gore, Sr., had lost his senate seat because he voted for the Civil Rights Act of 1964. Gore, Sr., voted against that act, as he supported and joined in the filibuster against that act. Gore, Sr. then sponsored an amendment that would take the teeth out of the enforcement power of that bill, just in case it passed.

"Majority of Dixiecrats Never Switched"

Dixiecrats Became Republicans?

Democrats also point to the rise of the Dixiecrats that supposedly shows that racist Democrats became Republicans. However, it is a fact is that only two Democrats-turned-Dixiecrat, left the Democratic Party for the Republican Party: Senator Strom Thurmond traded in his party alliance with the Democrats to join the Republicans in 1964—not because he continued to support racism, but because he began repudiating it. Frances Rice explains: "Thurmond was never in the Ku Klux Klan and, after he became a Republican, Thurmond defended blacks against lynching and the discriminatory poll taxes imposed on blacks by Democrats."

Governor Mills E. Godwin, Jr. of Virginia abandoned the Democrats for the Republican Party in 1974. But again, like Thurmond, Godwin abandoned his racist past and served as Virginia governor first while a Democrat and then as a Republican.

Robert Byrd

Did the Old Racist Democrats Become Today's Republicans? (Urban Legend)

October 11, 1991: Clarence Thomas Full Opening Statement

Democrat Hypocrisy About Racist Past
West Virginia's Robert Byrd, a former Ku Klux Klan Exalted Cyclops and long serving Democratic senator, did renounce his earlier support for segregation and racism; however, Byrd was the only senator to vote against confirmation to the Supreme Court of Justice Thurgood Marshall, a Democrat. Byrd also joined 47 of his fellow Democratic senators as he voted against Justice Clarence Thomas, a Republican. Neither a black Democrat nor a black Republican could pass muster with the former Klansman.

Senator Christopher Dodd praised Byrd highly by stating that Byrd would have been "a great senator for any moment." To this potentially inflammatory remark, the Democrats remained silent. Then later after Senator Trent Lott spoke kind words of Senator Strom Thurmond, the Democrats with their usual hypocrisy lambasted Lott unmercifully. It made no difference that Thurmond had never served as a member of the Ku Klux Klan while Byrd had risen to the high position of Exalted Cyclops.

Regarding Democrat hypocrisy, Alex Knepper has remarked: ". . . being a Democrat means that you can promote segregation, join the KKK, vote against both black Supreme Court nominees, and use the word “ni**er” on national television — and still be remembered as a promoter of black interests." The Democratic Party has raised hypocrisy to an art form in its pursuit of power.

Racism: Democrats and Republicans Switch Sides?

Despite Lack of Blatant Racism, Democratic Policies Harmful to Everyone
It is most unlikely that the majority of the members of the Democratic Party are racists today. Yet, it remains unconscionable that so many Democrats label Republicans racist and bigot in pursuit of political power against their opponents. Democrats cannot legitimately deny the many studies that offer support to the argument proffered by Republicans that Democratic policies are detrimental not only to black citizens but to all citizens.

The basic Democratic Party philosophy is based on grabbing the financial rewards from certain groups—namely, "the rich"—to give to others—namely, "the poor." In practice this Robin Hood falsehood ultimately means taking form those who earn and redistributing it to friends and allies of the redistributors. Such a system cannot possibly succeed. It can only create victims whose ability to produce becomes atrophied by the false promises of pandering politicians.

Democrats will continue to play the race card because they have become utter failures at convincing the majority of the electorate that their policies work. Citizens have become dissatisfied with the actual theft of their earnings, as they have watched while decade upon decade has demonstrated that their shabby, crime filled cities are, in fact, the result of Democrat policy fecklessness.

The brilliant economist Thomas Sowell has pointed out repeatedly that the policies of Democrats have prevented the black population from rising out of poverty. Many of the poorest cities in the USA have been run by Democrats for decades. According to Investor's Business Daily,

When Democrats are in control, cities tend to go soft on crime, reward cronies with public funds, establish hostile business environments, heavily tax the most productive citizens and set up fat pensions for their union friends. Simply put, theirs is a Blue State blueprint for disaster. ("How Decades Of Democratic Rule Ruined Some Of Our Finest Cities")

Perhaps, it is time that African Americans adopt a different mind-set and realize, as Rev. Perryman avers, that the Democratic Party is interested only in their vote not in their welfare. As President Donald Trump asked as a candidate during his 2016 presidential campaign, "What do you have to lose?"

Postscript: The Ultimate Hypocrisy
If all of the above is not enough to convince the electorate, especially the African American community, that the Democratic Party is not that community's friend, then they might want to consider the Democratic Party's support for Planned Parenthood. According to the D. C. McAllister,

Planned Parenthood is one of the greatest perpetrators of violence against African Americans in this country. It’s founded on racism, perpetuates racism, and kills more than 850 African Americans every day.

Please try to imagine the outcry against them, if it were Republicans, who vehemently supported this institution of black genocide.

Messenger: The BANNED -- Hemphill Sent: 10/9/2019 7:11:36 PM

There is an Urban Legend afloat among liberals who refuse to own the racist history of the Democratic Party. They always repeat the lie that the racists Democrats somehow - at some time - transferred their imperialist racism onto the modern Republican party. This video offers succinct historical information to debunk this Urban Legend and lie.

Messenger: IPXninja Sent: 10/10/2019 8:54:36 AM


I'm willing to take you seriously but you HAVE TO STOP LYING. You say things that aren't true constantly and expect us to think what you're posting is credible. Credibility has to be weighed and measured. You can't just lie whenever you want and spew alternative facts left and right and think no one is going to notice. Because I'm not going to sit here and fall into the trap of having to correct every lie you tell. At some point I'm just going to call you out as a liar and wash my hands.

So for the last time, I did NOT vote for Hillary Clinton, and that had a lot to do with the super predators reference and the Clinton crime bill. So you're literally going 180 from what I've said. Check yourself. And no, racist attitudes does not make someone KKK affiliated. Not all racists are KKK. But David Duke is most certainly a republican. Trump just joined the republican party like yesterday and you treat him like a god. Thankfully, he's about to fall like a false god.

"Republicans unilaterally condemn 'white supremacists' and all KKK activities; on the other hand, democrats openly endorse antifa, abortion, homosexuality, transgenderism, pedophilia, end of free speech, gun control, surveillance state, and promote the killing of Trump and conservatives."

You need a lesson in false equivalence. Republicans do not unilaterally condemn white supremacists. That would require every republican representative to do so and that's never happened. Again... you're trying to cast your party in the best light because its YOUR party and you are as partisan as they come. I am not partisan even though you keep LYING and claiming otherwise even though I told you I voted for Jill Stein in protest. But I'm brainwashed? That's nonsense. You rely on assumptions based on conspiracy theories and nonsensical propaganda aimed at a black monolith that doesn't exist. But you cannot handle the fact that your party is lying to you so you'd rather believe them over anyone who could possibly disabuse you of that deception. You want to be deceived just like a Christian does and that's why their AFDM (automatic faith defense mechanism) kicks in whenever threatened. And clearly, this is not just your belief... its your "faith".

there's no on the other hand when it comes to condemning racism. You either do it or you do not. You bring up a bunch of unrelated issues with little understanding of the actual position. For example... Democrats are not for abortion. They are for personal choice over your own body. The right to choose is a personal right and decisions you should make whether it is morally right or wrong to you. It is not for the government to tell you that its wrong and therefore you can't do it. Based on what? The bible? Separation of church and state. That constitutional. But republicans want to tell you what you can do with your body because they want to dictate law based on their religious convictions.

Antifa is not endorsed and never has been by the Left. Antifa are simply antifacists that are willing to stand up to white nationalists who, with Trump, take the fascist position. It is not an organization but rather an idea held by any individual willing to go out there and counter protest; exercising their free speech and not afraid of conflict.

gun control. Of course you're against gun control. You're for every generic republican idea ever; regardless of the statistics. Sad.

transgender... again... that's a personal choice, not a dictate of the government. Republicans are supposed to be for SMALL government that stays out of their business. But clearly that's a lie whenever inconvenient. What should the government do? If doctors are willing to do it and other companies are making the hormone drugs why don't you convince them not to? Why do you want the government involved? That's exactly the BIG BROTHER you claim is bad when you claim Democrats are for the surveillance state. I guess that's why liberal Hollywood made the movie Enemy of the State with Will Smith; because they want that.

homosexuality... same thing. Personal choice, not government rule. You don't have to personally agree with it. It's not your life. It's not your decision. I don't have to like it. And I don't have to not recoil at the sight of two men kissing. And I don't have to lie and and say two women kissing isn't hot. Is it hypocritical? Maybe. But its honest and its human. Homosexuality exists in nature. For all I know its a natural check and balance on over population. One may not agree with the previous Chinese one child policy but that is the lengths that they felt they needed to go to in order to prevent disaster. If you don't want to engage in sex with other men, there's an easy solution. Don't. No one is forcing you. Do you think there wasn't any gay people when gay marriage was illegal? There has always been gay people. And it simply did more damage by trying to force it underground.

pedophilia? Really? One name. Roy Moore. Your party literally ran a known pedophile for office in Alabama. And he didn't lose by a landslide and it took black people coming out to stop his election because REPUBLICANS were supporting him. Trump endorsed him. So miss me entirely with that.

End of free speech? Conspiracy theorists have been getting paid to sound this alarm for years. They did it with Obama. I want to know when its going to happen. Because at this point you guys are waiting for it like its the second coming of Christ. It's NEVER going to happen but you profit from lying and saying that it will. But why hasn't it yet? You don't know, do you? You don't have a rational reason why democrats would even want that. You have ZERO motive for it. You just believe right wing talking points.

"and promote the killing of Trump and conservatives."

This is AMAZING! This disconnect from reality... is like these guys are stuck in VR. Trump is literally the only one talking about killing people. He was talking about shooting Mexicans and someone on his staff had to tell him it was illegal. He asked if they could just shoot them in the leg. Again... "that's illegal". Trump advocated violence at his rallies and said the whistle blower should be killed because it is treason to "rat" on Trump even though his own picks, like Rex Tillerson (R), have openly said that they had to keep telling Trump "no you can't do that because its illegal". And have you forgotten about Cesar Sayoc?

Man that is one thick bubble you're in. Must be nice. Does it get cable?

Messenger: The BANNED -- Hemphill Sent: 10/10/2019 9:48:37 AM

Everything you just said is 180° from the truth. Leftists have been censoring and condemning speech for years, celebrating promoting abortion, teaching children about gay sex and transgenderism (see drag queen story time), calling for complete gun gontrol and repeal of the 2nd amendment (just like all tyrants disarm their populations, Hitler, Stalin, Mao, all leftist socialists and communists by the way) and so many more vile things. That is an undeniable truth. Even the bible confirms this beyond a shadow of a doubt.

I will leave you to waller in your liberal death cult. You are too far gone.

Messenger: IPXninja Sent: 10/10/2019 2:36:33 PM

Who? and When?

Its like you can't answer basic questions to provide evidence of what you're saying. No matter how often you repeat it, it's not going to matter if you don't offer actual proof. People lie all the time. Sandy hook "crisis actors" was a lie. So, no. if you can't prove what you're saying you're the one whose lying.

1 - 1011 - 2021 - 3031 - 32

Return to Reasoning List

Haile Selassie I