The Trump presidency emboldened white supremacists: True or false

[Winston]

Trump emboldened the WS demographic long before Charlottesville.

“They’re criminals and rapists”

Birtherism,

“Ban all Muslims”

Absolutely.

He wore his racism on his sleeve

 

[Ouroboros]

You Rightwingers have always loved the 10th Amendment because you use it to impose your reactionary anti social hostilities and unbridled anger through Rightwingers in the courts, the supreme court especially. You prefer the Rightwingers in the courts to direct popular referendums.

In 1976 for instance and citing the 10A the supreme court struck down provisions of a federal law that extended minimum wage protection to almost all state and municipal employees.

In 1992 and citing the 10A the supreme court invalidated a provision of the Radioactive Waste Policy Act that required states that refused to to develop an adequate plan for disposing waste that's generated within their own borders to do so, ie, to develop a plan. The supremes said no dice to requiring uncooperative states to dispose radioactive waste. You Rightwingers consider this kind of states rights to be the pursuit of life, liberty, and happiness.

In 1997 the supreme court cited the 10A to kill a provision of the Brady Act that required the chief law enforcement officers of states to run background checks on prospective hand gun purchasers. The supremes Rightwingers prevailed in rejecting Washington's efforts to enlist states in support of enforcing federal gun laws. Texas loves it and it's not the only state to love this and now there's Florida too with DeSantis among many other gunslinger states.

The Tenth Amendment was cited for support by the Rightwing supremes in their obscene 2013 decision invalidating the core provision of the Voting Rights Act. In its 5 to 4 decision invalidating the Act's coverage formula, which required a group of mostly southern states to seek preclearance from the federal government for changes in their voting laws, the Court claimed that the Tenth Amendment was intended to give states "broad autonomy in pursuing legislative objectives." We see that since Trump this includes enabling state legislatures to invalidate elections and to enact legislation that makes it illegal or just plain difficult to vote while being black or to vote while being liberal or while being a Democrat in the Democratic Party.

Rightwingers hate the federal government that ended slavery, brought the country out of the Great Depression, ended the reign of your cherished Third Reich, and ended your beloved racial segregation. Rightwingers demand your Trump Idiocracy in the states that want to impose a theocratic autocracy and wreck public education, pollution control, equal protection of the laws, the rule of law among other vital democracy factors that always have been better administered at the federal level than at the redneck state and local levels.

The election denying crowd that hates democracy and that works feverishly to use democracy to destroy democracy.

More boring Mad Lib partisan drivel. Nothing worth debating here either.

 

[Ouroboros]

Monuments to defeated enemies of the Republic should not be displayed on Public Property. If y'all wish to have a monument to Hitler of lee on your private property, that is well & fine. While many present day people lost forbearers in the fight to preserve slavery, Many also lost ancestors in the fight to end slavery, or were slaves.

It still wasn't a fight to end slavery except in the minds of poorly educated modern Mad Libs. Lincoln contravened the Constitution, but of course that's OK with you as long as you think it gives your side power.

 

[Ouroboros]

Oh my, I needed a good laugh, thanks for that!

Speaking of Mad Libs who have nothing to say, but yammer on as if they did-- LOUC, everybody!!

 

[LouC]

Speaking of Mad Libs who have nothing to say, but yammer on as if they did-- LOUC, everybody!!

 

[Tangmo]

Nope, you Mad Libs are the ones who want to tear down every aspect of American history, both Union and Confederate, for not living up to your allegedly lofty principles. Try again, your failures are entertaining.

Sure, you can post any dumb thing you please. If I feel like exposing a particular dumbness, I'll respond to it. In this case the dumb post was merely the usual Mad Lib distraction and not worthy of comment.

Nope,. it's Loopy Lefties who keep bringing up the Civil War because they think the permanent defeat of the Confederacy translates, in the minds of voters, to a permanent marginalization of the GOP, based on the specious idea that the GOP simply absorbed all the Dixiecrats when Lucky Lyndon pushed his party toward a progressive (but not yet Progressive) agenda.

That's almost as dumb as your declaring victory without having been able to refute any of my points.

The full name of the document I have cited is The Articles of Confederation And Perpetual Union.

After the 13 colonies became the United States of America by forming "a more perfect Union," and when Congress voted to admit each state, the state signed on to membership of a Union that is "perpetual" and "indissoluble."

At the time of the Civil War there was no provision of the Constitution that enabled secession or even mentioned the word secession. Neither did the USA secede from Great Britain as "secede" does not match up with the War of Independence aka the Revolutionary War. Nor does the Tenth Amendment enable the secession of a state from the Union of the States.

I state this to advise you of where the matter of secession is at this point of the thread. In other words, it isn't anywhere nor was secession ever anywhere at the time of the Civil War.

 

[iguanaman]

What a surprise; another poster who can't read-- or else you might have recalled that the bulk of my post addressed the NORTH's reasons for fighting the Civil War. Mad Libs have sedulously programmed themselves to one response about any question involving the War Between the States with one deadheaded response: "IT WAS ABOUT SLAVERY!" Okay, show me quotes from average (i.e., non-abolitionist) Northerners who were dying to go to war to free the Black Man.

The only comment I made on the South's motivation was that they sought war "for their own financial benefit." That includes preserving slavery, O Man of Iguaninae.

The absence of any mention of the main reason the south fought the civil war was notable in your post. The north was fighting to maintain the union and abolish slavery as Lincoln so abily stated.

• "A house divided against itself cannot stand." I believe this government cannot endure, permanently half slave and half free. I do not expect the Union to be dissolved—I do not expect the house to fall—but I do expect it will cease to be divided. It will become all one thing, or all the other. Either the opponents of slavery, will arrest the further spread of it, and place it where the public mind shall rest in the belief that it is in course of ultimate extinction; or its advocates will push it forward, till it shall become alike lawful in all the states, old as well as new—North as well as South. Have we no tendency to the latter condition? Let any one who doubts, carefully contemplate that now almost complete legal combination— piece of machinery so to speak—compounded of the Nebraska doctrine, and the Dred Scott decision.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lincoln's_House_Divided_Speech

 

[jpevans]

Nope, you Mad Libs are the ones who want to tear down every aspect of American history, both Union and Confederate, for not living up to your allegedly lofty principles. Try again, your failures are entertaining.

There aren’t Democratic states making laws to prevent history being taught in schools. That’s the right. We have no objection to folks moving monuments onto private property, just not on public land
Shit, didn’t I just post this a while back on this thread? Okay, I’ll answer, yes I did, did you miss it?

 

[Tangmo]

More boring Mad Lib partisan drivel. Nothing worth debating here either.

That reply in different words each time is what makes you so easy ha.

In 1869 the Supreme Court ruled that unilateral secession is unconstitutional and, accordingly, illegal.

It was the case on appeal of Texas v White. Mr. White challenged the laws Texas had enacted during the Civil War. He said the laws were invalid because TX had seceded from the Union of the States. And that Mr. White, as a citizen of the United States FIRST AND FOREMOST and secondarily a TX citizen also, had been subjected to illegal and false laws imposed by a local government that was in an armed rebellion against the United States and therefore in violation of the Constitution.

The Court agreed with Mr. White. That is, the laws were illegal and false. And that was because Texas had seceded from the Union of the States in an act that the Court had to recognize as unconstitutional. Illegal. However, the Court said that UNILATERAL secession is unconstitutional. A state simply up and seceding on its own is unconstitutional. But that a state seceding under the James Madison formula would be constitutional.

Given Madison wrote the Constitution the Court turned to his letter of 1833 shortly before he died in that year, age 86. A state wishing to withdraw from the Union of the States would need to successfully petition two-thirds of each house of the Congress and three-quarters of the states in order to secede Constitutionally. Otherwise, no, secession would not be valid, accepted, allowed.

The Court accepted Madison's proposition that in a free state secession must be an option, that secession must be on the table. But that secession would be possible only by a mutual agreement among the states, which is the same principle and practice that the states accepted in adopting the Constitution and in ratifying it. Each state entered the Union by mutual agreement, and therefore a state can exit only by mutual agreement. All states being equal, each action affecting the membership of the whole needs to be mutual.

So your Kitchen Sink 10th Amendment catch-all for Rightwingers to exploit when all else fails remains as the litter box of the USA Constitution. Your failure to mention Texas v White also shows your ignorance in the matter of secession. And about the Tenth Amendment.

 

[jpevans]

That reply in different words each time is what makes you so easy ha.

In 1869 the Supreme Court ruled that unilateral secession is unconstitutional and, accordingly, illegal.

It was the case on appeal of Texas v White. Mr. White challenged the laws Texas had enacted during the Civil War. He said the laws were invalid because TX had seceded from the Union of the States. And that Mr. White, as a citizen of the United States FIRST AND FOREMOST and secondarily a TX citizen also, had been subjected to illegal and false laws imposed by a local government that was in an armed rebellion against the United States and therefore in violation of the Constitution.

The Court agreed with Mr. White. That is, the laws were illegal and false. And that was because Texas had seceded from the Union of the States in an act that the Court had to recognize as unconstitutional. Illegal. However, the Court said that UNILATERAL secession is unconstitutional. A state simply up and seceding on its own is unconstitutional. But that a state seceding under the James Madison formula would be constitutional.

Given Madison wrote the Constitution the Court turned to his letter of 1833 shortly before he died in that year, age 86. A state wishing to withdraw from the Union of the States would need to successfully petition two-thirds of each house of the Congress and three-quarters of the states in order to secede Constitutionally. Otherwise, no, secession would not be valid, accepted, allowed.

The Court accepted Madison's proposition that in a free state secession must be an option, that secession must be on the table. But that secession would be possible only by a mutual agreement among the states, which is the same principle and practice that the states accepted in adopting the Constitution and in ratifying it. Each state entered the Union by mutual agreement, and therefore a state can exit only by mutual agreement. All states being equal, each action affecting the membership of the whole needs to be mutual.

So your Kitchen Sink 10th Amendment catch-all for Rightwingers to exploit when all else fails remains as the litter box of the USA Constitution. Your failure to mention Texas v White also shows your ignorance in the matter of secession. And about the Tenth Amendment.

One would think that someone so dedicated to the Confederacy would know that. So it stands to reason that he’s surpressing it because it shoots down his many hours of misinformation.
Thanx for supplying those facts.

 

[Tangmo]

One would think that someone so dedicated to the Confederacy would know that. So it stands to reason that he’s surpressing it because it shoots down his many hours of misinformation.
Thanx for supplying those facts.

Your post is well taken yet self appointed champions of The Lost Cause are also committed participants in the Trump Idiocracy. Hence there is no idea over there of Texas v White.

I mean, we're talking the Trump Idiocracy since 2015. "I luv the uneducated!"

Many Civil War buffs are the same ignorant as they focus on the Southern generals, battles, offensives, secession, the supposed incompetence of the early wartime Union generals -- until Lincoln went for the win with The Ohio Boys Grant and Sherman -- while the buffs instead pay no attention to post bellum reforms, court rulings, Constitutional amendments and so on. They avoid that stuff.

CSA Buffs are too busy being reenactors and promoting the Myth of the Lost Cause, and trying to defend CSA statues and memorials to include military base names, to pay any attention to realities such as government and governance, actual history and real developments post CW. We mention Bedford Forrest as a founder of KKK and the CSA war buffs come back to talk about his cavalry raids behind Union lines and so on. They ignore the positive post bellum developments such as the 14th Amendment, to include ignoring negatives such as the KKK and Jim Crow. The Armband Right never talks about Jim Crow laws and their KKK malevolence.

 

[Big Brother]

In effect, Trump had a massive influence on the rise of White Supremacy, as he brought that latent characteristic out of the democrat party. They are and will always be the party of the KKK. I will go as far to say that the only reason the democrats supported BLM was in hope of it stoking a race war to punish the black community for being free. Luckily there was Trump to thwart this and fight for all American's unalienable rights.

 

[Mongidig]

Trump is a white supremacist. Most of his supporters are white supremacists. Lets just be honest here. If you still support Trump you are a white supremacists.

 

[VanceMack]

Holy shit. Its so ****ing pathetic with you leftists.

Your constant bleating about white supremacy and race and white nationalist...that tired played out shit happens every election cycle and has since the 60s. But the last 8 years the idiot left and their rat masters have really ratcheted up the hate rhetoric. OMG the white supremacy is everywhere...and yet....nowhere.......

Meanwhile...in the last 8 years violent crime has been steadily increasing, especially in the last 3 years. Approx 60 thousand people have been killed in this country by gun violence...the vast majority killed not by white supremacists, but by black on black violence. The idiot left has to bend and stretch to try to shoehorn any instance in the news into a white supremacist argument. Its hate fueled rhetoric and racists...that doesnt exist.

but hey...as long as the rat party leaders and their Marxist cronies can continue to spew racial hatred and divide the country...its good for business.....right? And its easy to spread the rhetoric because their mindless rat muppet supporters are so eager to be fed the lies.

****ing morons.

 

[jpevans]

In effect, Trump had a massive influence on the rise of White Supremacy, as he brought that latent characteristic out of the democrat party. They are and will always be the party of the KKK. I will go as far to say that the only reason the democrats supported BLM was in hope of it stoking a race war to punish the black community for being free. Luckily there was Trump to thwart this and fight for all American's unalienable rights.

Your satire always cracks me up.

 

[Ouroboros]

The full name of the document I have cited is The Articles of Confederation And Perpetual Union.

After the 13 colonies became the United States of America by forming "a more perfect Union," and when Congress voted to admit each state, the state signed on to membership of a Union that is "perpetual" and "indissoluble."

At the time of the Civil War there was no provision of the Constitution that enabled secession or even mentioned the word secession. Neither did the USA secede from Great Britain as "secede" does not match up with the War of Independence aka the Revolutionary War. Nor does the Tenth Amendment enable the secession of a state from the Union of the States.

I state this to advise you of where the matter of secession is at this point of the thread. In other words, it isn't anywhere nor was secession ever anywhere at the time of the Civil War.

There is no section of the Constitution that refers to the Union as either perpetual or indissoluble. “Perpetual” is in the defunct Articles of Confederation. You merely want those words to be there because (a) they lend justification to a war of government dominance of the states, and because (b) those states were doing something of which you don’t approve. And you like the idea of government crackdown then because you fantasize about doing the same to your political opponents today.

The framers of the Constitution avoided referencing secession not to signal that the government had full power over the process; they avoided it to gull the state legislatures into signing. Secession was encoded at the state level because that was the “gentleman’s agreement” at the time. The Tenth was a response to the original Constitution’s vagueness, ensuring that the Fed could not abrogate strong centralizing power to itself unless the states explicitly ceded the power to it.

 

[Ouroboros]

The absence of any mention of the main reason the south fought the civil war was notable in your post. The north was fighting to maintain the union and abolish slavery as Lincoln so abily stated.

• "A house divided against itself cannot stand." I believe this government cannot endure, permanently half slave and half free. I do not expect the Union to be dissolved—I do not expect the house to fall—but I do expect it will cease to be divided. It will become all one thing, or all the other. Either the opponents of slavery, will arrest the further spread of it, and place it where the public mind shall rest in the belief that it is in course of ultimate extinction; or its advocates will push it forward, till it shall become alike lawful in all the states, old as well as new—North as well as South. Have we no tendency to the latter condition? Let any one who doubts, carefully contemplate that now almost complete legal combination— piece of machinery so to speak—compounded of the Nebraska doctrine, and the Dred Scott decision.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lincoln's_House_Divided_Speech

Nope, you focused on the South’s motives because it gives you a buzz to imagine your fantasized side being noble in contrast. Lincoln’s garbage rhetoric was not the motive that he went to war. Prior to the hostilities he’d offered the South a palm branch in the form of legislation to ensure that Southern slavery would remain permanently legal. Lincoln’s main concern was to keep the South profitable while making sure slavery didn’t expand into the territories and endanger Northern hegemony, not to mention White Labor.

 

[Ouroboros]

There aren’t Democratic states making laws to prevent history being taught in schools. That’s the right. We have no objection to folks moving monuments onto private property, just not on public land
Shit, didn’t I just post this a while back on this thread? Okay, I’ll answer, yes I did, did you miss it?

The Left not only abetted the physical assaults of looney statue-Haters— which as I noted (and you forgot) included various non Confederate targets, they also gave credence to ideas like the 1619 Project, which distort history in the name of Liberal values.

 

[Ouroboros]

That reply in different words each time is what makes you so easy ha.

In 1869 the Supreme Court ruled that unilateral secession is unconstitutional and, accordingly, illegal.

It was the case on appeal of Texas v White. Mr. White challenged the laws Texas had enacted during the Civil War. He said the laws were invalid because TX had seceded from the Union of the States. And that Mr. White, as a citizen of the United States FIRST AND FOREMOST and secondarily a TX citizen also, had been subjected to illegal and false laws imposed by a local government that was in an armed rebellion against the United States and therefore in violation of the Constitution.

The Court agreed with Mr. White. That is, the laws were illegal and false. And that was because Texas had seceded from the Union of the States in an act that the Court had to recognize as unconstitutional. Illegal. However, the Court said that UNILATERAL secession is unconstitutional. A state simply up and seceding on its own is unconstitutional. But that a state seceding under the James Madison formula would be constitutional.

Given Madison wrote the Constitution the Court turned to his letter of 1833 shortly before he died in that year, age 86. A state wishing to withdraw from the Union of the States would need to successfully petition two-thirds of each house of the Congress and three-quarters of the states in order to secede Constitutionally. Otherwise, no, secession would not be valid, accepted, allowed.

The Court accepted Madison's proposition that in a free state secession must be an option, that secession must be on the table. But that secession would be possible only by a mutual agreement among the states, which is the same principle and practice that the states accepted in adopting the Constitution and in ratifying it. Each state entered the Union by mutual agreement, and therefore a state can exit only by mutual agreement. All states being equal, each action affecting the membership of the whole needs to be mutual.

So your Kitchen Sink 10th Amendment catch-all for Rightwingers to exploit when all else fails remains as the litter box of the USA Constitution. Your failure to mention Texas v White also shows your ignorance in the matter of secession. And about the Tenth Amendment.

Texas v White is just an after the fact acknowledgement that the government could use and had used force to win the argument. Being after the fact of the War Between the States, it demonstrates nothing about the perceptions of either side.

And as I pointed out already, if the US had really believed in mutual agreement they would have waited until Great Britain allowed the country to leave. The colonists had pledged loyalty to Britain before leaving; when they broached that agreement, they did so knowing they wouldn’t be released by mutual agreement. That was always a BS argument.

 

[Ouroboros]

One would think that someone so dedicated to the Confederacy would know that. So it stands to reason that he’s surpressing it because it shoots down his many hours of misinformation.
Thanx for supplying those facts.

No facts, just more partisan rewriting of history by the Left.

 

[Ouroboros]

Your post is well taken yet self appointed champions of The Lost Cause are also committed participants in the Trump Idiocracy. Hence there is no idea over there of Texas v White.

I mean, we're talking the Trump Idiocracy since 2015. "I luv the uneducated!"

Many Civil War buffs are the same ignorant as they focus on the Southern generals, battles, offensives, secession, the supposed incompetence of the early wartime Union generals -- until Lincoln went for the win with The Ohio Boys Grant and Sherman -- while the buffs instead pay no attention to post bellum reforms, court rulings, Constitutional amendments and so on. They avoid that stuff.

CSA Buffs are too busy being reenactors and promoting the Myth of the Lost Cause, and trying to defend CSA statues and memorials to include military base names, to pay any attention to realities such as government and governance, actual history and real developments post CW. We mention Bedford Forrest as a founder of KKK and the CSA war buffs come back to talk about his cavalry raids behind Union lines and so on. They ignore the positive post bellum developments such as the 14th Amendment, to include ignoring negatives such as the KKK and Jim Crow. The Armband Right never talks about Jim Crow laws and their KKK malevolence.

And the Left doesn’t even know that the original KKK came from the North and existed to terrorize Blacks into not voting Democrat.

 

[iguanaman]

Nope, you focused on the South’s motives because it gives you a buzz to imagine your fantasized side being noble in contrast. Lincoln’s garbage rhetoric was not the motive that he went to war. Prior to the hostilities he’d offered the South a palm branch in the form of legislation to ensure that Southern slavery would remain permanently legal. Lincoln’s main concern was to keep the South profitable while making sure slavery didn’t expand into the territories and endanger Northern hegemony, not to mention White Labor.

LOL The elimination of slavery was a noble cause and the Confederacy was evil and pointlessly caused the deaths of 620,000 Americans. There is nothing that could have "endangered northern hegemony" either that is another fallacy like the lost cause.

The discovery of Lincoln's letter to the governor of Florida does not alter the historical perspective that Lincoln was willing to compromise to restore the Union before hostilities began. It also underscores Lincoln's evolution toward emancipation. This snapshot of March 1861 shows Lincoln's last attempt to restore the Union while maintaining his party's platform. While personally opposed to slavery, Lincoln believed the Constitution supported it. His support of the Corwin amendment attempted to codify that belief, but the Civil War changed his opinion on presidential power. Lincoln issued the Emancipation Proclamation in 1862, and in 1865, vigorously worked to pass the actual thirteenth amendment, which declared slavery illegal.

https://www.lib.niu.edu/2006/ih060934.html

 

[antiquity]

Never said I was looking for it.

I get it now.....you enjoy spreading Russian misinformation.

 

[antiquity]

And the Left doesn’t even know that the original KKK came from the North and existed to terrorize Blacks into not voting Democrat.

Where did you come up with that information? The KKK come from disenfranchised Confederate soldiers and plantation owners who lost their slaves and tried to take revenge on them. Were there KKK member in the north...yes but few as compared to the defeated south. The south waged a campaign against southern blacks not to vote for republicans.

 

[Ouroboros]

LOL The elimination of slavery was a noble cause and the Confederacy was evil and pointlessly caused the deaths of 620,000 Americans. There is nothing that could have "endangered northern hegemony" either that is another fallacy like the lost cause.

The discovery of Lincoln's letter to the governor of Florida does not alter the historical perspective that Lincoln was willing to compromise to restore the Union before hostilities began. It also underscores Lincoln's evolution toward emancipation. This snapshot of March 1861 shows Lincoln's last attempt to restore the Union while maintaining his party's platform. While personally opposed to slavery, Lincoln believed the Constitution supported it. His support of the Corwin amendment attempted to codify that belief, but the Civil War changed his opinion on presidential power. Lincoln issued the Emancipation Proclamation in 1862, and in 1865, vigorously worked to pass the actual thirteenth amendment, which declared slavery illegal.

https://www.lib.niu.edu/2006/ih060934.html

Yes, Lincoln was so devoted to emancipation that he waited over a year to issue the Proclamation even in its preliminary form. Not to mention trying, in the last months of his life, to see if other countries would take the ex-slaves off his hands.

The essential problem was that Lincoln had, like many politicians before and after him, talked out of both sides of his mouth during his campaign. Thus when he was elected, albeit with a small majority of votes, the South believed his anti-slavery rhetoric. Not that other Northern politicians were innocent: they'd found in tariff law a way of fattening their states at the South's expense-- the "hegemony" that went on for close to fifty years before the War, and that modern Libs don't want to admit for fear of making their side look less than pure.

I know, I know: your next move's going to be cite all the seceding states that avowed their reasons for going to war as being purely about slavery. Let's pretend you already said it and I've already pointed out that a lot of Southern politicians weren't totally honest either, OK?

I certainly would like to debate the question of defining evil as it pertains to both slavery and economic oppression, but I don't know anyone competent to take the other side. If you find anyone, send him over.