20% of Trump Supporters "disapprove of Lincoln freeing the slaves"

[bripat9643]

That's what the Constitution said, you race baiting moron.

That wasn't the question, I asked if you think former slaveholders should be compensated

Leftwingers are so stupid it's amazing they have enough brain power to make their lungs work.

You're a Trump supporter, right?

They obviously didn't need to be compensated when the 14th Amendment was passed, but Lincoln couldn't free them without compensating their owners before then. That's why the EP was unconstitutional. Lincoln had no authority to do what the document stated.

The bottom line: you're a race baiting moron who is totally ignorant of history and the Constitution. You're a typical libturd, in other words.

 

[bripat9643]

Gawd librals are dumb. that's a meme, sheep Trump never said that. Here's a shocker, Palin never said she could see Russia from her front porch either.

You people are so stupid it's funny

Who cares if they actually said it, the problem for you Trump/Palin groupies is that they make such insane statements that everyone believes they (could have) said it.

And your denials make it even funnier

Only a lib could make the statement "who cares if they said what we accuse them of saying." I can't imagine a statement anymore incriminating than that. You just admitted you don't care if liberals lie about the facts.

 

[kaz]

Gawd librals are dumb. that's a meme, sheep Trump never said that. Here's a shocker, Palin never said she could see Russia from her front porch either.

You people are so stupid it's funny

Who cares if they actually said it, the problem for you Trump/Palin groupies is that they make such insane statements that everyone believes they (could have) said it.

And your denials make it even funnier

Well Einstein, I'm not a Republican or a Trump supporter and if Trump is the Republican candidate I won't vote for him. But thanks for playing. Unlike you I do care what they actually said.

But I'm not a useless cum swilling Democrat like you are

 

[Jantje_Smit]

They obviously didn't need to be compensated when the 14th Amendment was passed, but Lincoln couldn't free them without compensating their owners before then. That's why the EP was unconstitutional. Lincoln had no authority to do what the document stated.

The bottom line: you're a race baiting moron who is totally ignorant of history and the Constitution. You're a typical libturd, in other words.

In other words, you refuse to answer the question

Oh, and I'm not a "libturd" but a socialist

 

[bripat9643]

They obviously didn't need to be compensated when the 14th Amendment was passed, but Lincoln couldn't free them without compensating their owners before then. That's why the EP was unconstitutional. Lincoln had no authority to do what the document stated.

The bottom line: you're a race baiting moron who is totally ignorant of history and the Constitution. You're a typical libturd, in other words.

In other words, you refuse to answer the question

Oh, and I'm not a "libturd" but a socialist

I did answer the question, you witless poltroon, but you're too stupid to understand the answer.

A socialist is someone even dumber and more dishonest than a libturd.

 

[bripat9643]

Gawd librals are dumb. that's a meme, sheep Trump never said that. Here's a shocker, Palin never said she could see Russia from her front porch either.

You people are so stupid it's funny

Who cares if they actually said it, the problem for you Trump/Palin groupies is that they make such insane statements that everyone believes they (could have) said it.

And your denials make it even funnier

Well Einstein, I'm not a Republican or a Trump supporter and if Trump is the Republican candidate I won't vote for him. But thanks for playing. Unlike you I do care what they actually said.

But I'm not a useless cum swilling Democrat like you are

Notice that she thinks it's funny when I point out that she doesn't care if her kind lies about the facts. She doesn't have a principled bone in her entire body. She's an utterly shameless douche and a poltroon.

 

[kaz]

Gawd librals are dumb. that's a meme, sheep Trump never said that. Here's a shocker, Palin never said she could see Russia from her front porch either.

You people are so stupid it's funny

Who cares if they actually said it, the problem for you Trump/Palin groupies is that they make such insane statements that everyone believes they (could have) said it.

And your denials make it even funnier

Well Einstein, I'm not a Republican or a Trump supporter and if Trump is the Republican candidate I won't vote for him. But thanks for playing. Unlike you I do care what they actually said.

But I'm not a useless cum swilling Democrat like you are

Notice that she thinks it's funny when I point out that she doesn't care if her kind lies about the facts. She doesn't have a principled bone in her entire body. She's an utterly shameless douche and a poltroon.

then she wanted me to address what she said... Which I did actually

 

[Jantje_Smit]

Well Einstein, I'm not a Republican or a Trump supporter and if Trump is the Republican candidate I won't vote for him. But thanks for playing. Unlike you I do care what they actually said.

But I'm not a useless cum swilling Democrat like you are

Interesting, you're not a republican but the other side is a "useless cum swilling Democrat"

But as I told your fellow constitution wor$hipper, I'm not a democrat but a socialist. And no, that doesn't mean I adore Bernie since he's only a fake socialist wanting a kindler & gentler form of capitalism.

 

[Jantje_Smit]

I did answer the question, you witless poltroon, but you're too stupid to understand the answer.

Oh, I must have missed that. Could you perhaps answer it again, "do you think former slaveholders should be compensated?"

A simple yes or no will do

A socialist is someone even dumber and more dishonest than a libturd.

Nah, what's really dumb is poor people voting for a billionaire thinking he'll make them rich too.

What's dishonest about being socialist?

 

[frigidweirdo]

The You.Gov poll was to the general population. Not Trump supporters. I'm on the link right now.

The Economist
/YouGov Poll
Sample 2000 General Population Respondents
Conducted January 15 - 19, 2016
Margin of Error
2.9%

https://d25d2506sfb94s.cloudfront.net/cumulus_uploads/document/ctucuikdsj/econToplines.pdf

It's still dreadful Tiny...that people feel that way.....5% = approx. 18 Million Americans,steven

I agree. But the issue in the OP is claiming these numbers are Trump supporters. I'm on the Daily Mail and they're quoting the bullshit that it is Trump supporters as well.

One always has to check the methodology and not the headlines that consistently are fabricated.

It's amazing how often liberals cite articles with headlines that say what they said, but the article doesn't ever support it's own headline. You wonder if liberals ever actually read anything they post. You wonder if they can read ...

The article backs up what it says with a source, however what the article says isn't actually in the source.

However, we know that 12% of the country said it was bad, and we know that Trump supporters are more likely to be under-educated, more likely to be racist and so on.

So, while it doesn't back it up conclusively, that doesn't mean that I don't believe what it says.

This is where you tell me that you only believe things when you've seen that actual statistical analysis and made your own judgement of EVERYTHING YOU THINK YOU KNOW.

Because only conservatives would put that much time and effort into getting their information. (Wait, no, most don't bother to show anything much).

 

[kaz]

The You.Gov poll was to the general population. Not Trump supporters. I'm on the link right now.

The Economist
/YouGov Poll
Sample 2000 General Population Respondents
Conducted January 15 - 19, 2016
Margin of Error
2.9%

https://d25d2506sfb94s.cloudfront.net/cumulus_uploads/document/ctucuikdsj/econToplines.pdf

It's still dreadful Tiny...that people feel that way.....5% = approx. 18 Million Americans,steven

I agree. But the issue in the OP is claiming these numbers are Trump supporters. I'm on the Daily Mail and they're quoting the bullshit that it is Trump supporters as well.

One always has to check the methodology and not the headlines that consistently are fabricated.

It's amazing how often liberals cite articles with headlines that say what they said, but the article doesn't ever support it's own headline. You wonder if liberals ever actually read anything they post. You wonder if they can read ...

The article backs up what it says with a source, however what the article says isn't actually in the source.

However, we know that 12% of the country said it was bad, and we know that Trump supporters are more likely to be under-educated, more likely to be racist and so on.

So, while it doesn't back it up conclusively, that doesn't mean that I don't believe what it says.

This is where you tell me that you only believe things when you've seen that actual statistical analysis and made your own judgement of EVERYTHING YOU THINK YOU KNOW.

Because only conservatives would put that much time and effort into getting their information. (Wait, no, most don't bother to show anything much).

So you write all that then you tell me you don't even know what I think, you think I'm a conservative. Since you in the end didn't even write this to me, there's no point in my replying to it, is there? There are plenty of conservatives on the site who I'm sure would be happy to respond to your views of conservatism

 

[frigidweirdo]

The You.Gov poll was to the general population. Not Trump supporters. I'm on the link right now.

The Economist
/YouGov Poll
Sample 2000 General Population Respondents
Conducted January 15 - 19, 2016
Margin of Error
2.9%

https://d25d2506sfb94s.cloudfront.net/cumulus_uploads/document/ctucuikdsj/econToplines.pdf

It's still dreadful Tiny...that people feel that way.....5% = approx. 18 Million Americans,steven

I agree. But the issue in the OP is claiming these numbers are Trump supporters. I'm on the Daily Mail and they're quoting the bullshit that it is Trump supporters as well.

One always has to check the methodology and not the headlines that consistently are fabricated.

It's amazing how often liberals cite articles with headlines that say what they said, but the article doesn't ever support it's own headline. You wonder if liberals ever actually read anything they post. You wonder if they can read ...

The article backs up what it says with a source, however what the article says isn't actually in the source.

However, we know that 12% of the country said it was bad, and we know that Trump supporters are more likely to be under-educated, more likely to be racist and so on.

So, while it doesn't back it up conclusively, that doesn't mean that I don't believe what it says.

This is where you tell me that you only believe things when you've seen that actual statistical analysis and made your own judgement of EVERYTHING YOU THINK YOU KNOW.

Because only conservatives would put that much time and effort into getting their information. (Wait, no, most don't bother to show anything much).

So you write all that then you tell me you don't even know what I think, you think I'm a conservative. Since you in the end didn't even write this to me, there's no point in my replying to it, is there? There are plenty of conservatives on the site who I'm sure would be happy to respond to your views of conservatism

I didn't say you were a conservative. I said "Because only conservatives....."

However I know you're talking crap.

 

[kaz]

It's still dreadful Tiny...that people feel that way.....5% = approx. 18 Million Americans,steven

I agree. But the issue in the OP is claiming these numbers are Trump supporters. I'm on the Daily Mail and they're quoting the bullshit that it is Trump supporters as well.

One always has to check the methodology and not the headlines that consistently are fabricated.

It's amazing how often liberals cite articles with headlines that say what they said, but the article doesn't ever support it's own headline. You wonder if liberals ever actually read anything they post. You wonder if they can read ...

The article backs up what it says with a source, however what the article says isn't actually in the source.

However, we know that 12% of the country said it was bad, and we know that Trump supporters are more likely to be under-educated, more likely to be racist and so on.

So, while it doesn't back it up conclusively, that doesn't mean that I don't believe what it says.

This is where you tell me that you only believe things when you've seen that actual statistical analysis and made your own judgement of EVERYTHING YOU THINK YOU KNOW.

Because only conservatives would put that much time and effort into getting their information. (Wait, no, most don't bother to show anything much).

So you write all that then you tell me you don't even know what I think, you think I'm a conservative. Since you in the end didn't even write this to me, there's no point in my replying to it, is there? There are plenty of conservatives on the site who I'm sure would be happy to respond to your views of conservatism

I didn't say you were a conservative. I said "Because only conservatives....."

However I know you're talking crap.

So you didn't call me a conservative, at the end you just made a random, comment about people not in the conversation?

You want to stick to that lie, or you want more time to come up with a better one?

 

[frigidweirdo]

I agree. But the issue in the OP is claiming these numbers are Trump supporters. I'm on the Daily Mail and they're quoting the bullshit that it is Trump supporters as well.

One always has to check the methodology and not the headlines that consistently are fabricated.

It's amazing how often liberals cite articles with headlines that say what they said, but the article doesn't ever support it's own headline. You wonder if liberals ever actually read anything they post. You wonder if they can read ...

The article backs up what it says with a source, however what the article says isn't actually in the source.

However, we know that 12% of the country said it was bad, and we know that Trump supporters are more likely to be under-educated, more likely to be racist and so on.

So, while it doesn't back it up conclusively, that doesn't mean that I don't believe what it says.

This is where you tell me that you only believe things when you've seen that actual statistical analysis and made your own judgement of EVERYTHING YOU THINK YOU KNOW.

Because only conservatives would put that much time and effort into getting their information. (Wait, no, most don't bother to show anything much).

So you write all that then you tell me you don't even know what I think, you think I'm a conservative. Since you in the end didn't even write this to me, there's no point in my replying to it, is there? There are plenty of conservatives on the site who I'm sure would be happy to respond to your views of conservatism

I didn't say you were a conservative. I said "Because only conservatives....."

However I know you're talking crap.

So you didn't call me a conservative, at the end you just made a random, comment about people not in the conversation?

You want to stick to that lie, or you want more time to come up with a better one?

Wow, isn't this interesting?

Sorry, I really don't come on here to bitchslap about.

 

[kaz]

It's amazing how often liberals cite articles with headlines that say what they said, but the article doesn't ever support it's own headline. You wonder if liberals ever actually read anything they post. You wonder if they can read ...

The article backs up what it says with a source, however what the article says isn't actually in the source.

However, we know that 12% of the country said it was bad, and we know that Trump supporters are more likely to be under-educated, more likely to be racist and so on.

So, while it doesn't back it up conclusively, that doesn't mean that I don't believe what it says.

This is where you tell me that you only believe things when you've seen that actual statistical analysis and made your own judgement of EVERYTHING YOU THINK YOU KNOW.

Because only conservatives would put that much time and effort into getting their information. (Wait, no, most don't bother to show anything much).

So you write all that then you tell me you don't even know what I think, you think I'm a conservative. Since you in the end didn't even write this to me, there's no point in my replying to it, is there? There are plenty of conservatives on the site who I'm sure would be happy to respond to your views of conservatism

I didn't say you were a conservative. I said "Because only conservatives....."

However I know you're talking crap.

So you didn't call me a conservative, at the end you just made a random, comment about people not in the conversation?

You want to stick to that lie, or you want more time to come up with a better one?

Wow, isn't this interesting?

Sorry, I really don't come on here to bitchslap about.

No, you came here to debate conservatives. So go ahead. If you want to debate a libertarian I'm here, but you have to debate my views, not someone else's. I have no interest in defending conservatives

 

[Stephanie]

Fridge still trying to justify posting this idiotic poll. I would just let it go into the garbage can myself.

 

[bripat9643]

Well Einstein, I'm not a Republican or a Trump supporter and if Trump is the Republican candidate I won't vote for him. But thanks for playing. Unlike you I do care what they actually said.

But I'm not a useless cum swilling Democrat like you are

Interesting, you're not a republican but the other side is a "useless cum swilling Democrat"

But as I told your fellow constitution wor$hipper, I'm not a democrat but a socialist. And no, that doesn't mean I adore Bernie since he's only a fake socialist wanting a kindler & gentler form of capitalism.

We know you adore Stalin. You've made that quite plain.

 

[bripat9643]

I did answer the question, you witless poltroon, but you're too stupid to understand the answer.

Oh, I must have missed that. Could you perhaps answer it again, "do you think former slaveholders should be compensated?"

A simple yes or no will do

A socialist is someone even dumber and more dishonest than a libturd.

Nah, what's really dumb is poor people voting for a billionaire thinking he'll make them rich too.

What's dishonest about being socialist?

Your question is irrelevant to the issue being discussed, which is whether Lincoln's emancipation proclamation was constitutional. It wasn't. End of story. You're obviously just trying to race bait like a typical leftwing douche.

Socialism is a pack of lies, and only liars would defend it.

 

[mikegriffith1]

Oh, I seriously doubt that. Sounds like some loony left poll that was deceptively worded and then misleadingly reported.

I'm just guessing here: Was the question about *how* Lincoln freed the slaves, i.e., the emancipation proclamation? You realize that the EP only applied to slaves in Confederate territory and that it left hundreds of thousands of Union slaves in bondage, right? Right? Go read the EP. It specifies this.

 

[kaz]

I did answer the question, you witless poltroon, but you're too stupid to understand the answer.

Oh, I must have missed that. Could you perhaps answer it again, "do you think former slaveholders should be compensated?"

A simple yes or no will do

A socialist is someone even dumber and more dishonest than a libturd.

Nah, what's really dumb is poor people voting for a billionaire thinking he'll make them rich too.

What's dishonest about being socialist?

Your question is irrelevant to the issue being discussed, which is whether Lincoln's emancipation proclamation was constitutional. It wasn't. End of story. You're obviously just trying to race bait like a typical leftwing douche.

Socialism is a pack of lies, and only liars would defend it.

Directly I agree, Lincoln didn't have that authority to make a decree like that. However, the Constitution said that you could not be deprived of live, liberty or property without due process of law, and slavery clearly violated that. So Lincoln could have said the government will start enforcing the Constitution.

Of course I have other issues with what he did in the civil war, but on that narrow point, he could have put the same message differently. Despite the mention of slavery in the Constitution, there is no exemption put in it that the bill of rights only applies to some Americans and not others