POLL: How Bout An Official Gesture Of Atonement For Past Sins Against African Americans?...

[paulitician]

I agree, that's the obvious solution. It's what Martin Luther King wanted. But i think the past has to be addressed in some way. And it'll have to be addressed in an official Government-sanctioned way. Something along the lines of how Australia approached it with the Aborigines.

Yeah, I'm sure that will change everything. Ask how many blacks (or whites for that matter) know about this:

Congress Apologizes for Slavery, Jim Crow

It seems to have a done a lot of good in Australia. I mean, it can't erase the history of awful abuse, but it can help folks forgive and find closure.

 

[Jackson]

I'm not advocating monetary compensation. And most African Americans would say they've been enslaved long since after Slavery was abolished. In fact, you go back only a few decades to the 50's and 60's to see where they're coming from.

I grew up in the 60's so I know exactly where they are coming from. So what kind of compensation are you talking about here, and why should I be the one to compensate? Just because I'm white?

Of course it is because you are white. No, you didn't do anything wrong and maybe none of your ancestors did either. But some of the blacks today still want to live in the past and have excuses for their own personal failures.

The reason it came to a frothing boil now us that our president created the atmosphere of total disrespect between the races. Our racial problem can be put squarely on the shoulders of our failed president.

Riiiiigth, three hundred years of human trafficking and abuse followed by legacies of lynchings, discrimination and various outright terrorism were just.... I dunno, bumps in the road?

There is nothing that can be done about it. Call it anything you want. It happened. It was wrong. We did something about it. We made laws so that it could never happen again.

What do Jews do to Germans about the Holocaust? Are they raging with indignation against all Germans for putting their family in ovens? They experienced more than a "bump in the road" but they don't hold present day Germans responsible. They are smart enough to understand that happened in history with people that no longer exist. They took responsibility for their own lives and are now contributing citizens all over the globe.

Or have I missed their protests and Jewlivesmatter at the expense of others?

 

[Jackson]

Of course it is because you are white. No, you didn't do anything wrong and maybe none of your ancestors did either. But some of the blacks today still want to live in the past and have excuses for their own personal failures.

Didn't we give them enough excuses already? They all joined the party of excuses, and they made plenty more for them.

We have the NAACP...The origins of excuses. How far would NAAWP would get before blacks called it a "White Supremacy" group?

 

[Pogo]

I agree, that's the obvious solution. It's what Martin Luther King wanted. But i think the past has to be addressed in some way. And it'll have to be addressed in an official Government-sanctioned way. Something along the lines of how Australia approached it with the Aborigines.

Yeah, I'm sure that will change everything. Ask how many blacks (or whites for that matter) know about this:

Congress Apologizes for Slavery, Jim Crow

Excellent point. And why don't many know about it? Because it's not dramatic enough to sell in commercial media, sez I. Not when you have a shooting (or a flooding or a bombing, etc etc).

From the text of that resolution though:

>> Twenty years ago this congress passed a bill apologizing for the internment of Japanese citizens during World War II. In fact, subsequent to the consideration of this resolution, the distinguished lady from California, Ms. Matsui, has a resolution recognizing and celebrating the 20th anniversary of the passage of that bill. <<
​

There's a Congressional action simply commemorating the anniversary of a previous apology. I'm sure that didn't make headlines either but it's one way, perhaps the only way, government can act to draw attention to that sentiment.

Perhaps it would make the national news if some Congresscritter would introduce such a reiterative resolution while simultaneously gunning down a slew of kittens in the chambers. Let's recognize after all how information gets disseminated in this country.

 

[Pogo]

I'm not advocating monetary compensation. And most African Americans would say they've been enslaved long since after Slavery was abolished. In fact, you go back only a few decades to the 50's and 60's to see where they're coming from.

I grew up in the 60's so I know exactly where they are coming from. So what kind of compensation are you talking about here, and why should I be the one to compensate? Just because I'm white?

Of course it is because you are white. No, you didn't do anything wrong and maybe none of your ancestors did either. But some of the blacks today still want to live in the past and have excuses for their own personal failures.

The reason it came to a frothing boil now us that our president created the atmosphere of total disrespect between the races. Our racial problem can be put squarely on the shoulders of our failed president.

Riiiiigth, three hundred years of human trafficking and abuse followed by legacies of lynchings, discrimination and various outright terrorism were just.... I dunno, bumps in the road?

There is nothing that can be done about it. Call it anything you want. It happened. It was wrong. We did something about it. We made laws so that it could never happen again.

What do Jews do to Germans about the Holocaust? Are they raging with indignation against all Germans for putting their family in ovens? They experienced more than a "bump in the road" but they don't hold present day Germans responsible. They are smart enough to understand that happened in history with people that no longer exist. They took responsibility for their own lives and are now contributing citizens all over the globe.

Or have I missed their protests and Jewlivesmatter at the expense of others?

You're deflecting from your own point, which was that O'bama invented racial tension.

Well ---------------- he didn't.

 

[Papageorgio]

No it isn't, that is what you perceive.

Nope. It's the history book. A small part thereof.

Prove me wrong.

Buchanan swept the south. Fremont won states in the north. A Southern Democrat swept the south. Prove me wrong.

Again ---- Buchanan had no competition. Unless you think Millard Fillmore was "competition". Frémont did not run in the South. Neither did Lincoln. You don't get votes if you don't run. So of course Frémont got votes in the North -- that's where the Republican Party was based. Exclusively.

And Buchanan was from Pennsylvania; he was a Democrat but Pennsylvania is not in "the South" either. Never has been. I'm from there, and my mother's from the South, so nobody knows the difference better than I do.

Anyway, the Presidential candidate of the Democratic Party in the 1860 election was Illinois Senator Stephen Douglas, not Breckinridge, not Bell. Douglas carried one state, which means he came in not second or even third, but fourth. Because for reasons alluded to above in post 90, it was more important to vote for a Southerner --- or in this event, to split between two Southerners ----- than to vote for a Democrat. The same thing occurred in 1948, and in 1968, and effectively in 1964 when the divorce was pending.

Same dynamic every time. This is why I keep pointing out the obvious regional roots, where y'all armchair pundits want to talk "political parties". The former is where the deep roots are --- not the latter.

And I've got more.

So you can't dispute what I said.

I just did. Blew it into tiny bits. Proved you wrong.

Buchanan was not a "Southern Democrat". There's no definition that make that characterization work. Never even lived in the South. Outside his time in DC and as a foreign ambassador he lived his whole life in central Pennsylvania, which has never been ""the South".

And again -- how do you "sweep" when you haven't got a competitor? Who exactly is the sweepee? Millard Fillmore, the Know-Nothing? The leftover of the Whig Party which was by then defunct, who only had name recognition because he was VP when Zach Taylor died? That's your sweepee?

I never said Buchanan was a southern democrat. I said he swept the south, which he did.

Breckinridge was listed as a Southern Democrat and he took all the southern electoral votes. You didn't prove me wrong my statements are accurate.

 

[Pogo]

Nope. It's the history book. A small part thereof.

Prove me wrong.

Buchanan swept the south. Fremont won states in the north. A Southern Democrat swept the south. Prove me wrong.

Again ---- Buchanan had no competition. Unless you think Millard Fillmore was "competition". Frémont did not run in the South. Neither did Lincoln. You don't get votes if you don't run. So of course Frémont got votes in the North -- that's where the Republican Party was based. Exclusively.

And Buchanan was from Pennsylvania; he was a Democrat but Pennsylvania is not in "the South" either. Never has been. I'm from there, and my mother's from the South, so nobody knows the difference better than I do.

Anyway, the Presidential candidate of the Democratic Party in the 1860 election was Illinois Senator Stephen Douglas, not Breckinridge, not Bell. Douglas carried one state, which means he came in not second or even third, but fourth. Because for reasons alluded to above in post 90, it was more important to vote for a Southerner --- or in this event, to split between two Southerners ----- than to vote for a Democrat. The same thing occurred in 1948, and in 1968, and effectively in 1964 when the divorce was pending.

Same dynamic every time. This is why I keep pointing out the obvious regional roots, where y'all armchair pundits want to talk "political parties". The former is where the deep roots are --- not the latter.

And I've got more.

So you can't dispute what I said.

I just did. Blew it into tiny bits. Proved you wrong.

Buchanan was not a "Southern Democrat". There's no definition that make that characterization work. Never even lived in the South. Outside his time in DC and as a foreign ambassador he lived his whole life in central Pennsylvania, which has never been ""the South".

And again -- how do you "sweep" when you haven't got a competitor? Who exactly is the sweepee? Millard Fillmore, the Know-Nothing? The leftover of the Whig Party which was by then defunct, who only had name recognition because he was VP when Zach Taylor died? That's your sweepee?

I never said Buchanan was a southern democrat. I said he swept the south, which he did. Fillmore only got the votes of northern states.

Breckinridge was listed as a Southern Democrat and he took all the southern electoral votes. You didn't prove me wrong my statements are accurate.

NO, Breckinridge was a Democrat before he split off to run in 1860. So was Bell, who did the same thing. The Democratic Party candidate in 1860 was Stephen Douglas. Period. That's a matter of record.

You can't have a single political party running two candidates. How the hell do you do that? Teddy Roosevelt was not a "Republican" when he ran in 1912 -- the Republican candidate was Taft. And so on.

And again, how the hell can Buchanan (and you're conflating two different elections here anyway) "sweep the South" when nobody else is running? Fillmore was running officially, though he really didn't agree with the Know-Nothings and wasn't even there when he was nominated --- that's supposed to be "competition"?? When you're running unopposed, how can you NOT "sweep"? How the hell do you do that?



"Southern Democrat" by the way is the name of a party. Like "Constitutional Union" or "Progressive" (Bell and Roosevelt respectively). It isn't an adjective describing "a DP candidate who is from the South". Douglas was the Democrat, and ran against Breckinridge and Bell (but not Lincoln) in the South. Are you seriously trying to tell me a single political party ran three guys against each other?

Fillmore did get some votes in the South btw so you're wrong about that too. Not enough to matter though, since it was neither a viable campaign nor a viable party.

 

[Papageorgio]

Buchanan swept the south. Fremont won states in the north. A Southern Democrat swept the south. Prove me wrong.

Again ---- Buchanan had no competition. Unless you think Millard Fillmore was "competition". Frémont did not run in the South. Neither did Lincoln. You don't get votes if you don't run. So of course Frémont got votes in the North -- that's where the Republican Party was based. Exclusively.

And Buchanan was from Pennsylvania; he was a Democrat but Pennsylvania is not in "the South" either. Never has been. I'm from there, and my mother's from the South, so nobody knows the difference better than I do.

Anyway, the Presidential candidate of the Democratic Party in the 1860 election was Illinois Senator Stephen Douglas, not Breckinridge, not Bell. Douglas carried one state, which means he came in not second or even third, but fourth. Because for reasons alluded to above in post 90, it was more important to vote for a Southerner --- or in this event, to split between two Southerners ----- than to vote for a Democrat. The same thing occurred in 1948, and in 1968, and effectively in 1964 when the divorce was pending.

Same dynamic every time. This is why I keep pointing out the obvious regional roots, where y'all armchair pundits want to talk "political parties". The former is where the deep roots are --- not the latter.

And I've got more.

So you can't dispute what I said.

I just did. Blew it into tiny bits. Proved you wrong.

Buchanan was not a "Southern Democrat". There's no definition that make that characterization work. Never even lived in the South. Outside his time in DC and as a foreign ambassador he lived his whole life in central Pennsylvania, which has never been ""the South".

And again -- how do you "sweep" when you haven't got a competitor? Who exactly is the sweepee? Millard Fillmore, the Know-Nothing? The leftover of the Whig Party which was by then defunct, who only had name recognition because he was VP when Zach Taylor died? That's your sweepee?

I never said Buchanan was a southern democrat. I said he swept the south, which he did. Fillmore only got the votes of northern states.

Breckinridge was listed as a Southern Democrat and he took all the southern electoral votes. You didn't prove me wrong my statements are accurate.

NO, Breckinridge was a Democrat before he split off to run in 1860. So was Bell, who did the same thing. The Democratic Party candidate in 1860 was Stephen Douglas. Period. That's a matter of record.

You can't have a single political party running two candidates. How the hell do you do that? Teddy Roosevelt was not a "Republican" when he ran in 1912 -- the Republican candidate was Taft. And so on.

And again, how the hell can Buchanan (and you're conflating two different elections here anyway) "sweep the South" when nobody else is running? Fillmore was running officially, though he really didn't agree with the Know-Nothings and wasn't even there when he was nominated --- that's supposed to be "competition"?? When you're running unopposed, how can you NOT "sweep"? How the hell do you do that?

1856 Buchanan won the Presidency. He beat Fremont and Fillmore, only Buchanan received any delegates from the southern states.

Breckinridge and democrat was the VP during the Buchanan presidency.

Breckinridge ran as a southern democrat in 1860 and won all the southern delegates.

All are facts.

 

[Pogo]

Again ---- Buchanan had no competition. Unless you think Millard Fillmore was "competition". Frémont did not run in the South. Neither did Lincoln. You don't get votes if you don't run. So of course Frémont got votes in the North -- that's where the Republican Party was based. Exclusively.

And Buchanan was from Pennsylvania; he was a Democrat but Pennsylvania is not in "the South" either. Never has been. I'm from there, and my mother's from the South, so nobody knows the difference better than I do.

Anyway, the Presidential candidate of the Democratic Party in the 1860 election was Illinois Senator Stephen Douglas, not Breckinridge, not Bell. Douglas carried one state, which means he came in not second or even third, but fourth. Because for reasons alluded to above in post 90, it was more important to vote for a Southerner --- or in this event, to split between two Southerners ----- than to vote for a Democrat. The same thing occurred in 1948, and in 1968, and effectively in 1964 when the divorce was pending.

Same dynamic every time. This is why I keep pointing out the obvious regional roots, where y'all armchair pundits want to talk "political parties". The former is where the deep roots are --- not the latter.

And I've got more.

So you can't dispute what I said.

I just did. Blew it into tiny bits. Proved you wrong.

Buchanan was not a "Southern Democrat". There's no definition that make that characterization work. Never even lived in the South. Outside his time in DC and as a foreign ambassador he lived his whole life in central Pennsylvania, which has never been ""the South".

And again -- how do you "sweep" when you haven't got a competitor? Who exactly is the sweepee? Millard Fillmore, the Know-Nothing? The leftover of the Whig Party which was by then defunct, who only had name recognition because he was VP when Zach Taylor died? That's your sweepee?

I never said Buchanan was a southern democrat. I said he swept the south, which he did. Fillmore only got the votes of northern states.

Breckinridge was listed as a Southern Democrat and he took all the southern electoral votes. You didn't prove me wrong my statements are accurate.

NO, Breckinridge was a Democrat before he split off to run in 1860. So was Bell, who did the same thing. The Democratic Party candidate in 1860 was Stephen Douglas. Period. That's a matter of record.

You can't have a single political party running two candidates. How the hell do you do that? Teddy Roosevelt was not a "Republican" when he ran in 1912 -- the Republican candidate was Taft. And so on.

And again, how the hell can Buchanan (and you're conflating two different elections here anyway) "sweep the South" when nobody else is running? Fillmore was running officially, though he really didn't agree with the Know-Nothings and wasn't even there when he was nominated --- that's supposed to be "competition"?? When you're running unopposed, how can you NOT "sweep"? How the hell do you do that?

1856 Buchanan won the Presidency. He beat Fremont and Fillmore, only Buchanan received any delegates from the southern states.

Breckinridge and democrat was the VP during the Buchanan presidency.

Breckinridge ran as a southern democrat in 1860 and won all the southern delegates.

All are facts.

Nope, they're not. Wrong, wrong wrong.

Step by step....
"1856 Buchanan won the Presidency. He beat Fremont and Fillmore, only Buchanan received any delegates from the southern states."

---- he beat Frémont (it has an accent) in the North, since the Republicans ran no candidate in the South. He beat Fillmore in the North and South, Fillmore being an ex-Whig, a party which by then was defunct, and being named-in-absentia by the nativist Know Nothings, a nomination he wasn't even present for or involved in, by a party whose tenets he really didn't support.

Of course Buchanan received the electoral votes (not "delegates") from the South --- he was in effect the only candidate running there.

"Breckinridge ran as a southern democrat in 1860 and won all the southern delegates. "

Wrong times two. First off "Southern Democrat" is capitalized since it's the proper name of a political party, which you're apparently trying to hide. Second, the actual "Democratic Party" candidate was Stephen Douglas, not Breckinridge, and I've already made this point repeatedly. It's a matter of record and IS NOT GOING AWAY.

And thirdly, Breckinridge DID NOT win all the Southern "delegates" (read: electoral votes) because John Bell won Tennessee, Virginia (before West Virginia split off) and the border state of Kentucky. The latter is interesting since it was both the birth state of Lincoln and the residential state of Breckinridge, although to be fair Lincoln's name was not on the ballot there either.

Not only did I prove you wrong I proved every part wrong. I don't think you know what you're talking about here.

 

[francoHFW]

They need what all our poor and middle class need: a higher min wage, enterprise zones, more scholarships, free com college, public U's, lower taxes and fees. Enough with bs.

Fine... YOU give it to 'em, and YOU pay for it.

Nope, the bloated rich and giant corps who've been laughing all the way to the bank for 30 years will pay, Pub dupe.

Good luck getting all that shit passed in Congress, and vetted by SCOTUS, Princess...

As to being a "Pub dupe"...

I have no idea what you're talking about; I voted for Obumble in both 2008 and 2012, and Bernie Sanders in the Illinois primaries this past spring season...

Then again, you have no idea what you're talking about, so, it's a wash...

Then get behind Dem policy- in this case raising taxes on the rich and giant corps, NOT YOU.

Get behind Dem policy? What the hell for? I advocate for a blend of the ideas of the Left and the Right, not just one side. When it comes to so-called Reparations, I take a decidedly Right (anti-Reparations) perspective.

Also on taxing the rich and giant corps their fair share to invest in America?

 

[Papageorgio]

So you can't dispute what I said.

I just did. Blew it into tiny bits. Proved you wrong.

Buchanan was not a "Southern Democrat". There's no definition that make that characterization work. Never even lived in the South. Outside his time in DC and as a foreign ambassador he lived his whole life in central Pennsylvania, which has never been ""the South".

And again -- how do you "sweep" when you haven't got a competitor? Who exactly is the sweepee? Millard Fillmore, the Know-Nothing? The leftover of the Whig Party which was by then defunct, who only had name recognition because he was VP when Zach Taylor died? That's your sweepee?

I never said Buchanan was a southern democrat. I said he swept the south, which he did. Fillmore only got the votes of northern states.

Breckinridge was listed as a Southern Democrat and he took all the southern electoral votes. You didn't prove me wrong my statements are accurate.

NO, Breckinridge was a Democrat before he split off to run in 1860. So was Bell, who did the same thing. The Democratic Party candidate in 1860 was Stephen Douglas. Period. That's a matter of record.

You can't have a single political party running two candidates. How the hell do you do that? Teddy Roosevelt was not a "Republican" when he ran in 1912 -- the Republican candidate was Taft. And so on.

And again, how the hell can Buchanan (and you're conflating two different elections here anyway) "sweep the South" when nobody else is running? Fillmore was running officially, though he really didn't agree with the Know-Nothings and wasn't even there when he was nominated --- that's supposed to be "competition"?? When you're running unopposed, how can you NOT "sweep"? How the hell do you do that?

1856 Buchanan won the Presidency. He beat Fremont and Fillmore, only Buchanan received any delegates from the southern states.

Breckinridge and democrat was the VP during the Buchanan presidency.

Breckinridge ran as a southern democrat in 1860 and won all the southern delegates.

All are facts.

Nope, they're not. Wrong, wrong wrong.

Step by step....
"1856 Buchanan won the Presidency. He beat Fremont and Fillmore, only Buchanan received any delegates from the southern states."

---- he beat Frémont (it has an accent) in the North, since the Republicans ran no candidate in the South. He beat Fillmore in the North and South, Fillmore being an ex-Whig, a party which by then was defunct, and being named-in-absentia by the nativist Know Nothings, a nomination he wasn't even present for or involved in, by a party whose tenets he really didn't support.

Of course Buchanan received the electoral votes (not "delegates") from the South --- he was in effect the only candidate running there.

"Breckinridge ran as a southern democrat in 1860 and won all the southern delegates. "

Wrong times two. First off "Southern Democrat" is capitalized since it's the proper name of a political party, which you're apparently trying to hide. Second, the actual "Democratic Party" candidate was Stephen Douglas, not Breckinridge, and I've already made this point repeatedly. It's a matter of record and IS NOT GOING AWAY.

And thirdly, Breckinridge DID NOT win all the Southern "delegates" (read: electoral votes) because John Bell won Tennessee, Virginia (before West Virginia split off) and the border state of Kentucky. The latter is interesting since it was both the birth state of Lincoln and the residential state of Breckinridge, although to be fair Lincoln's name was not on the ballot there either.

Not only did I prove you wrong I proved every part wrong. I don't think you know what you're talking about here.

So who got all the delegates in the south in 1856? Buchanan. Just like I said.

Breckinridge who won a Democratic convention in the south, won the majority of all southern delegates. I'm right again.

Thanks for agreeing.

 

[Papageorgio]

Fine... YOU give it to 'em, and YOU pay for it.

Nope, the bloated rich and giant corps who've been laughing all the way to the bank for 30 years will pay, Pub dupe.

Good luck getting all that shit passed in Congress, and vetted by SCOTUS, Princess...

As to being a "Pub dupe"...

I have no idea what you're talking about; I voted for Obumble in both 2008 and 2012, and Bernie Sanders in the Illinois primaries this past spring season...

Then again, you have no idea what you're talking about, so, it's a wash...

Then get behind Dem policy- in this case raising taxes on the rich and giant corps, NOT YOU.

Get behind Dem policy? What the hell for? I advocate for a blend of the ideas of the Left and the Right, not just one side. When it comes to so-called Reparations, I take a decidedly Right (anti-Reparations) perspective.

Also on taxing the rich and giant corps their fair share to invest in America?

Let's end corporate welfare. Let's repeal NAFTA and make it tougher for companies to take their companies out of the country and use cheap labor. Instead of raising taxes, get rid of many of the tax deductions companies and people get.

 

[Pogo]

I just did. Blew it into tiny bits. Proved you wrong.

Buchanan was not a "Southern Democrat". There's no definition that make that characterization work. Never even lived in the South. Outside his time in DC and as a foreign ambassador he lived his whole life in central Pennsylvania, which has never been ""the South".

And again -- how do you "sweep" when you haven't got a competitor? Who exactly is the sweepee? Millard Fillmore, the Know-Nothing? The leftover of the Whig Party which was by then defunct, who only had name recognition because he was VP when Zach Taylor died? That's your sweepee?

I never said Buchanan was a southern democrat. I said he swept the south, which he did. Fillmore only got the votes of northern states.

Breckinridge was listed as a Southern Democrat and he took all the southern electoral votes. You didn't prove me wrong my statements are accurate.

NO, Breckinridge was a Democrat before he split off to run in 1860. So was Bell, who did the same thing. The Democratic Party candidate in 1860 was Stephen Douglas. Period. That's a matter of record.

You can't have a single political party running two candidates. How the hell do you do that? Teddy Roosevelt was not a "Republican" when he ran in 1912 -- the Republican candidate was Taft. And so on.

And again, how the hell can Buchanan (and you're conflating two different elections here anyway) "sweep the South" when nobody else is running? Fillmore was running officially, though he really didn't agree with the Know-Nothings and wasn't even there when he was nominated --- that's supposed to be "competition"?? When you're running unopposed, how can you NOT "sweep"? How the hell do you do that?

1856 Buchanan won the Presidency. He beat Fremont and Fillmore, only Buchanan received any delegates from the southern states.

Breckinridge and democrat was the VP during the Buchanan presidency.

Breckinridge ran as a southern democrat in 1860 and won all the southern delegates.

All are facts.

Nope, they're not. Wrong, wrong wrong.

Step by step....
"1856 Buchanan won the Presidency. He beat Fremont and Fillmore, only Buchanan received any delegates from the southern states."

---- he beat Frémont (it has an accent) in the North, since the Republicans ran no candidate in the South. He beat Fillmore in the North and South, Fillmore being an ex-Whig, a party which by then was defunct, and being named-in-absentia by the nativist Know Nothings, a nomination he wasn't even present for or involved in, by a party whose tenets he really didn't support.

Of course Buchanan received the electoral votes (not "delegates") from the South --- he was in effect the only candidate running there.

"Breckinridge ran as a southern democrat in 1860 and won all the southern delegates. "

Wrong times two. First off "Southern Democrat" is capitalized since it's the proper name of a political party, which you're apparently trying to hide. Second, the actual "Democratic Party" candidate was Stephen Douglas, not Breckinridge, and I've already made this point repeatedly. It's a matter of record and IS NOT GOING AWAY.

And thirdly, Breckinridge DID NOT win all the Southern "delegates" (read: electoral votes) because John Bell won Tennessee, Virginia (before West Virginia split off) and the border state of Kentucky. The latter is interesting since it was both the birth state of Lincoln and the residential state of Breckinridge, although to be fair Lincoln's name was not on the ballot there either.

Not only did I prove you wrong I proved every part wrong. I don't think you know what you're talking about here.

So who got all the delegates in the south in 1856? Buchanan. Just like I said.

Breckinridge who won a Democratic convention in the south, won the majority of all southern delegates. I'm right again.

Thanks for agreeing.

Breckinridge did NOT win the Democratic convention nomination, nor was it in the South. It was in Baltimore, same place as Breckinridge's rump convention, and it (the Democratic Party) named Stephen Douglas as it's nominee.

Wiki >> On the first ballot, Douglas received 173½ of 190½ votes cast. On the second ballot he received 190½ votes of 203½ cast. At this point, the delegates overrode Cushing's earlier ruling. They declared by unanimous voice vote that Douglas, having received 2/3 of the votes cast, was nominated. <<

Ballot 1st 2nd
Douglas 173.5 181.5
Guthrie 9 5.5
Breckinridge 5 7.5
Horatio Seymour 1 0
Thomas S. Bocock 1 0
Dickinson 0.5 0
Henry A. Wise 0.5 0​

That's the historical record, and there's nothing you can do about it. The rump convention comprised of walkouts who went down the street to run their own campaign, leaving the Democratic Party to its own candidate, are no different from Teddy Roosevelt doing the same thing at the Republican convention in 1912. Breckinridge ran against the Democrat, Roosevelt ran against the Republican. And both of them, it's worth noting, defeated their former-party opponents in terms of votes, yet split the elections enough to hand the ensuing election to the other party (Lincoln 1860, Wilson 1912).

So no, you're wrong And you continue to be wrong about ignoring John Bell, who won Southern states that Breckinridge didn't.

And no you did not say "Buchanan got all the delegates" (wtf is this obsession with the word 'delegates'?) --- you said he, and I quote, "SWEPT".

sweep
(swēp)
v. swept (swĕpt), sweep·ing, sweeps
v.tr.
1. To clean or clear, as of dirt, with a broom or brush: sweep a chimney.
2. To clear away with a broom or brush: swept snow from the steps.
3. To clear (a path or space) with a broom or brush.
4.
a. To search thoroughly: The counselors swept the dormitory during the fire drill.
b. To search for and remove (electronic eavesdropping devices) from a place: swept the room for bugs.
5. To touch or brush lightly, as with a trailing garment: willow branches sweeping the ground.
6. To pass over or through a surface or medium with a continuous movement: He swept the sponge over the tile. The conductor swept her baton through the air.
7. To clear, drive, or convey with relentless force: The flood waters swept away everything in their path.
8. To wipe out at a single stroke. Often used with away: The incident in effect swept away all her dreams.
9. To remove or carry off with a swift brushing motion: swept the cards off the table; swept the child into his arms.
10. To move across or through swiftly or broadly: News of the lunar landing swept the country.
11. To pass quickly across, as when searching: His gaze swept the horizon.
12. To drag the bottom of (a body of water).
13.
a. To win all games in (a series) or all stages of (a contest): swept the World Series.
b. To win overwhelmingly in: The opposition party swept the election.
​

So I ask again ---- you actually think Millard Fillmore was "competition"? Explain. This ought to be especially good since you've already claimed Fillmore got no votes in the South.

 

[Papageorgio]

I never said Buchanan was a southern democrat. I said he swept the south, which he did. Fillmore only got the votes of northern states.

Breckinridge was listed as a Southern Democrat and he took all the southern electoral votes. You didn't prove me wrong my statements are accurate.

NO, Breckinridge was a Democrat before he split off to run in 1860. So was Bell, who did the same thing. The Democratic Party candidate in 1860 was Stephen Douglas. Period. That's a matter of record.

You can't have a single political party running two candidates. How the hell do you do that? Teddy Roosevelt was not a "Republican" when he ran in 1912 -- the Republican candidate was Taft. And so on.

And again, how the hell can Buchanan (and you're conflating two different elections here anyway) "sweep the South" when nobody else is running? Fillmore was running officially, though he really didn't agree with the Know-Nothings and wasn't even there when he was nominated --- that's supposed to be "competition"?? When you're running unopposed, how can you NOT "sweep"? How the hell do you do that?

1856 Buchanan won the Presidency. He beat Fremont and Fillmore, only Buchanan received any delegates from the southern states.

Breckinridge and democrat was the VP during the Buchanan presidency.

Breckinridge ran as a southern democrat in 1860 and won all the southern delegates.

All are facts.

Nope, they're not. Wrong, wrong wrong.

Step by step....
"1856 Buchanan won the Presidency. He beat Fremont and Fillmore, only Buchanan received any delegates from the southern states."

---- he beat Frémont (it has an accent) in the North, since the Republicans ran no candidate in the South. He beat Fillmore in the North and South, Fillmore being an ex-Whig, a party which by then was defunct, and being named-in-absentia by the nativist Know Nothings, a nomination he wasn't even present for or involved in, by a party whose tenets he really didn't support.

Of course Buchanan received the electoral votes (not "delegates") from the South --- he was in effect the only candidate running there.

"Breckinridge ran as a southern democrat in 1860 and won all the southern delegates. "

Wrong times two. First off "Southern Democrat" is capitalized since it's the proper name of a political party, which you're apparently trying to hide. Second, the actual "Democratic Party" candidate was Stephen Douglas, not Breckinridge, and I've already made this point repeatedly. It's a matter of record and IS NOT GOING AWAY.

And thirdly, Breckinridge DID NOT win all the Southern "delegates" (read: electoral votes) because John Bell won Tennessee, Virginia (before West Virginia split off) and the border state of Kentucky. The latter is interesting since it was both the birth state of Lincoln and the residential state of Breckinridge, although to be fair Lincoln's name was not on the ballot there either.

Not only did I prove you wrong I proved every part wrong. I don't think you know what you're talking about here.

So who got all the delegates in the south in 1856? Buchanan. Just like I said.

Breckinridge who won a Democratic convention in the south, won the majority of all southern delegates. I'm right again.

Thanks for agreeing.

Breckinridge did NOT win the Democratic convention nomination, nor was it in the South. It was in Baltimore, same place as Breckinridge's rump convention, and it (the Democratic Party) named Stephen Douglas as it's nominee.

Wiki >> On the first ballot, Douglas received 173½ of 190½ votes cast. On the second ballot he received 190½ votes of 203½ cast. At this point, the delegates overrode Cushing's earlier ruling. They declared by unanimous voice vote that Douglas, having received 2/3 of the votes cast, was nominated. <<

Ballot 1st 2nd
Douglas 173.5 181.5
Guthrie 9 5.5
Breckinridge 5 7.5
Horatio Seymour 1 0
Thomas S. Bocock 1 0
Dickinson 0.5 0
Henry A. Wise 0.5 0​

That's the historical record, and there's nothing you can do about it. The rump convention comprised of walkouts who went down the street to run their own campaign, leaving the Democratic Party to its own candidate, are no different from Teddy Roosevelt doing the same thing at the Republican convention in 1912. Breckinridge ran against the Democrat, Roosevelt ran against the Republican. And both of them, it's worth noting, defeated their former-party opponents in terms of votes, yet split the elections enough to hand the ensuing election to the other party (Lincoln 1860, Wilson 1912).

So no, you're wrong And you continue to be wrong about ignoring John Bell, who won Southern states that Breckinridge didn't.

And no you did not say "Buchanan got all the delegates" (wtf is this obsession with the word 'delegates'?) --- you said he, and I quote, "SWEPT".

sweep
(swēp)
v. swept (swĕpt), sweep·ing, sweeps
v.tr.
1. To clean or clear, as of dirt, with a broom or brush: sweep a chimney.
2. To clear away with a broom or brush: swept snow from the steps.
3. To clear (a path or space) with a broom or brush.
4.
a. To search thoroughly: The counselors swept the dormitory during the fire drill.
b. To search for and remove (electronic eavesdropping devices) from a place: swept the room for bugs.
5. To touch or brush lightly, as with a trailing garment: willow branches sweeping the ground.
6. To pass over or through a surface or medium with a continuous movement: He swept the sponge over the tile. The conductor swept her baton through the air.
7. To clear, drive, or convey with relentless force: The flood waters swept away everything in their path.
8. To wipe out at a single stroke. Often used with away: The incident in effect swept away all her dreams.
9. To remove or carry off with a swift brushing motion: swept the cards off the table; swept the child into his arms.
10. To move across or through swiftly or broadly: News of the lunar landing swept the country.
11. To pass quickly across, as when searching: His gaze swept the horizon.
12. To drag the bottom of (a body of water).
13.
a. To win all games in (a series) or all stages of (a contest): swept the World Series.
b. To win overwhelmingly in: The opposition party swept the election.
​

So I ask again ---- you actually think Millard Fillmore was "competition"? Explain. This ought to be especially good since you've already claimed Fillmore got no votes in the South.

Please show me that Buchanan did not win all the southern delegates. He won them all, it was a sweep. Three people competed and only one to the south.

Breckinridge won the southern democratic nomination after they left the southern states left first Democratic convention after no nominee was named. The second convention was not attended by the southern states and the Democrats in the south made Breckenridge the nominee.

 

[francoHFW]

Nope, the bloated rich and giant corps who've been laughing all the way to the bank for 30 years will pay, Pub dupe.

Good luck getting all that shit passed in Congress, and vetted by SCOTUS, Princess...

As to being a "Pub dupe"...

I have no idea what you're talking about; I voted for Obumble in both 2008 and 2012, and Bernie Sanders in the Illinois primaries this past spring season...

Then again, you have no idea what you're talking about, so, it's a wash...

Then get behind Dem policy- in this case raising taxes on the rich and giant corps, NOT YOU.

Get behind Dem policy? What the hell for? I advocate for a blend of the ideas of the Left and the Right, not just one side. When it comes to so-called Reparations, I take a decidedly Right (anti-Reparations) perspective.

Also on taxing the rich and giant corps their fair share to invest in America?

Let's end corporate welfare. Let's repeal NAFTA and make it tougher for companies to take their companies out of the country and use cheap labor. Instead of raising taxes, get rid of many of the tax deductions companies and people get.

NAFTA free trade is not the problem, our GOP educational system (obstruction of tax breaks for training for tech jobs etc) is. NAFTA means new markets, the days of HS jobs paying good money are over. Thanks GOP union busting....Of course closing loopholes and pandering to lobbyists is part of raising taxes. Vote Dem then and stop being a dupe...

 

[owebo]

Good luck getting all that shit passed in Congress, and vetted by SCOTUS, Princess...

As to being a "Pub dupe"...

I have no idea what you're talking about; I voted for Obumble in both 2008 and 2012, and Bernie Sanders in the Illinois primaries this past spring season...

Then again, you have no idea what you're talking about, so, it's a wash...

Then get behind Dem policy- in this case raising taxes on the rich and giant corps, NOT YOU.

Get behind Dem policy? What the hell for? I advocate for a blend of the ideas of the Left and the Right, not just one side. When it comes to so-called Reparations, I take a decidedly Right (anti-Reparations) perspective.

Also on taxing the rich and giant corps their fair share to invest in America?

Let's end corporate welfare. Let's repeal NAFTA and make it tougher for companies to take their companies out of the country and use cheap labor. Instead of raising taxes, get rid of many of the tax deductions companies and people get.

NAFTA free trade is not the problem, our GOP educational system (obstruction of tax breaks for training for tech jobs etc) is. NAFTA means new markets, the days of HS jobs paying good money are over. Thanks GOP union busting....Of course closing loopholes and pandering to lobbyists is part of raising taxes. Vote Dem then and stop being a dupe...

No one paid for my tech training...why would they?

 

[Muhammed]

Hmmm.....

So in the heyday of slavery maybe 1% of white Americans purchased African POWs. And basically ALL of the slave owners were Democrats.

Atonement?

 

[Conservative65]

Would you support it? Do you think it would help heal the deep wounds? Maybe an official Government-sponsored acknowledgement and atonement could lead to reconciliation.

Most African Americans still feel anger and sorrow over how they've been treated. It does seem like an open festering wound. Maybe a kind official gesture could help African Americans forgive and get some kind of closure. What do you think?

We've already provided plenty of atonement: the Civil War and the Fourteenth Amendment.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

You forgot affirmative action and that 1 in every 3 1/2 is having their food purchased through food stamps.

 

[Conservative65]

We have already had decades of affirmative action, and the last black person who was enslaved died long ago.

I have no problem with reparations for those who experiences something. It makes no sense to offer reparations to those who didn't.

The argument for reparations centers around this: People who weren't held as slaves are to repaid for something they didn't experience funded by those that didn't enslave a single person.

 

[francoHFW]

Then get behind Dem policy- in this case raising taxes on the rich and giant corps, NOT YOU.

Get behind Dem policy? What the hell for? I advocate for a blend of the ideas of the Left and the Right, not just one side. When it comes to so-called Reparations, I take a decidedly Right (anti-Reparations) perspective.

Also on taxing the rich and giant corps their fair share to invest in America?

Let's end corporate welfare. Let's repeal NAFTA and make it tougher for companies to take their companies out of the country and use cheap labor. Instead of raising taxes, get rid of many of the tax deductions companies and people get.

NAFTA free trade is not the problem, our GOP educational system (obstruction of tax breaks for training for tech jobs etc) is. NAFTA means new markets, the days of HS jobs paying good money are over. Thanks GOP union busting....Of course closing loopholes and pandering to lobbyists is part of raising taxes. Vote Dem then and stop being a dupe...

No one paid for my tech training...why would they?

Because having 3-7 million jobs going begging or going to Germany etc is STUPID? SOMEONE has to stop being stupid, that would be the GOP. Probably your training had something to do with Dem funding or tax incentives and you don't even know it lol. This is mindless obstruction- BREAKING for the dupes...