Republican Tim Scott, the Only GOP Senator to sign on to Anti-Lynching Bill

[Picaro]

Sociopaths and deviants have nothing to discuss but making empty gestures and posturing. It's what their Party runs on and of course their hack media are mostly uneducated tabloid writers trained to be 6th graders and below as a requirement for 'going Pro' as a spammer with a 'Journalism' degree.

 

[Norman]

WTF is an 'anti-lynching Bill', and why the hell do we need it? (Sorry, can't watch the clip.)

We have laws against assault, laws against attempted murder, and laws against murder...that pretty much covers it.

We also have dumbass laws to punish people for what is in someone's heart when they commit certain crimes - we call these 'Hate' crimes. I think these are ridiculous. As I pointed out, we have laws already covering everything. Want them to spend more time in jail? Sentence them for longer time in jail.

So, let's say Timmy goes out and lynches a black person. Not only can he be charged with murder, not only can he be charged with a 'hate crime', but he can be charged for breaking the 'Anti-Lynching' law?

How about the 'Anti-Pipe-To-The-Back-of-the-Head law...?

If hate was a crime, Deanrd would already be in prison for hating America.

What they mean by hate is not being to the left of Stalin.

 

[PoliticalChic]

Sen. Tim Scott Says 'It's Good To Be First' As The Only GOP Senator To Sign On To Anti-Lynching Bill

On CBS's "Face The Nation," Sen. Tim Scott had a difficult time trying to explain why no other Republican has signed on to the anti-lynching bill that he has put forth.

-------------------------

The GOP is 90% white.

This is Tim Scott:

Do we need any further explanation?

Yes we do. WHY do we need an anti lynching bill? Why are our elected officials wasting time and tax dollars debating such unnecessary & ridiculous bills?

Just more shrimp on a treadmill bullshit.

Without having seen the bill and not being willing to take the word of a blog that won't even link it to know if that's a fair description, seems to me the question "why do we need an anti-lynching bill" should be directed to those on this site who continuously post laundry lists of "these Democrats voted against anti-lynching bills". Stuporgurl ( PoliticalChic ) comes to mind but there be many.

If anyone would know the answer to that, they should.

So I'm sure they'll be along any second now to explain why those Democrats had it right all along.




Any uh, second now....

"...Democrats voted against anti-lynching bills"


They were responsible for lynching blacks and any whites, Republicans, they could.

The Democrat Party has always been the party of slavery, segregation, .....and violence.


They didn't just vote against anti-lynching bills.....they blocked every one.


"Between 1882 and 1964, nearly five thousand people died from lynching, the majority African-American. The 1890s witnessed the worst period of lynching in U.S. history. Lynchings, often witnessed by large crowds of white onlookers, were the most extreme form of Southern white control over the African-American population, regularly meted out against African Americans who had been falsely charged with crimes but in fact were achieving a level of political or economic autonomy that whites found unacceptable.

The history of failed attempts to pass federal antilyching legislation goes back to 1894, when a House bill to set up a committee to investigate lynchings failed. In 1922, the House passed a bill to make lynching a Federal crime, but despite President Warren G. Harding’s support, Southern senators filibustered and defeated it. In 1933, President Franklin D. Roosevelt failed to support an antilynching bill proposed by the NAACP, fearing that key Southerners lawmakers would retaliate and interfere with his New Deal agenda."
"We Can Control Our Affairs Pretty Well": Southern Senators Protest Proposed Antilynching Legislation


"Another way Democrats could keep blacks from being elected ... antilynching laws, but Democrats successfully blocked every antilynching bill. ... a federal antilynching bill in Congress, but Democrats in the Senate killed it."
"Stealing the Minds of America: A Must for All Truth Seekers Who Vote,"
By Janice L. Ponds
https://books.google.com/books?id=I...enate blocked every anti lynching law&f=false




Yup...Democrats are only looking out for the best interests of black folks......and Attila was just sightseeing.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

WTF is an 'anti-lynching Bill', and why the hell do we need it?

To create theater. Republicans are logic and liberals are actors. They knew Republicans would laugh at this stupidity so then Democrats can try to use it to say Republicans are racist. Anybody who cannot see through this is completely stupid and belongs on SS disability.

 

[Kondor3]

Too many conservatives want the right to lynch black people back. It’s bad politics for republicans to support this bill in their Trump era.

What the phukk are you talking about? What the hell are you smoking? Or is it just LibTard Kool-Aid?

I believe he's making the same observation post 57 made:

Republicans are worried that bigots, racists, and neo-fascists might be offended by the legislation.

You know, the same reason Rump had to hail Nazis and skinheads as "very fine people" and pretend not to know who David Duke is. Can't upset the base now. They gets cranky.

Thanks for the clarification. The point being made in Post No. 57 was asinine to begin with.

And, although I do not care-for nor support The Creature, I've always believed that the "very fine people on both sides" thing was taken out of context and overblown.

I do not believe that his "very fine people" on the right were the NeoNazis and KKK and Skinheads that showed up.

Rather, I believe that his "very fine people" were the vast numbers of normal citizens who support the continued presence of Confederate statues and war memorials.

Once The Left and Leftist-leaning elements in the LameStream Media latch onto a Drumpf-bashing meme, they dig-in like tics and won't let go.

I perceive that the Media overplayed his words in the narrow context of the ultra-right wingers when he intended them in the vastly broader context of memorial-supporters.

And, if that is true, then, n a very real sense, our colleague's post was "just more LibTard Kool-Aid", after all; serving it up, this time, rather than drinking it.

Or so it seems, to this observer.

 

[PoliticalChic]

Too many conservatives want the right to lynch black people back. It’s bad politics for republicans to support this bill in their Trump era.

What the phukk are you talking about? What the hell are you smoking? Or is it just LibTard Kool-Aid?

I believe he's making the same observation post 57 made:

Republicans are worried that bigots, racists, and neo-fascists might be offended by the legislation.

You know, the same reason Rump had to hail Nazis and skinheads as "very fine people" and pretend not to know who David Duke is. Can't upset the base now. They gets cranky.

"You know, the same reason Rump had to hail Nazis and skinheads as "very fine people" and pretend not to know who David Duke is. Can't upset the base now. "


No such thing happened.

That's a misquote, out of context, and, effectively, a lie on your part.

Scummy liars like you simply smear better people.

Here....let's prove it together.




He was referring to folks for and opposed to Confederate statues.


From USAToday:
"To be fair, President Donald Trump was making a somewhat subtler point. In his colloquy with the press, he was not calling neo-Nazis great folks but arguing that many of the Confederate-statue-loving protesters in Charlottesville, Virginia, were not neo-Nazis at all. Somehow, these “fine people” got mixed in with white supremacists shouting, “Jews will not replace us,” and never noticed their compatriots were not fine people, too."
One year after Charlottesville, Trump has normalized racism in America




I always regret exchanging posts with you, as it always requires me to sign up for a round of penicillin shots.

 

[Avatar4321]

Too many conservatives want the right to lynch black people back. It’s bad politics for republicans to support this bill in their Trump era.

If too many want the right it shouldn’t be hard for you to provide the name of one.

 

[BlackFlag]

Too many conservatives want the right to lynch black people back. It’s bad politics for republicans to support this bill in their Trump era.

If too many want the right it shouldn’t be hard for you to provide the name of one.

Donald Trump

 

[Avatar4321]

Too many conservatives want the right to lynch black people back. It’s bad politics for republicans to support this bill in their Trump era.

If too many want the right it shouldn’t be hard for you to provide the name of one.

Donald Trump

1) Donald trump isn’t conservative

2) can you provide any evidence that he wants the right to lynch any black person?

 

[DrLove]

Tim Scott is finding it harder and harder to pretend he’s not in a party of white supeemacist losers

He's not the only one! ;-)

 

[BlackFlag]

Too many conservatives want the right to lynch black people back. It’s bad politics for republicans to support this bill in their Trump era.

If too many want the right it shouldn’t be hard for you to provide the name of one.

Donald Trump

1) Donald trump isn’t conservative

2) can you provide any evidence that he wants the right to lynch any black person?

Doesn’t matter what Trump is. He is the leader of your party and your movemebt.

 

[Pogo]

But since we've had James Byrd mentioned, albeit in a post I have had explained to me had NOTHING whatsoever to do with the topic or with any sort of point, let's discuss what difference these sort of "even more illegal!" laws are supposed to make.

Byrd was killed by three men. Of those three, one has already been executed, one is on death row awaiting execution, and one was sentenced to life in prison, and has apparently had to be in solitary since 2003 for his own protection. In the aftermath of Byrd's death, we saw the passage of numerous "hate crimes" laws, to apparently make it even MORE illegal to kill someone than it already was. At the time, I couldn't figure out how that was supposed to work. Were we gonna call in a necromancer to raise them from the dead and execute them twice?

And now we somehow need a law to SPECIFICALLY make it illegal to lynch people, even more than it's already illegal to kill people generally? And the same question applies: what more is there to do than the law already provides? What, in other words, is the frigging POINT?

It isn't my thread or my bill, Ms. Hair-up-the-ass. I simply corrected a post that said that "the last lynching was in 1981" with a reference to a well-known one from 1998. In the civilised world we call this "refutation".

In tiny little words that means "no, the last lynching was not 1981 because here's one long after".Don't like it? Tough titty.

Can't believe I actually have to sit and explain simple shit to a purported adult.

Go change your diaper. You're making a mess here.

That does not refute the point in the post though which is that lynching is not an issue anymore. Further, your example is actually a fantastic illustration of why this 'law' is asinine in the first place, existing laws already completely cover this type of crime.

Here is the text. Several pages of text in this bill and the actual law is essentially 1 paragraph. The entire thing is nothing but showmanship.
https://www.harris.senate.gov/imo/media/doc/ALB18773.pdf

Once AGAIN it isn't addressed to whether lynching is "an issue" or needs a "law". It simply addresses "the last lynching was 1981". The two are NOT EVEN RELATED.

That's why the post directly addressed one that made the 1981 claim. It's challenging that point.

 

[Pogo]

Sen. Tim Scott Says 'It's Good To Be First' As The Only GOP Senator To Sign On To Anti-Lynching Bill

On CBS's "Face The Nation," Sen. Tim Scott had a difficult time trying to explain why no other Republican has signed on to the anti-lynching bill that he has put forth.

-------------------------

The GOP is 90% white.

This is Tim Scott:

Do we need any further explanation?

Yes we do. WHY do we need an anti lynching bill? Why are our elected officials wasting time and tax dollars debating such unnecessary & ridiculous bills?

Just more shrimp on a treadmill bullshit.

Without having seen the bill and not being willing to take the word of a blog that won't even link it to know if that's a fair description, seems to me the question "why do we need an anti-lynching bill" should be directed to those on this site who continuously post laundry lists of "these Democrats voted against anti-lynching bills". Stuporgurl ( PoliticalChic ) comes to mind but there be many.

If anyone would know the answer to that, they should.

So I'm sure they'll be along any second now to explain why those Democrats had it right all along.




Any uh, second now....

"...Democrats voted against anti-lynching bills"


They were responsible for lynching blacks and any whites, Republicans, they could.

The Democrat Party has always been the party of slavery, segregation, .....and violence.


They didn't just vote against anti-lynching bills.....they blocked every one.

"Between 1882 and 1964, nearly five thousand people died from lynching, the majority African-American. The 1890s witnessed the worst period of lynching in U.S. history. Lynchings, often witnessed by large crowds of white onlookers, were the most extreme form of Southern white control over the African-American population, regularly meted out against African Americans who had been falsely charged with crimes but in fact were achieving a level of political or economic autonomy that whites found unacceptable.

The history of failed attempts to pass federal antilyching legislation goes back to 1894, when a House bill to set up a committee to investigate lynchings failed. In 1922, the House passed a bill to make lynching a Federal crime, but despite President Warren G. Harding’s support, Southern senators filibustered and defeated it. In 1933, President Franklin D. Roosevelt failed to support an antilynching bill proposed by the NAACP, fearing that key Southerners lawmakers would retaliate and interfere with his New Deal agenda."
"We Can Control Our Affairs Pretty Well": Southern Senators Protest Proposed Antilynching Legislation

"Another way Democrats could keep blacks from being elected ... antilynching laws, but Democrats successfully blocked every antilynching bill. ... a federal antilynching bill in Congress, but Democrats in the Senate killed it."
"Stealing the Minds of America: A Must for All Truth Seekers Who Vote,"
By Janice L. Ponds
https://books.google.com/books?id=I...enate blocked every anti lynching law&f=false

Yup...Democrats are only looking out for the best interests of black folks......and Attila was just sightseeing.

So much verbiage, so little answer. In fact no answer whatsoever. I just knew you wouldn't let me down.

So here it comes again, prepare to duck ---- incoming:

"Why is anti-lynching legislation necessary?"

Cue non-answer in four... three... two....



And while you're unable to handle that, be equally unable to handle this:

"...Democrats voted against anti-lynching bills"
They were responsible for lynching blacks and any whites, Republicans, they could.

Link to any lynching, anywhere, any time, that required -- or recorded -- a political party to participate is ---------- where?

Want a resource? Here, go look in my old thread on the topic. Strangely enough for all your feigned interest I don't remember you ever showing up there. Lots of others of your persuasion did though, finding the whole topic inconvenient.... just as they whined when I posted about the Tulsa Race Riots. Or the Silent March in New York protesting East St. Louis.

Guess you'll avoid this like kryptonite too. As I said I knew I could count on you.

 

[FA_Q2]

But since we've had James Byrd mentioned, albeit in a post I have had explained to me had NOTHING whatsoever to do with the topic or with any sort of point, let's discuss what difference these sort of "even more illegal!" laws are supposed to make.

Byrd was killed by three men. Of those three, one has already been executed, one is on death row awaiting execution, and one was sentenced to life in prison, and has apparently had to be in solitary since 2003 for his own protection. In the aftermath of Byrd's death, we saw the passage of numerous "hate crimes" laws, to apparently make it even MORE illegal to kill someone than it already was. At the time, I couldn't figure out how that was supposed to work. Were we gonna call in a necromancer to raise them from the dead and execute them twice?

And now we somehow need a law to SPECIFICALLY make it illegal to lynch people, even more than it's already illegal to kill people generally? And the same question applies: what more is there to do than the law already provides? What, in other words, is the frigging POINT?

It isn't my thread or my bill, Ms. Hair-up-the-ass. I simply corrected a post that said that "the last lynching was in 1981" with a reference to a well-known one from 1998. In the civilised world we call this "refutation".

In tiny little words that means "no, the last lynching was not 1981 because here's one long after".Don't like it? Tough titty.

Can't believe I actually have to sit and explain simple shit to a purported adult.

Go change your diaper. You're making a mess here.

That does not refute the point in the post though which is that lynching is not an issue anymore. Further, your example is actually a fantastic illustration of why this 'law' is asinine in the first place, existing laws already completely cover this type of crime.

Here is the text. Several pages of text in this bill and the actual law is essentially 1 paragraph. The entire thing is nothing but showmanship.
https://www.harris.senate.gov/imo/media/doc/ALB18773.pdf

Once AGAIN it isn't addressed to whether lynching is "an issue" or needs a "law". It simply addresses "the last lynching was 1981". The two are NOT EVEN RELATED.

That's why the post directly addressed one that made the 1981 claim. It's challenging that point.

I get that.

Now, my post was looking to further the discussion. If you do not want to get past that the 1981 claim was false, why bother to continue to post? I also put the text there for you as that was another of your complaints. Care to comment on the thread or are you just here for that single correction?

 

[Hiryuu]

Wow. That's a huuuuge deal.

It's working as planned. It's a stupid excuse to call the opposition racists because they won't jump though hoops on command.

 

[buckeye45_73]

Sen. Tim Scott Says 'It's Good To Be First' As The Only GOP Senator To Sign On To Anti-Lynching Bill

On CBS's "Face The Nation," Sen. Tim Scott had a difficult time trying to explain why no other Republican has signed on to the anti-lynching bill that he has put forth.

-------------------------

The GOP is 90% white.

This is Tim Scott:

Do we need any further explanation?

Anti Lynching bill? you know FDR opposed it, when it was necessary. FDR was a white supremacist!!!!!
You guys know it's not 1930 any more....

Oh and post the bill...whats in it?

 

[buckeye45_73]

Sen. Tim Scott Says 'It's Good To Be First' As The Only GOP Senator To Sign On To Anti-Lynching Bill

On CBS's "Face The Nation," Sen. Tim Scott had a difficult time trying to explain why no other Republican has signed on to the anti-lynching bill that he has put forth.

-------------------------

The GOP is 90% white.

This is Tim Scott:

Do we need any further explanation?

Here it is

African-American Senators Introduce Anti-Lynching Bill

It has a range ending in 1968......wwhat???

and they want to federalize murder? Yeah I'm against that...murder is a state crime.

would this apply to the lefties showing up to Trump rallies or Conservatives speaking at colleges?

 

[PoliticalChic]

Sen. Tim Scott Says 'It's Good To Be First' As The Only GOP Senator To Sign On To Anti-Lynching Bill

On CBS's "Face The Nation," Sen. Tim Scott had a difficult time trying to explain why no other Republican has signed on to the anti-lynching bill that he has put forth.

-------------------------

The GOP is 90% white.

This is Tim Scott:

Do we need any further explanation?

Yes we do. WHY do we need an anti lynching bill? Why are our elected officials wasting time and tax dollars debating such unnecessary & ridiculous bills?

Just more shrimp on a treadmill bullshit.

Without having seen the bill and not being willing to take the word of a blog that won't even link it to know if that's a fair description, seems to me the question "why do we need an anti-lynching bill" should be directed to those on this site who continuously post laundry lists of "these Democrats voted against anti-lynching bills". Stuporgurl ( PoliticalChic ) comes to mind but there be many.

If anyone would know the answer to that, they should.

So I'm sure they'll be along any second now to explain why those Democrats had it right all along.




Any uh, second now....

"...Democrats voted against anti-lynching bills"


They were responsible for lynching blacks and any whites, Republicans, they could.

The Democrat Party has always been the party of slavery, segregation, .....and violence.


They didn't just vote against anti-lynching bills.....they blocked every one.

"Between 1882 and 1964, nearly five thousand people died from lynching, the majority African-American. The 1890s witnessed the worst period of lynching in U.S. history. Lynchings, often witnessed by large crowds of white onlookers, were the most extreme form of Southern white control over the African-American population, regularly meted out against African Americans who had been falsely charged with crimes but in fact were achieving a level of political or economic autonomy that whites found unacceptable.

The history of failed attempts to pass federal antilyching legislation goes back to 1894, when a House bill to set up a committee to investigate lynchings failed. In 1922, the House passed a bill to make lynching a Federal crime, but despite President Warren G. Harding’s support, Southern senators filibustered and defeated it. In 1933, President Franklin D. Roosevelt failed to support an antilynching bill proposed by the NAACP, fearing that key Southerners lawmakers would retaliate and interfere with his New Deal agenda."
"We Can Control Our Affairs Pretty Well": Southern Senators Protest Proposed Antilynching Legislation

"Another way Democrats could keep blacks from being elected ... antilynching laws, but Democrats successfully blocked every antilynching bill. ... a federal antilynching bill in Congress, but Democrats in the Senate killed it."
"Stealing the Minds of America: A Must for All Truth Seekers Who Vote,"
By Janice L. Ponds
https://books.google.com/books?id=I...enate blocked every anti lynching law&f=false

Yup...Democrats are only looking out for the best interests of black folks......and Attila was just sightseeing.

So much verbiage, so little answer. In fact no answer whatsoever. I just knew you wouldn't let me down.

So here it comes again, prepare to duck ---- incoming:

"Why is anti-lynching legislation necessary?"

Cue non-answer in four... three... two....



And while you're unable to handle that, be equally unable to handle this:

"...Democrats voted against anti-lynching bills"
They were responsible for lynching blacks and any whites, Republicans, they could.

Link to any lynching, anywhere, any time, that required -- or recorded -- a political party to participate is ---------- where?

Want a resource? Here, go look in my old thread on the topic. Strangely enough for all your feigned interest I don't remember you ever showing up there. Lots of others of your persuasion did though, finding the whole topic inconvenient.... just as they whined when I posted about the Tulsa Race Riots. Or the Silent March in New York protesting East St. Louis.

Guess you'll avoid this like kryptonite too. As I said I knew I could count on you.

Perhaps you didn't get the jist of my post

a. Democrat were responsible for both lynchings and for blocking anti-lynching bills.

b. You nauseate me.
Bet you hear that a lot.

 

[Pogo]

But since we've had James Byrd mentioned, albeit in a post I have had explained to me had NOTHING whatsoever to do with the topic or with any sort of point, let's discuss what difference these sort of "even more illegal!" laws are supposed to make.

Byrd was killed by three men. Of those three, one has already been executed, one is on death row awaiting execution, and one was sentenced to life in prison, and has apparently had to be in solitary since 2003 for his own protection. In the aftermath of Byrd's death, we saw the passage of numerous "hate crimes" laws, to apparently make it even MORE illegal to kill someone than it already was. At the time, I couldn't figure out how that was supposed to work. Were we gonna call in a necromancer to raise them from the dead and execute them twice?

And now we somehow need a law to SPECIFICALLY make it illegal to lynch people, even more than it's already illegal to kill people generally? And the same question applies: what more is there to do than the law already provides? What, in other words, is the frigging POINT?

It isn't my thread or my bill, Ms. Hair-up-the-ass. I simply corrected a post that said that "the last lynching was in 1981" with a reference to a well-known one from 1998. In the civilised world we call this "refutation".

In tiny little words that means "no, the last lynching was not 1981 because here's one long after".Don't like it? Tough titty.

Can't believe I actually have to sit and explain simple shit to a purported adult.

Go change your diaper. You're making a mess here.

That does not refute the point in the post though which is that lynching is not an issue anymore. Further, your example is actually a fantastic illustration of why this 'law' is asinine in the first place, existing laws already completely cover this type of crime.

Here is the text. Several pages of text in this bill and the actual law is essentially 1 paragraph. The entire thing is nothing but showmanship.
https://www.harris.senate.gov/imo/media/doc/ALB18773.pdf

Once AGAIN it isn't addressed to whether lynching is "an issue" or needs a "law". It simply addresses "the last lynching was 1981". The two are NOT EVEN RELATED.

That's why the post directly addressed one that made the 1981 claim. It's challenging that point.

I get that.

Now, my post was looking to further the discussion. If you do not want to get past that the 1981 claim was false, why bother to continue to post? I also put the text there for you as that was another of your complaints. Care to comment on the thread or are you just here for that single correction?

It's more than a single correction when Ms Hair-Up-the-Ass takes it as her personal mission to act too stupid to get the point. That then becomes a second correction. And when you piled on it became the third. All for a post that was intrinsically self-explanatory in the first place.

I know deflection tactics when I see them, and I don't tolerate it. Meanwhile my other posts about the broader topic --- the ones she's trying to deflect away from --- continue to reside separately.

We done now?

 

[Pogo]

Sen. Tim Scott Says 'It's Good To Be First' As The Only GOP Senator To Sign On To Anti-Lynching Bill

On CBS's "Face The Nation," Sen. Tim Scott had a difficult time trying to explain why no other Republican has signed on to the anti-lynching bill that he has put forth.

-------------------------

The GOP is 90% white.

This is Tim Scott:

Do we need any further explanation?

Yes we do. WHY do we need an anti lynching bill? Why are our elected officials wasting time and tax dollars debating such unnecessary & ridiculous bills?

Just more shrimp on a treadmill bullshit.

Without having seen the bill and not being willing to take the word of a blog that won't even link it to know if that's a fair description, seems to me the question "why do we need an anti-lynching bill" should be directed to those on this site who continuously post laundry lists of "these Democrats voted against anti-lynching bills". Stuporgurl ( PoliticalChic ) comes to mind but there be many.

If anyone would know the answer to that, they should.

So I'm sure they'll be along any second now to explain why those Democrats had it right all along.




Any uh, second now....

"...Democrats voted against anti-lynching bills"


They were responsible for lynching blacks and any whites, Republicans, they could.

The Democrat Party has always been the party of slavery, segregation, .....and violence.


They didn't just vote against anti-lynching bills.....they blocked every one.

"Between 1882 and 1964, nearly five thousand people died from lynching, the majority African-American. The 1890s witnessed the worst period of lynching in U.S. history. Lynchings, often witnessed by large crowds of white onlookers, were the most extreme form of Southern white control over the African-American population, regularly meted out against African Americans who had been falsely charged with crimes but in fact were achieving a level of political or economic autonomy that whites found unacceptable.

The history of failed attempts to pass federal antilyching legislation goes back to 1894, when a House bill to set up a committee to investigate lynchings failed. In 1922, the House passed a bill to make lynching a Federal crime, but despite President Warren G. Harding’s support, Southern senators filibustered and defeated it. In 1933, President Franklin D. Roosevelt failed to support an antilynching bill proposed by the NAACP, fearing that key Southerners lawmakers would retaliate and interfere with his New Deal agenda."
"We Can Control Our Affairs Pretty Well": Southern Senators Protest Proposed Antilynching Legislation

"Another way Democrats could keep blacks from being elected ... antilynching laws, but Democrats successfully blocked every antilynching bill. ... a federal antilynching bill in Congress, but Democrats in the Senate killed it."
"Stealing the Minds of America: A Must for All Truth Seekers Who Vote,"
By Janice L. Ponds
https://books.google.com/books?id=I...enate blocked every anti lynching law&f=false

Yup...Democrats are only looking out for the best interests of black folks......and Attila was just sightseeing.

So much verbiage, so little answer. In fact no answer whatsoever. I just knew you wouldn't let me down.

So here it comes again, prepare to duck ---- incoming:

"Why is anti-lynching legislation necessary?"

Cue non-answer in four... three... two....



And while you're unable to handle that, be equally unable to handle this:

"...Democrats voted against anti-lynching bills"
They were responsible for lynching blacks and any whites, Republicans, they could.

Link to any lynching, anywhere, any time, that required -- or recorded -- a political party to participate is ---------- where?

Want a resource? Here, go look in my old thread on the topic. Strangely enough for all your feigned interest I don't remember you ever showing up there. Lots of others of your persuasion did though, finding the whole topic inconvenient.... just as they whined when I posted about the Tulsa Race Riots. Or the Silent March in New York protesting East St. Louis.

Guess you'll avoid this like kryptonite too. As I said I knew I could count on you.

Perhaps you didn't get the jist of my post

a. Democrat were responsible for both lynchings and for blocking anti-lynching bills.

And I'm calling for your basis. Your lynching registration lists. Your lynching bouncers turning people away if they couldn't show the proper voter registration forms. Where is that?

We both know where it is, so I'll give you time to call your proctologist.

At that link I just gave you --- which also btw examines cases of lynchings in the last decade --- another anus-delving klown tried to make the same point you just did. He too dresses up in a fictional character, specifically Spock smoking a cigarette. I called for the same evidence from him on the same point, and he ran away.

So where is it? Who is this "Democrat" who "were" responsible for lynchings?
Hm?

And of course the original question you were summoned here for, which is --- why do we need an anti-lynching law?

The whole thread wants to know.

Absent an answer we must assume you're saying we don't, and therefore this Democrat, whoever he or she were, were correct to block it.