The News in Political cartoons.

You continue to prove that the left can't meme (which includes cartoons). The Confederacy was Democrat, and the northern states were predominantly Republican. Jim Crow? Democrat. Segregation? Democrat. KKK? Stood up by disgruntled Democrats... The newly freed Blacks became Republican in droves. The Democrats opposed the 13th, 14th, and 15th Amendments.

Before that, the Dread Scott decision was made possible by 7 Democrat justices on the Supreme Court. The dissenting opinion on that case came from two conservative justices.

The party switch is also a myth, as the Congressional Republicans supported the Civil Rights act of 1964 by over 80%. Congressional Democrat support for the act was just under 70%. What was then a record filibuster was conducted by 21 Democrat Senators.

It would make no sense for racist Democrats to leave a party that supported the Civil Rights Act by under 70% for a party that supported it by over 80%.

Today, the Democrat elite are in progress undermining the intent of the founding fathers with the goal of setting a governing system up that would give us the illusion of freedom, the illusion of a free election, and the illusion of a representative government.

I fixed the cartoon that you posted.

Cartoon. Not meme. Not link.

DF is hijacking this thread again out of ignorance. Originally Posted by Yssup Rider

You continue to prove that the left can't meme (which includes cartoons). The Confederacy was Democrat, and the northern states were predominantly Republican. Jim Crow? Democrat. Segregation? Democrat. KKK? Stood up by disgruntled Democrats... The newly freed Blacks became Republican in droves. The Democrats opposed the 13th, 14th, and 15th Amendments.

Before that, the Dread Scott decision was made possible by 7 Democrat justices on the Supreme Court. The dissenting opinion on that case came from two conservative justices.

The party switch is also a myth, as the Congressional Republicans supported the Civil Rights act of 1964 by over 80%. Congressional Democrat support for the act was just under 70%. What was then a record filibuster was conducted by 21 Democrat Senators.

It would make no sense for racist Democrats to leave a party that supported the Civil Rights Act by under 70% for a party that supported it by over 80%.

Today, the Democrat elite are in progress undermining the intent of the founding fathers with the goal of setting a governing system up that would give us the illusion of freedom, the illusion of a free election, and the illusion of a representative government.

I fixed the cartoon that you posted.

Originally Posted by herfacechair

I see you are using selective statistics to attempt to support you argument. I guess it is easier to by a single word than to think and get into details. If you look at the breakdown of votes ALL but 6 nay votes came from the states that formed the Confederacy. Of those 6 votes 5 were cast by Republicans. Outside of the Confederacy there was 98% approval by Democrats. The only nay vote was Robert Byrd of West Virginia

chefnerd I see you are using selective statistics to attempt to support you argument.

Wrong! I'm using the appropriate statistics to support my argument. When it comes to the argument as to which party is racist, they mention Republican or Democrat... generally.

The statistics that I utilized are very relevant and right on point. What you did was utilize a strawman argument. You focused on six nay votes outside the former Confederate states but ignored the balance. That is an example of what we, in the PSYOP community, call propaganda.

chefnerd I guess it is easier to by a single word than

No, it is easier to utilize the applicable statistics that counter the claims that Republicans have been a party of racists. However, it was easier for you to cherry pick information to build a strawman argument in the post where you failed to prove wrong in my arguments.

chefnerd to think and get into details.

First, understand that I do not get into arguments online, or elsewhere, unless two conditions are simultaneously met:

1. I have extensive knowledge on the topic gained from first-hand experience and/or extensive study/analysis/research...

2. It is clearly obvious that those who would disagree with me, or those that I am arguing against, do not have a command of the topic that they are arguing.

It is clear, based on your first response to me here, that both of these conditions have been met.

Before I argue a topic, not only have I done extensive research/study, on that topic, but I have done extensive analysis. I detect a pattern of facts. Then, based on a pattern of facts, I make projections. It is at this point when I become comfortable talking about a topic or argue it.

There is an extensive amount of research into the details, as well as an analysis on the facts, to assist with arriving at my arguments. Understand that I've been a history buff since the late 1970s.

Second, the argument tactics that you are using here are similar to argument tactics that are used when I was a teenager. This was back in the 1980s. There is a reason to why I rejected that tactic. Hopefully, after reading my responses to you, you are also seeing why I rejected that tactic.

What you are doing is utilizing a strawman argument; nitpicking information to build a strawman argument does not constitute "thinking and getting into the details".


chefnerd If you look at the breakdown of votes ALL but 6 nay votes came from the states that formed the Confederacy. Of those 6 votes 5 were cast by Republicans. Outside of the Confederacy there was 98% approval by Democrats. The only nay vote was Robert Byrd of West Virginia [INDUCTIVE FALLACY: STRAWMAN]

First, understand that the electorate back home are going to influence how Congress personnel are going to vote. They influence the chances of a congressperson of winning reelection. This has little relevance on your argument on whether they are racist or not.

Second, when this vote was taking place, the Democrats dominated the majority of the states that were a part of the Confederacy. Let this sink in. Now, connect your statement about all but six votes coming from the states coming from the former Confederacy, and the fact that I mentioned in my first point.

Most of the states that were formally a part of the Confederacy were dominated by Democrats. Even your strawman argument does not change the fact that a largely Democratic constituency influenced the votes of Republican and Democrats alike in Congress. This is an indication that the racism was not just in Congress, but among the people.

Hint: it was not until the 1990s that the South was associated with "being dominated by Republicans" in our current part of history.

Third, compare and contrast those five Republican nay votes, from outside the former Confederate states, to the yes votes for the Republicans from outside the former Confederate states. Do the same with the nay votes within the Confederacy along party lines. I consider it suspect that you failed to mention the breakdown of the nay votes coming from the states that were formally a part of the Confederacy.

However, the fact remains that percent support for the Civil Rights Act was stronger among Republicans in Congress that it was among the Democrats in Congress. This alone is what is relevant when determining which party is actually racist.

Given that I have handled classified documents while in the US military, I'm going to explain the fallacy of your meme, as well as the fallacy of claims that Trump "took" classified material home.

First, the cover sheets that you see in the picture are not a part of the documents themselves. Those are standalone sheets that if, you look closely, are connected by paperclips. If you also look at the photo, you will notice that some of the documents are "opened", with the first page "whited out".

From handling classified documents, I know for fact that one of two conditions are possible:

1. The FBI agents mishandled classified material to include photographing them. That is a no go, you do not photograph or make photocopies of classified material. If that was actually classified, all of them would've had to cover sheets, and none of them would have been opened. But the paperclips indicate that they are not a part of the documents.

Meaning, if those were indeed "classified", the FBI agents that were responsible for collecting those documents and photographing them should have their nuts nailed to the wall for violating procedures for handling classified material.

Or...

2. None of that is classified, and that is just a setup. Again, having handled classified documents in the military, I could tell you based on the photo that this is just a set up. Assuming that the FBI agents know how to handle classified material, they would not have taken pictures of those documents had they been classified.

Second, the president of the United States is the ultimate classifying and declassifying authority when it comes to classified materials. The people working in the government who process and approve, or disapprove, classification or declassification requests, are not doing so on their own authority. They are delegated that authority from the president of the United States.

Let that sink in.

Why would Donald Trump go to people, who he delegated authority to, for authority to declassify material? He did not need to. Additionally, there is at least one standing Executive Order, signed by a predecessor, that effectively declared classified material unclassified the moment the president takes them out of the work area and brings them to his residence. The author of that executive order had the authority to set that policy.

Donald Trump used his authority to declassify all those materials before he left the White House. He left the White House before Biden was installed. Meaning, he left the White House when he was still president, and those documents were declassified.

I look forward to similarly dismantling every single one of your future responses to me.

Holy shit.

how insulting to butt head