Majority of Republicans say Trump is a better president than Lincoln

Jets

Moderator
Feb 2011
23,943
14,994
New York
I'm not so sure the old rules apply anymore. Also, I suspect the Trump era won't be as easy to reconcile as past Republican reckonings--especially as we've yet to realize the full extent of the damage caused by this administration.

But I hope you're right, as the alternatives don't look good for anyone. I have an awful lot of respect for you and the minority of conservatives who refuse to march in lockstep with this mob, although I'm still rather doubtful if that wing of the party will ultimately prevail.
I appreciate that. For the record, I’m an endangered species. Being a Blue Dog Democrat makes me my own best friend. I’m either a liberal to some or a DINO....
 
  • Like
Reactions: Ian Jeffrey
Sep 2019
899
1,374
dfw, texas
Democrats wanted slavery and were members of the KKK. That’s not a pretty picture


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
that is such a simplistic and untrue version of history, in context of how it is today 60 years later and all those democrats you seem to dislike ARE NOW REPUBLICANS....because of the national democratic party supporting and pushing thru Civil Rights acts signed by a southern democratic president. get it? who cares what party anyone was in 150 years ago when now those two parties are not even close to what they were then? even 60 years ago, even most southern racist state democrats were against civil rights, and when it was forced on them by other democrats, they began leaving the party....here is something you need to try and remember for next time- not one republican from any southern racist state of the Confederacy voted for the Civil Rights Act of 1964....not one....in the House or Senate....and the democrats were so totally in control of the south, there was only one republican Senator from any of the 11 original confederate states...and only 10 republican house members from the racist south!!! and not one voted for the law, but many democrats did, which means in the south- the democratic party was way less racist and bigoted than the few republicans who lived in these racist states!! It also means the democratic party pushed through Civil Rights KNOWING IT WOULD MEAN THE END OF THEIR CONTROL OF THE RACIST SOUTH....A BIG BIG POLITICAL LOSS.....BUT THEY DID IT ANYWAY, PUTTING DOING WHAT IS RIGHT OVER BEING A POLITICAL COWARD, like most repubs are today when it comes to admitting the truth about Trump.

By party and region

Note: "Southern", as used in this section, refers to members of Congress from the eleven states that made up the Confederate States of America in the American Civil War. "Northern" refers to members from the other 39 states, regardless of the geographic location of those states.

The original House version:

•Southern Democrats: 7–87 (7%–93%)
•Southern Republicans: 0–10 (0%–100%)

•Northern Democrats: 145-9 (94%–6%)
•Northern Republicans: 138-24 (85%–15%)

The Senate version:

•Southern Democrats: 1–20 (5%–95%)
•Southern Republicans: 0–1 (0%–100%)

•Northern Democrats: 45-1 (98%–2%)
•Northern Republicans: 27-5 (84%–16%)
 
  • Love
Reactions: the bull59
Nov 2008
65,693
5,262
Washington state
Is this like your theory that you hadn't even heard of racism since the 60's because you thought Martin Luther King Jr. got rid of it?
MLK sure did a lot to stop it , but Obama did a lot to bring it back . Al Sharpton and Jesse Jackson did a lot to reverse everything MLK did for political gain


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 
Nov 2008
65,693
5,262
Washington state
Nov 2008
65,693
5,262
Washington state
Yep. Racism was gone until brought back by blacks. Says a lot about you.
Used as a political weapon, yes. Trayvon Martin ring a bell?

The president's remarks created a clear impression that he was motivated by one of two factors, and we can only guess as to which, or what combination of the two, was at work here. One possibility is that this is merely another manifestation of the president's well-known narcissism: No matter what the situation may be, it's all about him.
The other, more troubling possibility is that the president surrendered to his political instincts. He wants disadvantaged Americans to believe that he and his family are one of them -- despite their life of unparalleled privilege -- and he wanted the prosecutors, judge and jury to believe that this was a case about race where justice demanded a guilty verdict.
If that was his motivation -- and we cannot know, but reasonable people certainly may suspect -- then Obama should be ashamed of his effort to stir America's turbulent, dangerous racial waters. The president's role is not to be a racial agitator, and the mark of a great civil rights leader has been a determination to reject the temptations of that approach. And not that long ago -- in 2008, in Philadelphia -- candidate Obama distanced himself from such agitators Opinion: Obama's mistake on Trayvon Martin case - CNN


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk