She should sue this is textbook defamation.

Hey at least you have an excuse, I’m just dyslexic and have stupid fingers.

the angles

I’ve always wanted to be held by a kind gentle right angle.

There have been almost daily protests since he took office. Not hearing about them just means they’re being suppressed in the press.

I think idiots run in pairs, though it is fun you jump straight to sock puppet. The rest sounds like a personal paranoia you’re projecting onto me.

You literally implied I was a racist dude. Own up or shut up, at the very least don’t cry about it.

“Some” like you.

You had all that time and you still can’t point out where I said slavery is right, it the civil war didn’t involve slavery. That nuance I was taking about is the fact the federal government didn’t want to stop slavery they wanted to keep the union together Lincoln wrote about it at length some of which I’ve linked here.

Nope that’s again you implying I’m a racist.

You clearly don’t understand what I’m saying or you do and you’re simply trying to play white knight.

No one said that, you’re being paranoid. And again you’re calling me a racist.

Personal attacks rather then contrary evidence, how unsurprising.

For it to be constructive criticism you need to understand the contention and look at it without bias which is something you’re clearly wholely unable to do.

Not the one where he did a set at a game convention and no one even applauded?

Ya huh coward, like I said.

If it’s so braindead then just answer the question my cowardly friend.

No you are. I gave you an actual yes or no. You tried to weasel your way out with bigoted bullshit. Btw I own my home but sure, project away bud.

Ok is it a fact or not if that is a better format. They mean the same thing since facts can generally be substantiated with yes/no correct/incorrect.

No what you did was from a question that’s disparaging to me with either answer. It isn’t accurate either but clearly accuracy is not something you care about and we’ll just ignore the bigoted bullshit included with it.

Or it’s a time for you to answer a yes no or ask a less bigoted question.

I’m not going to say I’m a racist because I’m not. You however proved yourself a coward so there’s that.

So you ask a question that implies I’m a racist one way or the other. You’re a shitheel. I gave you a yes or no question you simply choose not to answer because doing so proves your endeavor worthless and misguided.

Sure what question is that.

See. When pushed into a yes or no you simply refuse to answer.

Yes or no genius. Should be easy to answer.

Well anyway, we’ve already established previously that you tacitly admitted to being a disingenuous troll,

And when did we do that exactly?

It’s not rewriting anything.

Let’s go fact by fact.

Did the with use a framework of states rights to attempt to legalize seceding? Yes or no. No bullshit editorializing, yes or fucking no.

I know you have two separate names, sure. You’re both still making the same idiotic argument blissfully unaware of nuance.

No one is minimizing it. No one said it is right either, you’re being obtuse.

I find it interesting that you are so eagerly anticipating being called racist in this thread.

I find it interesting that you are so eagerly anticipating being called racist in this thread.

You already have and just did again.

What things would those be exactly?

I think you’ve lost track of the contention hence your bullshit about minimizing things.

Yes their main complaint is that a slave in one state is a Freeman crossing the border to another. They complain about it at length and it was indeed the framework they attempted to use to legalize their secession. That’s fairly common knowledge so I’m not sure why you would take issue with that nor do I see how you taste it as denial of slavery.

which was in reference to me saying "states rights is a bullshit excuse?

To which I replied

That does not change it from being the framework for succession and their main complaint

Which is accurate, something being idiotic does not make it unfactual. “They’re stealing our jobs, they’re all criminals” is a shitty excuse to attempt to deport millions does that at all change the fact that is the excuse they’re trying to use? I say no but I’d love to know your opinion on it.

Edit: Fuck it, went back to your original comment that prompted all of this. You sole position in there was that states rights was the founding principle of the Confederacy, and you even recognize there that it was complete bullshit excuse, but also claim that it was the sole cause for secession (and thus the civil war).

All this time and you didn’t bother to find out what the actual contention was? Educators can’t say it wasn’t about states rights because it was, it’s rooted in slavery sure but that’s not the cause of the civil war both Jefferson Davis and Lincoln agree on this and notably slavery was never abolished in this country.

That’s me quoting the person person above me hence the quote shift.

And that person was you. So unless you’re saying you were stating a support for slavery you might want to rethink that genius attempt to discredit me.

Then you should be able to quote one directly that says “no one cared about states rights”.

Jefferson Davis to Congress feb2 1860, almost exactly 1 year before seceding. You’ll notice it’s all about states rights because that’s the legal framework they chose to use since owning people was legal at the federal level.

https://jeffersondavis.rice.edu/archives/documents/jefferson-davis-resolutions-relations-states

3. Resolved, That the union of these States rests on the equality of rights and privileges among its members, and that it is especially the duty of the Senate, which represents the States in their sovereign capacity, to resist all attempts to discriminate either in relation to person or property, so as, in the Territories–which are the common possession of the United States–to give advantages to the citizens of one State which are not equally secured to those of every other State.

Point to where I said or implied slavery was not the primary cause of the civil war. I won’t hold my breath because that isn’t something I’ve said nor would say. What I have said is that you’re wrong to say started rights weren’t involved or weren’t the primary reason the federal government got involved. Hell, Lincoln specifically campaigned on not getting involved in slavery.

Yes Jefferson Davis was a slave owner and a racist, that isn’t news. It’s also something I’ve not argued against but you simply won’t stop reading into my words things that simply do not exist in them.

You’ve quite literally said I’m stuck in lost cause theory which would make me an apologist and likely racist. Save the bullshit.

No one is saying slavery wasn’t involved, it clearly was.

No one is saying racism is a good thing.

What I am saying is that the federal government but it’s own explanation did not get involved because of racism or slavery but rather state sovereignity and succession.

Slavery may have been their reason for seceding, it isn’t however the framework of their disagreement with the federal government not the reason the federal government got involved. So to say it wasn’t about states rights is straight up, flat out wrong.

I can’t help not notice you didn’t provide any evidence for your claim that “no one cared about states rights” or that it states rights were solely a post war conjuring.

You’re wrong, call me a racist I don’t care since I know you’re wrong and simply attacking me on a personal level says you’re emotionally involved to the point you’re willing to ignore actual facts in favor of feelings.

it was about states not recognizing property? you fucking clown lmao it was about (southern) states not recognizing people

No it wasn’t. Emancipation is the outcome not the cause, even after Sumter was attacked Lincoln refused to act on slavery. The feds got involved to preserve state sovereignity and reenforce Lincoln’s position that states did not have the right to secede. Slavery was certainly involved it wasn’t however the cause of federal intervention.

You’re pushing American mythology and ignoring the factual basis for federal involvement. Did you never wonder why Lincoln went with essentially an executive order (that by the way lost him 30+ Republican seats in Congress) rather than passing an amendment rather then passing an amendment first? It’s because he didn’t have the support needed to pass it because the North was also racist and also wanted to keep slaves they just wanted a different mechanism for gaining and keeping slaves ie. Lawful imprisonment.