Current Events > Who are the 6 percent of Democrats who think Trump is better than Lincoln?

(+) Yeah! (+)

https://twitter.com/jessefferguson/status/1200493405832450049

Wild.
---

lmao
---

Dino democrats in name only like Tulsi gabbard

There must be a 6 percent margin of error.
---

I can't possibly think of anything Lincoln did that might be seen unfavorably to Republicans. /Sarcasm

---

sondast posted...

There must be a 6 percent margin of error.

Remember that some Republicans register as Democrats so they can support the weakest candidates during the election cycle where they're determining who will be the actual one in the election.

---

Lincoln was openly racist and arguably abused his power while Trump stopped TTP, Defended democracy in Hong Kong, promoted the ideal of a space force and opposed animal cruelty

Democrats who care about those things will prefer him to Lincoln.
---

UnfairRepresent posted...

and opposed animal cruelty

I actually don't know what this is referencing.
---

That's because Abraham Lincoln beat them in a war

UnfairRepresent posted...

Lincoln was openly racist and arguably abused his power while Trump stopped TTP, Defended democracy in Hong Kong, promoted the ideal of a space force and opposed animal cruelty

Democrats who care about those things will prefer him to Lincoln.

lolol
---

Anteaterking posted...

UnfairRepresent posted...

and opposed animal cruelty

I actually don't know what this is referencing.

A bipartisan bill that Trump had no reason not to sign, it has absolutely nothing to do with him or his positions.
---

The Republican numbers are pretty fucking crazy too. It's unfortunate that most of them wont live long enough to see trump being remembered as historically bad.
---

UnfairRepresent posted...

Lincoln was openly racist and arguably abused his power while Trump stopped TTP, Defended democracy in Hong Kong, promoted the ideal of a space force and opposed animal cruelty

Democrats who care about those things will prefer him to Lincoln.

lmao at this sigless user logic...
---

King_Hutton posted...

Anteaterking posted...

UnfairRepresent posted...

and opposed animal cruelty

I actually don't know what this is referencing.

A bipartisan bill that Trump had no reason not to sign, it has absolutely nothing to do with him or his positions.

"It had absolutely nothing to do with him, he just signed it!"

Erm...

Wanna try that again?
---

Theres nothing to try again, everyone who doesnt argue deliberately obnoxious semantics understands exactly what that means already.
---

Old-guard Dixiecrats, maybe? I have trouble imagining anyone else.

---

UnfairRepresent posted...

King_Hutton posted...

Anteaterking posted...

UnfairRepresent posted...

and opposed animal cruelty

I actually don't know what this is referencing.

A bipartisan bill that Trump had no reason not to sign, it has absolutely nothing to do with him or his positions.

"It had absolutely nothing to do with him, he just signed it!"

Erm...

Wanna try that again?

You giving him any credit for a bipartisan bill that would have overturned his veto had he tried is fucking dumb, even for you.
---

And that same majority of right wingers will claim Lincoln and think he's super awesome when convenient to try to stick it to those on the left. The other 90% of the time he's a tyrant.

"Hey, we're the party of Lincoln and Teddy Roosevelt you know! Now let's act worship the Confederacy and do everything opposite of Roosevelt."
---

King_Hutton posted...

Theres nothing to try again, everyone who doesnt argue deliberately obnoxious semantics understands exactly what that means already.

The question is why someone might prefer one president over another and you're literally arguing that the bills/laws the president signs don't count because they "have nothing to do with" the person signing them...

That's insane.

That's like debating who the best quarterback is and then saying "Oh but he had nothing to do with every game he ever had."
---

^your brain isn't working properly
---

UnfairRepresent posted...

King_Hutton posted...

Theres nothing to try again, everyone who doesnt argue deliberately obnoxious semantics understands exactly what that means already.

The question is why someone might prefer one president over another and you're literally arguing that the bills/laws the president signs don't count because they "have nothing to do with" the person signing them...

That's insane.

That's like debating who the best quarterback is and then saying "Oh but he had nothing to do with every game he ever had."

You can have fun arguing with yourself because no one else is going to take this stupid bait.
---

King_Hutton posted...

UnfairRepresent posted...

King_Hutton posted...

Theres nothing to try again, everyone who doesnt argue deliberately obnoxious semantics understands exactly what that means already.

The question is why someone might prefer one president over another and you're literally arguing that the bills/laws the president signs don't count because they "have nothing to do with" the person signing them...

That's insane.

That's like debating who the best quarterback is and then saying "Oh but he had nothing to do with every game he ever had."

You can have fun arguing with yourself because no one else is going to take this stupid bait.

"Who are these 6% of people who did thing?"
"Probably these people for these reasons, policies, bills signed, attitudes."
"Bills the president signed have nothing to do with the president!"
"That doesn't make sense."
"NOOENE IS OBGJGNG TO ARGUE WITH UUUUUUUUUUUUU! STUPD STUPID BRAIN NO WORK!"

Erm... Ok.

Wasn't trying to argue, just answered TC's question for him.

Worth noting you're the one who argued with me and did so hilariously badly with one of the most silly points I think I've heard all year.

Sad that instead of admitting fault you just keep digging.
---

Troll votes, probably
---

I think I hate everyone in this topic now, after reading through it.
---

UnfairRepresent posted...

King_Hutton posted...

UnfairRepresent posted...

King_Hutton posted...

Theres nothing to try again, everyone who doesnt argue deliberately obnoxious semantics understands exactly what that means already.

The question is why someone might prefer one president over another and you're literally arguing that the bills/laws the president signs don't count because they "have nothing to do with" the person signing them...

That's insane.

That's like debating who the best quarterback is and then saying "Oh but he had nothing to do with every game he ever had."

You can have fun arguing with yourself because no one else is going to take this stupid bait.

"Who are these 6% of people who did thing?"
"Probably these people for these reasons, policies, bills signed, attitudes."
"Bills the president signed have nothing to do with the president!"
"That doesn't make sense."
"NOOENE IS OBGJGNG TO ARGUE WITH UUUUUUUUUUUUU! STUPD STUPID BRAIN NO WORK!"

Erm... Ok.

Wasn't trying to argue, just answered TC's question for him.

Worth noting you're the one who argued with me and did so hilariously badly with one of the most silly points I think I've heard all year.

Sad that instead of admitting fault you just keep digging.

---

Funkydog posted...

I think I hate everyone in this topic now, after reading through it.

I regret having made it
---

Antifar posted...

Funkydog posted...

I think I hate everyone in this topic now, after reading through it.

I regret having made it

Not your fault UR exists and people give in to this bait.
---

Funkydog posted...

Antifar posted...

Funkydog posted...

I think I hate everyone in this topic now, after reading through it.

I regret having made it

Not your fault UR exists and people give in to this bait.

*answers direct question with basic facts and principals*
"That's bait!"

Erm... Ok?

You don't think any Democrats care about TPP? Democracy Worldwide? The Future of Space? Animal Welfare?

You don't think any democrats oppose racism or oppose government overreach?

To you, all these concepts are bait? And no one can think differently to you?

And he was never seen again
---

UnfairRepresent posted...

Funkydog posted...

Antifar posted...

Funkydog posted...

I think I hate everyone in this topic now, after reading through it.

I regret having made it

Not your fault UR exists and people give in to this bait.

*answers direct question with basic facts and principals*
"That's bait!"

Erm... Ok?

You don't think any Democrats care about TPP? Democracy Worldwide? The Future of Space? Animal Welfare?

You don't think any democrats oppose racism or oppose government overreach?

To you, all these concepts are bait? And no one can think differently to you?

And he was never seen again

---

Trolls possibly
---

Truly obnoxious
---

Trolls

---

Going to post a quote from the politics board topic which I think fits well into this one

benjjjamin posted...

UnfairRepresent posted...

Lincoln believed openly that blacks are inferior to whites

Think the worst he's ever quoted as "if i could mend the nation without ending slavery I would." Or something like that.
That's not really a quote about not liking black people.
That's a quote of a heavy weight, understood.

I will say then that I am not, nor ever have been, in favor of bringing about in any way the social and political equality of the white and black races, [applause]that I am not nor ever have been in favor of making voters or jurors of negroes, nor of qualifying them to hold office, nor to intermarry with white people; and I will say in addition to this that there is a physical difference between the white and black races which I believe will forever forbid the two races living together on terms of social and political equality.

And inasmuch as they cannot so live, while they do remain together there must be the position of superior and inferior, and I as much as any other man am in favor of having the superior position assigned to the white race.

I say upon this occasion I do not perceive that because the white man is to have the superior position the negro should be denied every thing. I do not understand that because I do not want a negro woman for a slave I must necessarily want her for a wife.

Thats the man you say you agree with over Trump

Lots of people don't

---

I mean...he is. Lincoln was one of the worst presidents objectively. His very presence caused a war and his only efforts to free slaves....were dictated in a country/states he didn't even govern/have control of. Also I've read he tried to super overstep his authority and have a Supreme Court justice arrested for disagreeing with him.

And he was racist.
---