Court Orders Slavery Exhibit At George Washington’s House Restored After Trump Admin Pulled It Down
from the history-in-the-unmaking dept
The Trump administration’s project for erasing the parts of American history they find inconvenient continues unabated. But that doesn’t mean it doesn’t hit the occasional roadblock.
In January, the administration removed portions of an exhibit at the former Philadelphia home of George Washington that made reference to 9 slaves he owned that spent time at the house. That Washington owned slaves is not a matter of opinion. He did. That he also rotated those slaves in and out of the home, moving them elsewhere for short periods of time, all to get around laws in Pennsylvania that slaves within its borders for a certain period of continuous time would be automatically freed, is also uncontroversial to state. He did that. One of our founding fathers that brought “freedom” to America was also a slave owner. He wasn’t alone.
The Trump administration doesn’t like being reminded of that history. It also prefers that younger generations never learn of that history. I’d call it jingoism, but that doesn’t feel sufficient. This rings as something far more dastardly, fit for the musings of George Orwell.
Well, the city sued to have the exhibit restored and it appears the Judge in the case, a George W. Bush appointee, agrees with my assessment. You can read as much in her blistering opening in her ruling, in which she also orders the government to restore the exhibit to its previous state.
As if the Ministry of Truth in George Orwell’s 1984 now existed, with its motto ‘Ignorance is Strength,’ this Court is now asked to determine whether the federal government has the power it claims — to dissemble and disassemble historical truths when it has some domain over historical facts. It does not.
The ruling, which you can read embedded below, is actually quite technical. It turns out that the agreements, under which these specific sites operate, are shared between the city and federal governments, and they are both old and complicate the government’s efforts.
The layman’s version of this is that several historical sites in Philadelphia were created by an act of Congress in the 1940s. Ownership of the site is retained by the city, while curation of the exhibits are maintained only under the agreement of both the federal government and city government. Adding to the complication is that a 2006 updated agreement between both parties had a short term attached to it, but there is also a survivabilty clause, which states that the expiration of the term of the agreement doesn’t mean that the city loses its rights to agreement on the curation of the exhibits.
Although the 2006 Agreement, as updated by the Third Amendment, ceased as of May 1, 2010,94 the terms in its Project Development Plan remained effective under the Third Amendment Survival Clause. The Survival Clause states that “provisions which, by themselves or their nature are reasonably expected to be performed after the expiration or termination of this Third Amendment shall survive.”95 Because the President’s House project was not contemplated to be completed by the expiration of the Third Amendment, it was reasonably expected that terms relating to the Project Development Plan would remain in effect to ensure that the commemorative exhibit was realized in accordance with the parties’ initial plan. While the Third Amendment granted NPS the right to interpret the exhibit after it was completed, it is the Project Development Plan that established the interpretive framework that NPS would employ. Profound alterations to that framework, seen here in the effort to remove all references to slavery, AfricanAmerican Philadelphia, and the move to freedom for the enslaved, would, under the Project Development Plan, require the written approval of both the City and NPS.
Whoops.
Now, this doesn’t mean that this judge spared words of disgust at the general plan that the federal government is attempting to carry out.
Defendants have completely ignored their legislatively imposed duties. They have disregarded statutory authority, compelled by Congress, by taking unilateral action without seeking agreement from the City of Philadelphia. An agency, part of the Executive branch, is not entitled to act solely as it wishes. Rather, it is the Legislative branch which authorizes agency action, and the Executive branch must comply with that direction.
There’s a lot more in there, but it’s largely legally technical in nature. What is obvious from the analysis in the ruling is that, at least in this one case, the federal government acted outside of its authority due to agreements struck as a result of legislation from Congress that are in good standing. I fully expect the Trump administration to waste time and resources by appealing this decision, but this is fairly straightforward stuff.
Trump, no matter how hard he pretends, is not a king. He does not have as much power as he desires. He cannot change history. In far too many places, he is hiding that history, but he can’t change it.
And, at least in this case, at this moment, he has found the limits to his power.
Filed Under: donald trump, george washington, history, orwell, philadelphia, slavery, trump admin
Comments on “Court Orders Slavery Exhibit At George Washington’s House Restored After Trump Admin Pulled It Down”
Courts to Trump… Slavery happened, even though you think you are king and can cancel it.
Re: That's not the message of the court
The message is basically that the agreements under which the exhibits were put up are not allowing for them to be unilaterally removed for whatever reason.
The court does express its disgust about what the Trump regime is doing, but it does not relate to whether they are allowed to do it. The expression of disgust would likely have been similar even if the agreements were such that the court would have had to consider the administration acting within its rights.
In short, the court has two separate messages, “you lose” and “you are assholes”.
Re: Re:
…so this was basically a Contract-Law case where the judge correctly ruled that one party violated the terms of the original contract/agreement.
the Slavery issue was largely irrelevant to the basic court case and the judge should not have opined about the political ‘motivations’ of the contract violation.
Re: Re: Re:
Courts can and should opine on the motivations of the parties who are sued and the parties who sue. Not only would the accuracy of historical and precendential records be incomplete without motivations, but many laws have more severe penalties for intentional violations than for unintentional violations.
Re: Re: Re:2
nope, not in civil cases.
here the judge’s task was only to determine if a valid contract existed and if the accused party specifically violated a particular provision(s) of that contract.
Re: Re: Re:3
When the violating party is the federal government, the court should absolutely call it out.
Those who try to hide or erase history want to repeat it. If’n you don’t believe me, ask every right-wing dipshit who insists “slavery wasn’t that bad”.
Re:
So I hope the restored exhibit won’t include actual slaves, obtained via that loophole Lincoln left open: it’s still legal as punishment for a crime.
Re: Re:
Slavery is illegal in every state and the federal government. A state or the Congress would have to legalize it for punishment and repeal the legislative ban.
Re: Re: Re:
A few states have banned all slavery, but there is no total federal ban on slavery. The 13th Amendment says:
In other words, slavery as a punishment for crime is compatible with the US Constitution in most states. If forced, underpaid (sometimes unpaid) prison labor is not slavery, then what would make it slavery?
Re: Re:
You’re aware that presidents don’t amend the Constitution themselves? And that the 13th was ratified like 6 months after Lincoln died?
You’re not even wrong about the Amendment itself. But my 4-year-old niece demonstrates better civic understanding than you do.
Re: Re: Re:
You and the other commenter are correct—I should have written “Constitutional” rather than “legal”. In any case, with the party in power having enough votes to pass laws, and being willing to ignore laws and the Constitution altogether, that distinction is unlikely to save anyone.
And, quoting Wikipedia:
So I think it’s fair to assign some blame to Lincoln for that “loophole”, even if it may have been written by someone else (it’s unclear, but perhaps the referenced book by Eric Foner, “The Fiery Trial”, would shed some light on the details).
Slavery wasn’t the problem. Slavery was the symptom of the problem. Racism was the problem. Racism is still the problem. Trump is a racist (among other horrible traits). But he views us all as his slaves, his property. He’s your everyday, run of the mill, typical fascist. And the focus of his worship is… himself. All others must bow down. (Yes, he’s completely delusional and deranged.)
Re:
Historically slavery has happened all over. White colonists taught the “civilized tribes” to do it before their removal west and out of slave territory.
Muslims and Christians went to slavery and forced conversion war in the Mediterranean so sometimes it’s about religion.(See: Barbary wars)
We exchanged the abolishment of slavery in Saudi Arabia for protection from the Italians in WW2 so sometimes it’s about the authority of absolute monarchs.
Rome, Egypt, Mesopotamia, all had it so it likely predates written language. In the old days before guns it was hard work to kill people because you had to swing around a heavy sword or other bladed weapon and people were worn out before the enemy armies were dead so slavery was their best option to deal with the large number of people in the defeated army. It was a practical solution to the wartime enemy problem.
But there is one place that was the largest global hub of slavery for a long time and they sold their own race into slavery all over the world and it wasn’t fully outlawed there until the 1990’s. But they will still blame colonialism for their problems when some actually invaded to stop the global slave trade they were exporting all over the world.
To be fair though a few US slaves came from British India before they fully outlawed slavery also. It’s more about greed and forcing religious and sexual preferences than specifically racism.
Re: Re:
That’s an example of racism. The idea of “whiteness” is completely made up. Which is why, for example, light-skinned people from Japan are not currently considered “white”, but Italians are—although, 200 years ago, Italian immigrants to America were considered non-white and were treated poorly.
The first step of racism is convincing the public that it makes sense to somehow divide humans into “races”. The details come down to who the promoters want to oppress and who they need on their side.
Re: Re: Re:
To be clear, are you saying that anyone who talks about the social construct of race—in any context whatsoever—is a racist, even when they’re decrying racism or admitting that race is a social construct?
Re: Re: Re:2
I’m not quite sure I understand the question. But stating, as fact, that someone is a member of some race other than “human”, would be racist.
It’s fine to refer to a bunch of colonists who claimed to be white, or even to say they were accepted as such (or still are). But to uncritically repeat their claim of being “white colonists” is problematic, kind of like referring unironically to “Emperor Norton” as an actual emperor.
For a “social construct”, the construction of race is quite poor. Nobody can usefully explain what exactly makes a person a member of one group or another; it’s all just opinion and guesswork, changing depending on who’s asked and when. See, for example, America’s historical “one-drop rule”, where everyone with a single African ancestor was officially considered “colored” (but every human has an African ancestor, so it doesn’t make much sense—unless you accept that it was just a pretext to allow for subjective discrimination).
Re: Re: Re:3
From a biological perspective we can still mate with apes, monkeys, elephants, and dolphins. I don’t know what else to call some differences between the species or historical perspective other species if not race.
Re: Re: Re:3
A-HA! You mentioned race! Now you’re a racist!
…see how stupid that sounds? I hope so, because that’s your whole argument here—that so much as mentioning race, even in the context of discussing it as a social construct, makes someone a racist—and I really hope you see how dumb it is now.
Re: Re: Re:4
No, it’s not. To assigning someone a “race” and treat it as fact it to accept and promote the theory behind racism. Saying that they’ve been perceived as this or that, and talking about the implications, is different; it can be done while recognizing that these are merely opinions relating to a harmful social construct that should be abandoned. See, for example, “The Invention of the White Race” by Theodore W. Allen, and the author’s comment about learning to say “I am not ‘white’” as an explicit rejection of ideology.
Viewing nationality as more than just an accident of birth that comes with certain privileges is similar. When people accept that they’re fundamentally different that those on the other side of a made-up border, it becomes easier to stir up animus and start wars. There are U.S. citizens living in Texas, who can look across a fence to Mexico. Trump wants them to see their neighbors across that fence as fundamentally different from themselves and their neighbors in the other direction—even though Texas itself has been part of six different countries over time, including Mexico, and it’s not like anyone kicked out the old residents on every change. They were raised differently, and that’s all.
Re: Re: Re:5
And yet, you can’t actually discuss the construct of race without discussing it as an actual existing construct. Even if it’s bullshit, it still exists. Acknowledging that construct, how people exist within it, how people are perceived within it, and how it affects our society and culture doesn’t inherently make someone racist. I’m what the racial construct would call a “white person”. Does my saying I’m white make me racist only and specifically because I acknowledge the construct, how I exist within it, and how I would be perceived within it? And if that does make me racist, how should I be punished for acknowledging my racial category only and specifically in the context of social perception?
I agree that race and racial categories are bullshit. But the idea that anyone who discusses race is a racist only because they acknowledge the reality that race, no matter how shitty a concept, is a social construct that exists in our society? That, too, is bullshit.
Re: Re: Re:5
Acknowledging that the privileged sort themselves into an in-group is racist. Sure why not.
Re: Re: Re:3
Duh, exactly! It’s a construct! In-groups and out-groups are fluid, and defined only by the group with power, according to what suits their identitarian needs at any moment, to arrogate power to themselves.
Re: Re: Re:
Which is why, for example, light-skinned people from Japan are not currently considered “white”, but Italians are
Except in Japan, where their own racists historically considered their neighbours with darker skin inferior. Indicating the subjectivity of the whole endeavour.
Re: Re:
That is a peculiar statement. Why put the emphasis on race?
I think South Africa was the last country, when Apartheid ended. But that was white people doing the oppressing.
The US still hasn’t fully outlawed slavery, because of the exception for criminals. And given the excessive incarceration, with Black Americans far overrepresented in the prison population, you can say that slavery based on skin color still exists.
Re: Re: Re:
I was replying to a comment about race
Aparthied was about voting rights, the right to hold office, and segregation, not slavery. Mauritania was the last country to outlaw slavery.
Yes it has. No crime has slavery as a punishment as noted above. Further slavery is a crime for any reason now.
Re: Re: Re:2
People can be treated as slaves while they’re in prison, though. As far as I’m aware, no one has passed a law that forbids the government from using prisoners as labor without fair compensation.
Re: Re:
While slavery was indeed all over.
I presume you are talking about the Portuguese sailing down the coast of west Africa in the 15th century.
But slavic slavery pre-dates that in Europe and there are indications that slavery internal to Africa pre-dates that, ie slavery down the nile to Egypt.
Re: Re: Re:
Slavery was in many places atmany times, and none of it anything like the slavery of the TransAtlantic slave trade. At all.
Re:
Racism is basically an invention of the slavery of the TransAtlantic slave trade. It never existed in that way prior, nor the modern concept of race as such.
This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.
Why do you turn a contract dispute into a polemic on race? You would be better served by reporting on what the case actually meant rather than on what you want the case to mean.
Trump does SO MANY objectionable things. This is one of them. But, you view it as objectionable for a reason completely unrelated to the truth. I suppose race > contracts to most shallow-thinking people. However, to me, ignoring the clear terms of a contract to impose your own will through the force of government is an unmistable sign of oppression and tyranny. Frankly, it makes me furious.
Yet, because you covered it as a matter of race, you missed the point entirely. And many people who agree with you on the real meaning of the case will ignore you because of the meaning you ascribe to it.
I hope we find a way to ignore completely the existence of George Washington, or whatever your aim is. Then, maybe, we can start worrying about a problem that exists today rather than carping about a problem that existed 150+ years ago.
Re:
Who is “you”? The polemic on race is coming from inside the White House. The top third of the article is about SLAVERY, not race. Between you and Timothy Geigner, you are the only one bringing race into this conversation. Stop copying the DARVO playbook.
The bottom two thirds of the article is about the contractual dispute. In other words, you didn’t read the article.
Re: Re:
Oh, gosh. You’re right! Thank you for catching my mistake. I thought the museum piece was about the BLACK slaves in the United States. I misread it that way. If it’s about ALL the slaves, then I’m certainly wrong.
Let’s be clear. I’m not talking about the indentured servants, the sharecroppers, or those in peonage. I just mean the slaves–i.e, the people who were literally owned, whether they were white, black, yellow, or red.
Anyway, you also caught me on another thing. I forgot to read the rest of the article. I was so incensed by the removal of the criticism of George Washington from the museum that I forgot to read the remainder of the article. Nor did I read the actual text of the court opinion. I have no clue what I’m talking about.
Just remember, though. I’m uninformed, but I’m currently one of the 55ish% of the people who support the current administration. Convince me to join you rather than insult me. But, why should you take my advice or try to change my mind? You’re morally correct. That’s good enough to support your outrage.
Re: Re: Re:
Nah, I’d rather insult your bitch ass. Trying to have a reasonable good-faith discussion with you wouldn’t change your mind, anyway—I tried that and you basically voiced support for an increase in violence from ICE/DHS/the Trump regime. In what world do you think your “I’m just trying to have a civil pro-fascism conversation, stop making me feel bad UwU” schtick makes you any better than a swastika-wearing Nazi who says all the racial slurs?
Re: Re: Re:
Zero mentions of “race” in the article. Zero mentions of “racist” in the article. Zero mentions of “black” in the article. Ctrl-F for African. 1 result, in the quoted name of an organization.
Timothy Geigner:
You:
The polemic is coming from inside your house. You’re really weird to interpret an implicit “the Trump Administration is racist” as “a polemic on race”. When someone whispers about racism, you think they’re screaming in your ear. You’re weird like how when a reporter asked Trump:
Trump responded with:
Consciousness of guilt much?
Anyway, your crashouts are valid. I believe you are a kind person; I am convinced of it, even. You are not racist. You are not homophobic. Like a military strategist, you know your enemy. You are very calm, which means you are reasonable and intelligent. Your words and conduct make you exactly the kind of person any reasonable person wants to be.
Re: Re: Re:2
Except for the fact that there’s not a drop of sincerity behind any of his posts. I may be a crass, vulgar, swear-happy son of a bitch, but at least I’m sincere about who I am and what I believe. He hides behind “polite” language designed to make you think he’s just a poor pitiful li’l guy who just wants to know why everyone’s being so mean to the poor dumb MAGA faithful so you don’t notice that he’s implicitly (and in one case, explicitly) supportive of the Trump regime doing worse things to the people that regime targets with violence. He’s a right-wing provocateur and that’s all he’ll ever be. He doesn’t want a sincere discussion. He wants you to make some sort of statement that he can interpret as you claiming to be someone who supports luxury gay space communism so he can go to his right-wing pals and go “look at the [slur]s on this site”. I’d invite him to prove me wrong, but he doesn’t have the balls to be who he really is.
Re: Re: Re:
Convince me to join you rather than insult me.
Of that 55% are a large majority of idiots who vote Republican, no matter what, just to ‘own the libs.’ I say fuck you people. If you can’t look around and be disgusted by what you’re seeing this administration is doing, then fuck you and your vote. Because you’re just a shitty person.
I’d rather see the shock and horror once you realize that YOU are the ones getting welfare, those gubmint jobs that the kids at DOGE took away from you, and all that farm support, either via immigrant labor or closing foreign markets on you.
No one’s gonna kiss your ass, Chet. If you wanna keep getting fucked, continue to enjoy your reaming. If that 55% wants more of what they’re already not getting, by all means, fuck yourselves some more.
Trump would repeal the 13th Amendment in a HEARTBEAT if he thought he could get away with it. The America he pines for is pre-1865, when there was still all that “free” land and labor out there for the taking.
Insults will clearly get you into the ruling majority!
Well, to be completely honest, the lack of voter identification coupled with unfettered illegal immigration will get you into the ruling majority.
As I tell potential jurors, we all have experiences that inform our introspection that ultimately leads to opinions on weighty and trivial matters. Those opinions are the result of lived experience that changes over time, inviting reexamination of the opinions. Opinions are the prodcucts of a lifetime of experience and thought; thus, they are entitled to respect. I respect that you have experiences that make you feel the way you do. I just don’t believe your feelings should win the day, no matter how much you demand I conform. I tell potential jurors that the key word in every set of jury instructions is “convince.” You won’t see the word “believe” anywhere in them. I’ve read your diatribes and Jeremiads over the years. I believe you are a kind person; I am not convinced of it, though.
You believe that my opinions about illegal immigration is rooted in racism. You believe that based on traits that you assign to a group of people with whom you disagree. Everybody who disagrees with you on this topic is racist. That’s fine. You can believe that. However, it doesn’t make you capable of grappling with the real and more fundamental issue: what makes a country and who should benefit from that distinction?
I can’t teach you everything I’ve lived and learn. You wouldn’t care to listen anyway. And even if you listened, you’re predisposed to view it through the distored lens of self-righteousness. So, I doubt you’d take away from that examination anything worthwhile. Not at this point, I mean. You view me as an enemy. Many military strategists over the millenia echo the same concept: know your enemy. You believe I’m a racist and probably other -ists and -phobics. You’ve got to understand, though, your conduct makes you exactly the kind of person no reasonable person wants to be. Now, stomp your feet, say the word “fuck” or one of its variants, and assume the mantle of smugness when you refuse to deal with the reason why people like me feel the way I do. I don’t “believe” you can insult people out of their racism, so if that’s the only card you can play, you lose. Instead, play a card of logic and convince me. No one ever takes me up on that. I really want to engage in good faith on the subject.
Now, let’s see what kind of person you really are. Ready, set, GO!
Re:
You a bitch.
Now that the crass insult is out of the way: Nah, I’m not going to try to convince you of shit. I could lay out the most reasoned argument in the simplest way possible and you’d still disagree. You’re a MAGA cultist, you’re not here for a good faith discussion, and all this “I’m a flyover state voter, take pity on my dumb ass UwU” shit doesn’t do a damn thing to convince me why I should waste any of my time trying to have a good faith discussion with you. Engage with a sincere desire to learn about perspectives you would otherwise dismiss as “too woke” or fuck off; either way, you can drop your “I’m the calm and rational fascist and that makes me better than you emotional wokesters” act because it isn’t working. Nobody is going to think any less of you than they already do if you openly hope for the deaths of undocumented immigrants and Trump’s critics/political enemies. If anything, I’d respect the honesty.
Re:
Insults will clearly get you into the ruling majority!
We learned it from Trump, and the rest of you cunts. So yeah, that’s the environment you created, so that’s the one that we’re gonna work in.
You elected an asshole, with a big fucking mouth, and a penchant to throw around insults like the man-child that he is. You had to know eventually, someone would come along who doesn’t give a shit about sticking to norms that have long since passed.
Buckle up, Fucko.
Re:
[citation needed] You’ve made an implication. Now prove it.
First, this isn’t a jury trial. The purpose and procedures of a jury trial aren’t universally applicable to the subjects we discuss here. Convincing x number of jurors and alternates of the legality or truth relating to a crime or violation isn’t the same thing as politics. Do you think we should conduct voir dire with voters before they are allowed to vote?
Or is it possible you think you’re a smart lawyer and your myopic perspective can be universally applied in a wonderfully obvious instance of Dunning-Kruger.
Functionally, it doesn’t matter. You’re a bad person regardless of whether you think it’s okay to violate the human and constitutional rights of immigrants due to their skin color or ethnic background or national origin or any other reason. But it’s also functionally racist, regardless of your motivation. You’re pretending overt racism is the only form of racism.
Accusation-confession…
It’s not that everyone who disagrees is a racist. It’s that everyone who is functionally racist is functionally racist. Disagreement about immigration policy takes the form of debating what the process should be or the waiting period. If you’re debating how hard the immigration officer should slam the US citizen’s face into the concrete while ignoring factual claims of citizenship, you’re not debating immigration anymore. You’re bootlicking fascism. And if you say, “well I don’t support that,” then you’re lying because that’s the functional end of who and what you have supported and it was known in advance that this is what it would lead to.
You can ask that question like you’re being reasonable and erudite in your pensive ponderings on the very dry academic matter, but the reality is that there is a real world human cost where the topic actually gets applied.
The arrogance in the idea that you have something to teach others on the topic of being more sociopathic and apathetic towards suffering and human and constitutional violations is at least half as bad as your moral failings.
Your spellcheck is weirdly configured if it’s correcting “advocacy for human rights and empathy” to “self-righteousness.”
You’re perceiving this in this manner. You’ve already mentioned civil war because you’ve already imagined murdering people you disagree with because they won’t submit to your perspective.
You seem to think simmering hatred and disgust don’t qualify as emotions, so you don’t think you’re being emotional when your position reflects your hatred and disgust with people who are different from you. It doesn’t make you reasonable to be coldly apathetic to human rights. That’s a giant red flag if you feel absolutely nothing when watching videos out of Minneapolis or elsewhere. You don’t speak for reasonable people.
It’s difficult to deal with the reason you feel the way you do because you won’t go to therapy to address your emotional issues. And that’s not anyone else’s job to deal with. That you assign the responsibility for your sociopathy to others and assign the responsibility to them to educate and convince you is insane. You’re scapegoating any morally bad positions you’ve ever taken with, “well, they didn’t convince me otherwise, so it’s their fault!” You’ve got work to do on yourself that I’m guessing you’ll never do, but that work will never be the responsibility of a rando on the internet to whom you have coldly conveyed your immoral perspective.
If you didn’t logic yourself into it (and you didn’t and can’t), then you can’t be logicked out of it. And fascists deserve insults for their inherently inhumane positions. Again, you are responsible for changing your own perspective. If you weren’t, then all perspectives would be randomly assigned based on just the happenstance of who you encountered and how good those random people are at convincing you, regardless of any factual reality you might otherwise encounter. “Nobody told Hitler it was bad to mass murder millions of people because he surrounded himself with yes men, so it must have been everyone else’s fault!” That’s not sound logic at all.
You’re (poorly, transparently) trying to gaslight people into believing it’s their fault you’re an awful person.
I bet you feel bullied.
Again, it is not anyone else’s job to convince you not to be a bad person. And it’s completely useless to try to convince an arrogant asshole who thinks he’s smartest guy in the room. Your ego will not allow you to conceive that you’re wrong or bested, so anything that is actually logical like supporting human rights for the sake of your mutual rights not being violated arbitrarily will not seem logical to you anyway. If you were interested in good faith debate, you wouldn’t be gaslighting, sealioning, resorting to ad populum fallacies, false dilemmas, etc.
Re:
Mirror calling on line one.
I have a poor memory; I admit it. But I thought I said I wanted Trump to enforce immigration laws more vigorously, or something to that effect. If I said I wanted illegal aliens to DIE then I was clearly in thr wrong.
Of course, it could be my poor memory, or it could be your twisted interpretation of my words. Either way, you’ve assigned motive to me. You’ll become increasingly in the minority. I have had a number of children that exceeds the replacement value or their two parents. So far, they seem to be convinced (contra “believe”) that my position has the superior virtue. While your ilk dies away and by marginalizing your opponents, attrition will eat away at the number of people who hold your position.
I, and my political brethren, will win in the end. And that’s what eats you up and causes you not to lose to me in a direct debate. It’s okay. I understand.
It’s inevitable. I’ve won the debate already. I’ll go back to being a lurker now.
Thank you for your attention to this matter.
Re:
Awww, is the widdle baby running away because he can’t get anyone here to join in his hatred? Like I said: you a bitch.
Door’s to your left; don’t come back now, y’hear? 👋
Re:
Yeah, it’s not like you’ve been doing those things starting from your first comment on this page, where some of us learned about your existence for the first time. What, do you teach your children not to assign motives to other people? Next, you’ll tell us that your political brethren don’t have any agency?
Crocodile-cry me a river.
Re:
Except those can be functionally the same thing. “More vigorously” in the Trump administration apparently means without due process, without regard to constitutional or human rights. What you intend or imagine when you say such things is irrelevant. You supported it. You’re currently seeing the result. If you can look at what’s happening now and not change your mind, you’re a lost cause.
You’ve said enough directly, and also ignored opportunities to correct misconceptions, that your motives have been expressed by you. You’re just a smug asshole who thinks he’s the smartest person in the room and no one else is clever enough to recognize the behavior pattern.
[citation needed] Trends for younger generation continue to be more left-leaning than right, with breaks for toxic media influence from the 4chan propaganda class a la Steve Bannon.
I love the blind confidence of this statement. My conservative father probably would have said the same thing when my siblings and I were kids. I was raised to be brain washed and in lockstep with conservative Christian values. None of my siblings or myself are religious or right wing at all. And my parents didn’t see the change coming. So you might be surprised that your kids won’t turn out as you expect.
What did you say about attributing things to people you disagree with? You’re grouping a significant amount of people together and saying they’re all going to die out?
If it didn’t creep you out to write that sentence, your radar is off.
You have never directly debated. There has been no declared debate. There have been no grounds discussed. There have been no terms agreed upon. And you continue to pretend that if you just say, “debate me, bro” that your sealion schtick will hold, even though it’s been transparently disingenuous from the start, called out multiple times, and you’ve never bothered to refute it.
But attributing this “that’s what eats you up” idea to others says a lot about you. You want to imagine that people you disagree with actually think you’re winning some kind of debate, as if debate is the game everyone wants to play and that the rules are clear, and you’re clearly winning them. You can’t conceive that people actually hold the convictions they express, that they actually want things to change. This isn’t a video game or a sports event. You don’t win by supposedly arguing better in your own mind or remaining calm or pretending to be reasonable while gaslighting people. Other people aren’t playing the game you think you’re playing.
Pure pigeon chess right here. I can’t say I’ve seen such a blatant example in a long while.
Re:
Thank you for your attention to this matter.
Yeah, go fuck yourself with that, mmmkay?