New poll reveals how most Americans feel about Confederate statues

And the fact that national opinion polls were correct for the 2016 election. Meaning they are likely correct in measuring approval.

 

Exit polls ... those are the only polls that matter. Democrats putting their blind faith in polls, helped us put Trump in the WH. How many DNC voters stayed home beause MSM said "landslide"? Good stuff!

 

Including the right wing TC of this thread. You're even posting in one of them.

The irony and hypocrisy is off the charts.

P.S. National opinion polls were correct.

 

PF allows posters to create "polls" which let respondents vote. This isn't one of them. I didn't comment on the accuracy of any polls. I opined that exit polls are the ones that matter most. There's neither irony, or hypocrisy in my post. There's a simple food for thought question. Did polls predicting a Clinton landslide impact democratic voter turn out? I think we both know the answer, but only one of us is unhappy with it.

 

I'm not a democrat, and I do not like HIllary. Who was unhappy?

 

Not the subject or relevent to the post you felt compelled to reply to. You clearly were / are trolling we have nothing to debate.

 

No, I just found it funny how people using the poll in the OP are ignoring the very first page of that poll, which paints a poor picture for Trump. They go from using a poll to saying polls are incorrect on the same thread and it's glorious ownage.

 

Yes. People see what they want to see. Polls are based on opinions, not real data. As I've indicated, exit polls, at least in the political arena, are the only material ones. Most often, the pollsters begin with a disclaimer of one type or another. My favorite ... "likely voters".

 

You ignore Progs/Democrtas division tactics and dirty means to gain Euro trash socialism for the last several decades but yet manage to gulp down white nationalist with a national membership of what as a serious threat? Then try to paint every Republican with this broad brush of being racist all the while The Democratic hate groups are funded and thriving, hold elected office.

Plenty of sane brothers and sisters of color on youtube that would like to bitch slap the perpetual Democratic State of SJW/ANTIFA/BLM/LBGTXYZ division theater.

Here you go....this is two of many articles and vids....

Martin Luther King Jnr.'s pro-life niece reveals on MLK Day she voted for Donald Trump: https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct...p.html&usg=AFQjCNG584ZSAU4Loja0hW4QEg4GOE_6eg




So go back into your dark corner, I do not subscribe to the progs hate ridden party that has politicized skin color for gain and managed to keep them on the plantation. Oh...and if you have not figured it out by now, most people of color learned to speak and advocate for themselves.......yes, they can even read and hold jobs and are involved in the community and churches.

Amazing.

 

Actually it doesn't. It is easy to quote mine any history to make any event "all about" whatever is being advocated. Since the fake history "the CW was all or almost all about slavery" lie narrative is pervasive throughout Complex/statist/collectivist academia, and has been for many decades, it's no wonder the actual balanced causes of the CW are rarely discussed. If they are listed here, for example, false narrators will merely repeat the same quotes over and over instead of engaging the -plethora- of actual causes of the CW.

One aspect of dumbed down Walmart/mass U.S. culture is a lazy/dishonest view of causality, particularly as pertains to historical trends and events. A glaring example seen often here is a chart plotting "wealth/income disparity" with the decline of unions as if lower union membership created multibillionaires as opposed to the actual causes, tech/telecomm/computer/net boom of a world-historical nature in which billions of people the world over have lined up to trade $$ voluntarily to tech moguls for pocket miracles unheard of just a few decades in the past. The CW/slavery lie narrative is a similar example of intellectual laziness/dishonesty.

The CW took place less than 100 years after central statism was somewhat slyly manipulated onto people who, for the first time in history since ancient times, had a vision of public life with far less central statist control. They saw the handwriting on the wall with Washington overreaching and power grab, and though only a very small percentage owned slaves, gave their very lives and families' security to fight for an ideal of small, more local government.

Why did so many people who didn't own slaves or benefit from the slave economy fight for the South if the war was mostly or all about slavery? It wasn't.

 

First of all, that was the kick-off speech for the CSA! That isn't quote mining. It came from the top of that administration.

Plus, I pointed out that it is confirmed by the articles of the CSA constitution as well as by the documents from several of the states in their statements of why they were seceding.

If you haven't read these documents, then it is YOU who is lazy. And, if you HAVE read them, well, it's hard to explain why you would say what you just said (if you get my drift).

 

Why are you bringing up whigs? Is there something wrong with your internal timeline?
The republicans NEVER embraced white supremacy. And you cannot make a factual argument or you would have done so already.

 

I just showed you that the realignment was indeed real - the point I addressed.

If you aren't aware of the players, I'm not sure what I can do for you. I'm not going to write a history lesson and it would appear you aren't interested in it anyway.

 

Unresponsive.

 

You can't write a history lesson - you're dreaming it up.

 

It's widely documented and not contested. It is known history. Why are the RW posters here so anti-facts.

http://www.history.com/news/how-the-party-of-lincoln-won-over-the-once-democratic-south

 

http://www.politicalforum.com/index...ns-want-confederate-statues-to-remain.512483/

Seeing that the Confederate statues are falling like dead leaves in a tornado the 62% number in favor of them is BS.

 

You're just not saying anything.
George Wallace was running as a Democrat in 72. Not a republican. David Duke switches sides on a regular basis. You cannot paint a party by who Duke is hanging with this year. You can question it when the party leaders are bonefide members of the KKK, like Robert Byrd; and Hillary who loved him and called him her mentor, and Hillary when she described "superpredators".

You will never see anything in Republican doctrine that remotely supports anything racist. However, you will see it, and we can still see it, in the Democratic doctrine of enslaving every one through social services, standing on the premise that people of color aren't smart enough to register to vote, that they aren't smart enough to compete and so need a free pass, constantly reminding them of the era of slavery and always in the most humiliating depictions possible... the list goes on and on.
Malcom X said this about Democrats when they got 80% of the black votes in 1964:

 

You're telling me the History Channel (among dozens of other sources) is wrong, and not providing any factual citation in doing so.

Just stop.

 

...And what did the polls say about Trump winning?

 

They fought against the settlers before there was a US as we know it.