Posted on 12/01/2018 6:53:20 PM PST by C19fan
It’s not “phony” when you get 48 percent in a mega-state. People in TX showed how easily they too can be conned. TCruz did run a lousy campaign for sure.
The closest Beto “The Phony Hispanic” O’Rourke will ever come to Lincoln is if he does another drunken hit-and-run while driving a Lincoln.
Win a small plurality in a four-way race and then instigate a civil war?
No thanks.
lol
I meant his whole persona is phony. I’m sad that so many people were duped. He’s being groomed, just like that guy Lamb in Pennsylvania, and all he has is his looks. And how many of the votes were fake? We had better get a handle on voter fraud or no Republican will ever win an election again.
Blacks are getting massively outvoted by both Hispanics and Millennials who want a "cool" President. Beto promises to deliver two out of the three, so Cory and Kamala have to go to the back of the bus. :)
I wasn’t aware that Lincoln had $38 million to spend to get the Oval Office.
I see the connection. Both Lincoln and Beto The Fake Mexican were/are partial to hot spicy food. After that not so much. This is a ridiculous premise.
Thank you!
I wonder if Beto sleeps with his male body guard? Who knew Lincoln was married to a rich women?
Oh, stop!
Beto could get a lot of enthusiastic young supporters in the primaries, the way Bernie did. If that happens, all of the other white male candidates are toast. But it is hard to see the Democrats putting a white male at the head of the ticket. The last time they won with a white male nominee was 1996.
Anyway they have such a slew of attractive non-white and/or non-male candidates eager to run--Liz Warren, Kamaltoe Harris, Spartacus Booker, Eric Holder, maybe Oprah or Michelle. But can the DNC prevent Hillary from becoming the nominee again?
“Oh, stop!”
It’s true. Lincoln was elected in 1860 with just 39 percent of the popular vote.
Look it up.
And Trump was elected with just 45 percent of the popular vote. But Lincoln took 59% of the electoral vote and Trump took 57%. That's all that matters.
“And Trump was elected with just 45 percent of the popular vote. But Lincoln took 59% of the electoral vote and Trump took 57%. That’s all that matters.”
Lincoln claimed to have the authority to arrest and imprison without trial voters and elected officials opposed to his policies. That’s all that matters.
Once the ruling class accepted the notion that governments do not derive their just powers from the consent of the governed, anything was possible. That’s all that matters
Whatever moral authority Lincoln had to kill 600,000 people he would have had no matter the number of votes. That’s all that matters.
Since you're changing the subject from your original post, then I think the designated hitter rule is the ruination of baseball. That's all that matters.
This thread is about Beto and parallels to Lincoln. It may come as a surprise to you but I have concerns about both men.
Your gaffe ("That's all that matters") referenced Lincoln's electoral victory while ignoring Lincoln's ensuing gratuitous war that killed over 600,000 people.
Lincoln did not have to "fight to free the slaves"; he could have done that at anytime through the peaceful constitutional amendment process. He could have started when he served in Congress.
I hope I did not do wrong when I went outside the bubble and provided additional context about Lincoln's disastrous presidency.
Nothing about you surprises me, but I'll point out that your original post I responded to was about Lincoln's election results. Your implication that Lincoln's election was somehow illegitimate as a result would mean that you must think Trump's election is the same?
Your gaffe ("That's all that matters") referenced Lincoln's electoral victory while ignoring Lincoln's ensuing gratuitous war that killed over 600,000 people.
No, it ignores your moronic claims that Lincoln was somehow solely responsible for the war and the over 600,000 deaths that the rebellion cause.
DWI Beto.
“No, it ignores your moronic claims that Lincoln was somehow solely responsible for the war and the over 600,000 deaths that the rebellion cause.”
I don’t remember making the claim that Lincoln was “solely responsible” for the war - maybe I did and forgot about it. But it doesn’t seem reasonable that I would make that exaggeration knowing how careful I am to understate things.
But I will say this: Without Jefferson Davis, the South secedes anyway and peacefully establishes the Confederate States of America.
Without Abraham Lincoln, the North does not invade the South and there would have been no war.
Sure, other bad things would have happened. The North would have lost some tariff revenue. It would have taken longer to end slavery using the peaceful method. Coffin sales would have remained flat. The graft and corruption opportunities of the Grant administration would have been lost.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.