Is voting useless in the US?

[Cordel One]

They didn't want to ban slavery and you've said nothing to prove they did.. They wouldn't have owned slaves if they cared.

They would have if they could. It was impossible to do so at the time but you'd rather rewrite history to suit your radical agenda and your belief that the whole system is rigged so your candidates can't win.

If so, then it shouldn't be too difficult for you to provide some evidence that Washington, Jefferson, and the majority of the founders would have abolished slavery. I'd say it's pretty safe to say they wouldn't because Washington owned slaves and Jefferson raped his, but maybe you have some new information that could put these atrocities in a whole new light.

Progressives ran in primaries and in the general and some of them did not win. That does mean there is a mass conspiracy. It means not everyone agrees with you.

Not a mass conspiracy, just the party and most of the candidates teaming up to smear him.

[Sanghyeok]

Not a mass conspiracy, just the party and most of the candidates teaming up to smear him.

I would hardly call it a conspiracy when everything was out in the open anyways.

[San Lumen]

They would have if they could. It was impossible to do so at the time but you'd rather rewrite history to suit your radical agenda and your belief that the whole system is rigged so your candidates can't win.

If so, then it shouldn't be too difficult for you to provide some evidence that Washington, Jefferson, and the majority of the founders would have abolished slavery. I'd say it's pretty safe to say they wouldn't because Washington owned slaves and Jefferson raped his, but maybe you have some new information that could put these atrocities in a whole new light.

Progressives ran in primaries and in the general and some of them did not win. That does mean there is a mass conspiracy. It means not everyone agrees with you.

Not a mass conspiracy, just the party and most of the candidates teaming up to smear him.

How about you read a history book sometime or go to Wikipedia instead of rewriting history to suit your radical agenda and warped views?

Therefore no one should be allowed to endorse anyone in a primary? If he was so popular why did his numbers not change after super tuesday? he never broke the low to mid thirties?

Why should people who have no change of winning remain in the running? To help your guy or gal win? Winning via a fractured field is rarely a winning strategy.

[Cordel One]

If so, then it shouldn't be too difficult for you to provide some evidence that Washington, Jefferson, and the majority of the founders would have abolished slavery. I'd say it's pretty safe to say they wouldn't because Washington owned slaves and Jefferson raped his, but maybe you have some new information that could put these atrocities in a whole new light.


Not a mass conspiracy, just the party and most of the candidates teaming up to smear him.

How about you read a history book sometime or go to Wikipedia instead of rewriting history to suit your radical agenda and warped views?

How about you post some evidence? I've read a number of history books, but if I missed something it shouldn't be difficult for you to find.

I cut the last few questions because I no longer have the patience to repeat myself yet another time. Go back a few pages if you want my answers.

[San Lumen]

How about you read a history book sometime or go to Wikipedia instead of rewriting history to suit your radical agenda and warped views?

How about you post some evidence? I've read a number of history books, but if I missed something it shouldn't be difficult for you to find.

I cut the last few questions because I no longer have the patience to repeat myself yet another time. Go back a few pages if you want my answers.

why dont you other than the same non evidence?

Had you been at the convention the country would have never formed as you would have blown up the convention and the government collapses a few years later.

[-Ra-]

How about you post some evidence? I've read a number of history books, but if I missed something it shouldn't be difficult for you to find.

Wow. Truly we have stumbled upon a veritable scholar.

[Cordel One]

How about you post some evidence? I've read a number of history books, but if I missed something it shouldn't be difficult for you to find.

I cut the last few questions because I no longer have the patience to repeat myself yet another time. Go back a few pages if you want my answers.

why dont you other than the same non evidence?

The burden of proof is on you.

WIth that being said, I can give you sources that prove Washington is a slaveowner[url] and [url=https://www.vox.com/2016/4/8/11389556/thomas-jefferson-sally-hemings-book]Jefferson is a slave rapist. While I don't fully understand how they felt about slavery I'd say it's pretty fucking safe to assume that people who own and rape slaves aren't exactly big into abolition. Now it's your turn.

Had you been at the convention the country would have never formed as you would have blown up the convention and the government collapses a few years later.

I wouldn't want to be at the convention with those worms.

[San Lumen]

why dont you other than the same non evidence?

The burden of proof is on you.

WIth that being said, I can give you sources that prove Washington is a slaveowner[url] and [url=https://www.vox.com/2016/4/8/11389556/thomas-jefferson-sally-hemings-book]Jefferson is a slave rapist. While I don't fully understand how they felt about slavery I'd say it's pretty fucking safe to assume that people who own and rape slaves aren't exactly big into abolition. Now it's your turn.

Had you been at the convention the country would have never formed as you would have blown up the convention and the government collapses a few years later.

I wouldn't want to be at the convention with those worms.

No its on you. Your the one alleging that there was some mass conspiracy when people dropped out and endorsed Biden when that's the literal point of a primary. Everyone should stayed in to benefit your candidate?

And if they had done what you wanted the country would have collapsed several years later due to the how untenable the articles where but your incapable of understanding this and would rather rewrite history to suit a radical far left cancel culture agenda.

[Cordel One]

The burden of proof is on you.

WIth that being said, I can give you sources that prove Washington is a slaveowner[url] and [url=https://www.vox.com/2016/4/8/11389556/thomas-jefferson-sally-hemings-book]Jefferson is a slave rapist. While I don't fully understand how they felt about slavery I'd say it's pretty fucking safe to assume that people who own and rape slaves aren't exactly big into abolition. Now it's your turn.



I wouldn't want to be at the convention with those worms.

No its on you. Your the one alleging that there was some mass conspiracy when people dropped out and endorsed Biden when that's the literal point of a primary. Everyone should stayed in to benefit your candidate?

Answered that with evidence a few pages ago, we're talking about the founders now.

And if they had done what you wanted the country would have collapsed several years later due to the how untenable the articles where but your incapable of understanding this and would rather rewrite history to suit a radical far left cancel culture agenda.

The only revisionism that's happening here is your insistence that the founders cared about slaves. At this point I wouldn't be surprised if you believed Columbus landed on a bright sunny day where the natives taught all the settlers how to grow corn and happily gave up the whole continent.

[-Ra-]

why dont you other than the same non evidence?

The burden of proof is on you.

WIth that being said, I can give you sources that prove Washington is a slaveowner[url] and [url=https://www.vox.com/2016/4/8/11389556/thomas-jefferson-sally-hemings-book]Jefferson is a slave rapist. While I don't fully understand how they felt about slavery I'd say it's pretty fucking safe to assume that people who own and rape slaves aren't exactly big into abolition. Now it's your turn.

Had you been at the convention the country would have never formed as you would have blown up the convention and the government collapses a few years later.

I wouldn't want to be at the convention with those worms.

Washington was a slave owner in a time when it was acceptable for a man of his stature and position in the south to own slaves. Not to mention the fact that both Washington and Jefferson opposed slavery in their rhetoric. Washington got rid of all of his slaves upon his death, and Jefferson called for slavery's gradual abolition. You can call them hypocritical, but they were in no way outside of the standards of their time.

Though what is nuance for a commie?

[San Lumen]

No its on you. Your the one alleging that there was some mass conspiracy when people dropped out and endorsed Biden when that's the literal point of a primary. Everyone should stayed in to benefit your candidate?

Answered that with evidence a few pages ago, we're talking about the founders now.

And if they had done what you wanted the country would have collapsed several years later due to the how untenable the articles where but your incapable of understanding this and would rather rewrite history to suit a radical far left cancel culture agenda.

The only revisionism that's happening here is your insistence that the founders cared about slaves. At this point I wouldn't be surprised if you believed Columbus landed on a bright sunny day where the natives taught all the settlers how to grow corn and happily gave up the whole continent.

I learned history unlike you and realize that not everyone agrees with me politically. I dont think when my candidate loses its part of some mass conspiracy.

[Cordel One]

The burden of proof is on you.

WIth that being said, I can give you sources that prove Washington is a slaveowner[url] and [url=https://www.vox.com/2016/4/8/11389556/thomas-jefferson-sally-hemings-book]Jefferson is a slave rapist. While I don't fully understand how they felt about slavery I'd say it's pretty fucking safe to assume that people who own and rape slaves aren't exactly big into abolition. Now it's your turn.



I wouldn't want to be at the convention with those worms.

Washington was a slave owner in a time when it was acceptable for a man of his stature and position in the south to own slaves. Not to mention the fact that both Washington and Jefferson opposed slavery in their rhetoric. Washington got rid of all of his slaves upon his death, and Jefferson called for slavery's gradual abolition. You can call them hypocritical, but they were in no way outside of the standards of their time.

Owning slaves at a time when it was acceptable to have them is still racist. Furthermore, it's very hypocritical to talk about freedom when you own slaves.

By the way, Washington didn't get rid of all his slaves.

Though what is nuance for a commie?

2/10 bad insult, bad delivery.

Answered that with evidence a few pages ago, we're talking about the founders now.


The only revisionism that's happening here is your insistence that the founders cared about slaves. At this point I wouldn't be surprised if you believed Columbus landed on a bright sunny day where the natives taught all the settlers how to grow corn and happily gave up the whole continent.

I learned history unlike you and realize that not everyone agrees with me politically. I dont think when my candidate loses its part of some mass conspiracy.

If you learned history then it really shouldn't be this difficult for you to find evidence. Post some below, please.

[-Ra-]

Owning slaves at a time when it was acceptable to have them is still racist. Furthermore, it's very hypocritical to talk about freedom when you own slaves.

By the way, Washington didn't get rid of all his slaves.

Yeah, it is hypocritical. Your founding fathers are not gods on Mount Olympus. They were human beings with their advantages and faults. Judging them according to today's mores while ignoring the context in which they lived and the multiflorous legacy that they left is just arguing in bad faith. Sure, they owned slaves. That's obviously very bad. And it was hypocritical for them to speak of Lockean freedom when they owned slaves (especially since Locke himself was one of the earliest opponents of the institution). It is also dishonest to ignore that both of these men were morally opposed to slavery, and in fact, their treatment of the slaves on their plantations was rather progressive for the time. For the time of course being the operative word.

Washington freed most of his slaves when he died and instructed Martha to free the rest after. He is the only president to my knowledge to have done so.

2/10 bad insult, bad delivery.

Though seriously, if you want to talk hypocracy, just point to Karl Marx. The man was a lessee who married into a noble family and survived off of his collaborator Engel's lofty inheritance (and inheritance so large it lasts to this day).

[Cordel One]

Owning slaves at a time when it was acceptable to have them is still racist. Furthermore, it's very hypocritical to talk about freedom when you own slaves.

By the way, Washington didn't get rid of all his slaves.

Yeah, it is hypocritical. Your founding fathers are not gods on Mount Olympus.

Can you ay that a bit louder for San Lumen to hear?

They were human beings with their advantages and faults.

That's an understatement.

Judging them according to today's mores while ignoring the context in which they lived and the multiflorous legacy that they left is just arguing in bad faith.

If it makes you feel any better I hope someday society progresses to the point where I'm looked down on as a reactionary, but at least I never owned slaves.

Sure, they owned slaves. That's obviously very bad.

Ya think?

And it was hypocritical for them to speak of Lockean freedom when they owned slaves (especially since Locke himself was one of the earliest opponents of the institution). It is also dishonest to ignore that both of these men were morally opposed to slavery, and in fact, their treatment of the slaves on their plantations was rather progressive for the time. For the time of course being the operative word.

Don't try to apologize for them, they were slaveowners.

2/10 bad insult, bad delivery.

Though seriously, if you want to talk hypocracy, just point to Karl Marx. The man was a lessee who married into a noble family and survived off of his collaborator Engel's lofty inheritance (and inheritance so large it lasts to this day).

Marx acknowledges that.

[-Ra-]

Can you ay that a bit louder for San Lumen to hear?

I don't think San Lumen thinks they are Gods either. He is just trying to present a nuanced view of them, while you are being dogmatic and childish about it.

If it makes you feel any better I hope someday society progresses to the point where I'm looked down on as a reactionary, but at least I never owned slaves

I would hope that, if you in your lifetime did good for a people and a community, that people would still be willing to honour you for it and understand some of your "reactionary" takes as being part a product of the time. This isn't rocket science. This is just how history works.

Don't try to apologize for them, they were slaveowners.

Nobody's doing apologetics for their slavery. I think both San Lumen and I know that slavery is bad and George Washington and his crew were wrong for enslaving people. What we are saying, however, is that you are missing the key historical context in order to build your own narrative.

Marx acknowledges that.

Um really? George Washington and Thomas Jefferson also acknowledged that slavery was bad. Does Marx the Aristocrat also mention how he bangs up his maid and had a child with her after throwing her out of his house?

[Sanghyeok]

If it makes you feel any better I hope someday society progresses to the point where I'm looked down on as a reactionary, but at least I never owned slaves.

Now this is an excellent quote.

Though seriously, if you want to talk hypocracy, just point to Karl Marx. The man was a lessee who married into a noble family and survived off of his collaborator Engel's lofty inheritance (and inheritance so large it lasts to this day).

Marx acknowledges that.

Not to mention I don't understand how it's hypocritical at all.

[-Ra-]

If it makes you feel any better I hope someday society progresses to the point where I'm looked down on as a reactionary, but at least I never owned slaves.

Now this is an excellent quote.

We should make a commie circlejerk just for you two.

[Cordel One]

Oh, Luuumen...

...I'm still waiting on that evidence...

[San Lumen]

Oh, Luuumen...

...I'm still waiting on that evidence...

Evidence of what? That slavery could have been abolished in 1787? There is none as it was impossible.

It’s pathetic how you label anyone who disagrees with you as preferring the status quo or as neoliberals. This is why your wing doesn’t win many elections. You turn people off with rhetoric like this.

[-Ra-]

Oh, Luuumen...

...I'm still waiting on that evidence...

Weren't you supposed to be going to bed right now?

[Cordel One]

Oh, Luuumen...

...I'm still waiting on that evidence...

Evidence of what? That slavery could have been abolished in 1787? There is none as it was impossible.

It’s pathetic how you label anyone who disagrees with you as preferring the status quo or as neoliberals. This is why your wing doesn’t win many elections. You turn people off with rhetoric like this.

I already told you what I was looking for a few times now. I would like to see evidence that Washington, Jefferson, and most of the founders cared to begin with. I have given evidence to the contrary earlier, so if you'd please find a source like I've been asking for the past few pages that would be really great.

[-Ra-]

Evidence of what? That slavery could have been abolished in 1787? There is none as it was impossible.

It’s pathetic how you label anyone who disagrees with you as preferring the status quo or as neoliberals. This is why your wing doesn’t win many elections. You turn people off with rhetoric like this.

I already told you what I was looking for a few times now. I would like to see evidence that Washington, Jefferson, and most of the founders cared to begin with. I have given evidence to the contrary earlier, so if you'd please find a source like I've been asking for the past few pages that would be really great.

George Washington supported the abolition of slavery - "I never mean (unless some particular circumstance should compel me to it) to possess another slave by purchase: it being among my first wishes to see some plan adopted by the legislature by which slavery in the Country may be abolished by slow, sure, & imperceptible degrees."

He also said he sought "to liberate a certain species of property which I possess, very repugnantly to my own feeling."

Thomas Jefferson not only morally opposed slavery, under his leadership Virginia became one of the first polities in the world to abolish the slave trade.

Ben Franklin chaired the Pennsylvania Abolition Society

James Madison said that slavery is "dishonorable to the National character"

[Cordel One]

Thank you, Ra!

I already told you what I was looking for a few times now. I would like to see evidence that Washington, Jefferson, and most of the founders cared to begin with. I have given evidence to the contrary earlier, so if you'd please find a source like I've been asking for the past few pages that would be really great.

George Washington supported the abolition of slavery - "I never mean (unless some particular circumstance should compel me to it) to possess another slave by purchase: it being among my first wishes to see some plan adopted by the legislature by which slavery in the Country may be abolished by slow, sure, & imperceptible degrees."

He also said he sought "to liberate a certain species of property which I possess, very repugnantly to my own feeling."

I'll was unaware of that second quote and that raises him very slightly in my book. It's good that he was ashamed of his own hypocrisy, though it still doesn't clear him of it orhis other actions (though he's ashamed of that too). At the end of the day he was still a slaveowner and a war criminal who didn't really care enough to stop, and as such he is still complicit. A remorseful monster is still a monster.

Thomas Jefferson not only morally opposed slavery, under his leadership Virginia became one of the first polities in the world to abolish the slave trade.

Making Jefferson a much bigger hypocrite than Washington as that didn't stop him from being a rapist. Furthermore, abolition of the slave trade is not the same as abolishing slavery. It simply means the state had enough slaves that they could stop importing them.

Ben Franklin chaired the Pennsylvania Abolition Society

He was complicit and in support of slavery for most of his life, but at the end he changd his mind. Franklin didn't redeem himself, but at least he changed his mind.


Then there's John Adams, who I don't like but is exempt from the title of "worm" in my book.

James Madison said that slavery is "dishonorable to the National character"

He also owned over 100 slaves, so he's sorta in Jefferson's boat minus the rape.

Then of course there were the Southern founders.

[San Lumen]

Thank you, Ra!

George Washington supported the abolition of slavery - "I never mean (unless some particular circumstance should compel me to it) to possess another slave by purchase: it being among my first wishes to see some plan adopted by the legislature by which slavery in the Country may be abolished by slow, sure, & imperceptible degrees."

He also said he sought "to liberate a certain species of property which I possess, very repugnantly to my own feeling."

I'll was unaware of that second quote and that raises him very slightly in my book. It's good that he was ashamed of his own hypocrisy, though it still doesn't clear him of it orhis other actions (though he's ashamed of that too). At the end of the day he was still a slaveowner and a war criminal who didn't really care enough to stop, and as such he is still complicit. A remorseful monster is still a monster.

Thomas Jefferson not only morally opposed slavery, under his leadership Virginia became one of the first polities in the world to abolish the slave trade.

Making Jefferson a much bigger hypocrite than Washington as that didn't stop him from being a rapist. Furthermore, abolition of the slave trade is not the same as abolishing slavery. It simply means the state had enough slaves that they could stop importing them.

Ben Franklin chaired the Pennsylvania Abolition Society

He was complicit and in support of slavery for most of his life, but at the end he changd his mind. Franklin didn't redeem himself, but at least he changed his mind.


Then there's John Adams, who I don't like but is exempt from the title of "worm" in my book.

James Madison said that slavery is "dishonorable to the National character"

He also owned over 100 slaves, so he's sorta in Jefferson's boat minus the rape.

Then of course there were the Southern founders.

Do you listen to what anyone says or would you rather push your radical far left agenda?

What would you rather happened they push to end slavery and the country collapses because they couldn’t agree?

Washington couldn’t have abolished slavery while president and neither could Jefferson. It would have never passed congress.

[Cordel One]

Thank you, Ra!


I'll was unaware of that second quote and that raises him very slightly in my book. It's good that he was ashamed of his own hypocrisy, though it still doesn't clear him of it orhis other actions (though he's ashamed of that too). At the end of the day he was still a slaveowner and a war criminal who didn't really care enough to stop, and as such he is still complicit. A remorseful monster is still a monster.


Making Jefferson a much bigger hypocrite than Washington as that didn't stop him from being a rapist. Furthermore, abolition of the slave trade is not the same as abolishing slavery. It simply means the state had enough slaves that they could stop importing them.


He was complicit and in support of slavery for most of his life, but at the end he changd his mind. Franklin didn't redeem himself, but at least he changed his mind.


Then there's John Adams, who I don't like but is exempt from the title of "worm" in my book.


He also owned over 100 slaves, so he's sorta in Jefferson's boat minus the rape.

Then of course there were the Southern founders.

Do you listen to what anyone says or would you rather push your radical far left agenda?

I'd rather listen to what people say and push my radical far left agenda.

What would you rather happened they push to end slavery and the country collapses because they couldn’t agree?

If there were only two options? Hell yes.

Washington couldn’t have abolished slavery while president and neither could Jefferson. It would have never passed congress.

Washington and Jefferson wouldn't have abolished slavery even if they could.