AOC Visits an X-Rated Burlesque Show

I made the point that I was not there. So these things are hearsay to me-- and to you, unless you were there. As to "documented facts--" only a very limited number of people know for certainty; those who saw the acts. And is there really any such thing as a documented fact of human interactions? Just as an example, consider the Warren Commission Report. Although I believe its *conclusion*, a majority of Americans don't. But it is, at its best, a conclusion; not a fact, such as gravity or air.

 

History and operational science.

 

There are facts that are real. I agree that you have to look at the claim and its supposed supporting evidence. On the other hand, I agree there are false allegations that have been presented as facts. I too don't think we have been told the truth about JFK's assassination or 9/11. I do believe that Abraham Lincoln was President of the United States and that WW2 happened.

 

Apparently Dems think it is okay to spit on people.

 

So such a casual reference to "documented facts" is not so much your thing-- other than in any accusation of immoral behavior against Trump. I sure get that.
BTW you never answered the question about MLK and a holiday with government and bank closings named for an "immoral man."

 

And if I were a betting man, I would wager that you will never get a simple answer from him/her.
An answer that rambles like a rabbit trail and never actually says anything of substance, but more “TRUMP BAD, OBAMA GOOD” chants.

 

Just-want-peace, you are an astute observer, do you think that both parties made a mistake by starting the 2020 election so soon? It seems to me that this means that nothing at all will pass Congress until 2021. It also means that the Democrats will lose the White House no matter what. Do you think that intelligent Democrats should start a third party and let the old blood-soaked Democrat Party go out of business?

 

Frankly, that is basically what I am praying for; for the dems to be so obliterated in ’20 that they will be unknown. Then some can start a replacement party that does not have an anti Christian/moral/America bias, AND can work to repair the damage liberals have wreaked on this nation.
Course I’d be happy if the rapture came real soon & all this became moot to us then!

 

One of the worst Democrats was Stephen A. Douglas and yet the left does nothing to dismantle his putrid legacy in Chicago.

 

????
Stephen A. Douglas - Wikipedia

During the Lincoln–Douglas debates, Douglas articulated the Freeport Doctrine, which held that territories could effectively exclude slavery despite the Supreme Court's ruling in the 1857 case of Dred Scott v. Sandford. Disagreements over slavery led to the bolt of Southern delegates

In order to provide for western expansion and the completion of a transcontinental railroad, Douglas favored incorporating parts of the vast unorganized territory located west of the Missouri River and east of the Rocky Mountains. In January 1854, he proposed to organize two new territories: Nebraska Territory, located west of Iowa, and Kansas Territory, located south of Nebraska Territory and west of Missouri. Under the doctrine of popular sovereignty, the citizens of each territory would determine the status of slavery. Douglas also reluctantly agreed to an amendment that would provide for the formal repeal of the Missouri Compromise. Aided by Jefferson Davis, Douglas convinced President Pierce to support his proposal.[29]

 

He was a slave owner. He was an opponent of abolition.

 

What did he have to do with Chicago? He opposed the Dred Scott Supreme Court decision and called for new territories to vote on slaves. He did not own slaves.

Lincoln and Douglas were the main candidates in the North, while most Southerners supported either Breckinridge or John Bell of the Constitutional Union Party. Campaigning throughout the country during the election, Douglas warned of the dangers of secession and urged his audiences to stay loyal to the United States. Ultimately, Lincoln's strong support in the North led to his victory in the election. After the Battle of Fort Sumter, Douglas rallied support for the Union, but he died in June 1861.

 

He was a slave owner. Yet Chicago has big monuments to a slave owner. Slavery is okay under Islam but Douglas was not Muslim as far as I know.

 

He was from Vermont and moved to Ill. He was NOT a slave owner. Where is the statue of him in Chicago?

 

Why do keep saying that he was not a slave owner?

On April 7, 1847, U.S. senator, congressman and Illinois state Supreme Court judge Stephen A. Douglas married Martha Denny Martin in Rockingham County. Martin was the daughter of Robert Martin, a planter who owned a large amount of property and slaves in North Carolina and Mississippi.

Educated at a Philadelphia finishing school, Martin met Douglas on a family visit to Washington, D.C., when North Carolina congressman and future governor David Reid introduced her to Douglas, his close friend. The two married shortly thereafter.

When her father died, Martha inherited a 2,500 acre-plantation in Mississippi and slaves. Douglas was designated as the property manager and received income for his services. When Martha died shortly after childbirth in 1853, her inheritance passed to Douglas.

First Marriage for Stephen A. Douglas Carried Heavy Baggage

 

True but it was a political problem for him since he was against slavery. His wife died young and he remarried. What does all this have to do with problems in Chicago as you initially stated?

"One of the worst Democrats was Stephen A. Douglas and yet the left does nothing to dismantle his putrid legacy in Chicago."