I understand your "point" but I reject it because it patently ignores the one I was making when I first posed the question.
Tucker Case - Tard magnet.
So, back to...
Who said it doesnt matter. Disagree? Why?
Why it was said doesnt matter. Disagree? Why?
Where it was said doesn't matter Disagree? Why?
That anyone said it at all -- doesn't matter.
All -you- want to do here is -avoid- the question.
Who said it does not matter in this case.
Why it was said does matter, it's context. What is the person trying to say.
Where it was said in this case did not matter. It may in other cases.
That any one said it at all does matter, since without some one saying it, you would never have made this thread to try and trap people.
All -you- want to do here is try and -trap- people so -you- can say -gotcha-. If it was not the case, you would have supplied the context. I repeat, you cannot judge any comment properly without the context.
Of those 8 planks two dealt DIRECTLY with segregation by name saying it should be in place.
Of the other 6 are reasonable to assume, based on the Dixiecrat's legislative goals and their comments on the campaign trail and prior to the campaign, dealt greatly with their views in regards to segregation and their belief that it was harmful to human rights and a danger to the country.
The entire platform of the Dixiecrats was pretty much rooted in the notion that segregtation was needed and the government should not have the power to tell the states they must stop segregation.
Trent Lott choose to make a generalized, BROAD statement, on his own accord that endorsed Strom Thurmonds run during that time stating that if he had won the country wouldn't have the problems we face now.
Strom Thurmonds parties platforms spefically was for segregation and was broadly focused almost singularly on it. Whether or not Trent Lott was speaking specifically about segregation, he choose to speak broadly about Strom Thurmond and broadly would HAVE to include the segregationist views becuase that was the CORE of Strom Thurmonds presidential run. This would be like suggesting that if someone said we'd have been better off with Republicans in power that they aren't actually endorsing limited government. Segregationism was the core of the Dixiecrat philosophy and their motivating factor in wanting more powerful state rights.
This is a case of Trent Lott endorsing someone whose history during the time period Lott was referencing was unquestionably known as being focused around segregationism. It is incumbant about Trent, if he doesn't want the OBVIOUS and reasonable context to be what is considered, to clarify his comments.
If Strom Thurmand had won the Presidency the main focus of said presidency would've been the strengthening of states rights to assure that segregation continued. This was the entire point of the Dixiecrats. One can not possibly say we would be better off had they won without clarifying that they're not speaking about segregationism and expect people to believe you mean anything other than that. That was their BIGGEST singular issue and influenced their ENTIRE platform, its completely reasonable to assume if you're supporting said platform then you're supporting the core thing motivating it.
"I am appalled that somebody who is the nominee...would take that kind of position"
"A court took away a presidency"
"...the brother of a man running for president was the governor of the state..."
It's horrifying because Trump is blunt instead of making overt implications.
Knowing this, how does your answer change?
This was clarified. Sorry that you werent paying attention, but that's on you.What is the person trying to say.
Knowing that someone did or did not say it, how does your answer change?That any one said it at all does matter...
... avoid the question.All -you- want to do here is...
All you ARE doing is embarassing yourself.
2001-2008: Dissent is the highest form of patriotism.
2009-2016: Dissent is the highest form of racism.
2017-? (Probably): Dissent is the highest form of misogyny.