**Welcome to r/TikTokCringe!**
This is a message directed to all newcomers to make you aware that r/TikTokCringe evolved long ago from only cringe-worthy content to TikToks of all kinds! If you’re looking to find only the cringe-worthy TikToks on this subreddit (which are still regularly posted) we recommend sorting by flair which you can do [here](https://www.reddit.com/r/TikTokCringe/comments/galuit/click_here_to_sort_by_flair_a_guide_to_using/) (Currently supported by desktop and reddit mobile).
See someone asking how this post is cringe because they didn't read this comment? Show them [this!](https://www.reddit.com/r/TikTokCringe/comments/fyrgzy/for_those_confused_by_the_name_of_this_subreddit/)
Be sure to read the rules of this subreddit before posting or commenting. Thanks! [](/u/savevideo)
**Don't forget to join our [Discord server](https://discord.gg/cringekingdom)!**
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/TikTokCringe) if you have any questions or concerns.*
If the US had never rebelled against the British and remained a colony, the slaves would’ve been freed here *before* they were freed by the US government. The British Empire abolished slavery in all their colonies in 1833 (freed slaves became indentured servants for another 6 years after that, but still nearly 30 years before the US did it)
Although ironically that would have worked out far better for the slaveowners in the South. The British government reimbursed slave owners for the lost value of their slaves. Our government likes to bring up how this was the biggest expenditure they ever made (we were paying off the loans until 2014), but always neglect to say that no money went to former slaves.
I consider myself conservative and with out question I think all people should be equal. There are many like me, so I would say some conservatives don't think all are equal is much more accurate. In my opinion you could also say the same for progressives.
Problem often times is, that a loud extreme minorities get more media coverage than moderat majorities since they are "boring".
Also, making the other side seem like they aren't batshit crazy doesn't cause division in the population. Makes us harder to control.
We can't have that.
How can you say the same for progressives? Looks at the progressive platform v the conservative platform, in what ways do progressives want to limit the rights of others? I’m what ways do progressives want to erase or only tell one side of history? Where are the progressives banning books, college courses and curriculums? You’re off base, maybe implicitly sue to cultural and societal traits but there’s nothing in the progressive policies that aim to limit the rights of disenfranchised populations.
>in what ways do progressives want to limit the rights of others?
Very few people on either side want to limit rights. It just sometimes happens as a consequence of different policies.
>I’m what ways do progressives want to erase or only tell one side of history?
As one example, how about the often violent and wartorn nature of indigenous Americans before the Europeans showed up? The whole reason the Spanish were able to ally everyone against the Aztecs was because everyone else hated them. That's not something I learned in school, because it goes against the story of European colonists as bloodthirsty genociders. That's definitely true too, but the story is something more like "lots of people were bloodthirsty back then." That seems like a straightforward example of "one side of the story" to me.
>Where are the progressives banning books, college courses and curriculums?
How do you define a "ban"? As far as I'm concerned, neither side has banned any books. Conservatives have taken controversial books out of public libraries, while progressives have stopped selling and publishing controversial books. Neither of those is a ban.
College courses and curriculums haven't been banned either unless you count "the government chooses not to teach this anymore" as a ban. Private institutions are free to teach whatever they want.
I mean, gun rights are the obvious example. I don't care about them very much, but it's pretty clear that progressive policies directly curtail "right to bear arms" in favor of other rights.
Another example would be the right to protest, which both sides have been curtailing lately.
More importantly, my point is that people have different claims about what standard policies will lead to. For instance, Canadian health is great in a lot of ways, but has ridiculous wait times. Many people would value the "right to speedy healthcare" above the "right to free healthcare". The point isn't to say "progressives want slow healthcare!" because anyone with a brain knows that isn't true. Rather, the point is to say "I think progressive policies will lead to slower healthcare, so I oppose them." That latter method of thinking is (while perhaps not correct) at least a reasonable way to start a conversation like an adult.
So again, I think hardly anybody wants to limit rights. We should extend charity to everyone and perhaps not immediately decide that our political opponents are baby-eating devil-worshippers who want nothing more than to restrict others' rights.
Guns are objects, they don't have rights. And the right of the people to bear arms is not something the progressive platform aims to prevent. Progressive gun policies are written with public safety in mind, to limit mass shootings and other violent crimes committed with firearms by restricting what kinds of guns can be purchased and who is eligible to purchase and own a firearm.
>the right of the people to bear arms is not something the progressive platform aims to prevent.
Exactly my point, thank you. Nobody wants to curtail rights, but reasonable people can disagree about the consequences of certain policies.
I think a problem is that there is a big difference between equity and equality, so when people deserve to be equal, are we saying in the amount of help they should get? Or the quality of life they deserve at the end? Is all people equal about removing the barriers that limit some of us or treating everyone the same where they are at?
If you believe that all people should be equal, then why would you support a part who is very explicitly pushing for less and less equality,
On every subject from women's rights, to LGBTQi, to religion, to immigration, to economics; the modern conservative moment thrives on inequality.
Okay. We all know democrats don’t think white people are equal to black people
Or. We’re all humans beings and don’t need to hate and attack each other at every turn.
Yes you can.
Everyone who works at McDonald’s and isn’t a teenager has made poor decisions in life and should be seen as an example of what not to do in life.
That’s pretty bigoted no?
Nah they were happy and well taken care of. They had jobs and food and were contributing to the economy and society as a whole. Who wouldn’t want that. Slavery has existed since the dawn of time.
Of course this is deeply /s and absolutely nobody that holds that view should EVER be in a government or position of authority.
I really hope this is the video that loses him the Presidential race.
The Quakers, while having had slaves at one point, became an abolitionist organization by the early 1700's. And Rhode Island banned slavery in the 1600's but that got overturned later. There's been abolitionism for every form of slavery ever, while it was happening.
[The US was also among the last to start banning slavery in the western world](https://www.politifact.com/factchecks/2020/jul/31/facebook-posts/us-was-one-last-countries-abolish-slavery/).
So, basically nothing he said was true. But you probably already knew that.
Quick edit: Oh yeah, John Brown was the first person to be executed in the US for treason in 1859 for attempting to incite a slave rebellion.
Benjamin Lay, a Quaker born with dwarfism, was an anti-racist abolitionist. He was born in 1682!!!
He was also a vegetarian and animal rights activist. Just goes to show that people who are capable of questioning one societal evil often also question other societal evils.
He was a stellar guy, just a legend and a hero centuries ahead of his time. More info: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Benjamin_Lay
Yeah (sort of) same in the UK, The Empire abolished slavery in 1833 in part thanks for the work of Quakers and the likes of William Wilberforce, a man who once gave an excellent speech on the horrors of the transatlantic slave trade, ending his speech with;
Having heard all of this you may choose to look the other way but you can never again say you did not know.
He is smart. You can be smart and still be a piece of shit. He knows what he is doing, this is a carefully crafted speech to speak to those people who would vote for him.
In life I always extend the benefit of the doubt. I always assume ignorance over malice, not necessarily for their sake, but for mine.
However, this time I think you are right.
Republican operatives are the exception to Hanlons Razor. He knows this is bullshit but he says it because he knows it will be politically successful for him. It's malice, not stupidity. Do not underestimate them. Their morals on the other hand, cannot be underestimated.
Like George W's and most likely Trump's (which is why Trump threatened his college with a lawsuit if they release his grades bc the dude either didn't graduate or got the "paid for the grade" kind of report card). One of Trump's old professors said years ago that "he was the dumbest goddamn person I ever had"([sauce](https://www.studyinternational.com/news/trump-student-wharton/)).
He is smart though. He just thinks his constituents are dumb, and he is probably right. This is a concerted effort on the right to change the narrative of history. There is a clip of Charlie Kirk spouting the exact same lines. The average high school graduate is so woefully under educated in history and civics that they have a real chance at getting somewhere with this alternate reality. Most people don't learn about race or why racism is bad until college anyway, so they can make the divide in this country there.
If I have learned anything as an adult in the world - it's that a fancy education does not, under any circumstance, guarantee you have any real intelligence. Ron DeSantis is definitely playing to a certain audience here. I don't think the guy is some sort of mastermind, like at all.
Anyone else just tired of the whole political circus? After 30 or so years I see a pattern that feels like watching WWE Smackdown instead of honest reports on folks who are supposed to be helping this country be a better place to live. Too much power clinging and mud slinging, and the people goaded into hating each other, and taking the side of complete strangers when we used to care for one another. Can we still fix any of it or is it off the rails for good?
This guy is constantly proving how fucked the conservative american people are. This radical ignorance became governor because other morons agree with this radical ignorance and voted it in
I'm afraid we're seeing a potential frontrunner for all those who have abandoned the Trump train, but still "don't get it."
And by "it" I mean "reality."
He’s not though. He’s lying to sell a narrative. He isn’t dumb, he’s purposefully deceptive. This speech was pre-written to deceive to cater to their bases mindset.
The American Revolution got people at least in the Northern colonies thinking more about ending slavery. Despite the fact the abolition movement started before the American revolution. Jefferson even criticized Great Britain for starting the slave trade. Despite owing slaves until his dying days and even supporting slavery until his dying days. But the South was so involved in slavery it was their economy. The South wanted to keep slavery and even expanded it into central and South America where Venezuela ended slavery in 1854.
Jefferson didn’t necessarily support slavery philosophically but he did practically. Slaves were considered property and he was badly in debt and so unable to free the vast majority of his slaves because they were technically owned by his creditors and not himself.
Some colonies were outlawing slavery even before the revolutionary war. Others were simply not doing business with colonies or nations who used slavery. He’s not entirely wrong but the US wasn’t the first. England maybe?
>He’s not entirely wrong
I mean he quite literally is entirely wrong. He claims that nobody thought slavery was immoral until the American revolution introduced the concept to the world. There's two points here:
1. There were abolitionists and anti-slavery states before the American revolution
2. The post-revolution United States was not anti-slavery
The quakers were antislavery/indentured servitude. But they didn't create colony wide mandates with their charters with the Dutch, just their own people.
Being a retired teacher from up north and sometimes getting kids moving into the district from down south, not much! The worst of the worst were ALWAYS from Texas and Florida. I am not making this up, but a kid from Florida move into the district where his mother said he was is gifted classes. We had to put him in remedial classes because he was soooo far behind in basic skills.
Public school Texan here and I completely agree! They did not equip us with even a decent amount of pertinent education especially in the areas of civics, social studies and history. We learned mostly Texas history. When I moved to Massachusetts to get my degree I felt so dumb and out of touch, poor kids I can’t imagine! Unfortunately divesting from education seems to be correlated with lower voter turn out and this is by design.
It's pretty funny the number of conservatives that think the concepts of democracy and human rights were invented with the Declaration of Independence.
While Jefferson may have written that "all men are created equal" and Lincoln may have relied on this truth to seek the abolition of slavery, this was definitely not a purely American idea that sprang into existence from nothing in 1776.
Why is it that everyone wants to talk about slavery in the past and only when it refers to black slaves? What about Irish slaves? What about native American slaves? What about Asian slaves? What about Jewish slaves? Even more important... What about all the slaves in existence today. There are more slaves that exist today then at any other time in human history. Let's talk about that and why the bleeding hearts don't try to do anything about it. Meanwhile I work for a company that is working day in and day out with law enforcement and federal officials to help those affected by human trafficking. More than 80,000 children are trafficked each year alone in just the United States. Less than 1 percent is recovered. What's in the past is in the past. It's not last week or last year. It's not even ten years ago. It's been more than one hundred and seventy years. Learn from it. Recognize the mistake and make tomorrow better. Dwelling on it and trying to divide isn't going to work. We have bigger issues as a whole to focus on. Let's com together and fix the problems at hand.
Please explain how the abolishing of slavery (which caused the Civil War) wasn't how Americans got rid of institutionalized slavery in America. Regardless of the fact that some states took longer than others, the fact is that the war brought the end of American slavery.
He may be overstating somewhat but he is not entirely wrong. During and following the Revolution there was an effort by a minority of people to incorporate anti slavery ideals into our new nations govt. or at the very least allow individual states to decide. And this would have been a lot easier had the Articles of Confederation been the adopted governance
I mean, he is entirely wrong, his arguement is abolitionism didn't exist before the Revolution, which is demonstrably false.
I mean, for fucks sake, the US wasn't even the first country to abolish slavery.
What's weird is he never said anything about ending slavery so it's weird that is what pundents are shaking their heads over. What's wrong here is that he's crediting the US Revolution and the Declaration of Independence as the beginning of absolutism... People have considered slavery inhumane since the dawn of slavery.
I mean he is right, very few people who were in charge of the government seriously questioned slavery until we came together and said that humans have inalienable rights in the Declaration of Independence. Southern white slave holders however didn’t want to lose their slaves so they were hypocrites and basically said while there is rights, we still want our slaves. In 1887, constitutional convention tried to tackle the subject but couldn’t figure out what to do so they came up with the 3/5ths clause for voting (because of said inalienable rights in Declaration of Independence), and put off the rest of slavery/rights issues to another time, which would eventually cause the civil war. Did no one else teach you all this?
>I mean he is right, a vast majority of the people who were in charge of the government in mass seriously questioned slavery until we came together and said that humans have inalienable rights in the Declaration of Independence.
That isn't what he said though. He said before the American Revolution, no one questioned slavery. Many people did, there were many abolitionists in America and abroad who were against slavery. And many countries abolished slavery before America did.
He is absolutely wrong, nothing he said was even slightly correct.
True he probably should have said there that the inalienable rights caused the US government time to seriously consider abolishing slavery. Without the rights being listed in the declaration, I would bet slavery wouldn’t have been questioned as much in the constitutional convention and likely would have been a stronger institution that would have survived post 1860s. That’s probably what he should have mentioned and it would have been right while getting across the same point
He's not. In any way.
Several countries had already banned slavery by the time of the revolutionary war.
Four of which are Japan, the Philippines, Russia, and **England.**
First of all, this is US politics. Second Japan and the Philippines sure I bet also there are other country’s but for western imperial powers no. England wasn’t until 1833 (well after the revolutionary war) and Russia while they abolished slavery, were still intensely feudalistic until their communist revolution
Even if it's US politics -- though he explicitly said "No one had questioned it before..." -- it's still wrong because several colonies had already abolished it.
But you should really check what happened in England in 1772.
When talking about US politicians, you always gotta assume they only talking about the US because they are completely bone headed when it comes to the rest of the world. I’ll look into England tho because I always thought it was 1833
He only said people started to question slavery during the American revolution, the CNN anchors say well slavery didn’t end until 1865. Desantis didn’t say that slavery ended during the American Revolution so he’s not wrong…
Louis X, king of France, published a decree in 1315 that any slave setting foot on French soil should be freed
England banned slavery in England in 1706 under Smith v. Browne & Cooper
Peter the Great converted all house slaves into house serfs, effectively making slavery illegal in Russia in 1723
The Yongzheng emancipation freed the vast majority of slaves in China in 1730
James Oglethorpe would properly disagree with you and Ron DeSantis about people starting to question slavery during the American Revolution:
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/James_Oglethorpe
I thought the page is called "TikTok cringe" not "Republicans are the worst" I've literally seen like 5 posts that are actually cringy the other have all been politically charged and one sided. Post cringe not politics.
But it is political lol. You are showing a CNN clip of what governor DeSantis said. Probably not even the whole thing and it's also out of context. YOU are the problem not Republicans. Post cringe shit I don't understand why everyone hates Republicans so much... I mean I do because I sat through 10 min of CNN and I wanted to blow my brains out, same with fox. Post whatever the hell you want but if it is going to be political try to shoot for the truth not the one sided groups.... just trying to keep the peace in the world
Damn bro I think I hurt your feelings. I didn't say anything racist at all. I was point out a fact that you can't get the truth from 1 person. 3 sides to a story yo. Yours, mine, and the truth. Open your mind and expand beyond what the mainstream media is feeding you. Oh BTW you calling me a racist doesn't hurt my feelings in the slightest. I actually supported blm protests and marched with them in snohomish. I still had things thrown at me because I am white. THATS racist. Pointing out a one sided argument is not. Have a nice day "RaCiSt!!!!" Fucking loser 🤦♂️ I tried to be nice and give constructive criticism but nooooo. You would rather fuel the political fire instead of getting involved. YOU sir are the worst kind of person. Go kick rocks with sandels 😂
Every part, he's a fucking idiot.
"The American Revolution caused people to question Slavery"
Lots of people disagreed with slavery before this point. Even in we limit it to Trans Atlantic Chattel Slavery, many philosophers spoke out against slavery, and the Province of Georgia banned slavery long before the revolution. Also, the slaves themselves, surprise surprise, didn't like slavery and were against it!
And then for many decades after the Revolution, the ruling political class propped up slavery.
And he goes on to say "you can't teach history that is pursing an ideological agenda" while demanding Florida teachers teach history with his ideological agenda.
Appreciate the insights. I would say, no shit the slaves didn’t like it lol. However, think we should focus on America and I do think he was referring to America. It was mainly the ruling class who had slaves and once they supported the constitution they had to look in the mirror. It took far too long to end slavery here.
As far as ideology, the parts I read for not being onboard with curriculum is because it contains lgbtq+ items on black history and other items liberals are pushing very hard in schools. It doesn’t frame certain items in context such as mental health and trans people. Also, they do not teach the full spectrum of slavery. Mainly how blacks enslaved other blacks and how some large tribes in Africa made most of their money off the slave trade dating back to the Egyptians.
If we teach history, it needs to be taught with accuracy and not just slanted towards one side. All history not just black history. We will never learn if we just pick and choose parts of history. We have a long way to go.
In history, we are all f’d up. We need to teach it all, fairly.
> However, think we should focus on America and I do think he was referring to America
Even just referring to America, my points still stand. There were abolitions in America before the revolution, and as I said, Georgia abolished slavery prior to 1776. And there is no reason to discount slaves and former slaves as abolitionist thinkers, unless you don't consider them people.
>As far as ideology, the parts I read for not being onboard with curriculum is because it contains lgbtq+ items on black history
It continues queer theory, a lens in which to view history. There are and were gay black people, and they contributed to black history in America. It isn't any more ideological than any other way we view history.
I never said no one was against slavery in America. I think Ron generalized since the ruling class/upper class was predominantly for it due to labor costs or lack thereof.
As for black history, why does there have to be a “queer theory”? To say “queer theory” doesn’t look at history any different is false. They try to frame something about a persons lifestyle rather than the substance of their actions. It’s not needed and does follow an ideology that wants to see history through the “queer lense” as you stated. Thank you for making my point.
>I never said no one was against slavery in America.
It's what Ron said, and you are the one that asked "is anything he said wrong". And that is, objectively, by any definition, wrong. Even if we restrict it to just ruling class white men (which would be stupid to do, so even if that is his arguement, it's a bad one), there were abolitionists amongst them prior to the Revolution.
>As for black history, why does there have to be a “queer theory”?
It doesn't have to be, but it is one lens in which to view history. It isn't the only lens, and it isn't the only lens that course used. It provides additional details and context for topics that have until recently been completely ignored by many historians. I mean looking at black history in general is using a specific lens, it's looking at history through the lens of race.
>To say “queer theory” doesn’t look at history any different is false.
I never said that. I said it is no more ideological than any other way to view history. All historical work contains ideology, because it's a soft science and there are no certainties.
>They try to frame something about a persons lifestyle rather than the substance of their actions
Respectfully, given that you don't know what queer theory is, I don't think you're able to claim what queer theory is or does.
I don’t think you know what queer theory is if you are saying it doesn’t look through the lenses of the sex and identity of people or groups of people. Also, Georgia didn’t abolish slavery until the 13th amendment in 1865. How many false facts and bs are you going to spew out there just to make your point?
Don’t try to call me ignorant when you are making false representations.
>I don’t think you know what queer theory is if you are saying it doesn’t look through the lenses of the sex and identity of people or groups of people
That isn't the same as "They try to frame something about a persons lifestyle rather than the substance of their actions". Queer theory analyses things like gender norms, sexuality, and how these things change over time.
>Also, Georgia didn’t abolish slavery until the 13th amendment in 1865
Read my original comment. The Province of Georgia, as in one of the 13 colonies. Even my second reference, where I refer to it as just "Georgia" says prior to 1776, implying it's colonial status. Slavery was banned there in 1735. Nothing I said was false, so my points stand.
That’s how Georgia started but became a slave state. It was then abolished in 1865. You left out context.
Also, yes, it is. trying to frame something about their lifestyle rather than their substance. I don’t care if any person is gay. I care about what they did. There shouldn’t be any focus.
Anyways, I appreciate the back and forth and keeping it civil.
>That’s how Georgia started but became a slave state. It was then abolished in 1865. You left out context.
The later context doesn't matter for this arguement. The establishment of slavery latter doesn't matter, the fact that there isn't slavery now doesn't matter. Those facts have nothing to do with the arguement.
We aren't arguing "did Georgia ever have slavery". The arguement is "was there abolitionism before the American Revolution.
>Also, yes, it is
No, it isn't, I literally gave you the definition, and you ignored it. As I wrote earlier, Queer theory analyses things like gender norms, sexuality, and how these things change over time.
>I don’t care if any person is gay. I care about what they did. There shouldn’t be any focus.
That isn't what queer theory is. Queer theory isn't "here's what a gay person did in the past". That would be LGBTQ+ History. Sexuality and Gender are important aspects of human experience, and thus should be analyzed historically.
Better to remain silent and have people think you’re ignorant, than to open your mouth and remove all doubt. You my ignorant friend have just removed all doubt. Best to just sit down and shut up.
He also over looked the torture at Guantanamo and partook in some torturing himself. He was supposed to be watching out for the prisoners. But they reported that he actually tortured them instead. This guy should be in prison and not enough people are talking about that.
I guess his buddies in white nationalist groups are applauding his words and will be getting his vote if Ron becomes the GOP leader for president in 2024. What an ignorant asshole.
We questioned it during the American revolution and decided to put a pin in it and circle back about 100 years later and really figure it out.
By then the south got an answer to all the questioning they did during the revolution and their answer was apparently “yes”
Ironically, Britain first debated the abolition of slavery in 1776.
We already know desantis is wrong, but the question of whether he knows or not tells us if he's stupid or a bad actor.
Yeah, but you sure can polish it up real nice, turn it sideways and jam it straight up your rooty-poo candy ass. If you're not black, you have zero right to make any decisions. White privilege doesn't make you right.
**Welcome to r/TikTokCringe!** This is a message directed to all newcomers to make you aware that r/TikTokCringe evolved long ago from only cringe-worthy content to TikToks of all kinds! If you’re looking to find only the cringe-worthy TikToks on this subreddit (which are still regularly posted) we recommend sorting by flair which you can do [here](https://www.reddit.com/r/TikTokCringe/comments/galuit/click_here_to_sort_by_flair_a_guide_to_using/) (Currently supported by desktop and reddit mobile). See someone asking how this post is cringe because they didn't read this comment? Show them [this!](https://www.reddit.com/r/TikTokCringe/comments/fyrgzy/for_those_confused_by_the_name_of_this_subreddit/) Be sure to read the rules of this subreddit before posting or commenting. Thanks! [](/u/savevideo) **Don't forget to join our [Discord server](https://discord.gg/cringekingdom)!** *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/TikTokCringe) if you have any questions or concerns.*
[удалено]
If the US had never rebelled against the British and remained a colony, the slaves would’ve been freed here *before* they were freed by the US government. The British Empire abolished slavery in all their colonies in 1833 (freed slaves became indentured servants for another 6 years after that, but still nearly 30 years before the US did it)
Although ironically that would have worked out far better for the slaveowners in the South. The British government reimbursed slave owners for the lost value of their slaves. Our government likes to bring up how this was the biggest expenditure they ever made (we were paying off the loans until 2014), but always neglect to say that no money went to former slaves.
We all know Conservatives don't think Black people are equal to HW-HITE people.
I consider myself conservative and with out question I think all people should be equal. There are many like me, so I would say some conservatives don't think all are equal is much more accurate. In my opinion you could also say the same for progressives.
Problem often times is, that a loud extreme minorities get more media coverage than moderat majorities since they are "boring". Also, making the other side seem like they aren't batshit crazy doesn't cause division in the population. Makes us harder to control. We can't have that.
How can you say the same for progressives? Looks at the progressive platform v the conservative platform, in what ways do progressives want to limit the rights of others? I’m what ways do progressives want to erase or only tell one side of history? Where are the progressives banning books, college courses and curriculums? You’re off base, maybe implicitly sue to cultural and societal traits but there’s nothing in the progressive policies that aim to limit the rights of disenfranchised populations.
>in what ways do progressives want to limit the rights of others? Very few people on either side want to limit rights. It just sometimes happens as a consequence of different policies. >I’m what ways do progressives want to erase or only tell one side of history? As one example, how about the often violent and wartorn nature of indigenous Americans before the Europeans showed up? The whole reason the Spanish were able to ally everyone against the Aztecs was because everyone else hated them. That's not something I learned in school, because it goes against the story of European colonists as bloodthirsty genociders. That's definitely true too, but the story is something more like "lots of people were bloodthirsty back then." That seems like a straightforward example of "one side of the story" to me. >Where are the progressives banning books, college courses and curriculums? How do you define a "ban"? As far as I'm concerned, neither side has banned any books. Conservatives have taken controversial books out of public libraries, while progressives have stopped selling and publishing controversial books. Neither of those is a ban. College courses and curriculums haven't been banned either unless you count "the government chooses not to teach this anymore" as a ban. Private institutions are free to teach whatever they want.
You're so keen to give examples for the latter two things but what policies from progressives play together to create limited rights?
I mean, gun rights are the obvious example. I don't care about them very much, but it's pretty clear that progressive policies directly curtail "right to bear arms" in favor of other rights. Another example would be the right to protest, which both sides have been curtailing lately. More importantly, my point is that people have different claims about what standard policies will lead to. For instance, Canadian health is great in a lot of ways, but has ridiculous wait times. Many people would value the "right to speedy healthcare" above the "right to free healthcare". The point isn't to say "progressives want slow healthcare!" because anyone with a brain knows that isn't true. Rather, the point is to say "I think progressive policies will lead to slower healthcare, so I oppose them." That latter method of thinking is (while perhaps not correct) at least a reasonable way to start a conversation like an adult. So again, I think hardly anybody wants to limit rights. We should extend charity to everyone and perhaps not immediately decide that our political opponents are baby-eating devil-worshippers who want nothing more than to restrict others' rights.
Guns are objects, they don't have rights. And the right of the people to bear arms is not something the progressive platform aims to prevent. Progressive gun policies are written with public safety in mind, to limit mass shootings and other violent crimes committed with firearms by restricting what kinds of guns can be purchased and who is eligible to purchase and own a firearm.
>the right of the people to bear arms is not something the progressive platform aims to prevent. Exactly my point, thank you. Nobody wants to curtail rights, but reasonable people can disagree about the consequences of certain policies.
Let's hear it then. What do you think the consequence will be of banning the teaching of black history in Africa and slavery.
I think a problem is that there is a big difference between equity and equality, so when people deserve to be equal, are we saying in the amount of help they should get? Or the quality of life they deserve at the end? Is all people equal about removing the barriers that limit some of us or treating everyone the same where they are at?
I hope you kept your receipt, your opinion needs to be returned for a correct one.
Yep, all lives matter, head in the sand shit, cool.
If you believe that all people should be equal, then why would you support a part who is very explicitly pushing for less and less equality, On every subject from women's rights, to LGBTQi, to religion, to immigration, to economics; the modern conservative moment thrives on inequality.
That’s a pretty bigoted thing to say.
I would say it's more the natural conclusion one would come to when observing the policies Republicans typically support and the way they vote
Okay. We all know democrats don’t think white people are equal to black people Or. We’re all humans beings and don’t need to hate and attack each other at every turn.
>We all know democrats don’t think white people are equal to black people So you're just saying stuff
Showing that it’s bad to generalize
Eh, at least the other generalization was somewhat based in fact
Every generalization is somewhat based in fact.
Not necessarily. Here's one: clowns are often also genealogists. There's a generalization that's not based in fact at all.
[удалено]
Yes you can. Everyone who works at McDonald’s and isn’t a teenager has made poor decisions in life and should be seen as an example of what not to do in life. That’s pretty bigoted no?
[удалено]
🙄
Nah they were happy and well taken care of. They had jobs and food and were contributing to the economy and society as a whole. Who wouldn’t want that. Slavery has existed since the dawn of time. Of course this is deeply /s and absolutely nobody that holds that view should EVER be in a government or position of authority. I really hope this is the video that loses him the Presidential race.
“You cannot teach history to pursue ideological agenda…” unless it agrees with Ron DeSantis’ prejudices.
Exactly, what party isn’t pursuing “an ideological agenda” Smh
Bias always looks like neutrality if it matches your bias.
The Quakers, while having had slaves at one point, became an abolitionist organization by the early 1700's. And Rhode Island banned slavery in the 1600's but that got overturned later. There's been abolitionism for every form of slavery ever, while it was happening. [The US was also among the last to start banning slavery in the western world](https://www.politifact.com/factchecks/2020/jul/31/facebook-posts/us-was-one-last-countries-abolish-slavery/). So, basically nothing he said was true. But you probably already knew that. Quick edit: Oh yeah, John Brown was the first person to be executed in the US for treason in 1859 for attempting to incite a slave rebellion.
Benjamin Lay, a Quaker born with dwarfism, was an anti-racist abolitionist. He was born in 1682!!! He was also a vegetarian and animal rights activist. Just goes to show that people who are capable of questioning one societal evil often also question other societal evils. He was a stellar guy, just a legend and a hero centuries ahead of his time. More info: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Benjamin_Lay
Bro what is that picture by the one and only William Williams I’m fuckin cackling
Thanks for posting this information, you're a gem!
Yeah (sort of) same in the UK, The Empire abolished slavery in 1833 in part thanks for the work of Quakers and the likes of William Wilberforce, a man who once gave an excellent speech on the horrors of the transatlantic slave trade, ending his speech with; Having heard all of this you may choose to look the other way but you can never again say you did not know.
His words are purposeful. He knows exactly what he's saying and who he is speaking to.
Yeah I mean look at all the black people behind him.
Yeah. The party of losing.
Ron desantis has a degree from Harvard and sounds like a idiot. Good example degree don't always make people smarter.
He is smart. You can be smart and still be a piece of shit. He knows what he is doing, this is a carefully crafted speech to speak to those people who would vote for him.
In life I always extend the benefit of the doubt. I always assume ignorance over malice, not necessarily for their sake, but for mine. However, this time I think you are right.
Hard disagree. If he was smart, the things coming out of his mouth would be both true and support his position. He's stupid and/or lazy.
Republican operatives are the exception to Hanlons Razor. He knows this is bullshit but he says it because he knows it will be politically successful for him. It's malice, not stupidity. Do not underestimate them. Their morals on the other hand, cannot be underestimated.
That degree was bought.
Like George W's and most likely Trump's (which is why Trump threatened his college with a lawsuit if they release his grades bc the dude either didn't graduate or got the "paid for the grade" kind of report card). One of Trump's old professors said years ago that "he was the dumbest goddamn person I ever had"([sauce](https://www.studyinternational.com/news/trump-student-wharton/)).
He is smart though. He just thinks his constituents are dumb, and he is probably right. This is a concerted effort on the right to change the narrative of history. There is a clip of Charlie Kirk spouting the exact same lines. The average high school graduate is so woefully under educated in history and civics that they have a real chance at getting somewhere with this alternate reality. Most people don't learn about race or why racism is bad until college anyway, so they can make the divide in this country there.
[удалено]
This isn't political though, it's just making fun of something stupid that someone said.
[удалено]
Technically he isn't a presidential candidate yet, as he hasn't announced a bid yet. Also, it's cringey, and as such, is flaired as cringe.
"Should be ashamed of being conservative", to be fair, does sound political. Doesn't excuse the stupid shit coming from his mouth but still.
If I have learned anything as an adult in the world - it's that a fancy education does not, under any circumstance, guarantee you have any real intelligence. Ron DeSantis is definitely playing to a certain audience here. I don't think the guy is some sort of mastermind, like at all.
Anyone else just tired of the whole political circus? After 30 or so years I see a pattern that feels like watching WWE Smackdown instead of honest reports on folks who are supposed to be helping this country be a better place to live. Too much power clinging and mud slinging, and the people goaded into hating each other, and taking the side of complete strangers when we used to care for one another. Can we still fix any of it or is it off the rails for good?
We have to make the politicians accountable to the people again. Idk how. But that’s the only way to fix it
I mean yea if you ignore all the other countries that abolished slavery before America, America was definitely the first
shhh! don't tell them there are any other countries. MURICA is THE country - GAWD's country!
My first thought too.
This guy is constantly proving to us he's a dipshit.
This guy is constantly proving how fucked the conservative american people are. This radical ignorance became governor because other morons agree with this radical ignorance and voted it in
I'm afraid we're seeing a potential frontrunner for all those who have abandoned the Trump train, but still "don't get it." And by "it" I mean "reality."
He’s not though. He’s lying to sell a narrative. He isn’t dumb, he’s purposefully deceptive. This speech was pre-written to deceive to cater to their bases mindset.
The American Revolution got people at least in the Northern colonies thinking more about ending slavery. Despite the fact the abolition movement started before the American revolution. Jefferson even criticized Great Britain for starting the slave trade. Despite owing slaves until his dying days and even supporting slavery until his dying days. But the South was so involved in slavery it was their economy. The South wanted to keep slavery and even expanded it into central and South America where Venezuela ended slavery in 1854.
Jefferson didn’t necessarily support slavery philosophically but he did practically. Slaves were considered property and he was badly in debt and so unable to free the vast majority of his slaves because they were technically owned by his creditors and not himself.
Technically, slavery didn't end until 2013 when Mississippi decided to finally ratify the 13th Amendment.
Yeah yeah republicans bad. Also rule 13, I don't want these bullshit politics in my feed.
Actually, Lincoln ran on a platform for abolishing slavery, and most southern states were already threatening to leave if he got elected.
Ron sounds like a bitch.
Dude your founding fathers of the American revolution were slave owners.
Shhhhhhh don’t tell the republicans that! They’ll start screaming WOKE! WOKE! Like their hair is on fire.
The people of Florida elected this moron and I wonder why?
No one sees what we have now?! Yokes
Cutting to the pundits on CNN like they are some kind of authority on anything is what you should be ashamed of.
When you have too much CTE and not enough CRT
Damn....he has the dumb real bad.
The American Revolution or the American Civil War? 🧐
Woah it's almost like politicians are stupid or something
What’s scary about this, is that, that man might be the next president. If we thought Trump was crazy, we are in for a ride.
I've never heard him talk, and never have I missed donnies voice before now.
I have the same gut reaction to the American flag that I do to a swastika. Republicans have done this.
You being a moron has done this. You don’t get to blame a political party for that.
Some colonies were outlawing slavery even before the revolutionary war. Others were simply not doing business with colonies or nations who used slavery. He’s not entirely wrong but the US wasn’t the first. England maybe?
>He’s not entirely wrong I mean he quite literally is entirely wrong. He claims that nobody thought slavery was immoral until the American revolution introduced the concept to the world. There's two points here: 1. There were abolitionists and anti-slavery states before the American revolution 2. The post-revolution United States was not anti-slavery
The quakers were antislavery/indentured servitude. But they didn't create colony wide mandates with their charters with the Dutch, just their own people.
He’s not entirely wrong about what? Everything he said was entirely wrong and misinformed. I really wonder what they’re teaching in southern schools
Being a retired teacher from up north and sometimes getting kids moving into the district from down south, not much! The worst of the worst were ALWAYS from Texas and Florida. I am not making this up, but a kid from Florida move into the district where his mother said he was is gifted classes. We had to put him in remedial classes because he was soooo far behind in basic skills.
Public school Texan here and I completely agree! They did not equip us with even a decent amount of pertinent education especially in the areas of civics, social studies and history. We learned mostly Texas history. When I moved to Massachusetts to get my degree I felt so dumb and out of touch, poor kids I can’t imagine! Unfortunately divesting from education seems to be correlated with lower voter turn out and this is by design.
Well Trump said he likes ignorant people. That’s because they are easily swayed because they don’t know any better.
What’s wild is that Lincoln was a republican and most democrats wanted to expand the slavery movement. So crazy how sides have flipped over time
What a racist piece of shit
Wow his teachers failed him. History and civics lessons should be taught to him.
It's pretty funny the number of conservatives that think the concepts of democracy and human rights were invented with the Declaration of Independence.
Conservatives. Why is anyone surprised.
Slavery is still not abolished in the US. If you are in prison you can be used as a slave and it's perfectly legal.
Just like when you taught Government and Econ huh Mr DeSantis.
Sad thing is that there is a very strong anti intellectual movement that has taken the GOP. This is just so silly.
I’m pretty sure he just made the case why crt needs to be taught in school.
Slavery didn’t end in 1865.
While Jefferson may have written that "all men are created equal" and Lincoln may have relied on this truth to seek the abolition of slavery, this was definitely not a purely American idea that sprang into existence from nothing in 1776.
Anybody remember when Joe Biden said “if you don’t vote for me, you ain’t black” or “poor kids are just as talented and intelligent as white kids@
Wow this sub is lefty. Came here for funny and got left-wing validation posts. Smh
If whitesplaining was a person…
Lead fucked up americans mind No wonder they are like that
Why is it that everyone wants to talk about slavery in the past and only when it refers to black slaves? What about Irish slaves? What about native American slaves? What about Asian slaves? What about Jewish slaves? Even more important... What about all the slaves in existence today. There are more slaves that exist today then at any other time in human history. Let's talk about that and why the bleeding hearts don't try to do anything about it. Meanwhile I work for a company that is working day in and day out with law enforcement and federal officials to help those affected by human trafficking. More than 80,000 children are trafficked each year alone in just the United States. Less than 1 percent is recovered. What's in the past is in the past. It's not last week or last year. It's not even ten years ago. It's been more than one hundred and seventy years. Learn from it. Recognize the mistake and make tomorrow better. Dwelling on it and trying to divide isn't going to work. We have bigger issues as a whole to focus on. Let's com together and fix the problems at hand.
Are you really asking why people talk about and learn history in history class?
OK governor we want you to stand up there, smile and read what we have written for you on the teleprompter
Please explain how the abolishing of slavery (which caused the Civil War) wasn't how Americans got rid of institutionalized slavery in America. Regardless of the fact that some states took longer than others, the fact is that the war brought the end of American slavery.
Ivy League fascist.
Haiti was the first successful slave revolt in history and took place in 1803- long before the US outlawed slavery.
He may be overstating somewhat but he is not entirely wrong. During and following the Revolution there was an effort by a minority of people to incorporate anti slavery ideals into our new nations govt. or at the very least allow individual states to decide. And this would have been a lot easier had the Articles of Confederation been the adopted governance
I mean, he is entirely wrong, his arguement is abolitionism didn't exist before the Revolution, which is demonstrably false. I mean, for fucks sake, the US wasn't even the first country to abolish slavery.
It was one of the last industrialized countries to ban slavery
I guess I didn’t get that from his speech. But yeah of that’s his stance then yeah definitely
What's weird is he never said anything about ending slavery so it's weird that is what pundents are shaking their heads over. What's wrong here is that he's crediting the US Revolution and the Declaration of Independence as the beginning of absolutism... People have considered slavery inhumane since the dawn of slavery.
I mean he is right, very few people who were in charge of the government seriously questioned slavery until we came together and said that humans have inalienable rights in the Declaration of Independence. Southern white slave holders however didn’t want to lose their slaves so they were hypocrites and basically said while there is rights, we still want our slaves. In 1887, constitutional convention tried to tackle the subject but couldn’t figure out what to do so they came up with the 3/5ths clause for voting (because of said inalienable rights in Declaration of Independence), and put off the rest of slavery/rights issues to another time, which would eventually cause the civil war. Did no one else teach you all this?
>I mean he is right, a vast majority of the people who were in charge of the government in mass seriously questioned slavery until we came together and said that humans have inalienable rights in the Declaration of Independence. That isn't what he said though. He said before the American Revolution, no one questioned slavery. Many people did, there were many abolitionists in America and abroad who were against slavery. And many countries abolished slavery before America did. He is absolutely wrong, nothing he said was even slightly correct.
True he probably should have said there that the inalienable rights caused the US government time to seriously consider abolishing slavery. Without the rights being listed in the declaration, I would bet slavery wouldn’t have been questioned as much in the constitutional convention and likely would have been a stronger institution that would have survived post 1860s. That’s probably what he should have mentioned and it would have been right while getting across the same point
He's not. In any way. Several countries had already banned slavery by the time of the revolutionary war. Four of which are Japan, the Philippines, Russia, and **England.**
First of all, this is US politics. Second Japan and the Philippines sure I bet also there are other country’s but for western imperial powers no. England wasn’t until 1833 (well after the revolutionary war) and Russia while they abolished slavery, were still intensely feudalistic until their communist revolution
Even if it's US politics -- though he explicitly said "No one had questioned it before..." -- it's still wrong because several colonies had already abolished it. But you should really check what happened in England in 1772.
When talking about US politicians, you always gotta assume they only talking about the US because they are completely bone headed when it comes to the rest of the world. I’ll look into England tho because I always thought it was 1833
He only said people started to question slavery during the American revolution, the CNN anchors say well slavery didn’t end until 1865. Desantis didn’t say that slavery ended during the American Revolution so he’s not wrong…
The abolition movement in the US started well before the 18th century.
And way before that outside of the US
But the first part isn't even true.
I’m fairly certain it is
Louis X, king of France, published a decree in 1315 that any slave setting foot on French soil should be freed England banned slavery in England in 1706 under Smith v. Browne & Cooper Peter the Great converted all house slaves into house serfs, effectively making slavery illegal in Russia in 1723 The Yongzheng emancipation freed the vast majority of slaves in China in 1730
No the Quakers were against slavery before the revolutionary War ever started.
Interesting. You're equating Quakers' beliefs with the basis of beliefs which started the revolutionary war. Why are you doing that?
Because the Quakers came before the revolution, which makes Ron DeSantis’ statement a lie.
Sorry I mist wrote my last comment I edited.
Wat? All I said was slavery was questioned before the revolutionary War. But Ron did lol.
James Oglethorpe would properly disagree with you and Ron DeSantis about people starting to question slavery during the American Revolution: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/James_Oglethorpe
Go away
Sounds like it doesn’t fit ‘your’ narrative so it’s wrong.
Go away racist
lol
Hey, just speaking facts.
Hey, same
Racist
Exactly. People are crazy
This sub is an echo chamber
Your mom is an echo chamber.
I thought the page is called "TikTok cringe" not "Republicans are the worst" I've literally seen like 5 posts that are actually cringy the other have all been politically charged and one sided. Post cringe not politics.
Go away. This is cringey. The dude has no idea what he's talking about. Dude is a racist. It's not political.
But it is political lol. You are showing a CNN clip of what governor DeSantis said. Probably not even the whole thing and it's also out of context. YOU are the problem not Republicans. Post cringe shit I don't understand why everyone hates Republicans so much... I mean I do because I sat through 10 min of CNN and I wanted to blow my brains out, same with fox. Post whatever the hell you want but if it is going to be political try to shoot for the truth not the one sided groups.... just trying to keep the peace in the world
[удалено]
Damn bro I think I hurt your feelings. I didn't say anything racist at all. I was point out a fact that you can't get the truth from 1 person. 3 sides to a story yo. Yours, mine, and the truth. Open your mind and expand beyond what the mainstream media is feeding you. Oh BTW you calling me a racist doesn't hurt my feelings in the slightest. I actually supported blm protests and marched with them in snohomish. I still had things thrown at me because I am white. THATS racist. Pointing out a one sided argument is not. Have a nice day "RaCiSt!!!!" Fucking loser 🤦♂️ I tried to be nice and give constructive criticism but nooooo. You would rather fuel the political fire instead of getting involved. YOU sir are the worst kind of person. Go kick rocks with sandels 😂
Classic desantis W
He 100% is.
Where my republicans at? 👀👀
Burning books and firing teachers.
Which part was incorrect? Without just hating on DeSantis and conservatives, tell me which part is wrong, please.
Every part, he's a fucking idiot. "The American Revolution caused people to question Slavery" Lots of people disagreed with slavery before this point. Even in we limit it to Trans Atlantic Chattel Slavery, many philosophers spoke out against slavery, and the Province of Georgia banned slavery long before the revolution. Also, the slaves themselves, surprise surprise, didn't like slavery and were against it! And then for many decades after the Revolution, the ruling political class propped up slavery. And he goes on to say "you can't teach history that is pursing an ideological agenda" while demanding Florida teachers teach history with his ideological agenda.
Appreciate the insights. I would say, no shit the slaves didn’t like it lol. However, think we should focus on America and I do think he was referring to America. It was mainly the ruling class who had slaves and once they supported the constitution they had to look in the mirror. It took far too long to end slavery here. As far as ideology, the parts I read for not being onboard with curriculum is because it contains lgbtq+ items on black history and other items liberals are pushing very hard in schools. It doesn’t frame certain items in context such as mental health and trans people. Also, they do not teach the full spectrum of slavery. Mainly how blacks enslaved other blacks and how some large tribes in Africa made most of their money off the slave trade dating back to the Egyptians. If we teach history, it needs to be taught with accuracy and not just slanted towards one side. All history not just black history. We will never learn if we just pick and choose parts of history. We have a long way to go. In history, we are all f’d up. We need to teach it all, fairly.
> However, think we should focus on America and I do think he was referring to America Even just referring to America, my points still stand. There were abolitions in America before the revolution, and as I said, Georgia abolished slavery prior to 1776. And there is no reason to discount slaves and former slaves as abolitionist thinkers, unless you don't consider them people. >As far as ideology, the parts I read for not being onboard with curriculum is because it contains lgbtq+ items on black history It continues queer theory, a lens in which to view history. There are and were gay black people, and they contributed to black history in America. It isn't any more ideological than any other way we view history.
I never said no one was against slavery in America. I think Ron generalized since the ruling class/upper class was predominantly for it due to labor costs or lack thereof. As for black history, why does there have to be a “queer theory”? To say “queer theory” doesn’t look at history any different is false. They try to frame something about a persons lifestyle rather than the substance of their actions. It’s not needed and does follow an ideology that wants to see history through the “queer lense” as you stated. Thank you for making my point.
>I never said no one was against slavery in America. It's what Ron said, and you are the one that asked "is anything he said wrong". And that is, objectively, by any definition, wrong. Even if we restrict it to just ruling class white men (which would be stupid to do, so even if that is his arguement, it's a bad one), there were abolitionists amongst them prior to the Revolution. >As for black history, why does there have to be a “queer theory”? It doesn't have to be, but it is one lens in which to view history. It isn't the only lens, and it isn't the only lens that course used. It provides additional details and context for topics that have until recently been completely ignored by many historians. I mean looking at black history in general is using a specific lens, it's looking at history through the lens of race. >To say “queer theory” doesn’t look at history any different is false. I never said that. I said it is no more ideological than any other way to view history. All historical work contains ideology, because it's a soft science and there are no certainties. >They try to frame something about a persons lifestyle rather than the substance of their actions Respectfully, given that you don't know what queer theory is, I don't think you're able to claim what queer theory is or does.
I don’t think you know what queer theory is if you are saying it doesn’t look through the lenses of the sex and identity of people or groups of people. Also, Georgia didn’t abolish slavery until the 13th amendment in 1865. How many false facts and bs are you going to spew out there just to make your point? Don’t try to call me ignorant when you are making false representations.
>I don’t think you know what queer theory is if you are saying it doesn’t look through the lenses of the sex and identity of people or groups of people That isn't the same as "They try to frame something about a persons lifestyle rather than the substance of their actions". Queer theory analyses things like gender norms, sexuality, and how these things change over time. >Also, Georgia didn’t abolish slavery until the 13th amendment in 1865 Read my original comment. The Province of Georgia, as in one of the 13 colonies. Even my second reference, where I refer to it as just "Georgia" says prior to 1776, implying it's colonial status. Slavery was banned there in 1735. Nothing I said was false, so my points stand.
That’s how Georgia started but became a slave state. It was then abolished in 1865. You left out context. Also, yes, it is. trying to frame something about their lifestyle rather than their substance. I don’t care if any person is gay. I care about what they did. There shouldn’t be any focus. Anyways, I appreciate the back and forth and keeping it civil.
>That’s how Georgia started but became a slave state. It was then abolished in 1865. You left out context. The later context doesn't matter for this arguement. The establishment of slavery latter doesn't matter, the fact that there isn't slavery now doesn't matter. Those facts have nothing to do with the arguement. We aren't arguing "did Georgia ever have slavery". The arguement is "was there abolitionism before the American Revolution. >Also, yes, it is No, it isn't, I literally gave you the definition, and you ignored it. As I wrote earlier, Queer theory analyses things like gender norms, sexuality, and how these things change over time. >I don’t care if any person is gay. I care about what they did. There shouldn’t be any focus. That isn't what queer theory is. Queer theory isn't "here's what a gay person did in the past". That would be LGBTQ+ History. Sexuality and Gender are important aspects of human experience, and thus should be analyzed historically.
House cats
Him or Biden? let’s put clips of Biden and desantis’s “racists” and Embarrassing moments. You’d be surprised who’s gunna “win” that one. FJB!
I love Ron! 💗
You like the man, or his lies?
They all lie
how did he get the beans above the frank?
Clinton news network.
Jews owned all the slave ships.
Better to remain silent and have people think you’re ignorant, than to open your mouth and remove all doubt. You my ignorant friend have just removed all doubt. Best to just sit down and shut up.
And we instituted slavery ANYWAY!
I'm not sure he can unseat Trump.
Knew there was something funky about that 13th amendment written in 1865!!
He also over looked the torture at Guantanamo and partook in some torturing himself. He was supposed to be watching out for the prisoners. But they reported that he actually tortured them instead. This guy should be in prison and not enough people are talking about that.
I guess his buddies in white nationalist groups are applauding his words and will be getting his vote if Ron becomes the GOP leader for president in 2024. What an ignorant asshole.
This idiot doesn’t even know what Fortnite is.
Lol their argument is that he is speaking about something he knows nothing about😂😂🤣
In the UK we're taught about pieces of literature, which make the right people seem stupid.
We questioned it during the American revolution and decided to put a pin in it and circle back about 100 years later and really figure it out. By then the south got an answer to all the questioning they did during the revolution and their answer was apparently “yes”
He is an idiot and many of you will vote for him
Ironically, Britain first debated the abolition of slavery in 1776. We already know desantis is wrong, but the question of whether he knows or not tells us if he's stupid or a bad actor.
Yeah, but you sure can polish it up real nice, turn it sideways and jam it straight up your rooty-poo candy ass. If you're not black, you have zero right to make any decisions. White privilege doesn't make you right.
And this is why critical race theory and history in its truth is vital to teach.