Comments

You must log in or register to comment.

zonitronic t1_iu8j0hf wrote

Malloy

He's also a carpetbagger.

90

mycophdstudent t1_iu8o0zi wrote

Is there a quote you can link to where we can read exactly what he supports about Jan 6?

17

Quirfg t1_iu8qqup wrote

Conservatives hate democracy.

53

DamonKatze t1_iu8tbyq wrote

Why does he want to legalize eagles asshole, and which eagle in particular?

84

kier00 t1_iu8uxls wrote

Elections are definitely won and lost on Vermont's subreddit so keep up the good work 👍👍👍

−55

dmc1l t1_iu913mw wrote

Can we stop giving this guy attention? It's reminding me of 2016

43

Civil-Drive t1_iu9e6qm wrote

Keep getting texts asking for my support from his people, I just keep telling them to go fuck themselves.

33

Walnut2001 t1_iu9nagq wrote

Yeah...he’s awful. Read his stance on stuff. He tried to compare Biden’s presidency to watergate 😂

22

Mechanicjohn12 t1_iu9nbof wrote

Something I agree with entirely!!! Conservatives DO hate democracy!

Probably because they uphold a Republic.

Which is what the United States of America is and always has been; a Constitutional Republic with democratically elected officials.

−61

Mechanicjohn12 t1_iu9qdy6 wrote

States right to what? What do you want me to say?

I disagree vehemently with the concept of slavery, if that’s your question, and believe or Constitution through the rights awarded would make slavery federally illegal since it was created and signed.

I DONT think states have a right to enslave a human being, for any reason.

You idiots are trying to turn an incredibly nuanced and difficult historical time of our nation into a simple one sentence reason or answer.

The original 7 states that seceded from the Union absolutely did so over slavery. The Union actually allowed and upheld slavery in several states throughout the war. The Emancipation Proclamation only freed slaves held within the rebelling territories, NOT in the several Union states which still had slaves.

There were 7 original secede states. The other 4 seceded AFTER Lincoln mobilized 75,000 Union soldiers to quash the rebellion by force. Those 4 states were not fighting specifically for slavery (played a factor) but their main disagreements were by the violence and overreach presented from the federal government. It rang a lot like Britain prior to the Revolutionary war.

Only ~5% of the south were slave owners. Most of the slave owners never picked up a rifle to defend the institution of slavery. Ask yourself why did the poor men of the south decide to fight and die against the Union? Was it because they just loved slavery?

Or was it because they began to see the Union (aka federal government) literally enter their states and burn and pillage the homes of their friends and families who had NO relation to slavery or even southern politics.

Union soldiers did not fight to even end slavery for the most part. The whole war was mostly fought because the “Union” could not be allowed to dissolve, too much had been lost to get to the point in which they were at.

I will never defend the south and their “right” to slavery as I don’t think anybody has a right to own human beings, and believe the Constitution to clearly outline all the human rights which would expressly disallow the practice of slavery.

−24

Blueheartt t1_iu9qopd wrote

I love how angry vermonters get over Republicans haha. So much anger, the dark side is strong with you

−28

zonitronic t1_iu9r377 wrote

...or simply just common courtesy. Personally, I don't care for Malloy's politics and I do not believe the best interests of the people of Vermont are as much as a priority for him as is his promoting his fascist agenda.

15

therealrico t1_iu9u9zh wrote

Agreed, but whom I replied to was asking for context regarding the quote. And from that we get these additional pieces of information that aren’t very popular in our state.

1

deadowl t1_iua601e wrote

Are you saying the attack at Fort Sumter was a Union act of aggression?

Edit to add: what about all those attacks suppressing free elections in "Bleeding Kansas" against anti-slavery settlements preceding Lincoln's election?

Another edit re: Bleeding Kansas: There's literally misinformation on abolitionist gravestones there going into the 1900s so that they wouldn't get disturbed. For instance, this guy who has close Y-DNA markers to people paternally descended from ancestors of mine.

5

MoreTuple t1_iuaaneu wrote

So was the Soviet Union technically a republic. I guess you're emphasizing the republic aspect because you're ok switching to communism run by authoritarians. As long as we're a republic...

3

fjwjr t1_iuaclei wrote

I searched his site and found no stance on stuff. I’d really like to know his stance on stuff. Stuff is everywhere. I have a house full of stuff. I was driving down the road and saw a bunch of stuff. I turned on the radio and heard a bunch of stuff. Opened the newspaper and there was stuff there too! Something really needs to be done about all that stuff and I’d like to know what his position is on it.

Now I’ve got to go out in the yard and rake some leaves without stepping in some of the dog’s stuff…

−17

Mechanicjohn12 t1_iuahwm7 wrote

No, that’s not even remotely what I am saying.

The attack on fort Sumter had nothing to do with slavery and was purely about jurisdiction at that point. The south claimed the fort as their own, and that it was there property as it was within their borders.

The attack at fort Sumter was clearly southern aggression; albeit nobody died during the “battle”. Hell, nobody even knew that the attack of Sumter would be the “beginning” of the Civil War.

1

Mechanicjohn12 t1_iuaiecw wrote

What happened in Kansas, I would say, was internal struggles being propagated by both political factions trying to plant their foot to gain control.

Slavery back then was a massive ethical issue for the nation. People were willing to kill both to uphold the institutions, and to abolish.

Edit: you didn’t even respond to what I had said

2

deadowl t1_iuaievj wrote

Gotta wonder if laying eggs is pleasurable for chickens at this point, haven't done any research there though. In the meantime it's not as streamlined as on in/out receptacle as they still eat with mouths.

−3

deadowl t1_iuajx0b wrote

Your words:

> Only ~5% of the south were slave owners. Most of the slave owners never picked up a rifle to defend the institution of slavery. Ask yourself why did the poor men of the south decide to fight and die against the Union? Was it because they just loved slavery?

3

Mechanicjohn12 t1_iuak5yb wrote

Can you critically read? Is that me saying the CW wasn’t fought over slavery, or that the people who actually fought the battles had nothing at all to do with slavery?

1

Amyarchy t1_iuas0n4 wrote

He's also been on Steve Bannon's podcast three times in the last two months.

14

Jolly_Weather_1624 t1_iuavpf4 wrote

I support what they did, just why they did it is the stupidest of reasons

−9

AllyEmmie t1_iubbbkf wrote

You are in the minority. Politics are important to our livelihood. Keep not giving a shit about how this state or country is run and eventually you’ll have no friends and no rights.

4

Nobes1010 t1_iubomrj wrote

the fuck kind of post title is that? Do I need a key to crack the code and make it legible?

0

AllyEmmie t1_iucdetx wrote

Not caring about politics or the direction our state and country moves in.

Thank god the majority of us DO care, otherwise this would be a fascist dictatorship.

1

[deleted] t1_iue9sfn wrote

Thanks for bringing more publicity to malloys campaign, just mailed in my ballot with a vote for Malloy, please keep making these posts :)

2

daemonium1 t1_iuhlehu wrote

> I will never defend the south and their “right” to slavery

You just wrote 10 paragraphs literally doing that. I suggest you really think about what you stand for in life, if you are writing manifestos defending slavery (which, again, is exactly what you are doing).

1