Separate names with a comma.
Discussion in 'Politics, Religion, Social Issues' started by BoneDaddy, May 22, 2017.
Soo....I take it you have no idea that the parties flipped entirely when the GOP decided it was going to run with the Souther Strategy. I kid, I kid, we all know your ilk knows this history, but refuses to acknowledge that the Southern Strategy is still clearly in play....take a look at our AG.
It's.....inconvenient for the GOP and their cronies to keep using this ******** narrative as if the last 50 years didn't happen at all. "We had Lincoln!" is not a retort to actively courting racists to hold power.
Now, that doesn't dispute that the Democratic party was the party of out and out racists....decades ago.
Also, source is an out and out propaganda mechanism for the conservative ideology:
""The greatest threat to America is that most Americans don’t know what makes America great. PragerU's mission is to explain and spread what we call ‘Americanism’ through the power of the Internet. Our five-minute videos are conservative sound bites that clarify profoundly significant and uniquely American concepts for more than 100 million people each year.” - Mission Statement of PragerU...which is not a university.
OMG. I had no idea.
So I guess if I want my progressive agenda championed, I should vote for Republicans.
Lol bonedaddy just learned something new on YouTube and thought he'd share the gospel with us
--- Post Merged, May 22, 2017 ---
Apparently the Democratic agenda is racist. Despite the fact that the Democratic Party is the diverse party and looks like America while the GOP is almost exclusively white and tends to attract white supremacists. But, you know, Lincoln was a Republican so they get a free pass for all eternity.
--- Post Merged, May 22, 2017 ---
The funny thing, his posting this is exactly what the mission statement of the organization is. "Let's share short videos to explain the complexity of the world in stupidly simplistic terms that dilute reality in the conversion".
It's also truly shocking that he was just enlightened with this information today and thought he was gonna come in here and shock us all into becoming Republicans. Dude thought he was dropping the mic with that YouTube video.
well that was shot down in flames fast. History strikes again.
Because you seem to like videeyos...
Spoiler alert... The republicans initial concern about slavery, had actually very little to do with those actually enslaved.
Aaaaand you just randomly posted that today because.....why? Looking a little desperate there to distract from the hot mess that Trump and his administration is.
Someone should tell David Duke and Richard Spencer that they are in the wrong political party.
Technically, this may be true. The official line of Lincoln and the Republican party at the beginning was a gradual shift away from slavery; in particular, keeping it out of the territories in the west, thereby isolating it in the southern states. The party was cobbled together from many different political factions and had to tread lightly to avoid offending them and breaking the party apart.
But beneath the surface, probably the strongest faction was the abolitionists. And Lincoln himself, although he was careful to try not to ruffle southern feathers in his speeches, was fairly obviously also an abolitionist at heart. And the southern states knew this! Which is why they didn't even bother to try to come up with a compromise when Lincoln was elected, they just immediately seceded.
By the way, I'd like to point out that the Republican party showed the right way for a third party in America to succeed: their core faction, the abolitionists, held their tongues and allowed other political factions with significantly different beliefs into the party. They held it all together, got a majority of voters to get them into office, and only then were able to see their ideas enacted into law. If, say, today's Libertarian and Green parties managed to come together under some overarching combined platform, and invited in some other under-served groups, they'd have a real shot at actually achieving power...
You know something's wrong with your party when Donors of Bernie Sanders are suing the party for bias and fraud and the lawyers for the DNC say they had no obligation to be fair. Sounds like they haven't changed much from the video...
"class-action lawsuit by Bernie Sanders supporters against the Democratic National Committee is getting pretty quotable. Plaintiffs accuse the defendants of being biased on behalf of former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton during the 2016 presidential campaign. But one DNC lawyer’s argument actually tries to justify the party’s right to be biased on behalf of one primary candidate over another, according to an article from The Young Turks. In other words, they could have chosen their nominee over cigars in a backroom. That’s what the attorney reportedly said in a Florida federal court:
We could have—and we could have voluntarily decided that, Look, we’re gonna go into back rooms like they used to and smoke cigars and pick the candidate that way. That’s not the way it was done. But they could have. And that would have also been their right.
The same lawyer also argued that there is “no contractual obligation” to prevent advantage or disadvantage between candidates, and that the evenhandedness and impartiality language in the DNC charter is not “self-defining.” The court would be dragged into a political matter, and wouldn’t be able to constitutionally offer redress for the claims.
The DNC did not respond to comment by press time, but we will update when they do.
Jared Beck and Elizabeth Lee Beck, both Sanders supporters, sued the DNC in June 2016 over the alleged bias for Clinton at the expense of their preferred candidate, an Independent U.S. Senator who ran for the Democratic Party’s presidential nomination.
Article 5, Session 4 of the DNC’s charter says that the National Chairperson “shall exercise impartiality and evenhandedness as between the Presidential candidates and campaigns,” and shall make sure officers and staff also play fair during the nomination process.
Chairwoman Debbie Wasserman Schultz resigned from her post in July 2016 after emails obtained by WikiLeaks suggested that she and other DNC officials were dismissive, and even antagonistic against the Sanders campaign.
Question: is this a bad thing?
Seriously. A political party is a group of like-minded people who want to see their policies enacted into government. To do this, such a group needs to select a representative who is interested in and willing to support those policies.
Therefore, it would be inherently stupid to choose a representative who doesn't support those policies. The party must be biased in who it chooses as a representative, or there is no point in even having a party to begin with!
It is if you have a charter like this: Article 5, Session 4 of the DNC’s charter says that the National Chairperson “shall exercise impartiality and evenhandedness as between the Presidential candidates and campaigns,” and shall make sure officers and staff also play fair during the nomination process.
How do you argue in favor of a party that puts up their own rules and doesn't follow them? This is misleading and deceitful.
Yep. No question, the Democratic party kind of tripped itself up on that one. At the very least, they should have limited candidates to members of the party with some amount of standing. At best, they need to explicitly state that their representatives should represent the party; otherwise the entire project is pointless.
True! But the charter is not a set of laws; it is a set of guidelines. In the end, the one and only point of a political party is to see its policy platform enacted in government. So long as the party achieves that, it has some worth. If the party fails to achieve that (and, quite obviously, the Democratic party is failing at all levels of government today), the value of the party becomes suspect.
I do have hopes, however, that the pressures on the Democratic party will lead to some fairly decent reforms in the near future.
it's ok when democrats do it..........
It made not a damn bit of difference to the outcome. All it shows is that Hilary plays dirty - which makes her a worse candidate than say Obama or George W Bush. But clearly nowhere near as dirty as Trump.
So a hypothetical analogy for you....
You own a house. You are throwing a party for just your friends. I decide that I want to be a part of your party now too, purely for convenience and my own selfish reasons. Are you letting me crash your party just because I have decided I want to be there?
Not this again.
Dude, that talking point has been tried here many times and has always been knocked down (this time in the second post of the thread).
This is not the way to be taken seriously. Between this and your CNN post the other day, you're coming across like Floyd R. Turbo.