Can Republicans have as many white house members as they want?

Can Republicans have as many white house members as they want?

  • yes

    Votes: 3 75.0%
  • no

    Votes: 1 25.0%

  • Total voters
    4
The racist history of the Democratic party is well documented. The Democratic Party was founded in 1828. Slavery had been in this country since at least 1619. Slavery existed for 209 years before the democratic party was founded. Republicans today love telling blacks how the Democratic Party was pro-slavery and how it was the Republican Party that freed the slaves. There is a lot modern republicans choose not to tell young blacks as they try luring blacks into supporting a move back into Jim Crow. First, not all Republicans were for racial equality. The Party had several factions in the beginning. One was the Radical Republicans. The Radical Republicans were for the eradication of slavery. They were not conservatives. Frederick Douglass was a Radical Republican. Lincoln was moderate politically. He opposed the expansion of slavery but did not believe in racial equality.

Last, if you want to play your little game white man, realize that it was Republicans who promised us reparations. Special Field Order 15 and Circular 13 were reparations promised to us by Republicans. REPARATIONS THAT ARE UNIVERSALLY OPPOSED BY ALL REPUBLICANS TODAY.

So SHUT UP!

Well, at least you acknowledge that the dem party were the party of slavery and segregation. However, you still allow them to pull you around by the nose.
 
Yes they can. The Roberts Court has turn back the clock centuries. The remedies to the injustices that were done, enacted by our elected representatives, have been systematically overturned by Republican's recently appointed to the Supreme Courts. Since the country has ethically diversified so much since 1790, the best way to make the People's House truly representative of that new and changing diversity is to do away with federal districting altogether. Replace it with a system of proportional representation where the % of the entire vote determines the number of seats each party gets to send to Washington to represent the state. It would allow for the formation of viable 3rd or 4th parties and even independent runs for the House seats.

Of course that means a new amendment to the Constitution. The MediaSpheres of both major parties oppose even discussing the idea. It is mostly a dead in the water idea.
I agree with this. Several changes to the Constitution are necessary. Proportional Representation is one, and adding a vote of no confidence to be used in extreme situations where either an administration has run amok, refusing to obey the checks we have in the constitution or a congress failing to do its job as a check, and term limits for SCOTUS justices, instead of lifetime appointment or stringent rules of ethics on SCOTUS justices. End the electoral college so the will of the majority of the people counts in choosing the president. There is no other election held except for the president where the majority of the votes does not determine the winner.

There are some on the progressive side who may just entertain these ideas, but not enough. But I believe if enough pressure is applied consistently, at least one of these changes can happen.
 
Well, at least you acknowledge that the dem party were the party of slavery and segregation. However, you still allow them to pull you around by the nose.
Both parties did that.

Republicans authored an amendment to officially make slavery a constitutionally protected activity. The Republican Party is the party of The Corwin Amendment that would have cemented slavery as a constitutional right.

“No amendment shall be made to the Constitution which will authorize or give to Congress the power to abolish or interfere, within any State, with the domestic institutions thereof, including that of persons held to labor or service by the laws of said State.”

The terms “domestic service” and “persons held to service” meant slaves.

The Corwin Amendment was proposed in 1861. It passed both houses of Congress and was then signed by President Buchanan on his way out of office. When Lincoln took over, he supported the Amendment.

“I understand a proposed amendment to the Constitution—which amendment, however, I have not seen—has passed Congress, to the effect that the Federal Government shall never interfere with the domestic institutions of the States, including that of persons held to service ... holding such a provision to now be implied constitutional law, I have no objection to its being made express and irrevocable.”

Corwin felt that Congress did not have the power to interfere with slavery in the states where slavery existed. Lincoln agreed, and that was the actual Republican Party policy. It is probably why Lincoln said, “My paramount object in this struggle is to save the Union, and is not either to save or to destroy slavery. If I could save the union without freeing any slaves I would do it, and if I could save it by freeing all the slaves I would do it; and if I could save it by freeing some and leaving others alone I would also do that.”

During the Civil War, his main goal was to keep the Union together. By any means necessary. If that meant keeping slavery, so be it. So the story of republicans freeing the slaves and the democratic party being the party of slavery is not really an honest depiction.

As it appeared that the South would lose, the attempt to ratify the amendment was withdrawn from consideration by the states due to a Senate resolution, ending the effort to ratify The Corwin Amendment. Had the South accepted the terms of the Corwin Amendment, it would have become the thirteenth amendment.

It is time you Repubicans stopped lying about your record.
 
Your list ignores the population of those states. They are all majority Democratic states.

That is why they have no Republican representatives. The Republicans lose elections.

That is how Democracy happens, victim.

No Democratic president has called governors telling them to change districts before a midterm election so his party can stay in the majority.

Your list of false equivalences is pathetic.
FB_IMG_1777637378982.webp

You obviously didn't read it, NH 48% Republican, not one seat. The rest are almost 50% and no representation. Oh and we are a Republic, not a democracy.
 
Then you stop whining about what Republicans are doing in conservative states.
I won't because no Democratic president called states you list before a midterm election to demand they redistrict to create a Democratic advantage. This is the problem you right-wingers have with your whining. It's called denial of the truth.
 

Can Racist Southern Gerrymanders Be Stopped? (ft. Justin Jones)​

 
When will Repubicans stop dishonestly pretending that white is not a race?

Definitions for New Race and Ethnicity Categories​

Categories developed in 1997 by the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) that are used to describe groups to which individuals belong, identify with, or belong in the eyes of the community. The categories do not denote scientific definitions of anthropological origins. The designations are used to categorize U.S. citizens, U.S. residents, and other eligible non-citizens. Eligible noncitizens include all students who completed high school or a GED equivalency within the United States (including DACA and undocumented students) and who were not on an F-1 nonimmigrant student visa at the time of high school graduation. Find more information about other eligible (for financial aid purposes) noncitizens .

Individuals are asked to first designate ethnicity as:
  • Hispanic or Latino or
  • Not Hispanic or Latino
Second, individuals are asked to indicate one or more races that apply among the following:
  • American Indian or Alaska Native
  • Asian
  • Black or African American
  • Native Hawaiian or Other Pacific Islander
  • White

Let's start with the first truth: By our government's definition, white is a race.

So, let's get to the second truth.

How did voting districts become all-white?

There were several ways, with residential segregation enforced by the government being the main one.

Ferguson (1896) established "separate but equal" zoning ordinances that specified exclusively black, white, and mixed districts and legally established segregation in housing opportunities. Many large and mid-sized cities in the South and mid-South adopted racial zoning.


Third truth: All white voting districts were created because of race, but we do not see all white districts being broken up, so:

Can Republicans have as many white house members as they want?
I don't know of anyone on the right who thinks white is not a race.
 
Oh look…..another race baiting thread from the boards biggest racist POS.
 
No, housing segregation was bipartisan white man. So stop being white and Republican, thinking you can tell me how it was only Democrats who enforced segregation.
Moving the goal posts all the way back to the 1960's I see. No surprise, I kicked your previous argument in the nuts. :itsok:
 
I won't because no Democratic president called states you list before a midterm election to demand they redistrict to create a Democratic advantage. This is the problem you right-wingers have with your whining. It's called denial of the truth.
FB_IMG_1778771763887.webp

Your party is done.
 

New Topics

Back
Top Bottom