rightwinger
Award Winning USMB Paid Messageboard Poster
- Aug 4, 2009
- 297,935
- 220,049
- 3,615
Good thing that Trump has his own Justice Department to defend his misdeeds
Explaining The Democrat Party
- Thread starter PoliticalChic
- Start date
rightwinger
Award Winning USMB Paid Messageboard Poster
- Aug 4, 2009
- 297,935
- 220,049
- 3,615
Willfully ignorant of history. Honestly, I don't know why you bother. Nobody believes your trolling.
Yes. The parties did switch. I noticed you didn't address the Civil Right Act in either of your bold cut and pastes but immediately pivoted to deflections.
We studied the Civil Rights Act and its impact on the political parties in detail in my school...and that was in the mid 1980's. This is not theory.
Democrats in the south flipped to Republicans while Democrats became the party of Civil Rights. Here, get familiar with our history.
This is an old article. But right on the money. It's funny to see some of the things printed that turned out to be scary on-the-money.
The Conservative Fantasy History of Civil Rights
The GOP's fashionable revisionist history of how it won the white South — by supporting civil rights!nymag.com
More Republicans supported civil rights than Democrats.
Democrats blocked every anti-lynching bill the Republicans brought to Congress.
Can you provide a few of the books that have informed your geopolitical insight?
No?
Try reading a book some day.
I'd be happy to provide a starting curriculum for you ....just say the word.
Democrat LBJ signed it into law
PoliticalChic
Diamond Member
- Thread starter
- #43
"While it is common in Republican circles to not hold an opinion until Trump tells you what to think, it doesn't work that way for normal people. "
I assume you are erroneously referring to your self as normal.
Let's check.
1. What benefit did America, or the world, accrue by Obama's guaranteeing nuclear weapons to the world's worst state sponsor of terrorism?
2. Under Democrat/Liberal LBJ, the law was passed that deprived pastors of their right of free speech.
What possible compelling government interest could this represent????
3. Since the inception of LBJ's 'War on Poverty,' $22 trillion has been spent to end poverty…yet the poverty rate is worryingly similar to the rate when LBJ began….why are we still following this failed plan?
4. Why would the President, Hussein Obama, sworn to defend the Constitution, have instructed illegal aliens to vote in the presidential election???
5. "The law that applies to situations where state and federal laws disagree is called the supremacy clause, which is part of article VI of the Constitution. The supremacy clause contains what's known as the doctrine of pre-emption, which says that the federal government wins in the case of conflicting legislation." State vs. Federal Law: Who Really Holds the Trump Card? | HuffPost
Why, then, are Democrat State officials championing 'Sanctuary State/city statutes, contrary to federal law?
This is a pass-fail exam.
Take your time.
rightwinger
Award Winning USMB Paid Messageboard Poster
- Aug 4, 2009
- 297,935
- 220,049
- 3,615
The Great Obama didn’t.
It was Crooked Donnie who instructed people to vote twice
Willfully ignorant of history. Honestly, I don't know why you bother. Nobody believes your trolling.
Yes. The parties did switch. I noticed you didn't address the Civil Right Act in either of your bold cut and pastes but immediately pivoted to deflections.
We studied the Civil Rights Act and its impact on the political parties in detail in my school...and that was in the mid 1980's. This is not theory.
Democrats in the south flipped to Republicans while Democrats became the party of Civil Rights. Here, get familiar with our history.
This is an old article. But right on the money. It's funny to see some of the things printed that turned out to be scary on-the-money.
The Conservative Fantasy History of Civil Rights
The GOP's fashionable revisionist history of how it won the white South — by supporting civil rights!
More Republicans supported civil rights than Democrats.
Democrats blocked every anti-lynching bill the Republicans brought to Congress.
Can you provide a few of the books that have informed your geopolitical insight?
No?
Try reading a book some day.
I'd be happy to provide a starting curriculum for you ....just say the word.
No they don't. Read the article I linked from 2012. It's quite prescient.
A lot of anti-lynching bills were brought up before 1965. When the parties essentially flipped.
But here is a very recent example of someone holding up an anti-lynching bill. Which party does he belong to?
Anti-lynching bill stalls in Senate as emotions run high
Republican Sen. Rand Paul of Kentucky is single-handedly holding up the legislation, which has broad support.
www.nbcnews.com
You really need to familiarize yourself with US history. You have a bad habit of bending
narratives (and history) to fit your political leanings.
PoliticalChic
Diamond Member
- Thread starter
- #46
Willfully ignorant of history. Honestly, I don't know why you bother. Nobody believes your trolling.
Yes. The parties did switch. I noticed you didn't address the Civil Right Act in either of your bold cut and pastes but immediately pivoted to deflections.
We studied the Civil Rights Act and its impact on the political parties in detail in my school...and that was in the mid 1980's. This is not theory.
Democrats in the south flipped to Republicans while Democrats became the party of Civil Rights. Here, get familiar with our history.
This is an old article. But right on the money. It's funny to see some of the things printed that turned out to be scary on-the-money.
The Conservative Fantasy History of Civil Rights
The GOP's fashionable revisionist history of how it won the white South — by supporting civil rights!
More Republicans supported civil rights than Democrats.
Democrats blocked every anti-lynching bill the Republicans brought to Congress.
Can you provide a few of the books that have informed your geopolitical insight?
No?
Try reading a book some day.
I'd be happy to provide a starting curriculum for you ....just say the word.
No they don't. Read the article I linked from 2012. It's quite prescient.
A lot of anti-lynching bills were brought up before 1965. When the parties essentially flipped.
But here is a very recent example of someone holding up an anti-lynching bill. Which party does he belong to?
Anti-lynching bill stalls in Senate as emotions run high
Republican Sen. Rand Paul of Kentucky is single-handedly holding up the legislation, which has broad support.
You really need to familiarize yourself with US history. You have a bad habit of bending
narratives (and history) to fit your political leanings.
"The lynchings were Southern whites' extrajudicial efforts to maintain social control, white supremacy, and Democratic Party rule, ..... From 1882 to 1968, "...nearly 200 anti-lynching bills were introduced in Congress, and three passed the House. Seven presidents between 1890 and 1952 petitioned Congress to pass a federal law."[10] Not one bill was approved by the Senate because of the powerful opposition of the Southern Democratic voting block."
Dyer Anti-Lynching Bill - Wikipedia
I take-it you are not interested in either my offer to provide a curriculum to inform your lacunae, or in books in general.
That makes you the quintessential Democrat supporter.
PoliticalChic
Diamond Member
- Thread starter
- #47
6. Spiegel attached an explanation of the song to his YouTube video:
Many years ago, while hiking in Colorado Springs, I came across a group of campers where a folk singer was singing song after song which exalted human nature in the most grandiose terms. I was struck by how the singer and his songs did not recognize that humans have a fundamental moral problem, what theologians call a “sin nature.” It was in response to this that I wrote “Little Hitler”—as a theological corrective to such unabashed (and dangerous) humanism. In this video I perform the song with the same corny exuberance that that folk singer displayed.
The administration denied that the firing was politically motivated, or that they were trying to “cancel” Professor Spiegel. He was fired August 24.”
Christian professor fired over his ‘Little Hitler’ music video about sin | The College Fix
Taylor University scholar booted over comical song on innate sin.
www.thecollegefix.com
What is the essential human nature? Are we angels? Is society able to function based only on the whims and wishes we each evince on a daily basis?
Or is it important that we recognize the need for self control and personal responsibility?
And, yes, those are conservative principles.
Willfully ignorant of history. Honestly, I don't know why you bother. Nobody believes your trolling.
Yes. The parties did switch. I noticed you didn't address the Civil Right Act in either of your bold cut and pastes but immediately pivoted to deflections.
We studied the Civil Rights Act and its impact on the political parties in detail in my school...and that was in the mid 1980's. This is not theory.
Democrats in the south flipped to Republicans while Democrats became the party of Civil Rights. Here, get familiar with our history.
This is an old article. But right on the money. It's funny to see some of the things printed that turned out to be scary on-the-money.
The Conservative Fantasy History of Civil Rights
The GOP's fashionable revisionist history of how it won the white South — by supporting civil rights!
More Republicans supported civil rights than Democrats.
Democrats blocked every anti-lynching bill the Republicans brought to Congress.
Can you provide a few of the books that have informed your geopolitical insight?
No?
Try reading a book some day.
I'd be happy to provide a starting curriculum for you ....just say the word.
No they don't. Read the article I linked from 2012. It's quite prescient.
A lot of anti-lynching bills were brought up before 1965. When the parties essentially flipped.
But here is a very recent example of someone holding up an anti-lynching bill. Which party does he belong to?
Anti-lynching bill stalls in Senate as emotions run high
Republican Sen. Rand Paul of Kentucky is single-handedly holding up the legislation, which has broad support.
You really need to familiarize yourself with US history. You have a bad habit of bending
narratives (and history) to fit your political leanings.
"The lynchings were Southern whites' extrajudicial efforts to maintain social control, white supremacy, and Democratic Party rule, ..... From 1882 to 1968, "...nearly 200 anti-lynching bills were introduced in Congress, and three passed the House. Seven presidents between 1890 and 1952 petitioned Congress to pass a federal law."[10] Not one bill was approved by the Senate because of the powerful opposition of the Southern Democratic voting block."
Dyer Anti-Lynching Bill - Wikipedia
en.wikipedia.org
I take-it you are not interested in either my offer to provide a curriculum to inform your lacunae, or in books in general.
That makes you the quintessential Democrat supporter.
You've failed to address ANY of the points I've made. All you've offered are deflections.
There is nothing you can teach anyone.
You're dismissed.
Is that what they did?
Dragonlady
Designing Woman
There is no denying that the once solid south for Democrats has switched to the RepubliKlan party
Willfully ignorant of history. Honestly, I don't know why you bother. Nobody believes your trolling.
Yes. The parties did switch. I noticed you didn't address the Civil Right Act in either of your bold cut and pastes but immediately pivoted to deflections.
We studied the Civil Rights Act and its impact on the political parties in detail in my school...and that was in the mid 1980's. This is not theory.
Democrats in the south flipped to Republicans while Democrats became the party of Civil Rights. Here, get familiar with our history.
This is an old article. But right on the money. It's funny to see some of the things printed that turned out to be scary on-the-money.
The Conservative Fantasy History of Civil Rights
The GOP's fashionable revisionist history of how it won the white South — by supporting civil rights!
And it's all because of one thing, race? Not for religious or economic reasons?
It most definitely was not for religious or economic reasons. It wasn't until Ronald Reagan promised Jerry Falwell the sun, the moon and the stars if his socially conservative flock voted Republican, that religion became a voting factor. In reality, Republican Presidents gave lip service to the social concerns of the religious right until Donald Trump. Trump has pandered to evangelicals in every way imagineable, from moving the US Embassy to Jerusalem, to getting federal funding for religious schools (which exist to keep white kids segregated from the "urban" youth), and opposing gay rights.
PoliticalChic
Diamond Member
- Thread starter
- #51
There is no denying that the once solid south for Democrats has switched to the RepubliKlan party
Willfully ignorant of history. Honestly, I don't know why you bother. Nobody believes your trolling.
Yes. The parties did switch. I noticed you didn't address the Civil Right Act in either of your bold cut and pastes but immediately pivoted to deflections.
We studied the Civil Rights Act and its impact on the political parties in detail in my school...and that was in the mid 1980's. This is not theory.
Democrats in the south flipped to Republicans while Democrats became the party of Civil Rights. Here, get familiar with our history.
This is an old article. But right on the money. It's funny to see some of the things printed that turned out to be scary on-the-money.
The Conservative Fantasy History of Civil Rights
The GOP's fashionable revisionist history of how it won the white South — by supporting civil rights!
And it's all because of one thing, race? Not for religious or economic reasons?
It most definitely was not for religious or economic reasons. It wasn't until Ronald Reagan promised Jerry Falwell the sun, the moon and the stars if his socially conservative flock voted Republican, that religion became a voting factor. In reality, Republican Presidents gave lip service to the social concerns of the religious right until Donald Trump. Trump has pandered to evangelicals in every way imagineable, from moving the US Embassy to Jerusalem, to getting federal funding for religious schools (which exist to keep white kids segregated from the "urban" youth), and opposing gay rights.
NONE????
You couldn't answer even a single one of those questions?????
So, we've established that, contrary to your fallacious post, you are bereft of any opinions until the Left informs you of what it is.
Excellent.
PoliticalChic
Diamond Member
- Thread starter
- #52
Willfully ignorant of history. Honestly, I don't know why you bother. Nobody believes your trolling.
Yes. The parties did switch. I noticed you didn't address the Civil Right Act in either of your bold cut and pastes but immediately pivoted to deflections.
We studied the Civil Rights Act and its impact on the political parties in detail in my school...and that was in the mid 1980's. This is not theory.
Democrats in the south flipped to Republicans while Democrats became the party of Civil Rights. Here, get familiar with our history.
This is an old article. But right on the money. It's funny to see some of the things printed that turned out to be scary on-the-money.
The Conservative Fantasy History of Civil Rights
The GOP's fashionable revisionist history of how it won the white South — by supporting civil rights!
More Republicans supported civil rights than Democrats.
Democrats blocked every anti-lynching bill the Republicans brought to Congress.
Can you provide a few of the books that have informed your geopolitical insight?
No?
Try reading a book some day.
I'd be happy to provide a starting curriculum for you ....just say the word.
No they don't. Read the article I linked from 2012. It's quite prescient.
A lot of anti-lynching bills were brought up before 1965. When the parties essentially flipped.
But here is a very recent example of someone holding up an anti-lynching bill. Which party does he belong to?
Anti-lynching bill stalls in Senate as emotions run high
Republican Sen. Rand Paul of Kentucky is single-handedly holding up the legislation, which has broad support.
You really need to familiarize yourself with US history. You have a bad habit of bending
narratives (and history) to fit your political leanings.
"The lynchings were Southern whites' extrajudicial efforts to maintain social control, white supremacy, and Democratic Party rule, ..... From 1882 to 1968, "...nearly 200 anti-lynching bills were introduced in Congress, and three passed the House. Seven presidents between 1890 and 1952 petitioned Congress to pass a federal law."[10] Not one bill was approved by the Senate because of the powerful opposition of the Southern Democratic voting block."
Dyer Anti-Lynching Bill - Wikipedia
I take-it you are not interested in either my offer to provide a curriculum to inform your lacunae, or in books in general.
That makes you the quintessential Democrat supporter.
You've failed to address ANY of the points I've made. All you've offered are deflections.
There is nothing you can teach anyone.
You're dismissed.
I believe readers will conclude what I've proven, and what you are.
What more is there to say?
wamose
Diamond Member
The Democrat party are a bunch of young Marxists in black hoodies. They're the ones burning, looting and terrorizing this whole country. They used to be called juvenile delinquents but now the Democrat party calls them freedom fighters. They're funded by an international communist named Soros and they're too dumb to realize they're being used. Once Soros gets power, they'll just become slaves of his kingdom. These antifa-BLM punks are stupid but they ARE the Democrat party.
PoliticalChic
Diamond Member
- Thread starter
- #54
The current iteration of the Democrat Party is no longer opposed to the evil inclinations of human nature…..it accepts and even advances them, up to and including murder.
7.When Liberals/Progressives/Democrats seek knowledge, they go to the NYTimes. When conservatives seek knowledge, we apply to the Bible. The Bible cites God Himself as declaring that the “will of man’s heart is evil from his youth” (Genesis 8:21).
A distinguishing characteristic of Liberals and Leftists is an aversion to recognizing or acknowledging evil and its permutations, i.e., communism. On another level, it explains the Left’s dislike for capitalism, a system which produces winners and losers, a painful fact that the Left would rather not see.
So, when Professor James Spiegel produced his little ditty about the evil component in our nature, and the astute among us might apply that revelation to the movement known as the Democrat Party….well, he needed to be silenced.
Dennis Prager: “Maybe humanity really doesn't need to hold that there's a transcendent source for right and wrong. Maybe we're so wonderful a species that we can do it without any reference to something above us." But after the Holocaust and Gulag, I find that to be very, very unrealistic.”
The human mind is far too susceptible to rationalization to be allowed to come up with some subjective morality, some individual rule that guides the entire society.
We all decide on a set of rules...rules verified over millennia...the Bible...or some derivative of the Bible, such as the United States Constitution.
7.When Liberals/Progressives/Democrats seek knowledge, they go to the NYTimes. When conservatives seek knowledge, we apply to the Bible. The Bible cites God Himself as declaring that the “will of man’s heart is evil from his youth” (Genesis 8:21).
A distinguishing characteristic of Liberals and Leftists is an aversion to recognizing or acknowledging evil and its permutations, i.e., communism. On another level, it explains the Left’s dislike for capitalism, a system which produces winners and losers, a painful fact that the Left would rather not see.
So, when Professor James Spiegel produced his little ditty about the evil component in our nature, and the astute among us might apply that revelation to the movement known as the Democrat Party….well, he needed to be silenced.
Dennis Prager: “Maybe humanity really doesn't need to hold that there's a transcendent source for right and wrong. Maybe we're so wonderful a species that we can do it without any reference to something above us." But after the Holocaust and Gulag, I find that to be very, very unrealistic.”
The human mind is far too susceptible to rationalization to be allowed to come up with some subjective morality, some individual rule that guides the entire society.
We all decide on a set of rules...rules verified over millennia...the Bible...or some derivative of the Bible, such as the United States Constitution.
PoliticalChic
Diamond Member
- Thread starter
- #55
8.The progressives, led by President Woodrow Wilson, placed their faith in reason and the better nature of the American people. And therein lies the problem when Democrats are allowed to lead.
There is no morality behind ‘reason.’
The human mind is more than able to rationalize whatever it wishes, and the Democrats are copacetic with allowing the guidance of the most primitive parts of our nature.
Hence: . The Democrat Party’s agenda today is to ‘release the beast.’ That is the explanation for that party actually admitting to this agenda: The Democrat Party is now running on full-blown anti-white racism, socialism, infanticide, opposition to free speech, substituting illegal alien voters for the American citizenry, support for rioters, arsonists, murderers, and anarchists, and anti-Semitism… the knuckle-dragging, atavistic pagan party.
The Democrat Party feels strong enough to embrace the evil side of constituents, and make the envious, the greedy, the criminal, feel assuaged.
9.A great mistake is to believe that society benefits from the rational rather than the moral. Slavery, the gift of the Democrat Party to America….rational arguments can be made re: profit, easier life, due to slavery. No moral arguments.
One can rationalize such things as cheating on a test, or on one’s taxes…..Reason: ‘everyone cheats’…
Those who reject the idea of morality also refuse to consider the existence of evil.
"Dostoevsky underlined the idea that the problem of evil is not just one more mystery. It is so central to our lives that if reason stumbles there, it must give way to faith. If you cannot understand why children are tortured, nothing else you understand really matters.
…the rejection of theodicy [God, and the existence of evil] becomes the rejection of comprehension itself."
"Evil in Modern Thought: An Alternative History of Philosophy," By Susan Neiman p. 325
And the Bolsheviks and their descendants, the Democrat Party, put that into effect. For both, Bolsheviks and Democrats, atheism is essential and central.
There is no morality behind ‘reason.’
The human mind is more than able to rationalize whatever it wishes, and the Democrats are copacetic with allowing the guidance of the most primitive parts of our nature.
Hence: . The Democrat Party’s agenda today is to ‘release the beast.’ That is the explanation for that party actually admitting to this agenda: The Democrat Party is now running on full-blown anti-white racism, socialism, infanticide, opposition to free speech, substituting illegal alien voters for the American citizenry, support for rioters, arsonists, murderers, and anarchists, and anti-Semitism… the knuckle-dragging, atavistic pagan party.
The Democrat Party feels strong enough to embrace the evil side of constituents, and make the envious, the greedy, the criminal, feel assuaged.
9.A great mistake is to believe that society benefits from the rational rather than the moral. Slavery, the gift of the Democrat Party to America….rational arguments can be made re: profit, easier life, due to slavery. No moral arguments.
One can rationalize such things as cheating on a test, or on one’s taxes…..Reason: ‘everyone cheats’…
Those who reject the idea of morality also refuse to consider the existence of evil.
"Dostoevsky underlined the idea that the problem of evil is not just one more mystery. It is so central to our lives that if reason stumbles there, it must give way to faith. If you cannot understand why children are tortured, nothing else you understand really matters.
…the rejection of theodicy [God, and the existence of evil] becomes the rejection of comprehension itself."
"Evil in Modern Thought: An Alternative History of Philosophy," By Susan Neiman p. 325
And the Bolsheviks and their descendants, the Democrat Party, put that into effect. For both, Bolsheviks and Democrats, atheism is essential and central.
Dragonlady
Designing Woman
Willfully ignorant of history. Honestly, I don't know why you bother. Nobody believes your trolling.
Yes. The parties did switch. I noticed you didn't address the Civil Right Act in either of your bold cut and pastes but immediately pivoted to deflections.
We studied the Civil Rights Act and its impact on the political parties in detail in my school...and that was in the mid 1980's. This is not theory.
Democrats in the south flipped to Republicans while Democrats became the party of Civil Rights. Here, get familiar with our history.
This is an old article. But right on the money. It's funny to see some of the things printed that turned out to be scary on-the-money.
The Conservative Fantasy History of Civil Rights
The GOP's fashionable revisionist history of how it won the white South — by supporting civil rights!
More Republicans supported civil rights than Democrats.
Democrats blocked every anti-lynching bill the Republicans brought to Congress.
Can you provide a few of the books that have informed your geopolitical insight?
No?
Try reading a book some day.
I'd be happy to provide a starting curriculum for you ....just say the word.
No they don't. Read the article I linked from 2012. It's quite prescient.
A lot of anti-lynching bills were brought up before 1965. When the parties essentially flipped.
But here is a very recent example of someone holding up an anti-lynching bill. Which party does he belong to?
Anti-lynching bill stalls in Senate as emotions run high
Republican Sen. Rand Paul of Kentucky is single-handedly holding up the legislation, which has broad support.
You really need to familiarize yourself with US history. You have a bad habit of bending
narratives (and history) to fit your political leanings.
"The lynchings were Southern whites' extrajudicial efforts to maintain social control, white supremacy, and Democratic Party rule, ..... From 1882 to 1968, "...nearly 200 anti-lynching bills were introduced in Congress, and three passed the House. Seven presidents between 1890 and 1952 petitioned Congress to pass a federal law."[10] Not one bill was approved by the Senate because of the powerful opposition of the Southern Democratic voting block."
Dyer Anti-Lynching Bill - Wikipedia
I take-it you are not interested in either my offer to provide a curriculum to inform your lacunae, or in books in general.
That makes you the quintessential Democrat supporter.
While you can use big words with some linguist dexterity, it doesn't cover up the fact that nothing you've posted about the racist policies of the Democratic Party are true after 1968 - more than 50 years ago. In fact, it was John F. Kennedy who moved the Democrats past their racist past and introduced the Civil Rights Act to Congress. When asking Johnson to be his running mate, Kennedy made a point of telling Johnson about his plans for racial reform, and Johnson agreed to all of them.
After Kennedy's death, Johnson made sure that the signature legislation of the Kennedy Presidency, the Civil Rights Act was passed. And when you look at the votes it took to pass that Act, 29 Southern Democrats voted in favour of the Bill, but not ONE Southern Republican voted for it. Yes the Bill passed because of Republican votes, but in both the House and Senate it was NORTHERN Republican votes because while some Southern Democrats broke ranks and voted in favour of the Civil Rights Act, not one Southern Republican did so.
History is NOT on your side little Trump Chick. History shows that Republicans freed the slaves, but they NEVER gave them equal rights.
2aguy
Diamond Member
- Jul 19, 2014
- 112,556
- 52,800
- 2,290
J
Johnson, the racist, simply changed tactics.......he used the Great Society to destroy the black families in democrat party controlled cities to make sure they voted for the democrat party.......and the democrats have been destroying black lives ever since....
Willfully ignorant of history. Honestly, I don't know why you bother. Nobody believes your trolling.
Yes. The parties did switch. I noticed you didn't address the Civil Right Act in either of your bold cut and pastes but immediately pivoted to deflections.
We studied the Civil Rights Act and its impact on the political parties in detail in my school...and that was in the mid 1980's. This is not theory.
Democrats in the south flipped to Republicans while Democrats became the party of Civil Rights. Here, get familiar with our history.
This is an old article. But right on the money. It's funny to see some of the things printed that turned out to be scary on-the-money.
The Conservative Fantasy History of Civil Rights
The GOP's fashionable revisionist history of how it won the white South — by supporting civil rights!
More Republicans supported civil rights than Democrats.
Democrats blocked every anti-lynching bill the Republicans brought to Congress.
Can you provide a few of the books that have informed your geopolitical insight?
No?
Try reading a book some day.
I'd be happy to provide a starting curriculum for you ....just say the word.
No they don't. Read the article I linked from 2012. It's quite prescient.
A lot of anti-lynching bills were brought up before 1965. When the parties essentially flipped.
But here is a very recent example of someone holding up an anti-lynching bill. Which party does he belong to?
Anti-lynching bill stalls in Senate as emotions run high
Republican Sen. Rand Paul of Kentucky is single-handedly holding up the legislation, which has broad support.
You really need to familiarize yourself with US history. You have a bad habit of bending
narratives (and history) to fit your political leanings.
"The lynchings were Southern whites' extrajudicial efforts to maintain social control, white supremacy, and Democratic Party rule, ..... From 1882 to 1968, "...nearly 200 anti-lynching bills were introduced in Congress, and three passed the House. Seven presidents between 1890 and 1952 petitioned Congress to pass a federal law."[10] Not one bill was approved by the Senate because of the powerful opposition of the Southern Democratic voting block."
Dyer Anti-Lynching Bill - Wikipedia
I take-it you are not interested in either my offer to provide a curriculum to inform your lacunae, or in books in general.
That makes you the quintessential Democrat supporter.
While you can use big words with some linguist dexterity, it doesn't cover up the fact that nothing you've posted about the racist policies of the Democratic Party are true after 1968 - more than 50 years ago. In fact, it was John F. Kennedy who moved the Democrats past their racist past and introduced the Civil Rights Act to Congress. When asking Johnson to be his running mate, Kennedy made a point of telling Johnson about his plans for racial reform, and Johnson agreed to all of them.
After Kennedy's death, Johnson made sure that the signature legislation of the Kennedy Presidency, the Civil Rights Act was passed. And when you look at the votes it took to pass that Act, 29 Southern Democrats voted in favour of the Bill, but not ONE Southern Republican voted for it. Yes the Bill passed because of Republican votes, but in both the House and Senate it was NORTHERN Republican votes because while some Southern Democrats broke ranks and voted in favour of the Civil Rights Act, not one Southern Republican did so.
History is NOT on your side little Trump Chick. History shows that Republicans freed the slaves, but they NEVER gave them equal rights.
Johnson, the racist, simply changed tactics.......he used the Great Society to destroy the black families in democrat party controlled cities to make sure they voted for the democrat party.......and the democrats have been destroying black lives ever since....
Dragonlady
Designing Woman
Maybe you ought to read this Constitution you're so keen on, or the protections the Founders built in for minority rights, the basis of which for the Founders was a fear of the "tryanny of the majority". The Electoral College was founded because of fears that a populist demagogue would win the popular vote. The EC was supposed to prevent the "tryanny of the majority", which you're now trying to claim should hold sway.
The Constitution doesn't talk about good or evil, but it sets out checks and balances on "tryanny", and it also addresses the rights of minorities. The Founders were determined to separate religion and politics because the entire country was founded because of religious persecurtion. The Pilgrims left Europe because of religious persecution. The Founders wanted religion OUT of politics to prevent the government from persecuting Americans because of their religion. The Religious Right is trying to overturn those concerns and FORCE Americans to adopt their fundamentalist and wrong-headed beliefs and encode them into law.
In your abject partisan hackery, you think that everyone else is as igorant of religion, politics and the Constitution as you are. The selective education of the home schooled conservative is so lacking in persepective or even facts.
2aguy
Diamond Member
- Jul 19, 2014
- 112,556
- 52,800
- 2,290
No...the Founders were not determined to separate religion from politics, they were determined to protect religious expression from people like you who will use government to attack religious people.....
Similar threads
New Topics
-
Scumbag democrat who filed impeachment articles is an animal abuser- Started by CrazyTrader55
- Replies: 4
-
Judge Orders Suspect Behind Firebombing of Missouri Tesla Released from Federal Custody
- Started by Hollie
- Replies: 3
-
Kamala Harris Admits Trump Hasn't Ever Put Us In A "Constitutional Crisis"- Started by Independent thinker
- Replies: 4
-
Trumps unprecedented 2 hour town hall last night - link here- Started by iamwhatiseem
- Replies: 6
-
