That WAS The Democratic and Repubican Party

[Hollie]

White women were the number one beneficiary of Affirative Actuion, so be quiet. Whites were so lazy they had to use slaves to do the work. You talk dumb but if not for the fact that you coud lay on your back or get on your knees to get a white man, you would be in the same position as non white people. So don't be white and female talking stupid.

Yeah. It’s all those evil white women.

On the other hand, were blacks too lazy and shiftless to refuse the work?

 

[el midgetron]

It's actually not a fact. Most societies that have existed don't exist anymore because they're destroyed by external or internal forces. What you really mean to say is that societies change over time and that makes sense because that's what time is, the rate of change. Sometimes they change for the better, sometimes they change for the worse. That's a matter of perspective. A lot of Americans are looking at the diversifying of the nation and not liking that change at all.

Yes, by “grow” I was referring to changes across a lifespan.

“Diversity” is a stupid buzz word. People who use it need to define what “diversity” they are referring to. Usually, it’s just skin color which meaningless to anyone who isn’t a racist. Some people would consider diversity to be innate cultural things like cuisine and costume. Again, those are nice things but they don’t really strengthen a society.

So, why is “diversity our strength”? The most substantial diversity would be beliefs and values, the things at a core of a cultural identity. Is it a strength to live amongst people who don’t share your values and beliefs? If so, then people who have values contrary to your own, (let’s say rapists and racists) would be fortifying society.

“Diversity“ is not a strength in society. The free and open exchange of diverse ideas is a strength. The best ideas will prevail. However, having a fragmented society that lacks social cohesion is not a strength. Food, dress and skin color are just culturally superficial or “skin-deep”.

Its not “diversity” that people aren’t liking, it’s the fragmenting of society. Why would you want to live amongst people who disagree with you or even dislike you?

And also to perpetuate it. Like I said you dont get a pat on the back from me because you've finally ended, after centuries, your deplorable practice of using men, women and children as chattel slaves.

No, its YOUR deplorable practice. This is where you fruity liberals can shove it, Slavery was practiced the globe over for all of human history by pretty much all cultures. By YOUR standard, everyone is guilty of the deplorable practice. YOU are as responsible for slavery as anyone. The fact you disown YOUR a responsibility by putting it on others, (saying it’s mine) shows you that slavery is just a moral club you swing at those you disagree with (Even though diversity is YOUR strength).

You cuckolds invited your own demographic displacement and that's the entire game right there.

Wait a minute? First you are chastizing us about ”not liking” diversity and now you are mocking us for inviting our demographic displacement?

Where are you from Einstein?

 

[el midgetron]

1. African Involvement in the Slave Trade: Acknowledging that African entities participated in the slave trade is not an apology for slavery but a recognition of the historical complexity. The transatlantic slave trade involved many parties—African, European, and others. The key distinction lies in the scale, nature, and legacy of the transatlantic slave trade, which was unprecedented and had lasting impacts due to its racialization of slavery and the systemic dehumanization of Africans. Recognizing the roles of African traders doesn't excuse European traders; it underscores the global culpability and complexity of the slave trade.

Only if you have a very Western centered view of history. Africans invented the international slave trade. It was every bit as brutal and dehumanizing as the Trans Atlantic slave trade, which was also created by Africans (go figure). The very word “slave“ comes from “slav” because so many Slavic people were enslaved by Muslims.

You can keep claiming you are recognizing the complexities. However, acting like the Trans Atlantic slave trade is anything other than better documented just shows you aren’t really acknowledging the complexities.

 

[el midgetron]

Communism is the natural and inevitable successor and inheritor of capitalism. It's inevitable due to advanced automation and artificial intelligence.

It’s worth noting that capitalism invented both those things.

 

[IM2]

Yeah. It’s all those evil white women.

On the other hand, were blacks too lazy and shiftless to refuse the work?

Nope. Blacks don't have the record of laziness or shiftlessness. Whites do. Facts show that white women benefitted the most fro m AA. You are one of them, dumb and unqualifed, you took a spot a better qualified person of color should have had.

 

[Hollie]

Nope. Blacks don't have the record of laziness or shiftlessness. Whites do. Facts show that white women benefitted the most fro m AA. You are one of them, dumb and unqualifed, you took a spot a better qualified person of color should have had.

Yep. You have a record of being lazy and shiftless. You have this quaint notion that the devil white women had some benefit from AA but perhaps you’re angry and bitter because the better qualified person replaced you as the lesser candidate.

 

[Soupnazi630]

Private property doesn't exist, no one owns it, not even the government. Under capitalism, you're truly a slave, because your capitalist boss, will never hold elections in the workplace. You're reduced to a commodity and wage slave, working under a tyrant who never holds elections. I prefer to have a government that runs elections, allowing me to elect my managers, as my boss, than a private company run like a totalitarian dictatorship.

Wrong and ignorant. Private property does exist and is a natural outgrowth of self determination.

Capitalism abolishes slavery. You are not a slave doe to lack of elections. When you get a job you have an agreement with the boss. Break the agremeent and you lose the job. That is voluntary agency which by definition makes it not slavery. Nor is it slavery through coercio0n as so many parxists clowns think. It is easy to switch jobs.

Ity is MARXISM which reduces people to a commodity and slave. Notice how every paxist ALWAYS refers to people as workers and nothing else. That is because under communism you are a drone and have no rights to the product of your labor. Your life does not exist outside of work, Marxismm does not even permit familes.

Under capitalism work is part of your life and you arrange it as you see fit, then reap the benefits OR live with the consequences.

if you wish to work for a place where managers are elected then do so. They do exist here and there. Workers coops are permited and run exactly as you describe. The problem is there are not many of them because they are a bad business model. But you are free to try. Conversely no one is permited to run an efficient privatem business under communism because that requires autonomy which communism FORBIDS.

That is the essence of why you are wrong. One can try living in a commune under capitalism or working in a coop. But communism is forced upon people and no dissent is allowed.

That is naked force and that is how slavery is achieved.

 

[Soupnazi630]

Communism is the natural and inevitable successor and inheritor of capitalism. It's inevitable due to advanced automation and artificial intelligence.

No it is not.

Communism is always forced. By definition if you have to force it then it is not anything natural.

Advanced automation and AI require innovation and autonomy to work which is the opposite of communism

 

[ThisIsMe]

It's not 1860 anymore as I get told when I talk about slavery or reparations. But for some reason the right believes they have special privileges and can determine what particular parts of the past can be discussed today.

But what has the democrat party done for black folks? They keep telling you to vote for them but, honestly, what has the black community gotten from that? Seems like nothing has really advanced for black people. In fact, our government is doing 10x more for illegals than they are for black people, but the black community keeps supporting them.

Perhaps that’s why we are starting to see stories of black people leaving the democrat party?

 

[IM2]

But what has the democrat party done for black folks? They keep telling you to vote for them but, honestly, what has the black community gotten from that? Seems like nothing has really advanced for black people. In fact, our government is doing 10x more for illegals than they are for black people, but the black community keeps supporting them.

Perhaps that’s why we are starting to see stories of black people leaving the democrat party?

I look at the last 60 years and say that the Democratic party has done more for blacks in less than 60 years than Republicans did in 100. Now is really time you Republicans stopped this dishonest mess. If your party wins the white house and gets a majority it is planning to erase civil rights to protect whites from racism that they don't face. So don't tell me what Democrats aren't doing. Because the republican party is going to deport immigrants and gut civil rights.

 

[el midgetron]

If your party wins the white house and gets a majority it is s planning to erase civil rights to protect whites from racism that they don't face. So don't tell me what Democrats aren't doing.

DEI is not “civil rights”. DEI is discrimination. Advancing one race over another is everything you pretend to oppose. You don’t oppose discrimination or racism, you just want them to favor you.

Because the republican party is going to deport immigrants and gut civil rights.

Deporting the millions of illegals that have been brought in to replace YOU is a good thing. Americans should come first, Americans like YOU.

 

[Red Front]

It’s worth noting that capitalism invented both those things.

The core innovations in automation, AI, and tech weren't just handed to us by the invisible hand of the market; they're the fruits of government-funded projects. DARPA, NASA, and the Cold War's tech race, not capitalism, laid the tech foundations we're building on today. These public institutions funded the breakthroughs that private sector exploits now. It's clear-cut: the big leaps came from government action, not just corporate ambition.

That said, so what? Do you actually believe the capitalists of the 19th century didn't benefit from technology developed before capitalism? We all benefit from technology developed beforehand by others, we stand on their shoulders. So what? Anyways, all of the big money capitalists know that advanced technology requires government intervention in the form of a UBI i.e. Universal Basic Income:

​

The so-called "UBI" is a government bailout for capitalists. It's essentially a way to create an artificial market, by giving people "free money" to spend, extending the life of capitalism a few more decades before it dies. Advance automation and artificial intelligence, along with other new technologies like quantum computing and nanotechnology, will eliminate the need for wage labor. Without wages, there's no paying consumer and if there's no paying consumer, there's no profit or market. Society is forced by necessity to adopt a non-profit, marketless, centrally planned system of mass production. That's a nice way of saying "socialism/communism".

Advanced production technology naturally and inevitably leads to communism. It won't be the communism of the Soviet Union, but rather communism, which is democratic and American. It's not Russian Bolshevic communism, it's not Chinese communism or Cuban communism, it's a communism that is distinctively American in its character and values. That entails that Americans remain armed.

American communists of the Red Front, believe that a free and democratic constitutional republic requires that the populace have the right to own firearms, including combat rifles, with access to ammunition. Read the quote in my signature below. That's what Marx said. The working class must remain armed. True Marxist communists are against totalitarianism and disarming the public.

Communism is defined as:

"A communist society would entail the absence of private property and social classes,[1] and ultimately money[6] and the state (or nation state).[7][8][9]"

Source: Communism - Wikipedia"\

Communists want to establish a stateless society, without socioeconomic classes or the need for money. Private property is any property that is being used to exploit others for a profit. It's "for profit" properties. Any property that is for personal use, is personal property hence allowed in communism. Your house, your plot of land where you grow food for yourself and your family, your car, your personal library and gun collection, your computer and smartphone, your toothbrush and fruit of the looms, all of that is your personal property. Those who tell you communists want to take everything away from you are ignorant.

We believe that eventually the state withers away:

Withering away of the state - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

That's an important concept in Marxism. We want to eliminate the state. How do we do that? We do it by empowering the consumer, with advanced technology, which will allow him or her to produce all of the goods and services that they consume, without anyone's help. Before we get to that high level of personalized production, in the hands of every citizen, we must mass produce the goods and services that we consume, collectively, through our government. We will all own the robots, nanobots, artificial intelligence, self-driving cars, the super-computers/quantum computers, together.

The alternative is techno feudalism. That's where advanced automation leads without communism. The wealthy own all of the robots and consign the working class to the compost heap because they don't need human workers anymore. I prefer democratic communism to techno-feudalism and becoming a compost fertilizer for a billionaire's garden.

 

[Soupnazi630]

Sir that's false. Communists allow personal property, not private property. Private property is all property that is used to exploit others for profit. You can own a house, a plot of land, car, all of the stuff you own now, provided it's for personal use. In communism, your personal property is even more secure, than under capitalism.

The government of a constitutional, Republic, that is democratic is a better boss than a private company run like a totalitarian dictatorship. Most big companies are run like fiefdoms. When was last time you voted in an election in the workplace? I prefer a boss that holds elections, like my government. Don't drink the capitalist Kool-Aid.

Wrong

Marxists whether socialist or communist forbid and ban ALL PERSONAL property. You are permited to own nothing under any collectivist system

You may not even own a kitchen under such systems but are instead expected to eat at communal canteens. Which results in malnutrition and starvation.

 

[ThisIsMe]

I look at the last 60 years and say that the Democratic party has done more for blacks in less than 60 years than Republicans did in 100. Now is really time you Republicans stopped this dishonest mess. If your party wins the white house and gets a majority it is planning to erase civil rights to protect whites from racism that they don't face. So don't tell me what Democrats aren't doing. Because the republican party is going to deport immigrants and gut civil rights.

No, they’re not…well, the deport thing, maybe, and I really even doubt that will happen if we’re being honest.

As far as gutting civil rights, nobody wants to do that, I’ve heard nobody even talking about it…well, except for the left that is, left wing (progressive) talking heads say that kind of stuff all the time, usually to fear monger, or to rile up their listeners, and it works.

You say democrats have done more in 60 years? Like what? You mean filibustering the civil rights act? I mean, other than say a lot of stuff and do nothing, and then pointing fingers at the repubs and blaming them for everything, what are some of the things that democrats have done for black folks?

Also, what is it exactly that you think repubs will do if they get the White House? What “erasing” will they do? I’m curious, because I listen to radio from both sides of the aisle and I’ve never heard any Republican even hint at wanting to gut civil rights.

 

[IM2]

No, they’re not…well, the deport thing, maybe, and I really even doubt that will happen if we’re being honest.

As far as gutting civil rights, nobody wants to do that, I’ve heard nobody even talking about it…well, except for the left that is, left wing (progressive) talking heads say that kind of stuff all the time, usually to fear monger, or to rile up their listeners, and it works.

You say democrats have done more in 60 years? Like what? You mean filibustering the civil rights act? I mean, other than say a lot of stuff and do nothing, and then pointing fingers at the repubs and blaming them for everything, what are some of the things that democrats have done for black folks?

Also, what is it exactly that you think repubs will do if they get the White House? What “erasing” will they do? I’m curious, because I listen to radio from both sides of the aisle and I’ve never heard any Republican even hint at wanting to gut civil rights.

We got jim crow when we were republicans. And we got civil rights as Democrats. That's one thing right there. Your party is the voter suppression party. Your party filibustered the John Lewis voting rights act that would have provided a remedy for the overturning of important parts of the 1964 Voting Rights Act that was killed by the conservative Supreme Court in 2013. Your party is the party who killed affirmative action under the lie that it disctriminates against whites and when I say that your party is trying to take us back to Jim Crow, it is because that's exacty what your party wants to do.

Trump allies plot anti-racism protections — for white people​

https://www.axios.com/2024/04/01/trump-reverse-racism-civil-rights

So stop lying about your f--king party. It's the white nationalist party. Almost every week we see another republican running for office or elected who has ties to white supremacist groups. Anybody black dumb enough to vote republican right now is damn fool. No, they aren't thinking independently if they are voting for white supremacy. Stop giving your party credit for what it hasn't done.

 

[Red Front]

We got jim crow when we were republicans. And we got civil rights as Democrats. That's one thing right there. Your party is the voter suppression party. Your party filibustered the John Lewis voting rights act that would have provided a remedy for the overturning of important parts of the 1964 Voting Rights Act that was killed by the conservative Supreme Court in 2013. Your party is the party who killed affirmative action under the lie that it disctriminates against whites and when I say that your party is trying to take us back to Jim Crow, it is because that's exacty what your party wants to do.

Trump allies plot anti-racism protections — for white people​

https://www.axios.com/2024/04/01/trump-reverse-racism-civil-rights

So stop lying about your f--king party. It's the white nationalist party. Almost every week we see another republican running for office or elected who has ties to white supremacist groups. Anybody black dumb enough to vote republican right now is damn fool. No, they aren't thinking independently if they are voting for white supremacy. Stop giving your party credit for what it hasn't done.

The negative vs the positive of the republican party.

THE NEGATIVE:

The Republican Party is the Angry, Bitter, and Scared White Folks Party.

It's the Jesus Is Coming Back Soon, So Eff The World Party.

It's the Make Israel Great Again, Even If It Means Flushing America Down The Toilet Party.

It's The I Hate People Of Color Party.

It's the Slavery Wasn't That Bad Party.

It's The Fk The Poor, Love The Rich Party.

It's The Place All Of The Nation's Wealth & Infrastructure In Billionaire's Hands Party.

It's The Working Class Hardly Has Any Rights Party.

It's The Rich Brain Washed Me Into Thinking They Must Have All The Power Because I Want To Become Rich One Day Too, Hence I'm A Member Of The Working Class Only Accidently and Temporarily, So FK The Working Class, Party.

It's The Rich Have Brain Washed Me Into Hating The Government and Thinking Private Corporations Run By Capitalists Like Little Fiefdoms Is Always Better, Party.

It's The Blank Check For The Military Industrial Complex Party.

It's The America Can Deploy Troops And Steal Other People's Oil Party.

It's The I Don't Need Healthcare Party.

It's The We Can't Provide A Tuition Free Education To Our Next Generation, Because It Will Cost Tens Of Billions Yearly, But We Should Spend Trillions Subsidizing The Military Industrial Complex, Big Oil, Big Pharma....etc, Party.

It's The Government Shouldn't Impose Rent Controls On Greedy Landlords, So I'll Gladly Pay $2300 Monthly For A 1 Bedroom Apartment, Even Though I Only Make $2800 Monthly, Because The Imaginary Free-Market Is God, Party.

It's the Champion Of Fetuses In Other Peopls's Wombs Party.

It's The Single Mothers Can Go To Hell Party.

It's The Whore Shouldn't Have Gotten Pregnant Anyways Party.

It's The FK You I Don't Care If I Become A Public Health Hazard In The Middle Of A Deadly Nationwide Pandemic Party.

It's The Ironic, Government Doesn't Have A Right To Force Me To Wear A Mask In Crowded Public Venues On My Face In A Nationwide Pandemic, But I Use That Same Government To Force Women To Remain Pregnant For Nine Months, Because I Love Embryos & Fetuses In Stranger's Wombs Party.

It's The Ironic, I Love Embryos & Fetuses In Strange's Uteruses, Until Those Embryos & Fetuses Become Breathing Babies, So Let Me Defund Government Programs That Help Impoverished Single Mothers Raise Their Babies, Because I Hate Single Mothers, They're A Bunch Of Whores Anyways, And Many Of Them Are Black & Latino, So I Hate Them Even More, Party.

Smoking certain plants and sniffing certain powders into one's own nose should be criminalized party.

Of course, there are more negative aspects to the American Republican Party, but those are the ones I can think of off the top of my head.

THE POSITIVE:

They Haven't Drank The LGBTQ+++, 72 Genders, Let's Inject Minors With Puberty Blockers Kool-Aid. That's good.

They're hard-working. They believe in self-reliance, picking themselves up by their bootstraps. All of that is good and virtuous. Of course, their capitalist masters can take advantage of that character trait and exploit it for their own ends at the expense of that hard-working conservative employee, but working hard at work is indeed a virtue nonetheless.

They believe in the traditional nuclear family, with a mom, dad, and children. That's beautiful and wholesome. As a communist, I'm all for it. Thumbs up.

They're tough on crime. They don't want to defund the police. I don't either.

They're against illegal immigration and protecting our borders. I'm all for that. The US government can't provide social services to all of Latin America, much less the whole world. Those resources should be used by American citizens and legal residents, and that's it.

They're pro-firearms ownership/pro-second amendment. They're for conceal and carry. I'm for that too. I believe law-abiding citizens should have the right to keep and bear arms.

They're for religious freedom, as I am. People should have the right to worship as they see fit and to say whatever they want from the pulpit without being censored, fined, or arrested.

Christians and people of all faiths have a right to educate their children in religiously oriented schools. The values and tenets of those faiths should be respected.

Many of them are for homeschooling. I support homeschooling provided the education the children receive meets a high standard. That entails parents educating themselves and getting involved in their child's education. They don't need advanced degrees in education, but they need to educate themselves and take a few courses on child education, on mathematics..etc. That's all good and admirable.

That's what I can think of now off the top of my head. Others may be able to add more to that, and if I agree I will thumb up that post.

 

[IM2]

It's The Ironic, Government Doesn't Have A Right To Force Me To Wear A Mask In Crowded Public Venues On My Face In A Nationwide Pandemic, But the government can force me to stand during a song and to recognize a piece of colored cloth.

 

[Red Front]

It's The Ironic, Government Doesn't Have A Right To Force Me To Wear A Mask In Crowded Public Venues On My Face In A Nationwide Pandemic, But the government can force me to stand during a song and to recognize a piece of colored cloth.

That's a good one.

 

[Curried Goats]

Yes, by “grow” I was referring to changes across a lifespan.

Not necessarily positive or negative though is it as we see from your commentary below. The Founders weren't shitty people because they lived in a different time but because they did shitty things and robbed men, women and children of their lives and their liberty.

“Diversity” is a stupid buzz word. People who use it need to define what “diversity” they are referring to.

I'd be happy to. I mean diversity of race and cultures.

Usually, it’s just skin color which meaningless to anyone who isn’t a racist. Some people would consider diversity to be innate cultural things like cuisine and costume. Again, those are nice things but they don’t really strengthen a society.

Is it racist to recognize that there is a culture of whites in America who don't like Black people and are proud of their Confederate heritage and want to see them replaced? Why? That's racial maybe, but not racist. I don't think whites are inferior racially, I think Confederate and Slaver Founder lovers are inferior culturally. I'd prefer to live in a country where my neighbors weren't so deplorable that they celebrated people who used to own people that looked like me.

So, why is “diversity our strength”? The most substantial diversity would be beliefs and values, the things at a core of a cultural identity. Is it a strength to live amongst people who don’t share your values and beliefs? If so, then people who have values contrary to your own, (let’s say rapists and racists) would be fortifying society.

Well for me, racial diversity is a strength because it means fewer white racists and bigots trying to pass racist and bigot legislation. Also immigrants are less likely than Americans to commit crimes.

“Diversity“ is not a strength in society. The free and open exchange of diverse ideas is a strength. The best ideas will prevail.

It's not just important to have a free exchange of ideas but also a good diversity of ideas. No one really needs to exchange ideas if everyone already believes the same thing. A free exchange of ideas only makes sense to have in a society where there are other ideas to share.

However, having a fragmented society that lacks social cohesion is not a strength. Food, dress and skin color are just culturally superficial or “skin-deep”.

Its not “diversity” that people aren’t liking, it’s the fragmenting of society. Why would you want to live amongst people who disagree with you or even dislike you?

Disagreement is just fine. It's the people who dislike me that I'm concerned about which is why racist whites are just going to have to be demographically replaced. At least as far as I'm concerned.

No, its YOUR deplorable practice. This is where you fruity liberals can shove it, Slavery was practiced the globe over for all of human history by pretty much all cultures. By YOUR standard, everyone is guilty of the deplorable practice.

Everyone who engaged in it yes. That's how culpability works. If you enaged in some deplorable act you're culpable for it. Why is this only an issue when we're talking about slaver Founders?

YOU are as responsible for slavery as anyone. The fact you disown YOUR a responsibility by putting it on others, (saying it’s mine) shows you that slavery is just a moral club you swing at those you disagree with (Even though diversity is YOUR strength).

I've never engage in slavery and to be clear I wasn't accusing you of engaging in slavery. I was simply making the argument that expecting anyone to praise the white Americans who died in the civil war is like asking people to praise a man who's decided to stop beating his wife. The North profited off the South slavery and would of allowed it to continue had they not seceded. The war was about reuniting the Union. Not ending slavery which ultimately it failed at. Jim Crow and convict leasing in the South saw the start of mass black incarceration in this country and black prisoners being put back to work on the same plantations they were supposed freed from.

Wait a minute? First you are chastizing us about ”not liking” diversity and now you are mocking us for inviting our demographic displacement?

I do. I enjoy mocking cuckolded racists who have no legal answer for birth right citizenship. The constitution they all love so much has made cuckolds out of the lot of them. That sort of irony is too amusing not to point at and laugh in their faces about.

Where are you from Einstein?

My family is from Jamaica and before that Southern China, Northern India and what is now Nigeria.

 

[struth]

Governments have the power to push technology forward without needing the market or capitalism to step in. They can fund research and gather teams of experts to innovate. But capitalism often gets in the way, especially when big companies lobby to block new tech that could hurt their profits. For example, the fossil fuel industry has spent loads of money to bad-mouth nuclear energy, even though it's a clean and efficient alternative we've had for years. This has kept us hooked on oil, gas, and coal because people are scared of nuclear power, thanks to all the negative press.

Capitalists are mainly interested in making money. They're not going to invest in new technology unless they're sure it'll pay off. So, they often let universities and government labs do the pioneering work, and then swoop in to make a profit off these innovations.

There's also the issue of products being designed to break down or become outdated on purpose. This tactic, known as "engineered obsolescence," forces people to keep buying new products instead of using them for a long time. Communists argue for making products that last and serve the public good, rather than just making more money for companies. In short, capitalism focuses on profit over people and the planet, while government-driven tech development can be more about the public good and sustainability.

No it can’t. Yes it can fund experts, like I said it can act like a market player