Democrat Privilege

[hillelslovak87]

Look at this coward.
Just read his post
Beyond the tough guy babble and mentally deranged moans what you are really saying is "How come you won't believe that we are the good guys, huh oh you won't believe me? Fine then you're not smart, oh you still don't believe me fine I'm going to kill you"

Good job proving my point there Skippy, anytime you want to find out the true meaning of a flash sale, bring your wallet.

Yeah, you seem to be talking to more people than just me in this post, and you seem to have some weird fantasies about violence, perhaps.

Odd duck.

 

[blaseblah]

The federal government. The Democrats today have opposed a great many Trump enacted policies (including existing policies like immigration) even though Obama enforced those same laws. It is relative to who is in power for the Democrats.

It's certainly not a right-wing position.

Because they were left-wing tyrants.

I certainly know my history. Thomas Jefferson and many of the founding fathers were "liberals" in their day too. Sometimes liberal and conservative are terms that can be relative to civilization and time period. At the end of the day, it was the Democratic party that reaped the rewards of its old platforms, and there is plenty of "privilege" to go around.

Your take is laughably bad. The democratic party of the 1800s supported small government, opposed taxes, and was pro-big business. They were conservatives, period. No scholar on Earth would call them left wing. They didn't stand for anything resembling liberal policy.

Meanwhile the Republicans were pushing for economic reform, more taxes, national banking system, social security for veterans. They were left wing.

I recommend you do some reading about the great depression and the new deal, civil rights movement, and the southern strategy. A lot of realignment happened that explains how the Dems lost the south, gained the black vote, and became the party of social welfare.

 

[Leisure_Force999]

Yeah, you seem to be talking to more people than just me in this post, and you seem to have some weird fantasies about violence, perhaps.

Odd duck.

My bad, must have quoted the wrong person. I wouldn't have approached you like that, atleast you're smart enough to actually present an opinion

 

[hillelslovak87]

My bad, must have quoted the wrong person. I wouldn't have approached you like that, atleast you're smart enough to actually present an opinion

Which you didn't address. And even if I hadn't, does it make you sound anything but insane, just like a hyper leftist you hate, throwing around soy-boy, cuck, etc without an argument of your own?

Also, the facts regarding the southern strategy and the Republican party's record on race relations since (along with the concomitant rates in GOP votes from blacks across the nation) that period do not at all support the idea that the Democrats are the racist party of the 19th century through the mid 20th.

 

[rob mafia]

lol Didn't he just point it out to you that a democratic republic is still a form of Democracy?

it's democratic, but it's not A democracy. hence, why the majority doesn't actually rule over the minority, despite what blm believes.

a democracy =/= a republic, which the usa is.

additionally, it's why we have the electoral college (and last 2 pres elections with minority vote winning) and senate and etc.

 

[Leisure_Force999]

Which you didn't address. And even if I hadn't, does it make you sound anything but insane, just like a hyper leftist you hate, throwing around soy-boy, cuck, etc without an argument of your own?

Also, the facts regarding the southern strategy and the Republican party's record on race relations since (along with the concomitant rates in GOP votes from blacks across the nation) that period do not at all support the idea that the Democrats are the racist party of the 19th century through the mid 20th.

You're ignoring that I did address your point. Rather plainly, I told you what I agreed with. Then I called the rest an attempt to rewrite history. I understand that your position is quite popular amongst leftists who guess history as malleable however I do not.
I believe in History taught by historians , not Monday mourning quarterbacks who claim to be experts at history, while sermonizing on the horror of white men.
You can't be an expert at history without first acknowledging that you shouldn't hold the Men of yesterday to the same standards as you hold people today. That's basically your whole argument man, that we should hold George Washington to today's standard.

That's why I can't debate history, we view it as two separate entities.
You see history as alive and flexible.
I view history as solid and immovable.

Now I'm willing to debate you if we can agree not to attempt to rewrite history.
If not, then I guess we can just agree to disagree.

 

[blaseblah]

LMAO you think that's a shock?
LMAO your party never wins any solid block of the country, y'all lose more states then not, always, however NY and CA are literally the only reason your party is relevant.

You'll lose 30-35 states every election and you wondering why a demoncrap hasn't won the south since 1976,probably because your policy sucks and succusful people in succusful states don't generally vote against their own self intrests

I don't have a party. I am an independent.

You are the one who started quoting me with nonsense. I'm asking you to back up your bad takes. So far I'm the only one who's provided any historical information.

If you don't believe that the 1800s democrats were conservative then prove it. List all the liberal policies they supported. Show that you know what you're talking about.

 

[Leisure_Force999]

I don't have a party. I am an independent.

You are the one who started quoting me with nonsense. I'm asking you to back up your bad takes. So far I'm the only one who's provided any historical information.

If you don't believe that the 1800s democrats were conservative then prove it. List all the liberal policies they supported.

Yeah I can prove it. The Democrats of the south waged war against the North because they didn't want to give up slavery and did not want to unionize with the Union.

When's the last time you heard a conservative scream it's time to fight against the government because they will not meet my demands, and because we hold no allegience to the county we will rebel from your American history, and not join the rest of the states?

Yeah that's total conservative philosophy dude, shit on the country and try to destroy it

 

[ElKarlo]

I'm sorry that you don't understand how representative democracy works. Blame the defunding of public education.

You want it one way and are made when people use the tactic back on you. Your selective historical narrative is basically trash and you can't even defend it.

 

[hillelslovak87]

You're ignoring that I did address your point. Rather plainly, I told you what I agreed with. Then I called the rest an attempt to rewrite history. I understand that your position is quite popular amongst leftists who guess history as malleable however I do not.
I believe in History taught by historians , not Monday mourning quarterbacks who claim to be experts at history, while sermonizing on the horror of white men.
You can't be an expert at history without first acknowledging that you shouldn't hold the Men of yesterday to the same standards as you hold people today. That's basically your whole argument man, that we should hold George Washington to today's standard.

That's why I can't debate history, we view it as two separate entities.
You see history as alive and flexible.
I view history as solid and immovable.

Now I'm willing to debate you if we can agree not to attempt to rewrite history.
If not, then I guess we can just agree to disagree.

Don't tell me how I see history. You've not addressed the southern strategy, which was the GOP's attempt, led by Goldwater and Nixon, to appeal to white resentment in the South in order to win the South. They enacted the strategy, and it has been working pretty well ever since.

The Republicans are not the liberals anymore, and they haven't been for an extremely long time. The black voting participation among the GOP bores this out clearly, as do more modern examples of white resentment, like the tea party's insanity over Obama, or Trump's campaign and presidency. Dude rips quotes from George Wallace, and you're talking about the liberal leftists being the racists.

Laughable tripe. Nothing about Goldwater's strategy vs. Johnson, nothing about Nixon's strategy as the GOP nominee, nothing.

Here's some actual history.
https://www.politifact.com/factchec...e-owens-pants-fire-statement-southern-strate/

Talk about seeing history as fluid, sheesh........

 

[Leisure_Force999]

Don't tell me how I see history. You've not addressed the southern strategy, which was the GOP's attempt, led by Goldwater and Nixon, to appeal to white resentment in the South in order to win the South. They enacted the strategy, and it has been working pretty well ever since.

The Republicans are not the liberals anymore, and they haven't been for an extremely long time. The black voting participation among the GOP bores this out clearly, as do more modern examples of white resentment, like the tea party's insanity over Obama, or Trump's campaign and presidency. Dude rips quotes from George Wallace, and you're talking about the liberal leftists being the racists.

Laughable tripe. Nothing about Goldwater's strategy vs. Johnson, nothing about Nixon's strategy as the GOP nominee, nothing.

Here's some actual history.
https://www.politifact.com/factchec...e-owens-pants-fire-statement-southern-strate/

Talk about seeing history as fluid, sheesh........

The reason that this falls short is because you are literally saying the Democratic party changed so they can't be held responsible for slavery. While simultaneously saying That the people of the south ARE NOT able to change, except they were magically able to Change their party.

I mean I don't really need to go deeper then that. If you don't see the fallacy of your argument then I don't know what to say to change your mind bud.

 

[Leisure_Force999]

Don't tell me how I see history. You've not addressed the southern strategy, which was the GOP's attempt, led by Goldwater and Nixon, to appeal to white resentment in the South in order to win the South. They enacted the strategy, and it has been working pretty well ever since.

The Republicans are not the liberals anymore, and they haven't been for an extremely long time. The black voting participation among the GOP bores this out clearly, as do more modern examples of white resentment, like the tea party's insanity over Obama, or Trump's campaign and presidency. Dude rips quotes from George Wallace, and you're talking about the liberal leftists being the racists.

Laughable tripe. Nothing about Goldwater's strategy vs. Johnson, nothing about Nixon's strategy as the GOP nominee, nothing.

Here's some actual history.
https://www.politifact.com/factchec...e-owens-pants-fire-statement-southern-strate/

Talk about seeing history as fluid, sheesh........

To further expand my thought let me say this, suppose I approached you and said that even though The people of the south once wanted to own slaves, they do not anymore therefore they are most certainly not racist people.

To which you would reply with a whole bunch of stats of the racial tension in the South, citing numerous examples of the past as justification as to why the south is still racist today... While ignoring that the south were Democratic states then. You attribute the racism to the people but not the party, the only side allowed to change their mind about slavery in this argument is the Democratic Party, the south are not afforded the right to have changed their mind about slavery because ...blah blah blah a whole bunch of shittty racist shit happened in the south when the Democrats controlled it...

Lmao dude come on now, your smart it's not that hard to figure it out. I mean anybody can

 

[hillelslovak87]

The reason that this falls short is because you are literally saying the Democratic party changed so they can't be held responsible for slavery. While simultaneously saying That the people of the south ARE NOT able to change, except they were magically able to Change their party.

I mean I don't really need to go deeper then that. If you don't see the fallacy of your argument then I don't know what to say to change your mind bud.

I'm saying the GOP specifically targeted white racism and resentment as an electoral strategy, and has been doing so for the better part of a century. The Democratic party, since this period, has in fact change. You can scream about how Robert Byrd never switched parties or any of the other cheap crap righties often seem to do. Doesn't work.

The democrats of today are in no way associated with the Democrats of the abolition period, nor is the GOP of today related to that of the period. It's a laughable assertion, considering the ongoing strategy employed by the GOP TODAY, not in the period of slavery.

 

[Leisure_Force999]

@hillelslovak87 And LBJ said "If we have to let the n**** vote then we will make sure he voted Democrat for 100 years"
What is your point?
You are literally saying "You can't bring up the Democrats past" against us, we are on the right side we are woke, while simultaneously bringing up points about the racist south WHICH was DEMOCRATIC... Lol you can't make this fucking up dude

Who the fuck are you charging racism against dude?

 

[Trotsky]

You want it one way and are made when people use the tactic back on you. Your selective historical narrative is basically trash and you can't even defend it.

Huh? What can I not defend? I haven't said anything remotely historically controversial. It's pretty basic.

You obviously don't understand history or ideology, which is why you feel the need to rearrange both through a partisan lens. That is, since you can't defend the history social conservative, white nationalism, and reactionary American conservative politics, you insist it was actually liberals of that period that engaged in those politics. And since you can't defend similar political platforms today - Donald Trump's specifically - you default to defining yourself by opposition to a group that you insist is worse (modern liberals, leftists, Democrats, etc.)

This isn't unique. You're just one of (literally) billions in the world who think this way. The same as reactionary conservatives in Saudi Arabia, Iran, Brazil, and most every country: you adjust history to deny the fact that you're a fundamentally worthless cog in it. You're stupid. You'll never evolve past a meme-level understand of the world and, because of that paired with your utter lack of humility, you'll always be a constant impediment to making it a better place.

 

[Philo-Publius]

Your take is laughably bad. The democratic party of the 1800s supported small government,

Only because the federal government wasn't run by their party and each of their party platforms were in direct opposition to each other on slavery.

opposed taxes,

Can you source that Democrats supported lower tax rates than Republicans at that time? I do not see it referenced in the Democratic party's platform. It looks like their plans to bolster the railroad system out to the west (#4 on the Democratic party's platform) would have forced them to raise taxes.

and was pro-big business.

What big business? Can you source that Democrats were more pro business than Republicans as well? I do not see it referenced in the Democratic party platform.

They were conservatives, period.

They were leftists.

No scholar on Earth would call them left wing. They didn't stand for anything resembling liberal policy.

I guess it depends on how you define "liberal."

Meanwhile the Republicans were pushing for economic reform, more taxes, national banking system, social security for veterans. They were left wing.

It looks to me like the Republican party just wanted to "drain the swamp." # 6 in the GOP platform. Also, # 12 is referencing bringing manufacturing back home, so that Americans are earning that check.

I recommend you do some reading about the great depression and the new deal, civil rights movement, and the southern strategy. A lot of realignment happened that explains how the Dems lost the south, gained the black vote, and became the party of social welfare.

I am aware of the transitions the Democratic party made during that era, but I see a few ideology ties between the Democratic party today and the Democratic party of the 1860's. The Democratic party today, in a great many ways, doesn't resemble the Democratic party of the 1960's.

My underlying point in this thread though was that the Democratic party benefited from it's sordid past.

 

[ElKarlo]

Lol indeed. Says the side that caused the most havoc in the last century, even more so than the world wars.
While your claims are empty nonsense. The right in the US is unrelated to SA in all forms. The right doesn't rule through a religion. Thays your side. Marxists are following their religion that just so happens to be their type of government.
Your ability to displace your own massive failings on others works superficially. But upon any deep look, your ideals and rule via fear and forced assimilation mirror that of SA a great deal. Your side is the one that ran cities so poorly that they exploded into open race riots. Your side couldn't and wouldn't even bother stopping the rioting. Your side let chaz and those murders happen. Your side is ok with intimidating people. Your side appeared violence and claims everything is because of racism. Your side abandoned personal responsibility a long time ago. We are reaping a world that you sowed.
So no, the retard is you and you adoration for a type of government that oppresses, kills and holds back humanity.

 

[AndroidRage]

From the U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services: https://www.uscis.gov/sites/default/files/USCIS/Office of Citizenship/Citizenship Resource Center Site/Publications/PDFs/M-638_red.pdf

It's something covered on the civics test for citizenship.

Sonyou are telling me @rob mafia is too dumb to be a citizen? I am not surprised.

 

[rob mafia]

From the U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services: https://www.uscis.gov/sites/default/files/USCIS/Office of Citizenship/Citizenship Resource Center Site/Publications/PDFs/M-638_red.pdf

It's something covered on the civics test for citizenship.

i guess it speaks volumes on the state of the usa's current education... since it's not exactly correct...

https://www.senate.gov/civics/constitution_item/constitution.htm

Section 4
The United States shall guarantee to every State in this Union a Republican Form of Government

Sonyou are telling me @rob mafia is too dumb to be a citizen? I am not surprised.

so i really need to mention the pledge of allegiance? since we're going all rudimentary...

 

[ocean size]

What a stupid thread and lol at the posters outing themselves as hacks with no understanding of history trying to connect the politics of the secessionist slaveholding south to the contemporary Democrats. Nixon took care of what remained of that connection with the Southern strategy, and with the last of the dixiecrats a little later the last vestiges were gone.

Lol smh there are posters in here insisting 1800s plantation owners were 'leftists'