It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

The Inconvenient Truth About the Democratic Party

page: 11
56
<< 8  9  10    12 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Aug, 21 2017 @ 05:54 PM
link   

originally posted by: fredrodgers1960

originally posted by: Flatfish

originally posted by: fredrodgers1960

originally posted by: Gryphon66
a reply to: fredrodgers1960

So ... you don't like the Democrats, huh?

Well, thanks for telling us your opinion.



I don't like racists, OR any party or group that has purposely created a poor class of people who can't get off of the government breast in order to create votes to stay in power. Look at the current areas that vote Democratic, then look at the areas that survive on government handouts. It's not an accident. This was planned MANY years ago by the Democratic party. It's now coming home to roost. Detroit. Baltimore. Chicago. All of these have been Democratic party controlled for decades. Take a look at what they really created. It's a human tragedy.

The entire culture I support is to provide help to anyone who needs it, if they can work, I want them working, it creates self esteem and also then means that the rest of us don't have to pay for them sitting on their behinds. There are TONS of skilled labor jobs that remain unfilled, no college required.

You can't blame this on anyone other than the Democratic party, I don't care how you try to deflect the blame, look at the blue areas on any map.


Wow! Now that's some deep bulls#*t right there!

You might oughta recheck your red vs blue map.

It's predominantly the red states who get more dollars in federal assistance than they pay in to the federal government and NOT the other way around.

I can tell that your hatred of Democrats is just oozing out of your pores, but you could at least try to hold it back long enough to put together a half-assed believable argument instead of projecting your own faults on others.


please explain to me the Democratic social experiments known as Chicago, Baltimore, and Detroit. Please, do tell.

Has not gone really well for the citizens.


I see how this works, a minute ago it all about those damn blue states and what cesspools of welfare they are and then when you're proven to be a liar, you now want to take it down a notch and declare that it's three CITIES that currently have democratic mayors & city councils who are the problem.

I suspect that if I were to provide you with an answer to your query, you'd just deflect down to another level, so I won't waste my time.

I've got some news for you, it's not welfare that's bankrupting this country, it warfare.




posted on Aug, 21 2017 @ 05:55 PM
link   
a reply to: MotherMayEye

I should feel shame because I can recognize that our system of providing for the most needy has issues?

No thank you. Were you that desperate to counter being called out for calling Democrats slave-holders? For suggesting that needy Americans are slaves? What about the poor Whites that continually vote Republican against their best interests? There is generational abuse there as well. Is that also "slavery"?

Both parties are BS. Both parties are control mechanisms for the American people. They favor the rich and powerful, as all political actions do at their base.

And I thought you were basically free of that conditioning ... but I see that you aren't. Best of luck to you.



posted on Aug, 21 2017 @ 05:58 PM
link   
a reply to: MotherMayEye

WOW are you confused...

Not sure where to start there...

Who said I was a Democrat?

And yes...learn your history if you would like to appear less foolish...

The South becomes Republican: 1964-2016
en.wikipedia.org...

Southern strategy
en.wikipedia.org...

Why Did the Democratic and Republican Parties Switch Platforms?
www.livescience.com...





edit on 21-8-2017 by soberbacchus because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 21 2017 @ 06:05 PM
link   

originally posted by: Gryphon66
a reply to: MotherMayEye

I should feel shame because I can recognize that our system of providing for the most needy has issues?



That's not the angle you took.

Being "trapped" does not equate to being free.

I don't suffer from the kind of conditioning that doesn't allow me to be pissed off at the Democratic party for their long legacy of exploitation and oppression, that continues today. And I don't suffer from the kind of conditioning that doesn't allow me to be critical of the Republican party, either.

That's the only conditioning that would interfere with this debate and I don't suffer from it.

Sorry, I don't give Democrats a free pass to be a*sholes, deny it, and then demand that Republicans take the blame for Democrats being a*sholes.

I suspect that's probably what really disappointed you.



posted on Aug, 21 2017 @ 06:05 PM
link   
a reply to: soberbacchus

So how many votes did all the Parties get in all those elections ?

Include the locals too.

Thank you in advance.




posted on Aug, 21 2017 @ 06:10 PM
link   
a reply to: soberbacchus

You are openly supporting the Democratic party in your argument. Therefore, I said you supported them.

I didn't say you "are a Democrat" because you never said you are. I went on who you were supporting in your argument and said exactly what I meant.

I don't need to look at maps to see that the Democratic party is exploiting and oppressing black Americans even today.


edit on 8/21/2017 by MotherMayEye because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 21 2017 @ 06:16 PM
link   
a reply to: Flatfish

Yeah .
Marxists WANT to weaken national defence as Clinton had done with his "surplus"...that's why it's a major part of the social globalist message of collectivist logic.
We really don't care about all that after we started on the edge of world war by surgical inactions of the last president,thus emboldening our enemies to take territories they chose to openly occupy.



posted on Aug, 21 2017 @ 06:22 PM
link   
Wow, some people sure are trusting & forgiving of a party that fought to the death to keep their slaves. Not a bit of cynicism or skepticism, but tons for everyone that doesn't love their white supremacist party and BEEEEELIEVE in its greatness and supremacy!

Yeesh.


ETA: If the KKK said they changed their tune and now they just want to entrap generations of black families by facilitating their dependence on food & housing, in the social programs they advocate -- and in exchange for their votes to keep the KKK, in power -- would today's Democratic voters support that?

Yep.

Because that is exactly what they are supporting even if they insist and believe they aren't.
edit on 8/21/2017 by MotherMayEye because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 21 2017 @ 08:25 PM
link   
a reply to: MotherMayEye

The slavery metaphor was yours not mine. I acknowledged that there are problems with every social safety net, the most obvious of which is that there is a danger that some folks will alter their standards of living to try to remain "on the dole.'

Be pissed at the Democratic Party. They're politicians, and therefore, they're psychotic liars. As are the Republicans, professional libertarians, Greens, Communists, etc. But to INTENTIONALLY conflate the Democratic Party of the mid 1800s with the modern Democratic Party is just absurd ... and you know it, your feelings of betrayal notwithstanding.

I suppose disappointed was too strong a word. And too personal. I was mistaken, and you have my apology for making it personal.



posted on Aug, 21 2017 @ 11:34 PM
link   
a reply to: Gryphon66

Except for the fact the Democratic party of the mid 1800's pushed right on through to modern times. As an example look at the civil rights act, which democrats tried to block. Only after it passed did Johnson say he would sign it and he would have "'n-word's voting Democrat for the next 200 years".

Make excuses all you want but the party has not changed much.

Also - Affirmative action.

Affirmative action was NOT a democrat based initiative. Affirmative action was created (codified) in the civil rights act. Again something Democrats wanted defeated.



posted on Aug, 22 2017 @ 04:45 AM
link   

originally posted by: Xcathdra
a reply to: Gryphon66

Except for the fact the Democratic party of the mid 1800's pushed right on through to modern times. As an example look at the civil rights act, which democrats tried to block. Only after it passed did Johnson say he would sign it and he would have "'n-word's voting Democrat for the next 200 years".

Make excuses all you want but the party has not changed much.

Also - Affirmative action.

Affirmative action was NOT a democrat based initiative. Affirmative action was created (codified) in the civil rights act. Again something Democrats wanted defeated.


And that's when the Democratic Party fully went Liberal and has been since. The opponents of the Civil Rights Act joined the Republican Party. It will probably happen again with gerrymandering being such an issue right now.

The Party names are irrelevant. The platform switch or member switching is a tactic to jam up or push through legislation for the most part.



posted on Aug, 22 2017 @ 06:01 AM
link   

originally posted by: Xcathdra
a reply to: Gryphon66

Except for the fact the Democratic party of the mid 1800's pushed right on through to modern times. As an example look at the civil rights act, which democrats tried to block. Only after it passed did Johnson say he would sign it and he would have "'n-word's voting Democrat for the next 200 years".

Make excuses all you want but the party has not changed much.

Also - Affirmative action.

Affirmative action was NOT a democrat based initiative. Affirmative action was created (codified) in the civil rights act. Again something Democrats wanted defeated.


All Democrats? or the ones from the Southern states?

You know, the same ones who were Dixiecrats in '48?

The ones who are Republicans now?

Just ask Lee Atwater; he can explain it to you.

Off all the ridiculous, deceitful stupid claims ... this one is simply the most absurd.



posted on Aug, 22 2017 @ 06:14 AM
link   
a reply to: Kali74

Democrats of the 1930s.

How "Liberal" were they?




posted on Aug, 22 2017 @ 06:26 AM
link   
LOL ... let's ask the man who "founded the Republican party" what he thinks, shall we?



I am not, nor ever have been, in favor of bringing about in any way the social and political equality of the white and black races … I am not nor ever have been in favor of making voters or jurors of Negroes, nor of qualifying them to hold office, nor to intermarry with white people; and I will say in addition to this that there is a physical difference between the white and black races which I believe will forever forbid the two races from living together on terms of social and political equality. And inasmuch as they cannot so live, while they do remain together there must be a position of superior and inferior, and I as much as any other man am in favor of having the superior position assigned to the white race.”

Abraham Lincoln, Lincoln/Douglas Debates



Let's not forget, in his First Inaugural Address in 1861, Lincoln supported a CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENT to protect slavery in the United States forever aka the Corwin Amendment.

Lincoln-Douglas Debates

What was that about Republicans being the "Party of Civil RIghts" again?
edit on 22-8-2017 by Gryphon66 because: Noted



posted on Aug, 22 2017 @ 07:12 AM
link   
a reply to: Gryphon66

Boy did he change his mind quick.




posted on Aug, 22 2017 @ 07:21 AM
link   

originally posted by: xuenchen
a reply to: Gryphon66

Boy did he change his mind quick.



Did he? Or was that mere political expediency?

Hey, just for kicks, here's what Republican VP Andrew Johnson said about Blacks. ...



Before I would see this Government destroyed, I would send every negro back to Africa, disintegrated and blotted out of space.


And my personal favorite ...



Mr. Jefferson meant the white race.

(Regarding the statement in the Declaration of Independence that "all men are created equal.")

"Speech on Harper's Ferry Incident", 12 December 1859; as printed in The papers of Andrew Johnson, Vol. 3: 1858-1860 (1972), ed. LeRoy P. Graf and Ralph W. Haskins, p. 320.


Quite a guy, eh?

Source



posted on Aug, 22 2017 @ 10:35 AM
link   

originally posted by: MotherMayEye

ETA: If the KKK said they changed their tune and now they just want to entrap generations of black families by facilitating their dependence on food & housing, in the social programs they advocate --


Still confused...

Food Stamps...

Households:

White: 40%
African American: 25%
Hispanic: 10%
Other: 25%

www.fns.usda.gov...



Overall, white Americans still make up the largest number of people on means-tested programs (though they represent less than their share of the population). Among food stamp participants in fiscal year 2013, 40 percent were white, 26 percent black, 10 percent Latino and 2 percent Asian. Among TANF recipients in fiscal year 2010, the overall numbers are 32 percent white, 32 percent black and 30 percent Hispanic.

fivethirtyeight.com...



posted on Aug, 22 2017 @ 10:46 AM
link   
a reply to: soberbacchus

I'll save some time ...

"Obama's fault."



posted on Aug, 22 2017 @ 11:10 AM
link   

originally posted by: MotherMayEye
a reply to: soberbacchus

You are openly supporting the Democratic party in your argument. Therefore, I said you supported them.



No...I am supporting the physical reality of TIME itself and literal HISTORY.

You seem incapable of understanding either.

The South and the North in the United States swapped Party Platform in the 1960's.

They did not relocate the US Population of Democrats from the South to the North and vice-versa.

So you can praddle on about "Democrats" and "Republicans" of 1865 or 1940 as if they did not trade platforms and geography in the 1960's...pretend they are the same people and regions today in 2017...pretend the civil rights act never happened and ignore time, history and reality itself.....go for it...I will continue to live in REALITY....which includes facts and time.


REALITY....





edit on 22-8-2017 by soberbacchus because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 22 2017 @ 11:52 AM
link   
a reply to: Gryphon66

He was definitely a complicated man.

Lincoln was an outright racist, but he also believed slavery was immoral and that the constitution was more sacred than his personal racism.

I also believe his thinking evolved over time.

He would have let slavery continue with the belief that it would "naturally" go extinct over a period of time.

But it was the ban on slavery in the new territories that sparked the rebellion...and once in rebellion, he declared the slaves of the southern states free to undermine the southern forces. From there the course to slaveries extinction would be acute rather than prolonged.

A personal letter from Lincoln to a friend/slave owner a few years before the Lincoln-Douglas debates..

1855



You know I dislike slavery; and you fully admit the abstract wrong of it... I also acknowledge your rights and my obligations, under the constitution, in regard to your slaves. I confess I hate to see the poor creatures hunted down, and caught, and carried back to their stripes, and unrewarded toils; but I bite my lip and keep quiet.

In 1841 you and I had together a tedious low-water trip, on a Steam Boat from Louisville to St. Louis. You may remember, as I well do, that from Louisville to the mouth of the Ohio, there were, on board, ten or a dozen slaves, shackled together with irons. That sight was a continued torment to me; and I see something like it every time I touch the Ohio, or any other slave-border.

It is hardly fair for you to assume, that I have no interest in a thing which has, and continually exercises, the power of making me miserable. You ought rather to appreciate how much the great body of the Northern people do crucify their feelings, in order to maintain their loyalty to the Constitution and the Union. … How can any one who abhors the oppression of negroes, be in favor of degrading classes of white people?

You inquire where I now stand. That is a disputed point -- I think I am a whig; but others say there are no whigs, and that I am an abolitionist. When I was in Washington I voted for the Wilmot Proviso as good as forty times, and I never heard of any one attempting to unwhig me for that. I now do no more than oppose the extension of slavery.

Our progress in degeneracy appears to me to be pretty rapid. As a nation, we began by declaring that "all men are created equal." We now practically read it "all men are created equal, except negroes." When the Know-Nothings get control, it will read "all men are created equal, except negroes, and foreigners, and catholics." When it comes to this I should prefer emigrating to some country where they make no pretence of loving liberty—to Russia, for instance, where despotism can be taken pure, and without the base alloy of hypocrisy.


www.abrahamlincolnonline.org...



new topics

top topics



 
56
<< 8  9  10    12 >>

log in

join