First  Prev  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  9  10  11  Next  Last
Post Reply Which Party Is Really Racist?
39161 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
M
Offline
Posted 12/27/16

Dogempire wrote:


DeadlyOats wrote:


Dogempire wrote:

I don't know what your goal is in writing this considering that reading this gives the impression of the ramblings of a conspiracy theorist, but an online forum seems hardly the place to make such a claim.

If you want people to take you seriously then I would choose a different platform where you can go in-depth about the subject, because otherwise the claims you're making won't be taken seriously. Especially when the only evidence you're providing for such a claim is a personal anecdote which honestly sounds far-fetched.



That was a personal experience from my life. But I also worked for the County of Los Angels for seven years as a Child Support Officer, and I interviewed many welfare parents, in order to get the information needed for our attorneys to establish child support orders for the "dead-beat" parents.

My conversations with the workers of the Department of Social Services, reflected what I saw as a teen growing up, generational welfare recipients. I know. It's just more anecdotal evidence to you, but I think this is a national reality.


You should have mentioned that too then. It would give your argument more weight because so far it's just "This one thing happened to me so I'm going to generalize it to fit everyone."



When I saw how long my post was... I was like... "I think I wrote enough. Better stop here...."

I should have re-edited again, before posting.
qwueri 
20828 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
31 / M
Offline
Posted 12/27/16

Rujikin wrote:

Democrats try to restrict blacks from voting, blacks vote for democrats.



Probably because those same Democrats switched Republican post 1964.
23867 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
21 / M / Oppai Hell
Offline
Posted 12/27/16 , edited 8/29/17
Fucking party realignment people. Look it up.

We do not get anywhere quoting historical content out of context to make one party viable over another, when both parties are equally guilty.
767 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
Offline
Posted 12/27/16

DeadlyOats wrote:


EichiXIII wrote:

I didn't read any of that because I find almost all of your posts to be complete garbage. So with that in mind my reply to this thread is simple. Neither party is in itself racist but some members of all parties are.


Your comment is complete garbage, because you are not basing your ignorant remark on anything I've said. If you don't like what I talk about. Then don't click on my posts. You have the power not to click. Did you know that?


It was my fault for not looking at who had posted it before I clicked on the thread and since I was already here I posted a response to the title. I am fully aware of what I am capable of. I chose to click without looking and I chose to post without reading it. I am free to do these things as well you know?
39161 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
M
Offline
Posted 12/27/16 , edited 8/28/17
I want to point out that I said, in my post that the political parties have abandoned racism. They are now focused on classism. Divide by class, not race. There are many powerful, Black, Hispanic, Asian people in U.S., State, and local government today. They have divided America by class.

The welfare class, the poor working class (this is new. These used to be the blue collar workers - factory workers with good factory jobs), the lower middle class (which is where blue collar workers used to be. All that's left of the lower middle class are middle management, and government worker types), the upper middle class (which is mostly wiped out. Either they went up to be rich, or they were wiped by the market crash of 2009-2010), the rich, and the super rich (the 1%).
2330 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
18 / F / Metairie//Louisia...
Offline
Posted 12/27/16
Wikipedia isn't a reliable source -_- gr
29543 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
20 / M / Bundaberg, Queens...
Online
Posted 12/27/16
a party for a KKK member of course
mxdan 
11134 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
27 / M / A Husk.
Offline
Posted 12/27/16

Rujikin wrote:

Don't forget Democrats created the KKK and fillabustered the civil rights act.

From Wikipedia:


In effect, the Klan was a military force serving the interests of the Democratic party, the planter class, and all those who desired restoration of white supremacy. Its purposes were political, but political in the broadest sense, for it sought to affect power relations, both public and private, throughout Southern society. It aimed to reverse the interlocking changes sweeping over the South during Reconstruction: to destroy the Republican party's infrastructure, undermine the Reconstruction state, reestablish control of the black labor force, and restore racial subordination in every aspect of Southern life.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ku_Klux_Klan



On June 10, 1964, Democrats filibustered the Civil Rights Act:


On this day in 1964, Everett Dirksen (R-IL), the Republican Leader in the U.S. Senate, condemned the Democrats’ 57-day filibuster against the 1964 Civil Rights Act. Leading the Democrats in their opposition to civil rights for African-Americans was Senator Robert Byrd (D-WV). Byrd, who got into politics as a recruiter for the Ku Klux Klan, spoke against the bill for fourteen straight hours. Democrats still call Robert Byrd “the conscience of the Senate.”

In his speech, Senator Dirksen called on the Democrats to end their filibuster and accept racial equality.


Comparing modern democrats/republicans to democrats/republicans pre-vietnam war is about as pointless as it gets. The parties were completely different entities that have changed on a number of issues.

http://factmyth.com/factoids/democrats-and-republicans-switched-platforms/
69057 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
41 / F / Vermont
Offline
Posted 12/27/16 , edited 8/19/17
DeadlyOats,

Maybe it's just because I'm an old fart compared to all the kids on here but I very much enjoyed your post and respect it for the truth it speaks. My hometown area (and high school) fit in spot on with your experiences. My own family was working middle class so I was not caught in that cycle, but so many of my classmates were and still are a part of it. You speak the truth but the young crowd refuses to see it or consider it. It's really sad.
7011 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
23 / M / Missouri
Offline
Posted 12/27/16
"Democrats champion a welfare system designed to keep entire generations dependent on the government for subsistence"
Yup. I don't think this is necessarily 'racist' though--just opportunistic. Sure, the Democrats of the 50s had legitimate racist intentions behind their vehicles of division and dependency, but they've since passed those vehicles off to newer generations who I think just are kind of dicks--not racist dicks.

The Democratic Congressman who was a former KKK-member died in 2010, so I think we can consider that era to have completely ended then.
17710 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
(´◔౪◔)✂❤
Offline
Posted 12/27/16

DeadlyOats wrote:

I want to point out that I said, in my post that the political parties have abandoned racism. They are now focused on classism. Divide by class, not race. There are many powerful, Black, Hispanic, Asian people in U.S., State, and local government today. They have divided America by class..
Those minorities are killing us
37097 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
F
Offline
Posted 12/27/16 , edited 12/30/16
This is what the House of Representatives vote for implementation of NAFTA looked like:



The Senate roll call (and only the Senate roll call, no opinion or other things) may be found here:

http://www.nytimes.com/1993/11/21/us/senate-roll-call-on-trade-pact.html

As one can see, it's true: a sizeable portion of House Democrats voted for the trade agreement's implementation. An additional 27 Democrats in the Senate voted for NAFTA, and Bill Clinton signed the legislation implementing the agreement as well. This was and is a legitimate point of criticism against those Democrats and the Clinton administration. It was a point that Sanders supporters frequently raised as proof of the Senator's sincere concern for working and middle class voters' interests, particularly in the Rust Belt. He was, after all, the Independent "No" vote represented in the above House totals.

However, if you take another look you may notice something that damages your conclusions about Democrats and Republicans. I refer specifically to the fact that Congressional Republicans at the time were quite in favour of NAFTA, which you credit as being directly responsible for your being forced into a career change and consider an instrument in a broader globalist agenda. The above roll calls show that Republicans voted in favour of NAFTA more than 3:1 in the House (compared to 40% of House Democrats), and in the Senate they voted in favour of the agreement 34 to 10 (Democrats voted 27 in favour to 28 against). In fact, NAFTA finds its origin in negotiations initiated by George H.W. Bush. Have a look at a relevant part of the legislation's introduction:


North American Free Trade Agreement Implementation Act - Title I: Approval of, and General Provisions Relating to, the North American Free Trade Agreement - Declares that the Congress, pursuant to the Omnibus Trade and Competitiveness Act of 1988 and the Trade Act of 1974, approves: (1) the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA) entered into on December 17, 1992, with Canada and Mexico and submitted to it on November 4, 1993; and (2) the statement of administrative action proposed to implement the Agreement that was submitted to it on November 4, 1993. Sets forth conditions for entry into force of NAFTA.


Bill Clinton was inaugurated Jan. 20, 1993. The US, Mexico, and Canada entered NAFTA on December 17, 1992. NAFTA was put into place by Bill Clinton, and it's fair to be critical of him and similarly inclined Democrats on those grounds, but NAFTA was George Bush's baby.

Turns out the "globalists" control the Democratic Party fairly handily these days (though there is a faction that's fighting back), but have had a majority stake in the GOP for even longer. Those would be the people who tried to keep Trump from rising up, and who are now breathing a sigh of relief as he names his cabinet picks.
Posted 12/27/16
Nafta you have Clinton to thank for that yup many jobs went oversea's I saw it go down the factory jobs where i grew up
left town people went jobless anyone remember Wrigley's I had friends working there, there factory got shipped to China and Poland
so I have seen the neg. going down.
17710 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
(´◔౪◔)✂❤
Offline
Posted 12/27/16

BlueOni wrote:

This is what the House of Representatives vote for implementation of NAFTA looked like:



The Senate roll call (and only the Senate roll call, no opinion or other things) may be found here:

http://www.nytimes.com/1993/11/21/us/senate-roll-call-on-trade-pact.html

As one can see, it's true: a sizeable portion of House Democrats voted for the trade agreement's implementation. An additional 27 Democrats in the Senate voted for NAFTA, and Bill Clinton signed the legislation implementing the agreement as well. This was and is a legitimate point of criticism against those Democrats and the Clinton administration. It was a point that Sanders supporters frequently raised as proof of the Senator's sincere concern for working and middle class voters' interests, particularly in the Rust Belt. He was, after all, the Independent "No" vote represented in the above House totals.

However, if you take another look you may notice something that damages your conclusions about Democrats and Republicans. I refer specifically to the fact that Congressional Republicans at the time were quite in favour of NAFTA, which you credit as being directly responsible for your being forced into a career change and consider an instrument in a broader globalist agenda. The above roll calls show that Republicans voted in favour of NAFTA more than 3:1 in the House (compared to 40% of House Democrats), and in the Senate they voted in favour of the agreement 34 to 10 (Democrats voted 27 in favour to 28 against). In fact, NAFTA finds its origin in negotiations initiated by George H.W. Bush. Have a look at a relevant part of the legislation's introduction:


North American Free Trade Agreement Implementation Act - Title I: Approval of, and General Provisions Relating to, the North American Free Trade Agreement - Declares that the Congress, pursuant to the Omnibus Trade and Competitiveness Act of 1988 and the Trade Act of 1974, approves: (1) the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA) entered into on December 17, 1992, with Canada and Mexico and submitted to it on November 4, 1993; and (2) the statement of administrative action proposed to implement the Agreement that was submitted to it on November 4, 1993. Sets forth conditions for entry into force of NAFTA.


Bill Clinton was inaugurated Jan. 20, 1993. The US, Mexico, and Canada entered NAFTA on December 17, 1992. NAFTA was put into place by Bill Clinton, and it's fair to be critical of him and similarly inclined Democrats on those grounds, but NAFTA was George Bush's baby.

Turns out the "globalists" control the Democratic Party fairly handily these days (though there is a faction that's fighting back), but have had a majority stake in the GOP for even longer. Those would be the people who tried to keep Trump from rising up, and who are now breathing a sigh of relief as he names his cabinet picks.
Why was it supported, why were people against it (other then the reasons provided at this moment)?

It feels like the messages are kind of mixed at this point. I'm sure the people who once supported it might have changed their position based on the current situation.
37713 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
Offline
Posted 12/27/16
I don't think either party does a very good job addressing the needs of the non-rich. You need money to influence the political system, and there isn't much effective lobbying being done on behalf of the poor. Both parties cater to the rich and special interests who can afford to dump dollars into campaign coffers.

You also have a revolving door of industry insiders flopping between government and the private sector, and that doesn't get enough attention. This is actually something Trump mentioned in the campaign that I agreed with, though he has since filled his cabinet with the rich and industry insiders, so that's disappointing; although not unexpected.

The main crux of your argument, that social safety nets are a scam to keep people reliant on government handouts and unable to fend for themselves is, frankly, absurd and out of touch. I don't think it merits a response other than
First  Prev  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  9  10  11  Next  Last
You must be logged in to post.