We must tear down the Democratic Party!

[Augustus]

I believe he left the KKK and later both regretted the KKK and condemned it.

Yet not enough to give up his position of power in repentance.

If one rises to, and maintains, power on the back of racism, they can't simply say sorry later and keep all of the benefits.

That's like apologising for stealing someone's money but not giving it back.

 

[Saint Frankenstein]

Snopes has been printing political lies consistently for years, they're nearly in self-destruct mode financially. Who'd have thought that when people count on you for the truth, and you stop printing it, it'd be bad for your business model? It takes a real person of character to defend a racist baby murder like her, just saying. Anyway, I refuse to take any of their articles with merit because a quick Google search refutes much of their claims. Anyway, which part was the lie? The fact that she was paling with KKK people, a Democrat, or that she believed in eugenics or though that people of poor economic situations had no right to breed? (Most of those people would be minorities in her time, etc.) You can wear the rose colored glasses if you want, but those are just the facts. I'm sure all of those pictures of her speaking at KKK rallies on the internet are fake too, lol.

 

[Augustus]

Margaret Sanger was no racist. That's a lie from the anti-abortion crowd. Eugenics was simply the belief that you could create better generations of people through good breeding (not having genetic illnesses), nutrition, vaccinations, overall health and family planning. It had nothing to do with racism, necessarily. It was a popular belief of the time and leaders of all races believed in it. Only a minority were racist about it.

I'll be clear that I don't know anything about Margaret Sanger or her specific views, but it would be very rare for an early 20th C eugenicist not to be a racialist.

I'll distinguish racialism (belief races possess specific characteristics that make them different) from racism (personal animosity towards other races)

Almost all scientific eugenicists believed in some form a racial hierarchy of races, although this didn't mean they were racist in the sense of hatred. They believed this was objective knowledge.

It wasn't simply whites good/blacks bad though, but about increasing the comparative contribution of the 'better classes' to the gene pool relative to the total population.

Although race mixing was generally seen as a bad thing, the 'superior' sectors of the 'lesser races' could conceivably be viewed as 'better' than the 'inferior' sectors of the 'superior races'.

 

[oldbadger]

The meaning of the word democrat is irrelevant,

Hi....... so you want to tear down the Democratic Party, but the meaning of the word Democrat is irrelevant?
That's it. It's Official! You are beyond help!

the only people that meant anything to them were slave owners, and further on down the line anyone they could ghettoize and intimidate once everyone else wised up to their game. The Democratic Party consists of age 65+, minorities, and know-nothing millennials - if you want to play this game.

...play this game?
Do you think that government by democracy is a game?
Trust me when I tell you that many other forms of government would not be to your taste at all.

I prefer libertarian, constitutionalist, and freedom loving folk... But, hey... if you want to insult away go for it...

In fairness, your OP was slightly, just slightly, aggressive, and a tongue in cheek reposte seemed to be fair.....

In fairness, I think conservatism has an age minimum, like 35+... When you have a home, two kids, and a lot to lose in your future and your children's you tend to make better long term choices.

This is so much fun! I like your posts because they make me smile.
Your idea that any Political Party should insitute Age-Discrimination to its membership is just so indicative of ...... well........ Discrimination.

I have a healthy wariness of people who call for JUST liberal and free existence. That's rather like a spoiled child demanding the right to stay up late every night and watch telly.

 

[Saint Frankenstein]

I'll be clear that I don't know anything about Margaret Sanger or her specific views, but it would be very rare for an early 20th C eugenicist not to be a racialist.

I'll distinguish racialism (belief races possess specific characteristics that make them different) from racism (personal animosity towards other races)

Almost all scientific eugenicists believed in some form a racial hierarchy of races, although this didn't mean they were racist in the sense of hatred. They believed this was objective knowledge.

It wasn't simply whites good/blacks bad though, but about increasing the comparative contribution of the 'better classes' to the gene pool relative to the total population.

Although race mixing was generally seen as a bad thing, the 'superior' sectors of the 'lesser races' could conceivably be viewed as 'better' than the 'inferior' sectors of the 'superior races'.

I'm going by what the experts who have studied this have said. Read the link.

 

[oldbadger]

Snopes has been printing political lies consistently for years, they're nearly in self-destruct mode financially. Who'd have thought that when people count on you for the truth, and you stop printing it, it'd be bad for your business model? It takes a real person of character to defend a racist baby murder like her, just saying. Anyway, I refuse to take any of their articles with merit because a quick Google search refutes much of their claims. Anyway, which part was the lie? The fact that she was paling with KKK people, a Democrat, or that she believed in eugenics or though that people of poor economic situations had no right to breed? (Most of those people would be minorities in her time, etc.) You can wear the rose colored glasses if you want, but those are just the facts. I'm sure all of those pictures of her speaking at KKK rallies on the internet are fake too, lol.

It might be better if, instead of ranting about a single lady's life, you extended a determined and definite attack against the Ku Klux Klan.

Do you support the ideology that Black Lives Matter?
Also....... only a couple more.....
Do you support the tenet that raped women may choose to have abortions?
Do you support the tenet that disabled foeti may be aborted?
Do you........... you get the questions, I'm sure.

 

[Father Heathen]

I prefer libertarian, constitutionalist, and freedom loving folk...

You say you love freedom yet vote for the party with a history of opposing gay marriage, reproductive rights, decriminalizing cannabis, the adult entertainment industry, gambling, "wet counties", abolishing "blue laws", etc.? If you prefer libertarian, then would you support a party who's positions are contrary to libertarianism?

Logic, son. Logic.

 

[Mindmaster]

You say you love freedom yet vote for the party with a history of opposing gay marriage, reproductive rights, decriminalizing cannabis, the adult entertainment industry, gambling, "wet counties", abolishing "blue laws", etc.? If you prefer libertarian, then would you support a party who's positions are contrary to libertarianism?

Logic, son. Logic.

If you mean that freedom as in things that fuel addictions, hmm.. kinda strange... These are just worthless diversions, not important things. If by reproductive rights you mean "baby killing" then anyone in their right mind is against it, unless you ignore the science that states a one celled organism is living. Religious arguments hold no sway with me, lol. As far as gay rights, the party is pretty gay-OK at this moment. Big secret though, hush, there are plenty of gay conservatives because they don't want the country going to hell either.

Actually, I support whoever does the least apparent damage. Right now, that happens to be the Republicans, but I have no doubt that I will vote someone else later because I will, lol. The Dems just give me nothing to vote for, I mean , "because racism", "because identity", or "russia! russia! russia!" isn't a platform. None of that is going to be enough to ever get me to vote their way, even if they had found something to legitimize their claims we're in America - you're allowed to be a racist, so long as you aren't whipping peoples asses in the streets. True freedom means that all are allowed to exist, so long as they can coexist.

Tell me how you're going to do your best to solve our real issues like safety, security, or economic welfare and do it without socialism and I'm in. My OP was about the hypocrisy of the left denying their own tainted history, and then going after everyone else like a lynch mob. Of course I am going to re-frame it, and mock it... Because, it's a joke.., I find it especially funny when the Dems talk about Confederates like they were something else, when all of them were Democrats...

 

[Altfish]

The big difference is...

The Democrats made mistakes on race and admit it and are now on the right side.
The GOP made mistakes on race, don't admit it, continue to make those mistakes and are now on the wrong side.

 

[Yerda]

So, can we call for the destruction of the Democratic Party because it is a monument to racism and divisiveness? They literally founded the KKK...

The Democratic Party literally founded the KKK?

Do you mean that at some sort of national convention the party passed a resolution bringing into being a group called the Ku Klux Klan?

 

[tytlyf]

The Democratic Party literally founded the KKK?

Do you mean that at some sort of national convention the party passed a resolution bringing into being a group called the Ku Klux Klan?

A more accurate term would be conservatives founded the KKK and were demoKKKrats at the time.
Senator Robert Byrd is a good example of a conservative who stayed with the party and was able to kick the racist habit.

 

[shunyadragon]

Yet not enough to give up his position of power in repentance.

If you are referring to the change in the political parties in the 20th century. Actually the conservative right of the Democratic Party of the 18th century that changed to the Dixiecrats in the 1950s into the Republican party of the South today has not apologized, but it represents the same political party of 'states rights' and evangelical Christianity. The shift is in slogans on their banners.

If one rises to, and maintains, power on the back of racism, they can't simply say sorry later and keep all of the benefits.

I am not sure where this unrealist idealistic approach. No one is entirely innocent in history, but the South lived on their main economic asset of slavery for 200 years, which evolved in to the wide spread practice of penal servitude of blacks in the late 19th and early 20th century. The northern states were never guilty of this extreme in benefiting from slavery and penal servitude to build and maintain their power on the backs of the black population.

You need to have a more realistic knowledge of the real history of the USA.

 

[It Aint Necessarily So]

Pssst.....they all jumped ship and went to the Republican party.

It's pretty funny that it took the Dixiecrats about a century to notice that Democrats outside of the South were liberals. I assume that they chose the Democratic Party because Lincoln was the first Republican. Not the sharpest tools in the shed.

As has been noted, it's about liberal versus conservative, not Democrat versus Republican. Conservative bigots that call themselves Democrats are still conservative bigots, and they still work against the values that liberals espouse. What difference does it make what they call themselves?

Although I am a liberal American, and consider the Democrats much better than the Republicans in terms of representing the interests of the average American, to wit, the highly partisan Obamacare repeal votes, they still don't rise to an acceptable level to me - still way too hawkish and corporatist, and don't do enough to defend church-state separation while engaging in some religious pandering of their own - I don't call myself a Democrat and never have.

The point being, I wouldn't care if the Democratic Party disappeared and was replaced by new party that better represented core progressive values.

 

[shunyadragon]

Obviously I am not fan of either party but above all else I cannot stand the Democratic party do to its founding in modern day American racism and its racism of any race that suits its goals. As a black man this is despicable, as an American this is unjust and above all else as a human it is inhumane.

You have to define what the political parties were over the history of USA politics in the 19th, 20th and 21st century. The name of the political party is not meaningful unless you understand the policies and beliefs of it's members over time.

The difference is not in the name of the political party. The difference is that the what was called the Democratic Party of the 19th century South were led by the Aristocratic Southern land and slave owners, advocating maintaining slavery in the guise of 'state rights.' The descendants of the Democratic 19th century, became the Republican party advocating 'states rights,' and opposed the legislation of the 50's to the 70's giving equal rights and ending segregation. This brought the complete switch of parties to the Dixicrats to the Southern Republican party, and the Tea Party with a strong evangelical Christian affiliation. That is the history.

 

[BSM1]

I believe he left the KKK and later both regretted the KKK and condemned it.

Hahaha...oh, wait, you're serious.

You are neglecting the history of change in human views and beliefs, and condemning people with a 'wave of the hand' without the acknowledgement that they can repent and reform, and not a good understanding of the early history of the KKK and how people viewed it.

It is clear in his testimony he left the clan when he discovered its true purpose.

I was handed an application to join the Klan when I was fifteen. I had no doubt about the purpose of the organization, so saying Byrd didn't know "...its true purpose..." is just pure BS.

 

[It Aint Necessarily So]

it represents the same political party of 'states rights'

That was never a conservative principle, just the mantra in the mid-20th century when liberals dominated all three branches of government and the southern states resented having progressive values such as those undergirding Brown v. Board of Education, Loving v. Virginia, and Roe v.. Wade imposed upon it.

With the conservatives in power, they would gladly criminalize abortion and eliminate same sex marriage in every state using federal authority to do so if they could. We saw in District of Columbia v. Heller and Gore v. Bush how ready the conservatives on the Supreme Court were willing to wrest control away from local levels of government and impose the federal government's preference on them when it was expedient.

An authentic principle is one that is in play wherever it can be except when it is trumped by a higher principle, as with a unwavering preference for honesty over dishonesty except when honesty would be unjustly damaging to another, as with the classic illustration of lying about the Jews hiding in one's basement when the SS shows up at the door.

What I call a pseudo-principle is one that you don't really care about and would throw under the bus the first opportunity that it no longer serves you, but then wheel back out whenever it suits you. "State's rights" is a classic example of a pseudo-principle, as is "strict constructionism" / "original intent." The interpretation of the Second Amendment by the conservative justices on the Supreme Court is classic judicial activism, and demonstrates that they have no qualms about legislating from the bench when it suits them.

Likewise with Citizen's United v. FEC. Pure conservative judicial activism.

What do you think?

 

[Underhill]

So, can we call for the destruction of the Democratic Party because it is a monument to racism and divisiveness? They literally founded the KKK, caused the Civil War because they wanted slaves, and Planned Parenthood was a eugenics program by a known racist called Margret Sanger, also a Democrat.

Apparently, we are all about tearing down statues but I feel this isn't the root cause - the root cause is the Democrats who have been on the wrong side of history OVER and OVER. Discuss?

Sure, because you are really looking for meaningful discussion with a post like that...

 

[shunyadragon]

The entire American state was built upon racism and slavery.

Bad naive and ambiguous generalization. Slavery was present throughout the world up until the change began to take place in the late 18th century through the 20th century. Even the Jews of the Bible practiced and regulated slavery, and Christians up until the 19th century justified slavery based on the Bible.

Islam, Christianity, Hinduism, Zoroastrian, and Judaism did not prohibit slavery in scripture leaving the question ambiguous concerning moral and ethical issues of slavery. Because of the ambiguous nature of scripture, Christian churches actually began to split on the issue from the late 18th century and the 19th century. The Baha'i Faith did so by spiritual law prohibiting all forms of slavery in the mid-19th century.

 

[shunyadragon]

Hahaha...oh, wait, you're serious.

I was handed an application to join the Klan when I was fifteen. I had no doubt about the purpose of the organization, so saying Byrd didn't know "...its true purpose..." is just pure BS.

Your unbelievable self-centered arrogance does not allow that people can change and repent form their previous beliefs. Yes, many people joined the clan for local reasons and a 'sense of belonging' to their community, but later left, because of moral and ethical reasons.

I would focus my concern for those that still wear the white robe and promote racist violent venom, and refuse to repent and change.

 

[It Aint Necessarily So]

The entire American state was built upon racism and slavery.

You forgot genocide.

Of course, these weren't what were then or now called founding or core American principles, all of which are laudable - democracy, egalitarianism, limited / divided / transparent government, guaranteed individual liberties, egalitarianism, rule of law, church-state separation, etc..

But they were de facto American values.

Americans have much to be proud about, but a few skeletons in the close as well.