Dem Party

JC29856

Just some FYI on the 2020 Democratic primary schedule and how it relates to reliving slavery and segregation. Notice which states are first. I wonder if NC and Georgia will be pushed back later in the cycle?

http://frontloading.blogspot.com/p/2020-presidential-primary-calendar.html

mrussel1

benjs said:

Halifax2TheMax said:

benjs said:

Halifax2TheMax said:

JC29856 said:

Halifax2TheMax said:

JC29856 said:

Here is what democrats are actually doing to fight racism against non-whites.

https://www.yahoo.com/gma/sen-cory-booker-introduce-bill-remove-confederate-statues-052404285--abc-news-topstories.html

Sen. Cory Booker says he plans to introduce bill to remove Confederate statues from Capitol

Because there just might be enough votes to pass it and dare Trump to veto it.

CAMPAIGN ADVERTISING 101

You have an issue with that?

Honest question - would the removal be Constitutional? If the answer is no, I've got an issue with it too.

I'm not sure I follow? I was responding to JC's response of Political Campaign 101, as referenced to Booker introducing legislation to remove confederate statues from the capitol building. Without having read the bill, I'll assume it directs the Architect of the Capitol to have them removed, as the Architect is responsible for the care and upkeep as directed by the congress. Please clarify.

Sorry, I should've been more clear. What I'm wondering is whether a statue representing a movement could be seen as 'expression'. Regardless of the disgusting nature of that movement, the statue itself does not harm people - people misconstrue its existence as freedom to act akin to the Confederate South. 

As far as JC's statement goes, I think we're in agreement, Halifax. I frankly don't give a shit whether Booker's concern about these statues are out of the goodness of his heart, or to prop up his own name: if I want to make society better by moving in a certain direction, and another person wants to move in that direction for other reasons, the outcome of betterment of society remains, no matter how disingenuous it is. That's of literally no concern to me. 

Well you bring up an excellent question that Rob Dreher (American Conservative Magazine) addressed just recently.  I'll paraphrase... He teaches a class to immigrants for some reason or another, not sure, not relevant.  Anyway, a young Indian girl, for a project, ended up drawing a swastika.  Of course he was appalled immediately but then after talking with the parents, learned that in their culture it's an ancient symbol that represented peace.  However, the Nazis had co-opted it and turned it to something that is ugly and repulsive.  And that's what it represents in our culture today (and in the entire western world).  

He brought up the statutes as something similar.  Perhaps there was a time that they represented different, more historical in nature.  But over the past 20 years, they have become a rallying point for racists, culminating in what happened in C'ville.  So regardless of what they meant to represent when erected, now they mean something different, both to humans and to the extreme right.  Therefore, he concluded it's time for them to go.  Jonah Goldberg of the National Review came to a similar conclusion.  These are both very conservative writers, but not racists.  

Go Beavers

JC, on the one hand you're critical of what the media pays attention to, and then you're drawing a conclusion (dems don't do much for minorities) based on what the media is putting out there. Once again, putting yourself in a contradictory position (don't listen to the media, but hey look what I found out in the media). If you want to know what Dems are doing for minorities, dig through legislation on a national and state by state level.  

mrussel1

Go Beavers said:

JC, on the one hand you're critical of what the media pays attention to, and then you're drawing a conclusion (dems don't do much for minorities) based on what the media is putting out there. Once again, putting yourself in a contradictory position (don't listen to the media, but hey look what I found out in the media). If you want to know what Dems are doing for minorities, dig through legislation on a national and state by state level.  

He has no interest in the answer.  

JC29856

Go Beavers said:

JC, on the one hand you're critical of what the media pays attention to, and then you're drawing a conclusion (dems don't do much for minorities) based on what the media is putting out there. Once again, putting yourself in a contradictory position (don't listen to the media, but hey look what I found out in the media). If you want to know what Dems are doing for minorities, dig through legislation on a national and state by state level.  

I'm not sure what the media has to do with the issues that face non whites or the Booker bill? Did I even mention the media in either post?

Obviously I'm talking national, if you need to dig thru state and local legislation than my questions are answered.
I have looked for legislation and there is nothing, I can't find what doesn't exist.
You see anything, remember anything that non whites thank democrats for?
Obama had 3 months to pass whatever he wished, what was passed to help non whites? 
Clinton, welfare reform and the crime bill come to mind. How did those help non whites?

benjs

mrussel1 said:

benjs said:

Halifax2TheMax said:

benjs said:

Halifax2TheMax said:

JC29856 said:

Halifax2TheMax said:

JC29856 said:

Here is what democrats are actually doing to fight racism against non-whites.

https://www.yahoo.com/gma/sen-cory-booker-introduce-bill-remove-confederate-statues-052404285--abc-news-topstories.html

Sen. Cory Booker says he plans to introduce bill to remove Confederate statues from Capitol

Because there just might be enough votes to pass it and dare Trump to veto it.

CAMPAIGN ADVERTISING 101

You have an issue with that?

Honest question - would the removal be Constitutional? If the answer is no, I've got an issue with it too.

I'm not sure I follow? I was responding to JC's response of Political Campaign 101, as referenced to Booker introducing legislation to remove confederate statues from the capitol building. Without having read the bill, I'll assume it directs the Architect of the Capitol to have them removed, as the Architect is responsible for the care and upkeep as directed by the congress. Please clarify.

Sorry, I should've been more clear. What I'm wondering is whether a statue representing a movement could be seen as 'expression'. Regardless of the disgusting nature of that movement, the statue itself does not harm people - people misconstrue its existence as freedom to act akin to the Confederate South. 

As far as JC's statement goes, I think we're in agreement, Halifax. I frankly don't give a shit whether Booker's concern about these statues are out of the goodness of his heart, or to prop up his own name: if I want to make society better by moving in a certain direction, and another person wants to move in that direction for other reasons, the outcome of betterment of society remains, no matter how disingenuous it is. That's of literally no concern to me. 

Well you bring up an excellent question that Rob Dreher (American Conservative Magazine) addressed just recently.  I'll paraphrase... He teaches a class to immigrants for some reason or another, not sure, not relevant.  Anyway, a young Indian girl, for a project, ended up drawing a swastika.  Of course he was appalled immediately but then after talking with the parents, learned that in their culture it's an ancient symbol that represented peace.  However, the Nazis had co-opted it and turned it to something that is ugly and repulsive.  And that's what it represents in our culture today (and in the entire western world).  

He brought up the statutes as something similar.  Perhaps there was a time that they represented different, more historical in nature.  But over the past 20 years, they have become a rallying point for racists, culminating in what happened in C'ville.  So regardless of what they meant to represent when erected, now they mean something different, both to humans and to the extreme right.  Therefore, he concluded it's time for them to go.  Jonah Goldberg of the National Review came to a similar conclusion.  These are both very conservative writers, but not racists.  

I did a bit of travelling in Southeast Asia, and know exactly what Dreher is talking about: it was initially shocking to see the swastika there as well (though I knew that it had peaceful roots).

What's interesting, though, is that originally this statue represented something historical in nature, and time has transformed its meaning. As you said, over the past 20 years it's become a rallying point for racists. But, if the statue remains up, could it come to mean something differentonce again? Perhaps it could come to represent the suppression of racially-driven ignorance, and the significance of discussing and educating not only those we agree with - but also those we vehemently disagree with?

mrussel1

benjs said:

mrussel1 said:

benjs said:

Halifax2TheMax said:

benjs said:

Halifax2TheMax said:

JC29856 said:

Halifax2TheMax said:

JC29856 said:

Here is what democrats are actually doing to fight racism against non-whites.

https://www.yahoo.com/gma/sen-cory-booker-introduce-bill-remove-confederate-statues-052404285--abc-news-topstories.html

Sen. Cory Booker says he plans to introduce bill to remove Confederate statues from Capitol

Because there just might be enough votes to pass it and dare Trump to veto it.

CAMPAIGN ADVERTISING 101

You have an issue with that?

Honest question - would the removal be Constitutional? If the answer is no, I've got an issue with it too.

I'm not sure I follow? I was responding to JC's response of Political Campaign 101, as referenced to Booker introducing legislation to remove confederate statues from the capitol building. Without having read the bill, I'll assume it directs the Architect of the Capitol to have them removed, as the Architect is responsible for the care and upkeep as directed by the congress. Please clarify.

Sorry, I should've been more clear. What I'm wondering is whether a statue representing a movement could be seen as 'expression'. Regardless of the disgusting nature of that movement, the statue itself does not harm people - people misconstrue its existence as freedom to act akin to the Confederate South. 

As far as JC's statement goes, I think we're in agreement, Halifax. I frankly don't give a shit whether Booker's concern about these statues are out of the goodness of his heart, or to prop up his own name: if I want to make society better by moving in a certain direction, and another person wants to move in that direction for other reasons, the outcome of betterment of society remains, no matter how disingenuous it is. That's of literally no concern to me. 

Well you bring up an excellent question that Rob Dreher (American Conservative Magazine) addressed just recently.  I'll paraphrase... He teaches a class to immigrants for some reason or another, not sure, not relevant.  Anyway, a young Indian girl, for a project, ended up drawing a swastika.  Of course he was appalled immediately but then after talking with the parents, learned that in their culture it's an ancient symbol that represented peace.  However, the Nazis had co-opted it and turned it to something that is ugly and repulsive.  And that's what it represents in our culture today (and in the entire western world).  

He brought up the statutes as something similar.  Perhaps there was a time that they represented different, more historical in nature.  But over the past 20 years, they have become a rallying point for racists, culminating in what happened in C'ville.  So regardless of what they meant to represent when erected, now they mean something different, both to humans and to the extreme right.  Therefore, he concluded it's time for them to go.  Jonah Goldberg of the National Review came to a similar conclusion.  These are both very conservative writers, but not racists.  

I did a bit of travelling in Southeast Asia, and know exactly what Dreher is talking about: it was initially shocking to see the swastika there as well (though I knew that it had peaceful roots).

What's interesting, though, is that originally this statue represented something historical in nature, and time has transformed its meaning. As you said, over the past 20 years it's become a rallying point for racists. But, if the statue remains up, could it come to mean something differentonce again? Perhaps it could come to represent the suppression of racially-driven ignorance, and the significance of discussing and educating not only those we agree with - but also those we vehemently disagree with?

It could definitely transform once again.  It is true though that the statues were generally built in the 20's.  This is the time of "Birth of a Nation" when the Klan was very powerful and this very racist movie was extremely popular.  I tend to think it's a big FU, and was intended to be as such.  
When you go to the Holocaust Museum, it's filled with swastikas, of course and it's centered around the Third Reich.  But that is clearly historical in nature.  It's about remembering, not revering.  The confederate statues are not the same, in my mind.  
I live in Richmond and we have a very famous street called Monument Avenue.  It is littered with massive and frankly beautiful statues of Confederate heroes, mostly generals but also of Jeff Davis, the biggest traitor of all.  They will likely be removed in the next few years and relocated to a outside museum somewhere else in the city.  

Go Beavers

benjs said:

mrussel1 said:

benjs said:

Halifax2TheMax said:

benjs said:

Halifax2TheMax said:

JC29856 said:

Halifax2TheMax said:

JC29856 said:

Here is what democrats are actually doing to fight racism against non-whites.

https://www.yahoo.com/gma/sen-cory-booker-introduce-bill-remove-confederate-statues-052404285--abc-news-topstories.html

Sen. Cory Booker says he plans to introduce bill to remove Confederate statues from Capitol

Because there just might be enough votes to pass it and dare Trump to veto it.

CAMPAIGN ADVERTISING 101

You have an issue with that?

Honest question - would the removal be Constitutional? If the answer is no, I've got an issue with it too.

I'm not sure I follow? I was responding to JC's response of Political Campaign 101, as referenced to Booker introducing legislation to remove confederate statues from the capitol building. Without having read the bill, I'll assume it directs the Architect of the Capitol to have them removed, as the Architect is responsible for the care and upkeep as directed by the congress. Please clarify.

Sorry, I should've been more clear. What I'm wondering is whether a statue representing a movement could be seen as 'expression'. Regardless of the disgusting nature of that movement, the statue itself does not harm people - people misconstrue its existence as freedom to act akin to the Confederate South. 

As far as JC's statement goes, I think we're in agreement, Halifax. I frankly don't give a shit whether Booker's concern about these statues are out of the goodness of his heart, or to prop up his own name: if I want to make society better by moving in a certain direction, and another person wants to move in that direction for other reasons, the outcome of betterment of society remains, no matter how disingenuous it is. That's of literally no concern to me. 

Well you bring up an excellent question that Rob Dreher (American Conservative Magazine) addressed just recently.  I'll paraphrase... He teaches a class to immigrants for some reason or another, not sure, not relevant.  Anyway, a young Indian girl, for a project, ended up drawing a swastika.  Of course he was appalled immediately but then after talking with the parents, learned that in their culture it's an ancient symbol that represented peace.  However, the Nazis had co-opted it and turned it to something that is ugly and repulsive.  And that's what it represents in our culture today (and in the entire western world).  

He brought up the statutes as something similar.  Perhaps there was a time that they represented different, more historical in nature.  But over the past 20 years, they have become a rallying point for racists, culminating in what happened in C'ville.  So regardless of what they meant to represent when erected, now they mean something different, both to humans and to the extreme right.  Therefore, he concluded it's time for them to go.  Jonah Goldberg of the National Review came to a similar conclusion.  These are both very conservative writers, but not racists.  

I did a bit of travelling in Southeast Asia, and know exactly what Dreher is talking about: it was initially shocking to see the swastika there as well (though I knew that it had peaceful roots).

What's interesting, though, is that originally this statue represented something historical in nature, and time has transformed its meaning. As you said, over the past 20 years it's become a rallying point for racists. But, if the statue remains up, could it come to mean something differentonce again? Perhaps it could come to represent the suppression of racially-driven ignorance, and the significance of discussing and educating not only those we agree with - but also those we vehemently disagree with?

The original intent of the statues was to convey a message of racism and segregation, and to remind blacks to 'stay in your place'. 

Halifax2TheMax

Go Beavers said:

benjs said:

mrussel1 said:

benjs said:

Halifax2TheMax said:

benjs said:

Halifax2TheMax said:

JC29856 said:

Halifax2TheMax said:

JC29856 said:

Here is what democrats are actually doing to fight racism against non-whites.

https://www.yahoo.com/gma/sen-cory-booker-introduce-bill-remove-confederate-statues-052404285--abc-news-topstories.html

Sen. Cory Booker says he plans to introduce bill to remove Confederate statues from Capitol

Because there just might be enough votes to pass it and dare Trump to veto it.

CAMPAIGN ADVERTISING 101

You have an issue with that?

Honest question - would the removal be Constitutional? If the answer is no, I've got an issue with it too.

I'm not sure I follow? I was responding to JC's response of Political Campaign 101, as referenced to Booker introducing legislation to remove confederate statues from the capitol building. Without having read the bill, I'll assume it directs the Architect of the Capitol to have them removed, as the Architect is responsible for the care and upkeep as directed by the congress. Please clarify.

Sorry, I should've been more clear. What I'm wondering is whether a statue representing a movement could be seen as 'expression'. Regardless of the disgusting nature of that movement, the statue itself does not harm people - people misconstrue its existence as freedom to act akin to the Confederate South. 

As far as JC's statement goes, I think we're in agreement, Halifax. I frankly don't give a shit whether Booker's concern about these statues are out of the goodness of his heart, or to prop up his own name: if I want to make society better by moving in a certain direction, and another person wants to move in that direction for other reasons, the outcome of betterment of society remains, no matter how disingenuous it is. That's of literally no concern to me. 

Well you bring up an excellent question that Rob Dreher (American Conservative Magazine) addressed just recently.  I'll paraphrase... He teaches a class to immigrants for some reason or another, not sure, not relevant.  Anyway, a young Indian girl, for a project, ended up drawing a swastika.  Of course he was appalled immediately but then after talking with the parents, learned that in their culture it's an ancient symbol that represented peace.  However, the Nazis had co-opted it and turned it to something that is ugly and repulsive.  And that's what it represents in our culture today (and in the entire western world).  

He brought up the statutes as something similar.  Perhaps there was a time that they represented different, more historical in nature.  But over the past 20 years, they have become a rallying point for racists, culminating in what happened in C'ville.  So regardless of what they meant to represent when erected, now they mean something different, both to humans and to the extreme right.  Therefore, he concluded it's time for them to go.  Jonah Goldberg of the National Review came to a similar conclusion.  These are both very conservative writers, but not racists.  

I did a bit of travelling in Southeast Asia, and know exactly what Dreher is talking about: it was initially shocking to see the swastika there as well (though I knew that it had peaceful roots).

What's interesting, though, is that originally this statue represented something historical in nature, and time has transformed its meaning. As you said, over the past 20 years it's become a rallying point for racists. But, if the statue remains up, could it come to mean something differentonce again? Perhaps it could come to represent the suppression of racially-driven ignorance, and the significance of discussing and educating not only those we agree with - but also those we vehemently disagree with?

The original intent of the statues was to convey a message of racism and segregation, and to remind blacks to 'stay in your place'. 

For a particular class and race, those statues never changed, nor ever will, their meaning. You can go back and forth all you want but for them, the statue remains the same. An overt reminder of subjugation and oppression.
 

JC29856

https://action.dccc.org/free/free-stop-bigotry-sticker

I encourage everyone to get their free stop bigotry stickers. Let all the bigots know hatred is not welcomed here.

JC29856

Kamala's favorite chief foreclosurer/campaign funderer
Hermes: pronounced er'mays
http://m.huffpost.com/us/entry/us_599b9b16e4b04c532f43dd69/amp

Halifax2TheMax

JC29856 said:

Kamala's favorite chief foreclosurer/campaign funderer
Hermes: pronounced er'mays
http://m.huffpost.com/us/entry/us_599b9b16e4b04c532f43dd69/amp

Thanks for the pronounciation lesson. Never would have gotten it without it.
 

JC29856

Halifax2TheMax said:

JC29856 said:

Kamala's favorite chief foreclosurer/campaign funderer
Hermes: pronounced er'mays
http://m.huffpost.com/us/entry/us_599b9b16e4b04c532f43dd69/amp

Thanks for the pronounciation lesson. Never would have gotten it without it.
 

https://www.washingtonpost.com/amphtml/posteverything/wp/2016/07/06/louise-linton-just-wrote-the-perfect-white-savior-in-africa-story/

JC29856

Afghan minerals?
North Korea has those too, hmmm

https://mobile.nytimes.com/2017/07/25/world/asia/afghanistan-trump-mineral-deposits.html

JC29856

challenging the true progressive ironstache is Cathy Meyers

https://cathymyersforcongress.com/
https://ballotpedia.org/Cathy_Myers


wonder how they chose which Dem challenger got CNN facetime?

Go Beavers

JC29856 said:

challenging the true progressive ironstache is Cathy Meyers

https://cathymyersforcongress.com/
https://ballotpedia.org/Cathy_Myers


wonder how they chose which Dem challenger got CNN facetime?

I love how they feel obligated to try and counter stereotypes of liberals in these things. So she was born in a truck stop and had jobs while growing up. Here this whole time I thought we libs had no work ethic and lived on handouts. 

Gern Blansten

Go Beavers said:

JC29856 said:

challenging the true progressive ironstache is Cathy Meyers

https://cathymyersforcongress.com/
https://ballotpedia.org/Cathy_Myers


wonder how they chose which Dem challenger got CNN facetime?

I love how they feel obligated to try and counter stereotypes of liberals in these things. So she was born in a truck stop and had jobs while growing up. Here this whole time I thought we libs had no work ethic and lived on handouts. 

Yeah I am always amazed at how liberals/dems are stereotyped as non working, poor, welfare grabbing, etc.  

I am in red meat Indiana and the dems I know are all relatively wealthy, hard working, very dedicated to community, etc.

Go Beavers

Gern Blansten said:

Go Beavers said:

JC29856 said:

challenging the true progressive ironstache is Cathy Meyers

https://cathymyersforcongress.com/
https://ballotpedia.org/Cathy_Myers


wonder how they chose which Dem challenger got CNN facetime?

I love how they feel obligated to try and counter stereotypes of liberals in these things. So she was born in a truck stop and had jobs while growing up. Here this whole time I thought we libs had no work ethic and lived on handouts. 

Yeah I am always amazed at how liberals/dems are stereotyped as non working, poor, welfare grabbing, etc.  

I am in red meat Indiana and the dems I know are all relatively wealthy, hard working, very dedicated to community, etc.

I grew up in West Lafayette, which is kind of a pocket of liberalism. Most of my friends connected back there are liberal, with a fewconservative Christians who strayed. Nearly all my liberal friends are over achievers with multiple college degrees and have great careers that they've wirked hard at. My parents were liberal, and there was definately the norm with everyone I knew that you worked, and not working wasn't really an option. 

mrussel1

Go Beavers said:

Gern Blansten said:

Go Beavers said:

JC29856 said:

challenging the true progressive ironstache is Cathy Meyers

https://cathymyersforcongress.com/
https://ballotpedia.org/Cathy_Myers


wonder how they chose which Dem challenger got CNN facetime?

I love how they feel obligated to try and counter stereotypes of liberals in these things. So she was born in a truck stop and had jobs while growing up. Here this whole time I thought we libs had no work ethic and lived on handouts. 

Yeah I am always amazed at how liberals/dems are stereotyped as non working, poor, welfare grabbing, etc.  

I am in red meat Indiana and the dems I know are all relatively wealthy, hard working, very dedicated to community, etc.

I grew up in West Lafayette, which is kind of a pocket of liberalism. Most of my friends connected back there are liberal, with a fewconservative Christians who strayed. Nearly all my liberal friends are over achievers with multiple college degrees and have great careers that they've wirked hard at. My parents were liberal, and there was definately the norm with everyone I knew that you worked, and not working wasn't really an option. 

And if you are successful, you can be called a "limousine liberal".  The whole context is that if you make money and are successful, you should automatically be pro low tax rates.  Well that's not true.  You can believe in capitalism and a progressive tax system.  I have always made the argument that I am pro-capitalist, but with the clear understanding that capitalism by its very nature leaves people behind.  You can't have a capitalist society where everyone is "wealthy" compared to their peers.  It's impossible. 

Go Beavers

mrussel1 said:

Go Beavers said:

Gern Blansten said:

Go Beavers said:

JC29856 said:

challenging the true progressive ironstache is Cathy Meyers

https://cathymyersforcongress.com/
https://ballotpedia.org/Cathy_Myers


wonder how they chose which Dem challenger got CNN facetime?

I love how they feel obligated to try and counter stereotypes of liberals in these things. So she was born in a truck stop and had jobs while growing up. Here this whole time I thought we libs had no work ethic and lived on handouts. 

Yeah I am always amazed at how liberals/dems are stereotyped as non working, poor, welfare grabbing, etc.  

I am in red meat Indiana and the dems I know are all relatively wealthy, hard working, very dedicated to community, etc.

I grew up in West Lafayette, which is kind of a pocket of liberalism. Most of my friends connected back there are liberal, with a fewconservative Christians who strayed. Nearly all my liberal friends are over achievers with multiple college degrees and have great careers that they've wirked hard at. My parents were liberal, and there was definately the norm with everyone I knew that you worked, and not working wasn't really an option. 

And if you are successful, you can be called a "limousine liberal".  The whole context is that if you make money and are successful, you should automatically be pro low tax rates.  Well that's not true.  You can believe in capitalism and a progressive tax system.  I have always made the argument that I am pro-capitalist, but with the clear understanding that capitalism by its very nature leaves people behind.  You can't have a capitalist society where everyone is "wealthy" compared to their peers.  It's impossible. 

And the whole thing about the wealthy always being for big tax cuts was foreign to me. I was always around the thinking that taxes are part of paying into a structure and a system that has allowed you to be able to earn this wealth, and that while tax cuts along with de-regulation, may provide a short  term gain, the long term for more people to grow their wealth gets harmed since the wealth will slowly be hoarded by fewer people.