Why doesn't the word 'Democrat' trigger African-Americans ?

[Lysistrata]

Since we all know the Dimocrat party was the home for pro-slavery Americans, why doesn't the word itself trigger AA's ?

The word "lynch" or "lynching" triggers AA's, in Portland Oregon for instance, three schools had to be renamed that were named after the "Lynch" family who donated the land to the city to build schools decades ago.

We've all seen in the last day how upsetting Trump's use of the word has been, so my question is, why haven't AA's demanded the Dimocrat party rename itself ?

I see that you are into the "triggering" thing heavy duty today. Alt-right jargon, and not cute. African-Americans are free to exercise independent judgment as to how they feel about America's political parties, same as everybody else. Can you guys think up another vocabulary?

"Triggering" is Ctrl-Left jargon, sweetheart. Same as "fake news". Both terms originally meant to stifle speech.

It's the alt-right apes who use it. Same as "fake news," which your orange whore uses quite frequently.

 

[impuretrash]

Since we all know the Dimocrat party was the home for pro-slavery Americans, why doesn't the word itself trigger AA's ?

The word "lynch" or "lynching" triggers AA's, in Portland Oregon for instance, three schools had to be renamed that were named after the "Lynch" family who donated the land to the city to build schools decades ago.

We've all seen in the last day how upsetting Trump's use of the word has been, so my question is, why haven't AA's demanded the Dimocrat party rename itself ?

I see that you are into the "triggering" thing heavy duty today. Alt-right jargon, and not cute. African-Americans are free to exercise independent judgment as to how they feel about America's political parties, same as everybody else. Can you guys think up another vocabulary?

"Triggering" is Ctrl-Left jargon, sweetheart. Same as "fake news". Both terms originally meant to stifle speech.

It's the alt-right apes who use it. Same as "fake news," which your orange whore uses quite frequently.

Triggering was coined by obese female college students who experience PTSD at the drop of a hat. Clinton brought fake news into popular culture by labeling information critical of her as fake.

 

[HappyJoy]

People in the South supported slavery. Both Republicans and Democrats

I guess gross stupidity runs rampant in Trump land.

I am right. You are wrong. You think you know history? Really?

Every single post you create regardless of the subject, includes personal attacks.
Your act here is getting old.

As for this subject, we all know the south was the home of slavery, but the Dimocrat party specifically had it in their platform.

By your logic all black people should be denouncing their U.S. citizenship. Half of you wingnuts on this board would probably prefer that. I don't know any Democrats today who would want such a thing.

We would be happy if they all went to Africa, so they can be with their own kinds.

However, the stupid soulless Moon Bats want to keep them here so they have their Democrat voting welfare slaves.

OF course you do. You're a racist Republican in a thread about Democrats and the OP is ignoring you.

I'm actually not a Republican. They are too Liberal.

I am a proud racist Cracker.

When the Neggras get off welfare, stop committing crimes, stop electing filthy ass Democrats and start taking care of their families I will respect them. Until then not so much so.

Can you do me a favor? When conservatives start complaining they are called racist all the time can you remind them that you exist?

 

[joaquinmiller]

Because most blacks realize Democrats not only fought for their civil rights, but elected the first black man to be president.

The Civil Rights Act was passed in 1964. What Democrats were fighting for this in the years leading up to this legislation? (D) Al Gore must be very proud of his father’s contribution. As for Democrats electing the first Black President, he was the son of a white woman and he grew up white and privileged.

More Democrats voted to pass the CRA than Republicans, and twice as many Democrats voted 'yea' as voted 'nay'.

46 Democrats voted for, and 21 voted against. 21 Repubs voted for, and 6 voted against.

HR. 7152. PASSAGE. -- Senate Vote #409 -- Jun 19, 1964

Yes. Democrats jumped in line at the end to pass CRA . My question was regarding the years leading up to it, what activities, stances did Democrats take towards fighting for civil rights?

Do you mean after Democratic President JF Kennedy introduced the Bill in June, 1963?

If you're determined, 55 years later, to ignore that the real splits were North/South and liberal/conservative, rather than Dem/Rep, explain why the GOP nominated one of the few Republicans to vote against the CRA of 1964 as its presidential nominee.

JFK opposed the proposed CRA legislation in 1957. Barry Goldwater opposes the CRA legislation in 1964. Do you really believe both were against Civil Rights or specific legislation? You keep going back to the CRA but cannot point to Democrats and what they did to get to CRA. The change of heart among Democrats was not rooted in altruism as much as it was creating a voting block..... something they have never left.

You got halfway there - you admit the Dems had a change of heart, but you can't resist questioning their motives. Abstractly, does the motive matter? Assuming you think the CRA was a good thing.

You tell me I can't point to what Democrats did to get to CRA. Man, a Democratic president introduced it, and a subsequent Dem Prez pushed it and signed it? Is that nothing?

Harry Truman, in the face of strong objection, integrated the US military by EO. That was a small step. No credit there? Perhaps you'd rather criticize Roosevelt for not doing it sooner, in war time.

 

[DigitalDrifter]

The Civil Rights Act was passed in 1964. What Democrats were fighting for this in the years leading up to this legislation? (D) Al Gore must be very proud of his father’s contribution. As for Democrats electing the first Black President, he was the son of a white woman and he grew up white and privileged.

More Democrats voted to pass the CRA than Republicans, and twice as many Democrats voted 'yea' as voted 'nay'.

46 Democrats voted for, and 21 voted against. 21 Repubs voted for, and 6 voted against.

HR. 7152. PASSAGE. -- Senate Vote #409 -- Jun 19, 1964

Yes. Democrats jumped in line at the end to pass CRA . My question was regarding the years leading up to it, what activities, stances did Democrats take towards fighting for civil rights?

Do you mean after Democratic President JF Kennedy introduced the Bill in June, 1963?

If you're determined, 55 years later, to ignore that the real splits were North/South and liberal/conservative, rather than Dem/Rep, explain why the GOP nominated one of the few Republicans to vote against the CRA of 1964 as its presidential nominee.

JFK opposed the proposed CRA legislation in 1957. Barry Goldwater opposes the CRA legislation in 1964. Do you really believe both were against Civil Rights or specific legislation? You keep going back to the CRA but cannot point to Democrats and what they did to get to CRA. The change of heart among Democrats was not rooted in altruism as much as it was creating a voting block..... something they have never left.

You got halfway there - you admit the Dems had a change of heart, but you can't resist questioning their motives. Abstractly, does the motive matter? Assuming you think the CRA was a good thing.

You tell me I can't point to what Democrats did to get to CRA. Man, a Democratic president introduced it, and a subsequent Dem Prez pushed it and signed it? Is that nothing?

Harry Truman, in the face of strong objection, integrated the US military by EO. That was a small step. No credit there? Perhaps you'd rather criticize Roosevelt for not doing it sooner, in war time.

Dimocrat Roosevelt didn't have time for the integration, he was too busy rounding up Japanese-Americans and placing them in concentration camps.

 

[Olde Europe]

You got halfway there - you admit the Dems had a change of heart, but you can't resist questioning their motives. Abstractly, does the motive matter? Assuming you think the CRA was a good thing.

Of course, motives matter. When you are expecting nothing but purity in politics, they are all that matters.

But he just discovered that politicians every so often do things to gain votes (!), and he realized that Blacks (!) are actually voters. A "voting block", no less. So, that's a pox on the Democrats' house. That, with the inverse stance, and strident opposition, the Goobers won the entire South where previously they had hardly a leg to stand on - nah, that is pure as the driven snow.

Laughable. Or rather, it would be, were it not for the fact they appear to believe their own pap.

 

[joaquinmiller]

You got halfway there - you admit the Dems had a change of heart, but you can't resist questioning their motives. Abstractly, does the motive matter? Assuming you think the CRA was a good thing.

Of course, motives matter. When you are expecting nothing but purity in politics, they are all that matters.

But he just discovered that politicians every so often do things to gain votes (!), and he realized that Blacks (!) are actually voters. A "voting block", no less. So, that's a pox on the Democrats' house. That, with the inverse stance, and strident opposition, the Goobers won the entire South where previously they had hardly a leg to stand on - nah, that is pure as the driven snow.

Laughable. Or rather, it would be, were it not for the fact they appear to believe their own pap.

They're always at war with Oceania.

 

[Olde Europe]

You got halfway there - you admit the Dems had a change of heart, but you can't resist questioning their motives. Abstractly, does the motive matter? Assuming you think the CRA was a good thing.

Of course, motives matter. When you are expecting nothing but purity in politics, they are all that matters.

But he just discovered that politicians every so often do things to gain votes (!), and he realized that Blacks (!) are actually voters. A "voting block", no less. So, that's a pox on the Democrats' house. That, with the inverse stance, and strident opposition, the Goobers won the entire South where previously they had hardly a leg to stand on - nah, that is pure as the driven snow.

Laughable. Or rather, it would be, were it not for the fact they appear to believe their own pap.

They're always at war with Oceania.

Little did we know how that became war on the truth itself.

 

[joaquinmiller]

You got halfway there - you admit the Dems had a change of heart, but you can't resist questioning their motives. Abstractly, does the motive matter? Assuming you think the CRA was a good thing.

Of course, motives matter. When you are expecting nothing but purity in politics, they are all that matters.

But he just discovered that politicians every so often do things to gain votes (!), and he realized that Blacks (!) are actually voters. A "voting block", no less. So, that's a pox on the Democrats' house. That, with the inverse stance, and strident opposition, the Goobers won the entire South where previously they had hardly a leg to stand on - nah, that is pure as the driven snow.

Laughable. Or rather, it would be, were it not for the fact they appear to believe their own pap.

They're always at war with Oceania.

Little did we know how that became war on the truth itself.

So much of it is willful stupidity. I wouldn't have believed it without seeing it.

 

[Olde Europe]

So much of it is willful stupidity. I wouldn't have believed it without seeing it.

Agreed. Would you have believed you'd ever meet a group of people - Flash in their midst, and no longer standing out like a sore, festering thumb?

 

[LeftofLeft]

The Civil Rights Act was passed in 1964. What Democrats were fighting for this in the years leading up to this legislation? (D) Al Gore must be very proud of his father’s contribution. As for Democrats electing the first Black President, he was the son of a white woman and he grew up white and privileged.

More Democrats voted to pass the CRA than Republicans, and twice as many Democrats voted 'yea' as voted 'nay'.

46 Democrats voted for, and 21 voted against. 21 Repubs voted for, and 6 voted against.

HR. 7152. PASSAGE. -- Senate Vote #409 -- Jun 19, 1964

Yes. Democrats jumped in line at the end to pass CRA . My question was regarding the years leading up to it, what activities, stances did Democrats take towards fighting for civil rights?

Do you mean after Democratic President JF Kennedy introduced the Bill in June, 1963?

If you're determined, 55 years later, to ignore that the real splits were North/South and liberal/conservative, rather than Dem/Rep, explain why the GOP nominated one of the few Republicans to vote against the CRA of 1964 as its presidential nominee.

JFK opposed the proposed CRA legislation in 1957. Barry Goldwater opposes the CRA legislation in 1964. Do you really believe both were against Civil Rights or specific legislation? You keep going back to the CRA but cannot point to Democrats and what they did to get to CRA. The change of heart among Democrats was not rooted in altruism as much as it was creating a voting block..... something they have never left.

You got halfway there - you admit the Dems had a change of heart, but you can't resist questioning their motives. Abstractly, does the motive matter? Assuming you think the CRA was a good thing.

You tell me I can't point to what Democrats did to get to CRA. Man, a Democratic president introduced it, and a subsequent Dem Prez pushed it and signed it? Is that nothing?

Harry Truman, in the face of strong objection, integrated the US military by EO. That was a small step. No credit there? Perhaps you'd rather criticize Roosevelt for not doing it sooner, in war time.

Let me be more clear: “Democrats had a change of heart” was sarcasm. I don’t believe it was done out of morality as much as a political capital builder; or, LBJ’s 200 Year Plan. Democrats see votes, not people.

 

[joaquinmiller]

More Democrats voted to pass the CRA than Republicans, and twice as many Democrats voted 'yea' as voted 'nay'.

46 Democrats voted for, and 21 voted against. 21 Repubs voted for, and 6 voted against.

HR. 7152. PASSAGE. -- Senate Vote #409 -- Jun 19, 1964

Yes. Democrats jumped in line at the end to pass CRA . My question was regarding the years leading up to it, what activities, stances did Democrats take towards fighting for civil rights?

Do you mean after Democratic President JF Kennedy introduced the Bill in June, 1963?

If you're determined, 55 years later, to ignore that the real splits were North/South and liberal/conservative, rather than Dem/Rep, explain why the GOP nominated one of the few Republicans to vote against the CRA of 1964 as its presidential nominee.

JFK opposed the proposed CRA legislation in 1957. Barry Goldwater opposes the CRA legislation in 1964. Do you really believe both were against Civil Rights or specific legislation? You keep going back to the CRA but cannot point to Democrats and what they did to get to CRA. The change of heart among Democrats was not rooted in altruism as much as it was creating a voting block..... something they have never left.

You got halfway there - you admit the Dems had a change of heart, but you can't resist questioning their motives. Abstractly, does the motive matter? Assuming you think the CRA was a good thing.

You tell me I can't point to what Democrats did to get to CRA. Man, a Democratic president introduced it, and a subsequent Dem Prez pushed it and signed it? Is that nothing?

Harry Truman, in the face of strong objection, integrated the US military by EO. That was a small step. No credit there? Perhaps you'd rather criticize Roosevelt for not doing it sooner, in war time.

Let me be more clear: “Democrats had a change of heart” was sarcasm. I don’t believe it was done out of morality as much as a political capital builder; or, LBJ’s 200 Year Plan. Democrats see votes, not people.

Why you think it was done doesn't matter. JFK and LBJ put their weight behind it and got it done, while you say I "cannot point to Democrats and what they did to get to CRA."

Evidence isn't accepted.

 

[LeftofLeft]

More Democrats voted to pass the CRA than Republicans, and twice as many Democrats voted 'yea' as voted 'nay'.

46 Democrats voted for, and 21 voted against. 21 Repubs voted for, and 6 voted against.

HR. 7152. PASSAGE. -- Senate Vote #409 -- Jun 19, 1964

Yes. Democrats jumped in line at the end to pass CRA . My question was regarding the years leading up to it, what activities, stances did Democrats take towards fighting for civil rights?

Do you mean after Democratic President JF Kennedy introduced the Bill in June, 1963?

If you're determined, 55 years later, to ignore that the real splits were North/South and liberal/conservative, rather than Dem/Rep, explain why the GOP nominated one of the few Republicans to vote against the CRA of 1964 as its presidential nominee.

JFK opposed the proposed CRA legislation in 1957. Barry Goldwater opposes the CRA legislation in 1964. Do you really believe both were against Civil Rights or specific legislation? You keep going back to the CRA but cannot point to Democrats and what they did to get to CRA. The change of heart among Democrats was not rooted in altruism as much as it was creating a voting block..... something they have never left.

You got halfway there - you admit the Dems had a change of heart, but you can't resist questioning their motives. Abstractly, does the motive matter? Assuming you think the CRA was a good thing.

You tell me I can't point to what Democrats did to get to CRA. Man, a Democratic president introduced it, and a subsequent Dem Prez pushed it and signed it? Is that nothing?

Harry Truman, in the face of strong objection, integrated the US military by EO. That was a small step. No credit there? Perhaps you'd rather criticize Roosevelt for not doing it sooner, in war time.

Dimocrat Roosevelt didn't have time for the integration, he was too busy rounding up Japanese-Americans and placing them in concentration camps.

That and keeping Jews out of America.

 

[LeftofLeft]

Yes. Democrats jumped in line at the end to pass CRA . My question was regarding the years leading up to it, what activities, stances did Democrats take towards fighting for civil rights?

Do you mean after Democratic President JF Kennedy introduced the Bill in June, 1963?

If you're determined, 55 years later, to ignore that the real splits were North/South and liberal/conservative, rather than Dem/Rep, explain why the GOP nominated one of the few Republicans to vote against the CRA of 1964 as its presidential nominee.

JFK opposed the proposed CRA legislation in 1957. Barry Goldwater opposes the CRA legislation in 1964. Do you really believe both were against Civil Rights or specific legislation? You keep going back to the CRA but cannot point to Democrats and what they did to get to CRA. The change of heart among Democrats was not rooted in altruism as much as it was creating a voting block..... something they have never left.

You got halfway there - you admit the Dems had a change of heart, but you can't resist questioning their motives. Abstractly, does the motive matter? Assuming you think the CRA was a good thing.

You tell me I can't point to what Democrats did to get to CRA. Man, a Democratic president introduced it, and a subsequent Dem Prez pushed it and signed it? Is that nothing?

Harry Truman, in the face of strong objection, integrated the US military by EO. That was a small step. No credit there? Perhaps you'd rather criticize Roosevelt for not doing it sooner, in war time.

Let me be more clear: “Democrats had a change of heart” was sarcasm. I don’t believe it was done out of morality as much as a political capital builder; or, LBJ’s 200 Year Plan. Democrats see votes, not people.

Why you think it was done doesn't matter. JFK and LBJ put their weight behind it and got it done, while you say I "cannot point to Democrats and what they did to get to CRA."

Evidence isn't accepted.

I differentiated between the CRA passage vs support Democrats put behind civil rights leading up to CRA.

 

[mudwhistle]

So you want everyone to remain ignorant in other words.
Very little of what is in the news is what would be considered facts on the ground.
And I hate to break it to you....but there has to be a little give and take involved.
If you have a shitty attitude you can claim that everyone who reacts negatively to your shitty attitude is a racist.

Boy, you sure do love to make stuff up about my positions.

Over and over and over.
.

Dude, I don't think you're even reading my posts. It's like you have a canned response for everything.

Yes, because you keep lying about my points. You keep making shit up to make a "point".

I'm happy to have a conversation, but not if you can't be honest. It's a waste of time.

Just stop lying. It's not that difficult, I swear, dude.
.

No.
You can't seem to tell the difference between a lie and an opinion.

You're telling us that blacks don't need to know history. They should only consider their local situations. Now you're saying that's a lie.

You just did it again: "You're telling us that blacks don't need to know history."

I don't even think you realize what you're doing. That is a lie.

Good gawd. Try this on someone else, this is not pleasant to watch.
.

Thanks for the rendition of a Drama Queen.

I simply rephrased what you clearly stated.
So stop crying.

 

[Mac1958]

Boy, you sure do love to make stuff up about my positions.

Over and over and over.
.

Dude, I don't think you're even reading my posts. It's like you have a canned response for everything.

Yes, because you keep lying about my points. You keep making shit up to make a "point".

I'm happy to have a conversation, but not if you can't be honest. It's a waste of time.

Just stop lying. It's not that difficult, I swear, dude.
.

No.
You can't seem to tell the difference between a lie and an opinion.

You're telling us that blacks don't need to know history. They should only consider their local situations. Now you're saying that's a lie.

You just did it again: "You're telling us that blacks don't need to know history."

I don't even think you realize what you're doing. That is a lie.

Good gawd. Try this on someone else, this is not pleasant to watch.
.

Thanks for the rendition of a Drama Queen.

I simply rephrased what you clearly stated.
So stop crying.

In your mind, sure.
.

 

[joaquinmiller]

Do you mean after Democratic President JF Kennedy introduced the Bill in June, 1963?

If you're determined, 55 years later, to ignore that the real splits were North/South and liberal/conservative, rather than Dem/Rep, explain why the GOP nominated one of the few Republicans to vote against the CRA of 1964 as its presidential nominee.

JFK opposed the proposed CRA legislation in 1957. Barry Goldwater opposes the CRA legislation in 1964. Do you really believe both were against Civil Rights or specific legislation? You keep going back to the CRA but cannot point to Democrats and what they did to get to CRA. The change of heart among Democrats was not rooted in altruism as much as it was creating a voting block..... something they have never left.

You got halfway there - you admit the Dems had a change of heart, but you can't resist questioning their motives. Abstractly, does the motive matter? Assuming you think the CRA was a good thing.

You tell me I can't point to what Democrats did to get to CRA. Man, a Democratic president introduced it, and a subsequent Dem Prez pushed it and signed it? Is that nothing?

Harry Truman, in the face of strong objection, integrated the US military by EO. That was a small step. No credit there? Perhaps you'd rather criticize Roosevelt for not doing it sooner, in war time.

Let me be more clear: “Democrats had a change of heart” was sarcasm. I don’t believe it was done out of morality as much as a political capital builder; or, LBJ’s 200 Year Plan. Democrats see votes, not people.

Why you think it was done doesn't matter. JFK and LBJ put their weight behind it and got it done, while you say I "cannot point to Democrats and what they did to get to CRA."

Evidence isn't accepted.

I differentiated between the CRA passage vs support Democrats put behind civil rights leading up to CRA.

To what end? Haven't the intervening years defined the positions each party has taken?

 

[mudwhistle]

Dude, I don't think you're even reading my posts. It's like you have a canned response for everything.

Yes, because you keep lying about my points. You keep making shit up to make a "point".

I'm happy to have a conversation, but not if you can't be honest. It's a waste of time.

Just stop lying. It's not that difficult, I swear, dude.
.

No.
You can't seem to tell the difference between a lie and an opinion.

You're telling us that blacks don't need to know history. They should only consider their local situations. Now you're saying that's a lie.

You just did it again: "You're telling us that blacks don't need to know history."

I don't even think you realize what you're doing. That is a lie.

Good gawd. Try this on someone else, this is not pleasant to watch.
.

Thanks for the rendition of a Drama Queen.

I simply rephrased what you clearly stated.
So stop crying.

In your mind, sure.
.

No...in reality.
I always got straight A's in English comprehension.
I've been able to read the English language since I was 3 yrs old.
I understand it thoroughly.
I restated what you said and simplified it.
Blacks shouldn't worry about history.
They should just worry about what's going on down their street.

It's thinking like that which has them in the fix they find themselves in.
Which is never progressing....always staying in the same state they're comfortable with.
If that were true my ole lady should have been happy to pick crops for all of her entire life and never owned property.
Yesser Massa.....don't hit me when I'm sick with the flue and can't pick your cotton!!!

 

[Mac1958]

Yes, because you keep lying about my points. You keep making shit up to make a "point".

I'm happy to have a conversation, but not if you can't be honest. It's a waste of time.

Just stop lying. It's not that difficult, I swear, dude.
.

No.
You can't seem to tell the difference between a lie and an opinion.

You're telling us that blacks don't need to know history. They should only consider their local situations. Now you're saying that's a lie.

You just did it again: "You're telling us that blacks don't need to know history."

I don't even think you realize what you're doing. That is a lie.

Good gawd. Try this on someone else, this is not pleasant to watch.
.

Thanks for the rendition of a Drama Queen.

I simply rephrased what you clearly stated.
So stop crying.

In your mind, sure.
.

No...in reality.
I always got straight A's in English comprehension.
I've been able to read the English language since I was 3 yrs old.
I understand it thoroughly.
I restated what you said and simplified it.
Blacks shouldn't worry about history.
They should just worry about what's going on down their street.

It's thinking like that which has them in the fix they find themselves in.
Which is never progressing....always staying in the same state they're comfortable with.
If that were true my ole lady should have been happy to pick crops for all of her life and ever owned property.
Yesser Massa.....don't hit me when I'm sick with the flue and can't pick your cotton!!!

This isn't about reading comprehension, it's about the distortions to perceptions and thought process created by ideology.

You're a good Trumpster. We exist on different planets. Believe whatever makes you feel Trumpy.
.

 

[Juicin]

Yes, because you keep lying about my points. You keep making shit up to make a "point".

I'm happy to have a conversation, but not if you can't be honest. It's a waste of time.

Just stop lying. It's not that difficult, I swear, dude.
.

No.
You can't seem to tell the difference between a lie and an opinion.

You're telling us that blacks don't need to know history. They should only consider their local situations. Now you're saying that's a lie.

You just did it again: "You're telling us that blacks don't need to know history."

I don't even think you realize what you're doing. That is a lie.

Good gawd. Try this on someone else, this is not pleasant to watch.
.

Thanks for the rendition of a Drama Queen.

I simply rephrased what you clearly stated.
So stop crying.

In your mind, sure.
.

No...in reality.
I always got straight A's in English comprehension.
I've been able to read the English language since I was 3 yrs old.
I understand it thoroughly.
I restated what you said and simplified it.
Blacks shouldn't worry about history.
They should just worry about what's going on down their street.

It's thinking like that which has them in the fix they find themselves in.
Which is never progressing....always staying in the same state they're comfortable with.
If that were true my ole lady should have been happy to pick crops for all of her entire life and never owned property.
Yesser Massa.....don't hit me when I'm sick with the flue and can't pick your cotton!!!

You've been able to read since you were three? Exposed non caucasian

Maybe you are black? Sounds like it that fast development.