That can be said of any political partyLoki wrote:If the Democratic party is so racist, how did they allow a black man to lead it? The democratic party of the 1800's is not the democratic party of today.
Obama does NOT leads the Democratic party. If you believe that you are delusional. They let him run for president because the thought he could win. Period.Loki wrote:If the Democratic party is so racist, how did they allow a black man to lead it?
You only need to go back 50 years in the Democrat Party's history to find racism, screw the 1800's.Loki wrote: The democratic party of the 1800's is not the democratic party of today.
How about 5 years. Strom Thurmond was in office until 2003. He was a republican when he retired but the fact that that man was in office always ashamed me with his track record. He spent over 24 hours filibustering (as a democrat) to stop civil rights laws.Cold_Zero wrote:
You only need to go back 50 years in the Democrat Party's history to find racism, screw the 1800's.
Yep.Cold_Zero wrote:
You only need to go back 50 years in the Democrat Party's history to find racism, screw the 1800's.
I agree. Like when "I did not have sexual relations" turned into "O wait, lolz, I forgot I did"480sx wrote:I would rather have someone who is self aware enough, and adaptive enough(as well as his brain has control over his testicles, and not the other way around) to 'flip-flop' when the situation calls for this. Someone who isnt so dead set in their minds that they are absolutely right no mater what gets added or thrown on the table.
Being against gay marriage doesn't mean you're against gay sex.480sx wrote:Brings up an interesting point about 'flip flopping', i think ill get into it.
It seems that far to often in political races people are blasted for flip flopping on issues, for even the smallest things. Now, there are some core issues that are a serious offense to 'flip-flop' on. Like, venomously opposing gay marriage while having an affair with a male intern..
Lmfao!OriginalWheelman wrote:
Being against gay marriage doesn't mean you're against gay sex.
Actually it was the economy of the times that flip flopped - the USA was making the transition from an agricultural based economy to an industrial one. There was an economic motive (as well as any other motive) to "free" the slaves. Slaves were needed to contribute to the pool of workers and consumers in the capital economy. This conflict was one of the reasons for the civil war. The South which was heavily based in agriculture vs the North heavily based in industry.AZhitman wrote:
Yep.
Remember, Lincoln ran on a pro-slavery platform. He later changed his tune. One of history's biggest flip-flops.
Of course, revisionist history paints him as the Great Emancipator (which he deserves). But those who voted for him would argue that they didn't get what they asked for.
Exactly - thanks for demonstrating how life in the North was no paradise either for Blacks during those times.Jesda wrote:And what happened to so many former slaves who migrated north? Some whites shunned them, murdered them, and raped them.
See East St Louis riots of 1917.
No one's hands are clean.
Jesda - you hit this nail on the head.Jesda wrote:And even after pushing for an end to slavery, Lincoln still wanted to ship all the slaves to Africa where they could be free, and far away. He did not, I repeat DID NOT see African slaves as equals. He believed them to be completely inferior creatures.
By definition, the party that controls the White House is headed by the President.OriginalWheelman wrote:
Obama does NOT leads the Democratic party. If you believe that you are delusional.
Don't you remember that most of the entrenched Democrats didn't think he could win? Your logic is faulty and refuted by facts.OriginalWheelman wrote: They let him run for president because the thought he could win. Period.
You my friend are deluding yourself. Obama is a figurehead.JimmyMethod wrote:
By definition, the party that controls the White House is headed by the President.
When they don't have a president, it falls to the chairman of the RNC/DNC.
No I do not. Where are these facts you speak of?JimmyMethod wrote:Don't you remember that most of the entrenched Democrats didn't think he could win? Your logic is faulty and refuted by facts.
Then you weren't paying attention in the primaries.OriginalWheelman wrote:No I do not. Where are these facts you speak of?
At best, it's ironic.Cali 2 Balti G wrote:
Jesda - you hit this nail on the head.
THIS is why today is so important. Barack is now memorialized against the backdrop of the Lincoln memorial and the White House. The fact that he chose the Lincoln (The first republican president) bible to be sworn in on even further evidences the magnitude and makes the significance undeniable.
Right, the people provided more support for Obama than Clinton, and in true democratic form, her backers jumped ship and went with what was popular. Your facts do not prove me wrong. If anything, you have proved my point further.JimmyMethod wrote:Then you weren't paying attention in the primaries.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/....html
The other side saying the same thinghttp://politicalinquirer.com/2...ember/
This is why Hillary had so many super delegates (important members of the Democratic Party) up until the last bit of the primaries.
I'd try to form this more eloquently, but I'm falling asleep at my comp right now. If you need a more elaborate answer, I'll write one tomorrow.