The Democrat Thread

[illinilaw08]

In the books i've read on Lincoln, i've never read that he believed that blacks were not equal with whites. He had a very realistic opinion that slaves were not going to be accepted into society and it was going to be incredibly difficult, if not impossible, for them to fully integrate. And yes, he changed his mind on if slavery should be allowed in the south in order to preserve the union but that was because he knew that it would eventually die out. It was much more a "should we intervene in this issue or let it die out naturally" argument, not whether it was acceptable or not. As a teenager and young lawyer he wrote about how he believed slavery was awful.

 

I'll check the book out and see what it says.

 

 

 

I don't doubt people can change their minds. But again, i'm talking about politicians who debated over a bill and then signed it knowing full well what they were doing was denying federal recognition of marriage for homosexuals, and now they're claiming that it's great that the awful bill they signed is no more. I think it's just further proof that politicians are awful, corrupt people who sell their souls to stay in office. They have no principles, one way or the other.

 

Jenks:

 

Not sure if you read Team of Rivals by Goodwin (the book Lincoln the movie was based on), but she provides a lot of evidence of the following: (1) Lincoln believed that the Constitution protected salvery in the South but that the Founders intended for slavery to remain confined to the South and would ultimately be extinguished on its own accord; and (2) that Lincoln was a supporter of the Black Laws which indicated that blacks could not sit on juries, etc. Goodwin explained that Lincoln's beliefs on the relative inferiority of one race to the other was the mainstream view in the 1850s.

 

Moving this to contemporary times, I think it's the mark of an effective leader if someone can say, "I was wrong" about a belief in the past. I understand that's not what some politicians who voted for DOMA said, but the ability to change your position is a good trait in a leader.

 

Additionally, it's pretty ridiculous to ignore the societal shift on gay marriage since DOMA was passed. Look at the characterization of gay characters in popular culture just in the last decade... it is not in the least bit unreasonable that politicians would have actually changed their stance on the issue in the last 17 years.

[Jenksismyhero]

Jenks:

 

Not sure if you read Team of Rivals by Goodwin (the book Lincoln the movie was based on), but she provides a lot of evidence of the following: (1) Lincoln believed that the Constitution protected salvery in the South but that the Founders intended for slavery to remain confined to the South and would ultimately be extinguished on its own accord; and (2) that Lincoln was a supporter of the Black Laws which indicated that blacks could not sit on juries, etc. Goodwin explained that Lincoln's beliefs on the relative inferiority of one race to the other was the mainstream view in the 1850s.

 

Moving this to contemporary times, I think it's the mark of an effective leader if someone can say, "I was wrong" about a belief in the past. I understand that's not what some politicians who voted for DOMA said, but the ability to change your position is a good trait in a leader.

 

Additionally, it's pretty ridiculous to ignore the societal shift on gay marriage since DOMA was passed. Look at the characterization of gay characters in popular culture just in the last decade... it is not in the least bit unreasonable that politicians would have actually changed their stance on the issue in the last 17 years.

 

Yep, that's the main book I read about Lincoln recently. Btw, here's a bunch of his writings from as early as aged 28 regarding his views of slavery:

 

http://www.nps.gov/liho/historyculture/slavery.htm

 

Yes, he was a "realist" and knew abolishing slavery outright wasn't feasible and he had to move politically over the years to get it done. But that's not the same as voting for an act legalizing slavery only to then praise that it was unconstitutional less then 2 decades later. That's what these guys are doing.

 

And there's an absolute difference between my personal opinion (or the nation's collective opinion) and my willingness to subject others to a policy that I favor or disfavor. These guys knew exactly what they were voting for and I don't believe for a second that any of them actually changed their minds. It was politically advantageous to do so. They pretend like they've been the leading representatives for freedom and equality. And clearly some people are eating that crap up just because they like the outcome.

Edited June 27, 2013 by Jenksismybitch

[StrangeSox]

Re: Lincoln, here's a bunch of his writings from as early as aged 28 regarding his views of slavery:

 

http://www.nps.gov/liho/historyculture/slavery.htm

 

Yes, he was a "realist" and knew abolishing slavery outright wasn't feasible and he had to move politically over the years to get it done. But that's not the same as voting for an act legalizing slavery only to then praise that it was unconstitutional less then 2 decades later. That's what these guys are doing.

 

Seriously, go read A Fiery Trial. Lincoln, like virtually every other human being, grew and changed his ideas as he gained more experience and knowledge and had more interactions with freedmen and slaves and abolitionists. He wasn't an abolitionist in his early years and didn't believe the federal government had any power to do so. He believed it was unconstitutional. And yet he later made unprecedented assertions of executive power and issued the Emancipation Proclamation. His views on slavery and racial equality and the role of the federal government changed significantly over the years. Many people underwent similar changes during that time period.

 

btw in the Peoria speech Lincoln explicitly disavows racial equality and a society where whites and free blacks can live together. He supported voluntary deportation of them. He later changed his mind.

 

What next? Free them, and make them politically and socially, our equals? My own feelings will not admit of this; and if mine would, we well know that those of the great mass of white people will not.

 

And there's an absolute difference between my personal opinion (or the nation's collective opinion) and my willingness to subject others to a policy that I favor or disfavor. These guys knew exactly what they were voting for and I don't believe for a second that any of them actually changed their minds.

 

I don't get why you can't possibly believe that someone can change their mind on something like marriage equality over the course of 17 years.

 

I've already said that Reid's not being honest when he says he's always been against DOMA. I don't think he gave a s*** about marriage equality in 1996 one way or the other and didn't violate some deeply held principle. Shame on him for that. But developing a principle in favor of the unquestionably correct moral outcome over the course of 17 years is 1) pretty easily believable and 2) a good thing regardless of who does it.

 

It was politically advantageous to do so. They pretend like they've been the leading representatives for freedom and equality. And clearly some people are eating that crap up just because they like the outcome.

 

Yeah, they're not the leading representatives. Yeah, these comments right now are politically advantageous, but that doesn't mean they don't believe that striking down DOMA was the right move. And who is eating this up? I think everyone itt is reacting to your outrage over the idea that someone might change their mind and that this makes them awful, disgusting human beings while not saying a damn word about the conservatives who have said they will work to stop marriage equality where ever they can. They are the awful, disgusting piles of s*** in this case.

Edited June 27, 2013 by StrangeSox

[StrangeSox]

The entire scandal narrative was an illusion.

 

The whole Obama scandal episode is a classic creation of a “narrative” — the stitching together of unrelated data points into a story. What actually happened is this: House Republicans passed a twisted account of a hearing to ABC’s Jonathan Karl, who misleadingly claimed to have seen it, creating the impression that the administration was caught in a major lie. Then the IRS story broke, which we now see was Republicans demanding a one-sided audit and thus producing the impression of one-sided treatment. In that context, legitimate controversies over Obama’s civil-rights policies became the “three Obama scandals,” exposing a government panopticon, if not a Nixonian administration bent on revenge.

 

The collapse of the Benghazi story happened very quickly, when Jake Tapper’s reporting found that Karl had peddled a bogus story. (It’s notable that the only misconduct in both the Benghazi and the IRS stories was committed by House Republicans.) But the scandal cloud lingered through the still-extant IRS scandal, which in turn lent the scandal odor to the civil-liberties dispute. Now that the IRS scandal has turned into a Darrell Issa scandal, we’re left with ... an important dispute over domestic surveillance, which has nothing to do with scandal at all. The entire scandal narrative was an illusion

[StrangeSox]

http://www.ferris.edu/jimcrow/question/feb...iteracytest.pdf

 

A Louisiana literacy test for voting. One wrong answer was sufficient to flunk. Applicants had 10 minutes to complete the test — 20 seconds per question.

 

Note that a number of the questions could not be answered correctly, while others are ambiguous enough to allow disqualification for a response that could be considered correct.

 

For instance, question No. 6 instructs the applicant to draw three circles, one inside “the" other. Quetion No. 20 could be read to mean either “spell the word ‘forwards’ backwards" or “spell the word ‘backwards’ forwards."

 

This test was administered in 1964.

 

 

[StrangeSox]

Millions of Americans have changed their mind since 2003. For comparison, it took until the mid-90's before interracial marriages gained majority acceptance.

 

 

New poll:

http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politic...rights/2479541/

 

By an unprecedented 55%-40%, Americans say marriages between same-sex couples should be recognized by law as valid, with the same rights of traditional marriage. That's the highest level of support since Gallup began asking the question in 1996. Then, fewer than half that number, 27%, backed the idea.

 

Last year was the first time a majority of Americans had backed gay marriage.

[StrangeSox]

The Wall Street Journal, now openly pining for brutal right-wing dictator Pinochet!

 

Mr. Obama also requested a review of U.S. aid to Egypt, but cutting that off now would be a mistake. Unpopular as America is in Egypt, $1.3 billion in annual military aid buys access with the generals. U.S. support for Cairo is written into the Camp David peace accords with Israel. Washington can also do more to help Egypt gain access to markets, international loans and investment capital. The U.S. now has a second chance to use its leverage to shape a better outcome.

 

Egyptians would be lucky if their new ruling generals turn out to be in the mold of Chile’s Augusto Pinochet, who took power amid chaos but hired free-market reformers and midwifed a transition to democracy. If General Sisi merely tries to restore the old Mubarak order, he will eventually suffer Mr. Morsi’s fate.

[farmteam]

They literally just said Egyptians will be lucky if their next ruler is similar to Pinochet. A guy with this on his resume: "According to various reports and investigations 1,200–3,200 people were killed, up to 80,000 were interned, and up to 30,000 were tortured by his regime including women and children."

 

When does that ever make sense.

Edited July 5, 2013 by farmteam

[StrangeSox]

Because Pinochet brought free-market reforms and privatized social security!

[mr_genius]

He later changed his mind.

 

what a flip flopper!

[lostfan]

http://www.forwardprogressives.com/voting-...publican-voter/

[Jenksismyhero]

http://www.forwardprogressives.com/voting-...publican-voter/

 

lol, clearly the parents should have been provided a government sponsored abortion. Problem solved.

[lostfan]

lol, clearly the parents should have been provided a government sponsored abortion. Problem solved.

That wasn't the point being made, but ok

[StrangeSox]

More and more conservative states are passing draconian anti-abortion laws. Wisconsin, Texas and Ohio all recently joined the list.

 

And yet, Kasich’s restrictions are unapologetically out-there. Overnight, the nation’s political barometer has become an anti-choice fanatic’s wet dream. Anyone seeking an abortion will be forced to submit to a state-mandated ultrasound—and to pay for that ultrasound after it is forced on them. Planned Parenthood has been effectively stripped of state funding, but so-called “crisis pregnancy centers”—unregulated anti-abortion disinformation centers famous for placing misleading ads, providing medically unsound advice and using coercive tactics—will be receiving taxpayer money. Any clinic providing abortions will be required, by law, to enter into a contract with a nearby hospital, guaranteeing transport if a client experiences complications and needs urgent care. But public hospitals will be prevented by law from entering into such contracts, meaning that clinics will be shut down if they can’t find a local, privately owned hospital willing to comply. The state’s rape crisis centers are also under attack: If they refer a pregnant survivor to abortion services, or even mention the word “abortion,” they too will be defunded. According to Phipps, the law even endangers people who miscarry. Surgical abortions are often necessary after a first-trimester miscarriage to prevent hemorrhaging or infections. But the Kasich budget requires a 48-hour waiting period unless a doctor determines that the patient is at immediate risk of death.

 

So this, too, is a way the nation can go. If the reproductive rights battle in Texas is a story about how even conservative states can be brought to feel the power of pro-choice voters, then Ohio is a story about how, even in a state where most people do not share extremist anti-choice views, a few sufficiently conservative men in positions of power can bully their way into enacting extremist anti-choice policies. A poll released shortly before the budget passed indicated that 52 percent of voters said they did not support the proposed restrictions. Indeed, when similarly radical bills have been put forward on their own, and not within the context of a budget, as in the case of 2012′s “heartbeat bill,” they’ve been shot down. But because Republicans control the state legislature, the anti-abortion radicals have the edge.

 

eta: does anyone even try to bother with the pretense that the tea party movement isn't primarily about social conservatism anymore?

Edited July 15, 2013 by StrangeSox

[StrangeSox]

McDonalds tells it workers how to live on minimum wage:

 

 

answer: get a second job so you can work 74 hours a week. Also, don't heat your apartment. Also find this $20/month health insurance policy.

[lostfan]

In Australia the minimum wage is like $16 per hour and since employees don't have to pay healthcare costs they can afford housing. It has not killed their economy either.

[pettie4sox]

http://www.forwardprogressives.com/voting-...publican-voter/

 

Susie Q would probably be a hooker performing tricks for groceries if it wasn't for that meddling government.

[DukeNukeEm]

McDonalds tells it workers how to live on minimum wage:

 

 

answer: get a second job so you can work 74 hours a week. Also, don't heat your apartment. Also find this $20/month health insurance policy.

Getting a second job is probably a good start. You really shouldn't be able to sustain yourself working at McDonalds, that's a job for teenagers or people who are dependent on others. If you're trying to support yourself (or heaven forbid, others) McDonalds aint gonna work, its not supposed to, its not that kind of job. Either find a whole new job or find another to add on top of it. Dont like working 74 hour weeks? Tough s***, I dont like paying taxes, get to work.

[Jake]

I miss the early 1900s too.

[Balta1701]

I miss the early 1900s too.

If my 8 year old doesn't work 40 hours, how will they ever learn the importance of hard work? Teach a man to fish, you know.

[DukeNukeEm]

I miss the early 1900s too.

In the early 1900's most people couldn't find jobs much better than what equates to the modern minimum wage job. Today, not so much. That excuse has evaporated.

[Jake]

What's wrong with all these people who are refusing the great jobs and instead working at McD's?

[DukeNukeEm]

What's wrong with all these people who are refusing the great jobs and instead working at McD's?

Well many of them are seeing enough welfare to count as a second job, and since working fast food is about the easiest job in the country (next to working for the government) why do anything better? Its much easier to b****, moan and protest about how "WE IS TREETED UNFAIRLEY JUS CUZ WE GOT NO HI SKOOL EDUCASHUN" than it is to do the minimal work necessary to better yourself enough to be liberated from a life of working at McDonalds.

 

Minimum wage is for minimum people. That's the harsh truth, and the absolute worst our society has to offer are not entitled to considerations from the rest of us.

Edited July 21, 2013 by DukeNukeEm

[Balta1701]

Well many of them are seeing enough welfare to count as a second job, and since working fast food is about the easiest job in the country (next to working for the government) why do anything better? Its much easier to b****, moan and protest about how "WE IS TREETED UNFAIRLEY JUS CUZ WE GOT NO HI SKOOL EDUCASHUN" than it is to do the minimal work necessary to better yourself enough to be liberated from a life of working at McDonalds.

 

Minimum wage is for minimum people. That's the harsh truth, and the absolute worst our society has to offer are not entitled to considerations from the rest of us.

LOL

 

The pathetic thing is I'm sure you not only believe that, but that others do also.

[DukeNukeEm]

LOL

 

The pathetic thing is I'm sure you not only believe that, but that others do also.

Next time you go into the lobby of your run-of-the-mill chain fast food joint watch the employees. They just kind of mope around, haphazardly throwing together sandwiches they (nor the customer) really care about. They socialize while ignoring customers at the register, fiddle with the machines... they dont really care. I dont really care either, so its not like I'm offended when I'm buying that garbage.

 

The only way you could really think they work hard is if you're completely foreign to the idea of physical labor and think anyone who does it in even the slightest capacity must be working hard.