Forum Thread

Possible for a landslide Trump win.

Reply to ThreadDisplaying 61 - 74 of 74 Prev 1 2 3 4 5
  • Strongly Liberal Democrat
    Democrat
    Pensacola, FL
    Are you sure you want to delete this post?
        
    Dutch Wrote: Jared,you said an"handful" of "white people". I would like to correct that. How about 40% of the population who are uneducated and mostly living inland, go bravely to church, who indoctrinates them; seldom ever left this country and love their guns. I've never seen more "hardheaded conservative" thinking than in this country; I guess they are stuck in the 1800's, except with their cellphones and guns.
    That's what you get when the Democratic Party left the people for every wine and cheese cause that floated up while the Republicans concentrated on selfishness and self determination. They taught a generation to hate and despise anybody that had less. Money was king and winner take all was permeated in our school system. Scholarships were awarded to the best and brightest further teaching self determination and winner take all.
  • Strongly Liberal Democrat
    Democrat
    Pensacola, FL
    Are you sure you want to delete this post?
        
    Is their a textbook or teacher that says health care is a right???
  • Independent
    Ft.myers, FL
    Are you sure you want to delete this post?
        

    Not here! In Europe or Canada it is!!!

    Also the totally wrong teaching here is that you always have to "win" like Trump says. Second place does not count in this country. Personal satisfaction or happiness does not count. Yes humans are still animals; devour everything you can catch.

    An sick "greedy" culture: "money is "god" here, not "jesus"

  • Strongly Liberal Democrat
    Democrat
    Portland, OR
    Are you sure you want to delete this post?
        
    Chet Ruminski Wrote: That's what you get when the Democratic Party left the people for every wine and cheese cause that floated up while the Republicans concentrated on selfishness and self determination. They taught a generation to hate and despise anybody that had less. Money was king and winner take all was permeated in our school system. Scholarships were awarded to the best and brightest further teaching self determination and winner take all.

    History shows us that political parties change often throughout history. My grandpa worships FDR, but he just happens to brush over the fact that the New Deal was exclusively for white people. New Deal laws were written in a way that explicitly prevented black Americans from benefiting from any of programs Congress passed to spur economic growth. Seriously - any of the programs...

    The Democratic Party used to be the Jim Crow party while the Republican Party was the party for the common man. That flipped on its head with the demise of the Jim Crow south and the Civil Rights movement. We should never forget that it was the Democratic Party who had a stranglehold on the south during the Jim Crow era.

    Do I have sympathy for out of work blue collar white people? Yes, but my sympathy only runs so deep because many of them seem to live in complete denial about how they got that good paying blue collar job in the first place. It was because our Federal government prioritized white men over everyone else.

    Now machines are able to do the jobs that once took 1,000 people to do and they are mad that the government isn't there to prioritize them over "the other people" like they once did.


    Your anger seems to cloud your ability to think clearly and understand the difference between fact and fantasy.

    I went to multi cultural schools where I was the minority from Kindergarten through 12th Grade. I, nor any of my classmates, were taught to hate and despise anyone who had less. We were not taught that money was king and winner take all was the only way to make it in our society. And scholarships were awarded to many lower income individuals who then used those scholarships to help pay for their college tuition.

    Yes, there are many problems in our country, but you tend to use a very broad brush when talking about a country of well over 300 million people. Some people are doing great while others are struggling. Some people have been able to adapt to a changing economy and world while others have been unable to for a host of reasons. But your "my way or the highway" mentality of insisting that there's some magical one-size-fits-all fix is just that - magical thinking that isn't based in reality.

  • Strongly Liberal Democrat
    Democrat
    Portland, OR
    Are you sure you want to delete this post?
        
    Chet Ruminski Wrote: Is their a textbook or teacher that says health care is a right???

    I'm not sure you understand the difference between education and indoctrination.

    My mom spent her entire career teaching 2nd Grade children in an inner-city school. Seriously - she spent her entire career in the same classroom before retiring two years ago. Many of her coworkers did the same exact thing.

    I take offense to you talking about teachers this way. It isn't their job to indoctrinate their pupils; it's their job to teach reading, writing, and arithmetic. It's up to those kids parents to teach them how to be decent human beings.

  • Strongly Liberal Democrat
    Democrat
    Pensacola, FL
    Are you sure you want to delete this post?
        

    Teachers are agents jaredsxtn same as textbooks display what is printed on their pages. If you could deduce logically it might be possible for you to see that I was not criticising any textbook or any teacher but the system that dictates what is printed or what the teachers say. Looking at FDR with a critical hindsight is rediculous. Would you prefer that FDR never existed? FDR set the stage for civil rights.

  • Strongly Liberal Democrat
    Democrat
    Portland, OR
    Are you sure you want to delete this post?
        
    Chet Ruminski Wrote: Looking at FDR with a critical hindsight is rediculous. Would you prefer that FDR never existed?

    How in the world could you leap to that conclusion?

    Do you actually believe that we shouldn't objectively look at FDR's policies and question whether they were right or wrong? That is an absurd belief if that's what you're suggesting.

    I never said that I prefer FDR never existed; what I said is that his New Deal policies that you speak so glowingly of were specifically written to prop up the white man while excluding black Americans entirely. That's just a fact. It's an inconvenient fact for those who worship him, but it's still a fact. I love my grandpa and we have matching tattoos, but he's just as wrong as you when it comes to glorifying FDR.

    New Deal policies are directly responsible for the segregation that still plagues us to this day. It was illegal for the newly created Federal Housing Administration to provide housing assistance to any black Americans who wanted to purchase a home in a legally classified "white neighborhood." (See: FHA Underwriting Manual of 1938) These policies are directly responsible for many of the problems facing the black community to this day.

    The FHA rules were just one of countless ways New Deal laws exclusively benefited white people. To suggest that we should continue to use rose colored glasses when talking about FDR without ever thinking critically about how those policies still affect us to this day is, as you would say, "rediculous" [sic].

    Chet Ruminski Wrote: FDR set the stage for civil rights.

    You're just fucking with me here, right? Do you honestly believe that? Do you have a single shred of evidence to back up this nonsensical claim?

    Look - I'm a fan of FDR and I think he was a good President, but I also think it's imperative to not worship any politician past or present and to be able to understand their strengths and weaknesses so we can learn from them.

    As Edmund Burke famously wrote - "Those who don't know history are doomed to repeat it."

  • Strongly Liberal Democrat
    Democrat
    Pensacola, FL
    Are you sure you want to delete this post?
        
    jaredsxtn, If FDR hadn't given a voice to the underprivledged and given jobs and incomes to people where in the world do you think civil rights would be today??? If it hadn't been for Roosevelt there would be no civil rights today. If you think poor white people getting help and dignity didn't help poor black people then you don't understand life.
  • Strongly Liberal Democrat
    Democrat
    Pensacola, FL
    Are you sure you want to delete this post?
        
    And jaredsxtn, your attack rhetoric is no different now than when I first warned you about Trump. If you think you are so right now and I am so wrong you should consider how wrong you were about Trump and consider what I say instead of constantly opposing.
  • Liberal Democrat
    Democrat
    Colorado Springs, CO
    Are you sure you want to delete this post?
        

    Digital History: African Americans and the New Deal

    A quick synopsis...

  • Strongly Liberal Democrat
    Democrat
    Portland, OR
    Are you sure you want to delete this post?
        
    Chet Ruminski Wrote: jaredsxtn, If FDR hadn't given a voice to the underprivledged and given jobs and incomes to people where in the world do you think civil rights would be today???

    I have zero idea where it would be and neither do you. That's because we don't have a time machine.

    FDR gave a voice to underprivileged white men. In the same breath, the New Deal programs deliberately excluded black people from benefiting from pretty much anything.

    So how in the world can you suggest that FDR was the catalyst for the civil rights movement when his programs were the exact and polar opposite?

    Chet Ruminski Wrote: If it hadn't been for Roosevelt there would be no civil rights today. If you think poor white people getting help and dignity didn't help poor black people then you don't understand life.

    This is a batshit crazy statement even for your standards. Do you actually believe what you just wrote?

    If you think that poor white people gave a damn about poor black people back in the 1930's then you would fit the clinical definition of insane. Poor white people lynched black people of all economic backgrounds for sport and with absolute impunity during that time. Not just that, but FDR refused to endorse a federal anti-lynching law. Yet you still consider him the father of the civil rights movement?! That's just nuts.

    How have you convinced yourself that poor white people deserved to get economic help before black people and that those poor white people getting help led to the Civil Rights movement over two decades later? Do you think it might be you who doesn't understand life?

  • Strongly Liberal Democrat
    Democrat
    Portland, OR
    Are you sure you want to delete this post?
        
    Chet Ruminski Wrote: And jaredsxtn, your attack rhetoric is no different now than when I first warned you about Trump. If you think you are so right now and I am so wrong you should consider how wrong you were about Trump and consider what I say instead of constantly opposing.

    There's a massive difference between predicting an election and rewriting American history by claiming something is true when it most certainly is not.

    I have a business degree, but I minored in Political Science and History. I have read extensively about all different eras in our nations short history, biographies on many of our Presidents, and numerous books documenting the constant power struggle between the executive, legislative, and judicial branches in our government. I say all that because history is a passion of mine and I can't stand it when people try to rewrite it.

    Look - I think FDR was a pretty good President, but he was no champion of the black man and he was no civil rights icon. There is abundant proof to back this up.

    It's hard for me to understand how people say things about someone that can easily be disproved. Stick with the facts and not the conjecture about FDR. The "truth will set you free."

  • Strongly Liberal Democrat
    Democrat
    Pensacola, FL
    Are you sure you want to delete this post?
        
    FDR did what he had to do as a politician to get done what he did. If you don't think FDR strengthened the voice of all the poor then you are being myopic. Read Schmidt's link.
  • Strongly Liberal Democrat
    Democrat
    Portland, OR
    Are you sure you want to delete this post?
        
    Chet Ruminski Wrote: FDR did what he had to do as a politician to get done what he did. If you don't think FDR strengthened the voice of all the poor then you are being myopic.

    Exactly. He was a politician, not a civil rights icon.

    If you think that FDR did strengthen the voice of all the poor then you are being myopic.

    Chet Ruminski Wrote: Read Schmidt's link.

    I have. I've also read books (you know, more than a few paragraphs) on this topic.

    I'm also not sure you read the same thing that I did. The link that Schmidt posted talked extensively about how the New Deal negatively affected black Americans.

    Here's a few snippets:

    "Most New Deal programs discriminated against blacks. The NRA, for example, not only offered whites the first crack at jobs, but authorized separate and lower pay scales for blacks. The Federal Housing Authority (FHA) refused to guarantee mortgages for blacks who tried to buy in white neighborhoods, and the CCC maintained segregated camps. Furthermore, the Social Security Act excluded those job categories blacks traditionally filled."

    "The story in agriculture was particularly grim. Since 40 percent of all black workers made their living as sharecroppers and tenant farmers, the Agricultural Adjustment Administration (AAA) acreage reduction hit blacks hard. White landlords could make more money by leaving land untilled than by putting land back into production. As a result, the AAA's policies forced more than 100,000 blacks off the land in 1933 and 1934. Even more galling to black leaders, the president failed to support an anti-lynching bill and a bill to abolish the poll tax. Roosevelt feared that conservative southern Democrats, who had seniority in Congress and controlled many committee chairmanships, would block his bills if he tried to fight them on the race question."

    (Bold highlight done by me)

    Do those things sound like something a civil rights icon would push for?

    He didn't have enough spine to push for an anti-lynching law, but you still consider him the father of the civil rights movement? He didn't have the spine to push for an end to the poll tax, but you still consider him the father of the civil rights movement?

    How in the world do you not see the fallacy of your argument?