• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Dayton shooter reportedly supported gun control, Elizabeth Warren, and socialism

joko104 said:
Since Elizabeth Warren continues to refuse to disavow her mass murderer supporter we can reasonably conclude she is glad it happened or even covertly planned it. But we do know it appears the old white woman Elizabeth Warren is fine with her supporters mass murdering us peasants, most of all black people maybe because she has essentially no support among black Democratic primary voters.
Click to expand...

:lamo
 
Grand Mal said:
So, is he a progressive leftist because he shoots Mexicans or in spite of shooting Mexicans?
Click to expand...

They got nothing absolutely nothing. They cant handle these things like mature adults so the lies are all that is left.
 
Taylor said:
Reading comprehension. I referred specifically to the El Paso shooter. There is no "bothsiderism" - there is the progressive leftist El Paso shooter, and there is the Dayton shooter - a self-described leftist Warren Democrat.
Click to expand...

Why is the above so difficult for some to acknowledge?
One mass shooter is not better than the other....
 
joko104 said:
He is charged with the federal crime of lying on a background check by checking a box saying he did not use marijuana when he does.

Under USA federal law, anyone who uses marijuana may not buy any firearm if a background check is involved.
Click to expand...

What did they do? Drug test him and then charge him?
 
Grand Mal said:
So, is he a progressive leftist because he shoots Mexicans or in spite of shooting Mexicans?
Click to expand...
Neither. Being a progressive leftist doesn't make a racist, nor does make one immune.
 
Taylor said:
Neither. Being a progressive leftist doesn't make a racist, nor does make one immune.
Click to expand...

The point, Taylor, is that you can't be a progressive and a racist at the same time. If you're a racist you're not a progressive, and if you're a progressive you can't be a racist. All you need is to know how a dictionary works.
Damn. It's like calling someone a liberal communist. You're either one or the other.
 
Grand Mal said:
The point, Taylor, is that you can't be a progressive and a racist at the same time.
Click to expand...
You sure don't know much about progressivism. Ever heard of President Woodrow Wilson?
 
Grand Mal said:
The point, Taylor, is that you can't be a progressive and a racist at the same time. If you're a racist you're not a progressive, and if you're a progressive you can't be a racist. All you need is to know how a dictionary works.
Damn. It's like calling someone a liberal communist. You're either one or the other.
Click to expand...

Incorrect. Many of the worst nazi polices were lifted straight from racist progressive democrats.

"Nazism triumphed in Germany during the high era of Jim Crow laws in the United States. Did the American regime of racial oppression in any way inspire the Nazis? The unsettling answer is yes. In Hitler's American Model, James Whitman presents a detailed investigation of the American impact on the notorious Nuremberg Laws, the centerpiece anti-Jewish legislation of the Nazi regime. Contrary to those who have insisted that there was no meaningful connection between American and German racial repression, Whitman demonstrates that the Nazis took a real, sustained, significant, and revealing interest in American race policies.

As Whitman shows, the Nuremberg Laws were crafted in an atmosphere of considerable attention to the precedents American race laws had to offer. German praise for American practices, already found in Hitler's Mein Kampf, was continuous throughout the early 1930s, and the most radical Nazi lawyers were eager advocates of the use of American models. But while Jim Crow segregation was one aspect of American law that appealed to Nazi radicals, it was not the most consequential one. Rather, both American citizenship and antimiscegenation laws proved directly relevant to the two principal Nuremberg Laws—the Citizenship Law and the Blood Law. Whitman looks at the ultimate, ugly irony that when Nazis rejected American practices, it was sometimes not because they found them too enlightened, but too harsh.

Indelibly linking American race laws to the shaping of Nazi policies in Germany, Hitler's American Model upends understandings of America's influence on racist practices in the wider world."

Whitman is a liberal progressive democrat. This is why he has to obfuscate and tell us "Americans" did such horrible things like the eugenics of sangar and the the jim crow laws of racist democrats while ignoring the glaring fact that hundreds of thousands of Americans died to stop democrat policies that caused the the civil war. Be a little more curious and read some history.

"every segregation law in the South was passed
by a Democratic legislature, signed into power by a Democratic governor,
and enforced by Democratic sheriffs and Democratic city and state officials.
Most anti-miscegenation laws were passed in Democratic states. Progressives
passed the racist Immigration Law of 1924 and celebrated it as a victory of
progressive science and progressive planning. The Ku Klux Klan was a
creation of the Democrats and served for thirty years, in the words of
progressive scholar Eric Foner, as “the domestic terrorist arm of the
Democratic Party.”
What might Whitman say in response to this? He could claim that his
reason for blaming “America” is that the Nazis themselves cited American
laws and American precedents. Certainly the Nazis, viewing America from
thousands of miles away, might have thought that racist policies in the
country were somehow the result of a national consensus. Such a consensus
did at some point exist in Nazi Germany. But not in America, as Whitman
and Katznelson undoubtedly know. They understand that racist policies in
this country emerged out of a big fight between two rival parties and two
rival ideologies going all the way back to slavery and the Civil War.
So the big lie here involves Whitman and Katznelson shifting the blame
from the real culprits—the progressives and the Democrats—to a generic
“South” and an even more generic “America.” In doing this, they hope for
two outcomes. First, they hope that conservatives will fall for this ploy and
rush to the defense of the South and America. " "As the big lie unfolds, somehow the very people who
have poisoned the water reappear dressed as the water commissioner. It’s an
unbelievable scam."
 
Taylor said:
You sure don't know much about progressivism. Ever heard of President Woodrow Wilson?
Click to expand...

How 'The Birth of a Nation' Revived the Ku Klux Klan

"Adapted from the book The Clansman by Thomas Dixon Jr., who was a classmate and friend of President Woodrow Wilson, The Birth of a Nation portrayed Reconstruction as catastrophic. It showed Radical Republicans encouraging equality for blacks, who in the film are represented as uncouth, intellectually inferior and predators of white women. And this racist narrative was widely accepted as historical fact."

The progressive democrat "hero" that nearly single handedly revived the kkk a few decades after republicans had all but eliminated them.
 
Taylor said:
You sure don't know much about progressivism. Ever heard of President Woodrow Wilson?
Click to expand...

Are you saying he was a progressive?
We might save some time here if we each define 'progressive'. A progressive is someone from the left side who thinks the main function of government is to make sure everything in society is fair for everyone. Sound right to you?
 
akyron said:
Incorrect. Many of the worst nazi polices were lifted straight from racist progressive democrats.

"Nazism triumphed in Germany during the high era of Jim Crow laws in the United States. Did the American regime of racial oppression in any way inspire the Nazis? The unsettling answer is yes. In Hitler's American Model, James Whitman presents a detailed investigation of the American impact on the notorious Nuremberg Laws, the centerpiece anti-Jewish legislation of the Nazi regime. Contrary to those who have insisted that there was no meaningful connection between American and German racial repression, Whitman demonstrates that the Nazis took a real, sustained, significant, and revealing interest in American race policies.

As Whitman shows, the Nuremberg Laws were crafted in an atmosphere of considerable attention to the precedents American race laws had to offer. German praise for American practices, already found in Hitler's Mein Kampf, was continuous throughout the early 1930s, and the most radical Nazi lawyers were eager advocates of the use of American models. But while Jim Crow segregation was one aspect of American law that appealed to Nazi radicals, it was not the most consequential one. Rather, both American citizenship and antimiscegenation laws proved directly relevant to the two principal Nuremberg Laws—the Citizenship Law and the Blood Law. Whitman looks at the ultimate, ugly irony that when Nazis rejected American practices, it was sometimes not because they found them too enlightened, but too harsh.

Indelibly linking American race laws to the shaping of Nazi policies in Germany, Hitler's American Model upends understandings of America's influence on racist practices in the wider world."

Whitman is a liberal progressive democrat. This is why he has to obfuscate and tell us "Americans" did such horrible things like the eugenics of sangar and the the jim crow laws of racist democrats while ignoring the glaring fact that hundreds of thousands of Americans died to stop democrat policies that caused the the civil war. Be a little more curious and read some history.

"every segregation law in the South was passed
by a Democratic legislature, signed into power by a Democratic governor,
and enforced by Democratic sheriffs and Democratic city and state officials.
Most anti-miscegenation laws were passed in Democratic states. Progressives
passed the racist Immigration Law of 1924 and celebrated it as a victory of
progressive science and progressive planning. The Ku Klux Klan was a
creation of the Democrats and served for thirty years, in the words of
progressive scholar Eric Foner, as “the domestic terrorist arm of the
Democratic Party.”
What might Whitman say in response to this? He could claim that his
reason for blaming “America” is that the Nazis themselves cited American
laws and American precedents. Certainly the Nazis, viewing America from
thousands of miles away, might have thought that racist policies in the
country were somehow the result of a national consensus. Such a consensus
did at some point exist in Nazi Germany. But not in America, as Whitman
and Katznelson undoubtedly know. They understand that racist policies in
this country emerged out of a big fight between two rival parties and two
rival ideologies going all the way back to slavery and the Civil War.
So the big lie here involves Whitman and Katznelson shifting the blame
from the real culprits—the progressives and the Democrats—to a generic
“South” and an even more generic “America.” In doing this, they hope for
two outcomes. First, they hope that conservatives will fall for this ploy and
rush to the defense of the South and America. " "As the big lie unfolds, somehow the very people who
have poisoned the water reappear dressed as the water commissioner. It’s an
unbelievable scam."
Click to expand...

We've been through this crap before. You seem to be convinced that the Democratic Party, liberalism and progressivism all mean the same thing and always have and that anything you claim was true hundreds of years ago is true today. I'm not going to beat my head against that wall again.
 
Grand Mal said:
Are you saying he was a progressive?
We might save some time here if we each define 'progressive'. A progressive is someone from the left side who thinks the main function of government is to make sure everything in society is fair for everyone. Sound right to you?
Click to expand...


"Progress by itself is a vacant term; we need to know what progressives
mean when they use it. What they mean is progress toward greater federal
power and federal control. The progressives, in other words, are champions
of the power of the centralized state. Two very bad words in modern
progressivism are “state’s rights.” Progressives are happiest when the federal
government is running things, and when they are in charge of the federal
government. That’s what ensures “progress”; any setbacks to this program
represent “reaction” and “regress.” No wonder leftists term conservatives
who resist expanding government power as “regressive” or “reactionary.”
But why does state power have to be so centralized? While the founders
viewed the government as the enemy of rights, the progressive Left regards
the federal government as the friend and securer of rights. Moreover,
progressives distrust the free-market system and want the government to
control and direct the economy, not necessarily nationalizing or taking over
private companies, but at least regulating their operations and on occasion
mandating their courses of action.
In addition, the Left seeks government authority to enforce and
institutionalize progressive values like federally funded abortion and equal
treatment of gays and transsexuals. From its abortion stance alone we see that
the Left rejects the idea of a transcendent moral order as firmly as it rejects
the conservative principle of an inalienable right to life. So if “Right” in
America means a limited, nonintrusive government with a wide scope for the
individual pursuit of happiness, “Left” in America means a powerful
centralized state that implements leftist values and is controlled by the Left"-The Big Lie

Technically all the the shooters were progressive as they progressed away from the conservative values of a right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness for all.
 
Grand Mal said:
We've been through this crap before. You seem to be convinced that the Democratic Party, liberalism and progressivism all mean the same thing and always have and that anything you claim was true hundreds of years ago is true today. I'm not going to beat my head against that wall again.
Click to expand...

I make no claims. Merely accurate observations after much painstaking research.

We are aware of your "truths".

Joe Biden Cares About "Truth", Not Facts

And yet I optimistically avail you of the means to educate yourself.
 
Grand Mal said:
Are you saying he was a progressive?
We might save some time here if we each define 'progressive'. A progressive is someone from the left side who thinks the main function of government is to make sure everything in society is fair for everyone. Sound right to you?
Click to expand...
No, not me - history says he was a progressive. Yes, I agree that progressivism is concerned with "fairness" - at least pertaining to wealth (with strong opposition to corporations and wealth inequality). Progressives have traditionally championed collectivism and authoritarianism, being suspicious of representative government lawmakers.
 
akyron said:
Incorrect. Many of the worst nazi polices were lifted straight from racist progressive democrats.

"Nazism triumphed in Germany during the high era of Jim Crow laws in the United States. Did the American regime of racial oppression in any way inspire the Nazis? The unsettling answer is yes. In Hitler's American Model, James Whitman presents a detailed investigation of the American impact on the notorious Nuremberg Laws, the centerpiece anti-Jewish legislation of the Nazi regime. Contrary to those who have insisted that there was no meaningful connection between American and German racial repression, Whitman demonstrates that the Nazis took a real, sustained, significant, and revealing interest in American race policies.

As Whitman shows, the Nuremberg Laws were crafted in an atmosphere of considerable attention to the precedents American race laws had to offer. German praise for American practices, already found in Hitler's Mein Kampf, was continuous throughout the early 1930s, and the most radical Nazi lawyers were eager advocates of the use of American models. But while Jim Crow segregation was one aspect of American law that appealed to Nazi radicals, it was not the most consequential one. Rather, both American citizenship and antimiscegenation laws proved directly relevant to the two principal Nuremberg Laws—the Citizenship Law and the Blood Law. Whitman looks at the ultimate, ugly irony that when Nazis rejected American practices, it was sometimes not because they found them too enlightened, but too harsh.

Indelibly linking American race laws to the shaping of Nazi policies in Germany, Hitler's American Model upends understandings of America's influence on racist practices in the wider world."

Whitman is a liberal progressive democrat. This is why he has to obfuscate and tell us "Americans" did such horrible things like the eugenics of sangar and the the jim crow laws of racist democrats while ignoring the glaring fact that hundreds of thousands of Americans died to stop democrat policies that caused the the civil war. Be a little more curious and read some history.

"every segregation law in the South was passed
by a Democratic legislature, signed into power by a Democratic governor,
and enforced by Democratic sheriffs and Democratic city and state officials.
Most anti-miscegenation laws were passed in Democratic states. Progressives
passed the racist Immigration Law of 1924 and celebrated it as a victory of
progressive science and progressive planning. The Ku Klux Klan was a
creation of the Democrats and served for thirty years, in the words of
progressive scholar Eric Foner, as “the domestic terrorist arm of the
Democratic Party.”
What might Whitman say in response to this? He could claim that his
reason for blaming “America” is that the Nazis themselves cited American
laws and American precedents. Certainly the Nazis, viewing America from
thousands of miles away, might have thought that racist policies in the
country were somehow the result of a national consensus. Such a consensus
did at some point exist in Nazi Germany. But not in America, as Whitman
and Katznelson undoubtedly know. They understand that racist policies in
this country emerged out of a big fight between two rival parties and two
rival ideologies going all the way back to slavery and the Civil War.
So the big lie here involves Whitman and Katznelson shifting the blame
from the real culprits—the progressives and the Democrats—to a generic
“South” and an even more generic “America.” In doing this, they hope for
two outcomes. First, they hope that conservatives will fall for this ploy and
rush to the defense of the South and America. " "As the big lie unfolds, somehow the very people who
have poisoned the water reappear dressed as the water commissioner. It’s an
unbelievable scam."
Click to expand...

The scam is trying to pretend that the GOP weren't Democrats during the Jim Crowe era or that the Nazi's weren't far right extremists.
 
joko104 said:
He is charged with the federal crime of lying on a background check by checking a box saying he did not use marijuana when he does.

Under USA federal law, anyone who uses marijuana may not buy any firearm if a background check is involved.
Click to expand...
one of the next areas for supreme court review is that box and medical marijuana cards
 
Taylor said:
No, not me - history says he was a progressive. Yes, I agree that progressivism is concerned with "fairness" - at least pertaining to wealth (with strong opposition to corporations and wealth inequality). Progressives have traditionally championed collectivism and authoritarianism, being suspicious of representative government lawmakers.
Click to expand...

Okay. We don't agree completely on this but one thing is apparent- a racist can't fit either definition. It seems like anyone who is a racist and calls himself a progressive is flat-out wrong.
 
Moot said:
The scam is trying to pretend that the GOP weren't Democrats during the Jim Crowe era
Click to expand...
No, Republicans were not Democrats during the Jim Crow era. Democrats were Democrats during the Jim Crow era. Republicans, by definition, have never been Democrats.
 
Moot said:
The scam is trying to pretend that the GOP weren't Democrats during the Jim Crowe era or that the Nazi's weren't far right extremists.
Click to expand...

Ahh yes. The claim that the prisoners magically switched outfits with all the guards. How predictable. And incorrect. And yet you continue to perpetuate the scam.

Ever hear of affirmative action?

Executive Order 11478--Equal employment opportunity in the Federal Government

Guess who?.Nixon..This must gone over really well in the progressive mythical "southern strategy" lie.....

Democrats voted for Wallace as usual....

"Nixon barely campaigned in the Deep South. His strategy, as outlined by Kevin Phillips in his classic work, “The Emerging Republican Majority,” was to target the Sunbelt, the vast swath of territory stretching from Florida to Nixon’s native California. This included what Phillips terms the Outer or Peripheral South.

"Upon his taking office in 1969, Nixon also put into effect America’s first affirmative action program. Dubbed the Philadelphia Plan, it imposed racial goals and timetables on the building trade unions, first in Philadelphia and then elsewhere. Now, would a man seeking to build an electoral base of Deep South white supremacists actually promote the first program to legally discriminate in favor of blacks? This is absurd.
Nixon barely campaigned in the Deep South. His strategy, as outlined by Kevin Phillips in his classic work, “The Emerging Republican Majority,” was to target the Sunbelt, the vast swath of territory stretching from Florida to Nixon’s native California. This included what Phillips terms the Outer or Peripheral South.
Nixon recognized the South was changing. It was becoming more industrialized, with many northerners moving to the Sunbelt. Nixon’s focus, Phillips writes, was on the non-racist, upwardly-mobile, largely urban voters of the Outer or Peripheral South. Nixon won these voters, and he lost the Deep South, which went to Democratic segregationist George Wallace.
And how many racist Dixiecrats did Nixon win for the GOP? Turns out, virtually none. Among the racist Dixiecrats, Strom Thurmond of South Carolina was the sole senator to defect to the Republicans — and he did this long before Nixon’s time. Only one Dixiecrat congressman, Albert Watson of South Carolina, switched to the GOP. The rest, more than 200 Dixiecrat senators, congressmen, governors and high elected officials, all stayed in the Democratic Party.
The progressive notion of a Dixiecrat switch is a myth. Yet it is myth that continues to be promoted, using dubious case examples. Though the late Sens. Jesse Helms of North Carolina and John Tower of Texas and former Mississippi Sen. Trent Lott all switched from the Democratic Party to the GOP, none of these men was a Dixiecrat.
The South, as a whole, became Republican during the 1980s and 1990s. This had nothing to do with Nixon; it was because of Ronald Reagan and former House Speaker Newt Gingrich’s “Contract with America.” The conservative appeal to patriotism, anti-communism, free markets, pro-life and Christianity had far more to do with the South’s movement into the GOP camp than anything related to race.
Yet the myth of Nixon’s Southern Strategy endures — not because it’s true, but because it conveniently serves to exculpate the crimes of the Democratic Party."

Lets watch as Keith Ellison uses the same strategy and falsely claim George Wallace was a republican on National TV and gets called on it.



Ouch.
 
Last edited:
Grand Mal said:
Okay. We don't agree completely on this but one thing is apparent- a racist can't fit either definition. It seems like anyone who is a racist and calls himself a progressive is flat-out wrong.
Click to expand...
To make such a claim is to whitewash history and deny that rampant racism existed in this country throughout the progressive era.

Progressivism isn't inherently antiracist. On the contrary, progressive candidates seem to have a hard time attracting minority voters.
 
Taylor said:
No, Republicans were not Democrats during the Jim Crow era. Democrats were Democrats during the Jim Crow era. Republicans, by definition, have never been Democrats.
Click to expand...

The two parties switched sides during the Civil Rights Era. Democrats started voting Republican enmasse after LBJ signed the 1964 Civil Right's Act and his forced desegregation policies. That in turn made Black Republicans start voting Democrat.

Today's Republicans still adhere to the Confederacy and it's heritage. How do you explain that unless they were once Democrats?
 
akyron said:
Ahh yes. The claim that the prisoners magically switched outfits with all the guards. How predictable. And incorrect. And yet you continue to perpetuate the scam.

Ever hear of affirmative action?

Executive Order 11478--Equal employment opportunity in the Federal Government

Guess who?.Nixon..This must gone over really well in the progressive mythical "southern strategy" lie.....

Democrats voted for Wallace as usual....

"Nixon barely campaigned in the Deep South. His strategy, as outlined by Kevin Phillips in his classic work, “The Emerging Republican Majority,” was to target the Sunbelt, the vast swath of territory stretching from Florida to Nixon’s native California. This included what Phillips terms the Outer or Peripheral South.

"Upon his taking office in 1969, Nixon also put into effect America’s first affirmative action program. Dubbed the Philadelphia Plan, it imposed racial goals and timetables on the building trade unions, first in Philadelphia and then elsewhere. Now, would a man seeking to build an electoral base of Deep South white supremacists actually promote the first program to legally discriminate in favor of blacks? This is absurd.
Nixon barely campaigned in the Deep South. His strategy, as outlined by Kevin Phillips in his classic work, “The Emerging Republican Majority,” was to target the Sunbelt, the vast swath of territory stretching from Florida to Nixon’s native California. This included what Phillips terms the Outer or Peripheral South.
Nixon recognized the South was changing. It was becoming more industrialized, with many northerners moving to the Sunbelt. Nixon’s focus, Phillips writes, was on the non-racist, upwardly-mobile, largely urban voters of the Outer or Peripheral South. Nixon won these voters, and he lost the Deep South, which went to Democratic segregationist George Wallace.
And how many racist Dixiecrats did Nixon win for the GOP? Turns out, virtually none. Among the racist Dixiecrats, Strom Thurmond of South Carolina was the sole senator to defect to the Republicans — and he did this long before Nixon’s time. Only one Dixiecrat congressman, Albert Watson of South Carolina, switched to the GOP. The rest, more than 200 Dixiecrat senators, congressmen, governors and high elected officials, all stayed in the Democratic Party.
The progressive notion of a Dixiecrat switch is a myth. Yet it is myth that continues to be promoted, using dubious case examples. Though the late Sens. Jesse Helms of North Carolina and John Tower of Texas and former Mississippi Sen. Trent Lott all switched from the Democratic Party to the GOP, none of these men was a Dixiecrat.
The South, as a whole, became Republican during the 1980s and 1990s. This had nothing to do with Nixon; it was because of Ronald Reagan and former House Speaker Newt Gingrich’s “Contract with America.” The conservative appeal to patriotism, anti-communism, free markets, pro-life and Christianity had far more to do with the South’s movement into the GOP camp than anything related to race.
Yet the myth of Nixon’s Southern Strategy endures — not because it’s true, but because it conveniently serves to exculpate the crimes of the Democratic Party."

Lets watch as Keith Ellison uses the same strategy and falsely claim George Wallace was a republican on National TV and gets called on it.

[video=youtube_share;APlgEmnIHqM]https://youtu.be/APlgEmnIHqM[video]

Ouch.
Click to expand...

Today's Republicans still adhere to the Confederacy and it's heritage. How do you explain that unless they were once Democrats?
 
Moot said:
Today's Republicans still adhere to the Confederacy and it's heritage. How do you explain that unless they were once Democrats?
Click to expand...

that's idiotic. what is true is that the loony left thinks that by attacking the confederacy, they think they are attacking white Republicans.
 
TurtleDude said:
that's idiotic. what is true is that the loony left thinks that by attacking the confederacy, they think they are attacking white Republicans.
Click to expand...

Thats sounds more like loony righty thinking. If you really wanted to know what the left thinks, all you have to do is ask instead making **** up.
 
Taylor said:
To make such a claim is to whitewash history and deny that rampant racism existed in this country throughout the progressive era.

Progressivism isn't inherently antiracist. On the contrary, progressive candidates seem to have a hard time attracting minority voters.
Click to expand...

Put it this way- anyone who's a racist can't be a progressive, I don't care what he or anyone else says. Racist progressive is an oxymoron. Someone who believes his race is superior and declares himself to be a progressive is deluding himself.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom