• 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:
[h=1]Dayton shooter reportedly supported gun control, Elizabeth Warren, and socialism[/h]More information is being reported on Connor Betts, 24, the deceased gunman who shot and killed nine people and wounded 27 others in a mass shooting early Sunday morning.

A Twitter account appearing to belong to Betts showed he supported socialist causes and was a supporter of presidential candidate Massachusetts Sen. Elizabeth Warren...

[FONT="]On Nov. 2, 2018, he wrote: “Vote blue for gods sake.”

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

I don't expect to hear much about that on CNN or MSNBC. Do you?[/FONT]
Click to expand...

Here's the difference: the Dayton shooter was not motivated by his politics...he was motivated by his violence towards women. The other shooter declared his politics as his reason for his hate and his targeting of Latinos.

Get the difference? Or are you going to insist that the Dayton shooter went against his politics because of his politics?
 
AProudLefty said:
Now it's Democrats and not the Southern Democrats? I think you're confused.
Click to expand...
You said Dixiecrat. Apparently you don't know what the term means. No surprise there.
 
Josie said:
I imagine if the internet was around back in the 1800s, the southern slave owners would have the same response. "My body - my choice" is the modern day "How dare you try to tell me what I can and can't do with my property!"
Click to expand...

Did you look up the word 'liberal' yet?
 
Grand Mal said:
Did you look up the word 'liberal' yet?
Click to expand...

We've already had this discussion before, Grand, remember? You had never once heard the term "statist" and I had to explain it to you. The word "liberal" has been warped into something that it doesn't mean. People who call themselves "liberals" today are almost always "statists". Libertarians are the classic liberals nowadays.
 
Last edited:
Taylor said:
This has been debunked numerous times. In the vast majority of cases, southern democrats lived and died as southern democrats, they did not "switch parties". The South, as a whole, didn't suddenly switch from Democrat to Republican and vote "en masse" - in my own state of Georgia, we didn't truly elect a Republican governor until 2003 - 40 years after the civil rights act.
Click to expand...

Your revisionist history has been debunked more times than I care to count.


"...The big break didn’t come until President Johnson, another Southern Democrat, signed the Civil Rights Act in 1964 and the Voting Rights Act in 1965.

Though some Democrats had switched to the Republican party prior to this, “the defections became a flood” after Johnson signed these acts, Goldfield says. “And so the political parties began to reconstitute themselves.”

The change wasn’t total or immediate. During the late 1960s and early ‘70s, white Southerners were still transitioning away from the Democratic party (newly enfranchised black Southerners voted and continue to vote Democratic). And even as Republican Richard Nixon employed a “Southern strategy” that appealed to the racism of Southern white voters, former Alabama Governor George Wallace (who’d wanted “segregation now, segregation tomorrow, and segregation forever”) ran as a Democrat in the 1972 presidential primaries.

By the time Ronald Reagan became president in 1980, the Republican party’s hold on white Southerners was firm. Today, the Republican party remains the party of the South. It’s an ironic outcome considering that a century ago, white Southerners would’ve never considered voting for the party of Lincoln....

How Republicans and the 'Southern Strategy' Won Over the Once Democratic South - HISTORY

http://www.stat.columbia.edu/~gelman/research/published/reversal2.pdf

​


Revisionism and/or ignorance of history doesn't change the historical facts. But I don't blame you for trying to distance yourself from your parties tainted past. However, trying to pin it on today's democrats is just plain STUPID.
 
Taylor said:
You said Dixiecrat. Apparently you don't know what the term means. No surprise there.
Click to expand...

giphy.gif



Dix·ie·crat
/ˈdiksēˌkrat/
noun
any of the Southern Democrats who seceded from the party in 1948 in opposition to its policy of extending civil rights.
 
Josie said:
We've already had this discussion before, Grand. The word "liberal" means something different than what it used to.
Click to expand...

Used to as in since the latest edition of Merriam-Websters came out? I think it's updated annually. You mean the definition of 'liberal' has changed since then, or do you mean that you know better than Merriam-Websters what the word means?
Okay, lets try the good old OED, the Oxford English Dictionary.

Liberal

1Willing to respect or accept behaviour or opinions different from one's own; open to new ideas.

‘liberal views towards divorce’

1.1Favourable to or respectful of individual rights and freedoms.
‘liberal citizenship laws’

1.2(in a political context) favouring individual liberty, free trade, and moderate political and social reform.
‘a liberal democratic state’

Maybe you have a dictionary you prefer. Link it for me, I'll take a look, but I gotta say I rely on the two I've mentioned here.
 
Grand Mal said:
Used to as in since the latest edition of Merriam-Websters came out? I think it's updated annually. You mean the definition of 'liberal' has changed since then, or do you mean that you know better than Merriam-Websters what the word means?
Okay, lets try the good old OED, the Oxford English Dictionary.

Liberal

1Willing to respect or accept behaviour or opinions different from one's own; open to new ideas.

‘liberal views towards divorce’

1.1Favourable to or respectful of individual rights and freedoms.
‘liberal citizenship laws’

1.2(in a political context) favouring individual liberty, free trade, and moderate political and social reform.
‘a liberal democratic state’

Maybe you have a dictionary you prefer. Link it for me, I'll take a look, but I gotta say I rely on the two I've mentioned here.
Click to expand...

And "liberals" today don't adhere to those definitions. That's a "classic liberal". I don't know why this needs to be explained to you every time.
 
Josie said:
And "liberals" today don't adhere to those definitions. That's a "classic liberal". I don't know why this needs to be explained to you every time.
Click to expand...

Why do I keep having to expain to you that if you call someone a liberal who doesn't hold liberal values you are wrong? Plain and simple. And if someone calls themselves a liberal but they don't hold liberal values, theyre wrong too.
Damn. You said...

"Many believe that some humans are property no matter their race and can (and sometimes should be) killed without receiving punishment for doing so."

was something liberals believe. Can you really believe that? Is such ignorance of the truth even possible in this day and age?
 
Grand Mal said:
Why do I keep having to expain to you that if you call someone a liberal who doesn't hold liberal values you are wrong? Plain and simple. And if someone calls themselves a liberal but they don't hold liberal values, theyre wrong too.
Damn. You said...

"Many believe that some humans are property no matter their race and can (and sometimes should be) killed without receiving punishment for doing so."

was something liberals believe. Can you really believe that? Is such ignorance of the truth even possible in this day and age?
Click to expand...

Modern day liberals (i.e. statists) and many classic liberals (libertarians) do believe just that. They believe that unborn humans are their property and can be and sometimes should be killed. "My body - my choice" is no different and no less evil than pro-slavery propaganda of the 18th and 19th century. Think that's insane? Oh, well. Lots of people thought abolitionists were crazy too. Which side was right?
 
Josie said:
Modern day liberals (i.e. statists) and many classic liberals (libertarians) do believe just that. They believe that unborn humans are their property and can be and sometimes should be killed. "My body - my choice" is no different and no less evil than pro-slavery propaganda of the 18th and 19th century. Think that's insane? Oh, well. Lots of people thought abolitionists were crazy too. Which side was right?
Click to expand...

Aren't your cells your property?
 
AProudLefty said:
So this is a person to you?
Click to expand...

An unborn human is a human at all stages. He/She has already been assigned a gender and unique DNA at conception.
 
Moot said:
But I don't blame you for trying to distance yourself from your parties tainted past.
Click to expand...
Oh, stop. :lamo

The only people trying to distance themselves from their party's tainted past are Democrats. Trying to pin your party's historic support for slavery, segregation, and institutionalized racism on today's GOP is ridiculous and laughable.
 
AProudLefty said:
giphy.gif



Dix·ie·crat
/ˈdiksēˌkrat/
noun
any of the Southern Democrats who seceded from the party in 1948 in opposition to its policy of extending civil rights.
Click to expand...
Right so once the secede they are no longer Democrats, they are Dixiecrats. Now do you understand?
 
Taylor said:
Oh, stop. :lamo

The only people trying to distance themselves from their party's tainted past are Democrats. Trying to pin your party's historic support for slavery, segregation, and institutionalized racism on today's GOP is ridiculous and laughable.
Click to expand...

Have you ever looked at the DNC's webpage? Their "Our History" section begins 100 years AFTER their party was created.
 
Taylor said:
Oh, stop. :lamo

The only people trying to distance themselves from their party's tainted past are Democrats. Trying to pin your party's historic support for slavery, segregation, and institutionalized racism on today's GOP is ridiculous and laughable.
Click to expand...

I guess you're distancing from the Lincoln party?

“I am not, nor ever have been, in favor of bringing about in any way the social and political equality of the white and black races … I am not nor ever have been in favor of making voters or jurors of Negroes, nor of qualifying them to hold office, nor to intermarry with white people; and I will say in addition to this that there is a physical difference between the white and black races which I believe will forever forbid the two races from living together on terms of social and political equality. And inasmuch as they cannot so live, while they do remain together there must be a position of superior and inferior, and I as much as any other man am in favor of having the superior position assigned to the white race.”
- Honest Abe
 
Taylor said:
Right so once the secede they are no longer Democrats, they are Dixiecrats. Now do you understand?
Click to expand...

Uh isn't that the point? I think you are confusing yourself. I recommend that you stop and put your thoughts in order before posting.
 
Josie said:
Have you ever looked at the DNC's webpage? Their "Our History" section begins 100 years AFTER their party was created.
Click to expand...
They are clueless as a whole about their party's history. I still remember this line from Al Sharpton in 2004:
One of many standing ovations went on for a minute after he told delegates that after the nation failed to deliver on Civil War-era promises of "40 acres and mule" to freed slaves, "we didn't get the mule so we decided we'd ride this donkey as far as it would take us."
Click to expand...

A full one-minute standing ovation at the Democratic National Convention for a total bastardization of history. It was Democrat Andrew Johnson that reversed the "40 Acres and a Mule" promise after Lincoln was assassinated. And no, the only way black people would have been "riding the donkey" in those days is if they were being dragged behind it at the end of a rope.

It's just ridiculous.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom