OMG playing the Byrd card? Seriously? He renounced the KKK decades ago. Which party is it that is trying its hardest to disenfranchise minority voters? Which president talked about welfare queens and held his first campaign stop in Philadelphia, MS?
You would be wrong. Only 7 countries out of the 59 that permit abortion in demand allow elective abortion after 20 weeks. Only Netherlands in Europe does.
The others are the United States, Canada, China, North Korea, Singapore, and Vietnam.
Even quite a few abortion rights activists in Europe consider that pretty barbaric.
The Washington Post didn’t initially believe this was true, either, but their fact-checker finally agreed it was: https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/fact-checker/wp/2017/10/09/is-the-united-states-one-of-seven-countries-that-allow-elective-abortions-after-20-weeks-of-pregnancy/?utm_term=.93e03f2e28cf
You’d have a point if I said that 20 weeks is the norm when in fact I said that 12 weeks is.
And although 20 “months” was a typo on my part, infanticide is legal in North Korea, as long as it is done by the government, at least. When NK citizens fleeing to China are arrested and returned to N. Korea, any children from Chinese parents are reported to be killed by burial (David Hawk (2012). The Hidden Gulag Second Edition The Lives and Voices of “Those Who are Sent to the Mountains” (PDF) (Second ed.). Committee for Human Rights in North Korea. pp. 111–155. ISBN 0615623670. Retrieved June 16, 2012.)
In Canada, it has been argued that the laws against infanticide should be abolished altogether: https://ir.lib.uwo.ca/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?referer=&httpsredir=1&article=1142&context=uwojls
Although the legal status is unclear, infanticide due to the One Child Policy and sex-selection is not uncommon. China grapples with legacy of its ‘missing girls’
Although it’s on the fringe, there are advocates for the decriminalization of infanticide within the U.S. and the Netherlands as well.
So your argument is that your party used to be openly racist, but isn’t anymore?
How many Republican politicians switched sides to be Democrats because they opposed racism? How many Democrat politicians switched to become Republican because they wanted to be racists? Did Byrd?
Who created the Philadelphia Plan that was the blueprint for affirmative action?
Who wrote the Civil Rights Act of 1968?
On the other hand, who voted against every major civil rights bill in U.S. history?
If the Democratic Party wasn’t such a wolf whistle for those who want to keep black people poor and in their place, why didn’t you just change your name at the start of the civil rights movement?
I think your post lacks merit but I don’t think the other posters want to see the Bob and Mike Show. I’ll step back and see if we can get back to secession or breakup into Red States of America and Blue States of America. If you want to start a thread on the history of race in US politics I’ll be happy to join in.
Seriously, if the Ku Klux Klan had decided it would make an attempt to recruit and get votes from black Americans in a desire to (to paraphrase LBJ “Keep those N*****s voting KKK for the next 200 years”, would you still want to be a part of it?
The Democratic majority in the Supreme Court held 7 to 2 (Republicans, that is) that black people weren’t fully human. The Democrats started a civil war to keep blacks slaves, after the Republican party began as a movement to prevent the expansion of slavery and to end it. After the war was won, a democrat assassinated Lincoln over the issue. Lincoln’s VP, a Democrat, fought like hell to prevent the expansion of civil liberties to black people. The Democrats started the KKK as their militant enforcement wing. You couldn’t get elected as a Democrat in my home town if you weren’t a Klansman in the 1920s. Woodrow Wilson, a Democrat, when he wasn’t getting us in wars where we had no place, fought to re-segregate the workforce. They supported poll taxes, fought every civil rights act, and after LBJ decided to try to buy black votes, supported welfare laws that destroyed black families and abortion laws that kill as many black babies as are born.
Why would Democrats even WANT to maintain the name of a party that had done all those things?
I support economic secession for blue state America: since the redder the state, the more likely it is to be dependent on federal dollars, I propose that blue states elect Democrats at the federal level who will go along with every spending cut the GOP proposes. At the state and municipal level, blue states would raise taxes to offset the damage being done. Since blue states carry red states financially, the state budgets for red America would collapse and they soon wouldn’t even be able to provide the most basic services. Once the rest of red America starts to suffer the way Kansas is now, with potholed streets and declining life expectancy we’ll be ready to work with them to develop more realistic financial and social policies. If blue America is paying the bills, we should get more of a say in how red America spends our dollars.
In reality, we’ll get the secession you see now, the farther behind red America slides, the more it blames liberal elites, education and NFL players kneeling for their problems. The redder the state, the more drug use, the more children growing up without parents and the less prepared their students are for the outside world. They keep choosing politicians and policies that are disastrous for their well being and they keep blaming liberals when they fall on their face. In the mean time, this low level civil war will continue, an abortion clinic bombing here, a congressperson shot there and every once in a while, some lunatic will blow up a federal office building somewhere. What’s changed is that blue America is tired of being called traitors while we foot the bills. There really is a change in how committed the two America’s are to one another and given that red America takes more then it gives, it would behoove it to shut up more.
It’s nice to see that the “donor state” nonsense has made an appearance in this thread.
Do you realize how foolish it is to quote policies of either party from over 150 years ago?
Both parties have practical swapped their planks since then. Argue current policies only, for heaven’s sake.
Except for the fact that the reason they don’t (actually, didn’t, they can now) pump their own gas has nothing whatsoever to do with their supposed inability. It’s a stupid joke without a point.
WalletHub, the source for your BI article, used this metric for their “State Government’s Dependency” statistic:
(source)
Can you identify any potential issues with that metric?
I’m tired of being called a traitor by people whose lifestyle I subsidize. When ever we take our eyes off them for a minute, they invade Iraq, destabilize the Middle East, or trade the country away to the first bigoted conman who offers them some magic beans. Since the Clinton years we’ve been hearing them call blue state America libtards while we have been carrying them.
The only problem I see is that you didn’t completely represent what they’re doing:
If I thought for a while I might think of other measures, but this seems about right to me. The bottom line is that red states are much more likely to be leeches than blue states are. Take away the blue states and red states would be lost like babes in the woods.
I doubt anyone cares what you’re tired of being called. Do you think 1%ers are sick of being called names, in spite of carrying the rest of us? Does anyone care?
This is not an argument that is going to get you anywhere with intelligent people. It is an Alt-right attempt to discredit their opposition. Is that who you are?
No, many alt-Right people are as racist as many Democrats. Is that who you are?
Again, given the openly racist origin of the Democratic Party, why would you or anyone else want to align with them, regardless of their current claimed stance?
Tell us what you know of the Southern Strategy, please.
Ok, that is an opinion, not fact. Not even remotely correct, but it is the tune of the alt-right, to declare that everyone else, especially the democrats, are the racists.
Again, you’re taking something from over 150 years ago and declaring that it must be true today, when the opposite is true. Alt-Right “facts” that are just propaganda lies following the same right wing / Soviet “accuse the other side of doing what we’re doing” bullshit.
I have no interest in debating points with a philosophy based on lies, propaganda and hate.