'Murica! (186 Viewers)
- Thread starter Fake Melo
- Start date
- Tags afl_italia's cousins forza trump smocking gun
I had read an article saying that at the beginning of the 19th century it's true that the American political parties were radically opposed to those of today, the Democratic party was pro-slavery while the Republican party was abolitionist. In 1792, the Democratic Party was a descendant of the Republican Democratic Party founded by Thomas Jefferson, author of the Declaration of Independence. The politician was in favour of slavery as he owned a plantation in Virginia with many slaves.
Both parties have changed massively although republicans kept some elements of what their fathers intended.
After civil war Republican agenda had 2 items: 1- homogeneous citizenship (meaning freed slaves should get full american citizenship) and 2- contract freedom (meaning everybody should be able to work for whoever he wants as opposed to slavery). Democrats were mostly big on states' rights. Southern democrats were former confederates while northern ones believed that federal government should leave them alone. After severe depression of 1873 Democrats were able to mandate federal government to do just that and jim crow established.
Democrats started moving towards the left (economically not socially) in 1890s when populist party, which sprang out of an alliance by farmers, was threatening the 2 party system. They effectively absorbed that party by nominating the most prominent populist William Jennings Bryan for president in 1896. Bryan was nominated 3 times in 1900 and 1908 and lost all 3 elections but he effectively controlled the party during these times. The first Democratic president of 20th century could not have won without Bryan's endorsement. There was not much of a social shift though. Wilson was a massive racist, as were most of the Democrats especially southern ones.
Southern and northern Democrats effectively split during Roosevelt years when his VP John Nance Garner of Texas openly ran against him for Democratic nomination and lost. Northern Democrats started to adopt civil rights agenda after the war when black vote became a factor in the north. Throughout these years South was a one party region and 22 southern senators blocked civil rights legislature with the help of some Midwestern republicans. After passage of 1964 civil rights act there was not much point for them to stay in the Democratic party and South started becoming slowly Republican.
After civil war Republican agenda had 2 items: 1- homogeneous citizenship (meaning freed slaves should get full american citizenship) and 2- contract freedom (meaning everybody should be able to work for whoever he wants as opposed to slavery). Democrats were mostly big on states' rights. Southern democrats were former confederates while northern ones believed that federal government should leave them alone. After severe depression of 1873 Democrats were able to mandate federal government to do just that and jim crow established.
Democrats started moving towards the left (economically not socially) in 1890s when populist party, which sprang out of an alliance by farmers, was threatening the 2 party system. They effectively absorbed that party by nominating the most prominent populist William Jennings Bryan for president in 1896. Bryan was nominated 3 times in 1900 and 1908 and lost all 3 elections but he effectively controlled the party during these times. The first Democratic president of 20th century could not have won without Bryan's endorsement. There was not much of a social shift though. Wilson was a massive racist, as were most of the Democrats especially southern ones.
Southern and northern Democrats effectively split during Roosevelt years when his VP John Nance Garner of Texas openly ran against him for Democratic nomination and lost. Northern Democrats started to adopt civil rights agenda after the war when black vote became a factor in the north. Throughout these years South was a one party region and 22 southern senators blocked civil rights legislature with the help of some Midwestern republicans. After passage of 1964 civil rights act there was not much point for them to stay in the Democratic party and South started becoming slowly Republican.
- - - Updated - - -
I wonder if he thew himself under the same bus he used to run over Barr ...
What do you guys think? @Bjerknes @GordoDeCentral @Hustini
There’s a systemic racism problem in many corners. And it is historical - based on actions, values, and decisions made generations before anybody alive today was born. But it gets even stranger when some Bosnian refugee family who emigrated to America in the 1990s is accused for holding up slavery.
It’s completely hypocritical alright. Smiling photos of MLK and BLM in the front of the house while black child labor is extracting precious metals for smartphones from slave-like mines in the back.
GoFraudMe in another form. I guess if you’re selling white guilt, time to profit.
It’s always the ridiculous clowns who get all the attention. Rational people don’t sell.
I think they hate urban California more.
There is a phenomenon now where when the US once was the enviable destination of many in the world just a generation or two ago. Hoori will keep me honest, as I know Iran isn’t exactly a beacon for enlightenment these days either. But for the US, that has changed. The tide is flowing in the other direction.
I find it odd that conservative media is obsessing over six blocks of lunatics like there’s nothing more important going on in the world. But we’ve seen Occupy before. We’ve seen Native Americans take over Alcatraz in 1970. The result is always the same.
Like we haven’t seen 5 Star mutate in under a decade. Party platforms change. What was relevant 8 generations ago makes no sense today in four-year political campaigning. Every time some Republican opens their mouth about being the party of abolishing slavery, I hear a Pro Vercelli fan discussing their dominance over Italian football. What have you done for me lately?
It’s completely hypocritical alright. Smiling photos of MLK and BLM in the front of the house while black child labor is extracting precious metals for smartphones from slave-like mines in the back.
people posting their venmos for money because they are black/ trans is trending Twitter 
https://twitter.com/search?q=Venmo&src=trend_click
https://twitter.com/search?q=Venmo&src=trend_click
Scrolling through, most of these look to be joking 
.
But even so, it's just not fair to generalize a group or movement based on the most vocal of a minority that exist within an echo chamber is all I'm saying. You'll always have a fool willing to part with their money though, or else e-girls wouldn't exist.
.But even so, it's just not fair to generalize a group or movement based on the most vocal of a minority that exist within an echo chamber is all I'm saying. You'll always have a fool willing to part with their money though, or else e-girls wouldn't exist.
man Republicans fucking hate Chicago
There is a phenomenon now where when the US once was the enviable destination of many in the world just a generation or two ago. Hoori will keep me honest, as I know Iran isn’t exactly a beacon for enlightenment these days either. But for the US, that has changed. The tide is flowing in the other direction.
I find it odd that conservative media is obsessing over six blocks of lunatics like there’s nothing more important going on in the world. But we’ve seen Occupy before. We’ve seen Native Americans take over Alcatraz in 1970. The result is always the same.
Like we haven’t seen 5 Star mutate in under a decade. Party platforms change. What was relevant 8 generations ago makes no sense today in four-year political campaigning. Every time some Republican opens their mouth about being the party of abolishing slavery, I hear a Pro Vercelli fan discussing their dominance over Italian football. What have you done for me lately?
