Democrats 2020

[fromderinside]

Not in YOUR lifetime maybe. Can you say Eisenhower?

View attachment 25168

Amazing ZiprHead and Elixer too. They fooled you.

That Platform is a work of conservative art reflecting most cherished business and keep them down values.

As we all know a party platform is the bending of national sentiment into coded language and dog whistles for adherents of one point of view or the other.

For instance "Strengthen labor laws so workers can join unions" is code language for Right To Work laws destroying union capability to charge all employees for union representation won by a majority of workers at a site.

"Equal pay regardless of sex" is Republican for pay all workers at rates for which of those making least have won entitlement to receive.

"Extend Minimum Wage" means permit states to set wages suggested by employers.

"Protect Social Security" means keep coverage way from handicapped or those injured in the workplace.

etc.

I couldn't vote yet because I was in 16 still in High School. But I was taking political science that year and our teacher was a flaming liberal who taught us how to read political text.

Remember we had just had a conflict with communists in Korea, a senator who ran roughshod against the left and John Birch-like reaction to Truman policies of the late forties

Now you've read the real meaning of some you can probably work out the others.

Just think keep them to ourselves and pay as little as possible and no communists allowed here.

 

[Harry Bosch]

Not in YOUR lifetime maybe. Can you say Eisenhower?

View attachment 25168

Bernie's blurring and distorting the meaning of socialism, will make the above worthy goals much more difficult to attain.

 

[Elixir]

Not in YOUR lifetime maybe. Can you say Eisenhower?

View attachment 25168

Bernie's blurring and distorting the meaning of socialism, will make the above worthy goals much more difficult to attain.

Yes! And not on that list, the extremely ambitious interstate highway project - a nationwide infrastucture endeavor on a scale never since implemented (afaik). That single accomplishment, though motivated by fear of the Republicans Russians, proved an economic benefit for decades to follow, and for all levels of income.

A (small) nod to fromder's highschool poly-sci mentor - but that take is simply the converse view of the same truth. His was a POV which if memory serves (I too was but a tyke) was widely viewed at the time as commie propaganda. Regardless, the outcome of at least a decade of unprecedented prosperity is hardly debatable.

 

[lpetrich]

CBS This Morning on Twitter: "Former NYC Mayor @MikeBloomberg tells @GayleKing "nobody asked" him about stop & frisk until he started running for president.
"I'm sorry. I apologize. Let's go fight the NRA and find other ways to stop the murders and incarceration. Those are things that I'm committed to do." https://t.co/ww1pJPraBt" / Twitter
noting
CBS This Morning on Twitter: ".@MikeBloomberg on candidates' diversity: "Don't complain to me that you're not in the race" [url]https://t.co/WBIekwdeZh https://t.co/Ca0QlMn6DH" / Twitter[/url]

Then
Soledad O'Brien on Twitter: "This is a lie. We asked Mayor Bloomberg to take part in our doc about Stop and Frisk about six years ago. He declined. The doc aired on CNN in 2014 or 15. https://t.co/DN8h5ohCAw" / Twitter

A controversial policy of stopping young black and Hispanic men and then frisking them -- much more than young white men.

 

[Derec]

A controversial policy of stopping young black and Hispanic men and then frisking them --

It's stop, question and frisk. And it's about detecting illicit weapons.

Democrats say that they are for gun control, but want bangers to be able to pack heat unmolested.

much more than young white men.

Mere numerical disparity is not a reason to scrap a policy. Neither is it a reason to dismiss a candidate for president. If anything, him meekly apologizing for it is a demerit.

 

[Elixir]

Democrats ... want bangers to be able to pack heat unmolested.

Wow, that is amazing Derec.
You must have studied under the greatest democrat whisperer ever born to have gained such insight.
Please continue your story - I'd be fascinated to learn of the vast benefits that Democrats are slyly trying to gain with their fervent desire to keep gangbangers well armed. They're a sneaky lot, but for the life of me I can't imagine ...

 

[Derec]

You must have studied under the greatest democrat whisperer ever born to have gained such insight.
Please continue your story - I'd be fascinated to learn of the vast benefits that Democrats are slyly trying to gain with their fervent desire to keep gangbangers well armed. They're a sneaky lot, but for the life of me I can't imagine ...

I don't know what they hope to gain, but the end result of defanging NYPD is that NYC thugs feel more emboldened.

 

[Elixir]

I don't know what they hope to gain...

Maybe best not to tell us what they want, then.

 

[Derec]

I don't know what they hope to gain...

Maybe best not to tell us what they want, then.

What do you think they want by opposing police efforts to detect illegal firearms in NYC? Other than votes of course.

 

[Elixir]

I don't know what they hope to gain...

Maybe best not to tell us what they want, then.

What do you think they want by opposing police efforts to detect illegal firearms in NYC?

Again, you are imputing motives to support your bias. I believe they oppose the S&F method, not the objective of detecting illegal firearms. Only an evil person would oppose the detection of illegal firearms. You prefer to tell us that democrats are those evil people (though I suspect you'd add the standard caveat "and some I assume are okay people"), even if you have to unreasonably infer their motives and state them as facts.

I call that dishonest, assuming you know you're doing it. Just sayin' ... pretty transparent.

 

[lpetrich]

A controversial policy of stopping young black and Hispanic men and then frisking them --

It's stop, question and frisk. And it's about detecting illicit weapons.

Democrats say that they are for gun control, but want bangers to be able to pack heat unmolested.

So you'd want the cops to have checkpoints everywhere and search everybody for guns?

much more than young white men.

Mere numerical disparity is not a reason to scrap a policy. Neither is it a reason to dismiss a candidate for president. If anything, him meekly apologizing for it is a demerit.

Derec, are you really happy with this softness on crime committed by white people?

 

[fromderinside]

I don't know what they hope to gain...

Maybe best not to tell us what they want, then.

What do you think they want by opposing police efforts to detect illegal firearms in NYC? Other than votes of course.

...to keep more brown people from having guns to defend themselves against out of control fearful cops who are white biasedly implementing white biased laws.

 

[fromderinside]

Yes! And not on that list, the extremely ambitious interstate highway project - a nationwide infrastucture endeavor on a scale never since implemented (afaik). That single accomplishment, though motivated by fear of the Republicans Russians, proved an economic benefit for decades to follow, and for all levels of income.

A (small) nod to fromder's highschool poly-sci mentor - but that take is simply the converse view of the same truth. His was a POV which if memory serves (I too was but a tyke) was widely viewed at the time as commie propaganda. Regardless, the outcome of at least a decade of unprecedented prosperity is hardly debatable.

Let me be the one to debate the hardly debatable.

First concerning the economy.The US Economy from Presidents Eisenhower to Carter

http://www.fsmitha.com/h2/ch37-econ1d.ht

Under Eisenhower's eight years in office the economy chugged along with an average annual growth rate of 2.4 percent – less than the 4 percent average growth rate during the Truman years.

During the Johnson presidency the average annual growth rate for the economy was 4.1 percent. Unemployment during both the Kennedy and Johnson administrations hovered around 4 percent. And by the end of the Johnson presidency the National Debt was down to around 40 percent from the 60.4 percent that President Kennedy had inherited.

Between November 1968 and May 1970 the Dow-Jones Industrial Average plunged 36 percent. By the end of 1970 unemployment was up to 6.6 percent.

Given that during his administration the economy performed less well than under Truman, there was a recession that contributed to Nixon's loss in 1960, and that during Nixon's first two years the economy dropped like a rock, any claim of unprecedented economy under and following Eisenhower fails.

That Eisenhower polices were communist leaning is laughable. Starting with a platform in 1956, the one we are discussing, a manifesto for conservative talking points through the Nixon administration, to the strong dollar sentiment fostered by his party during his years, to the republicans consistent refusal to enact any actual progressive legislation except out of fear no one can say his policies were commie unless one happened to be Robert Welch, founder of the John Birch Society.

I think you are not well served in what you read about those times.

 

[southernhybrid]

From a 2013 ruling regarding stop and frisk

https://www.thenation.com/article/ending-stop-and-frisk-keeping-racism/

On Monday, US district court judge Shira Scheindlin dealt a serious, but non-lethal blow to the New York City police policy known as “stop-and-frisk.” After weeks of testimony and evidence presented in the case of Floyd v. City of New York, Scheindlin ruled that stop-and-frisk violated individuals’ Fourth Amendment right to privacy and Fourteenth Amendment right to equal protection under the law. She did not, however, call for an end to the policy altogether, instead opting to appoint an independent federal monitor to oversee the program and the implementation of reforms that would bring it in line with the Constitution.

To start, Bloomberg noted the racial diversity of the NYPD, presumably to protect against charges of racism by pointing to the fact that people of color are active parts of the police force. But having your rights violated by someone who looks like you doesn’t somehow make that violation less racist. The fact is that out of roughly 5 million stops conducted over a decade, an alarming majority of them involved black or Latino men, and almost 90 percent of those stops turned up no evidence of wrongdoing. You can add some color to the faces conducting the stops, but that’s an institutionalized form of racism that doesn’t rely on white skin to operate.

So, not only was stop and frisk constitutionally illegal, almost 90 percent of those who were stopped weren't guilty of any wrong doing. This was a blatantly racist policy instituted by ignorant, and/or racist white leadership.

 

[angelo]

When have I heard this chicken little crap before? Oh, yeah, this guy. America was the Capital Wasteland before Trump came into power.

There has never been such a socialist as Sanders in the White house before, ever!

Not in YOUR lifetime maybe. Can you say Eisenhower?

Comparing Eisenhower to Sanders is like comparing a Pol Pot to a Ghandi. Sanders as PP.

 

[Patooka]

Not in YOUR lifetime maybe. Can you say Eisenhower?

Comparing Eisenhower to Sanders is like comparing a Pol Pot to a Ghandi. Sanders as PP.

Check the tax rate for the top 1% earners in America during Eisenhower's administration. Then explain how they are so different.

 

[Elixir]

Not in YOUR lifetime maybe. Can you say Eisenhower?

Comparing Eisenhower to Sanders is like comparing a Pol Pot to a Ghandi. Sanders as PP.

Check the tax rate for the top 1% earners in America during Eisenhower's administration. Then explain how they are so different.

Right. But angelo doesn't do any actual explaining - he is content to parrot right wing extremist propaganda.
Fromder might not have a point IMHO, but at least he is cognizant of facts - and facts are anathema to the Alt-White. I think Fromder turns a blind eye to some outcomes and some facts: the 91% top tax rate of the Eisenhower era would be viewed today as the very embodiment of "socialism" or communism. Some posters here would tell us that such a rate would turn the US into Venezuela, and ignore the fact of what happened the last time.
The 2.4% growth rate of the economy under Eisenhower is a fact, in isolation. But it fails to consider the reinvestment in infrastructure that enabled the decade following to be perhaps the most prosperous of all time. Fromder picks up the trail in 1968, when the top tax rate had already dropped to 70%. Even a top rate like that would today make Trump's donor class howl in pain at the prospect of one less yacht, or perhaps a smaller jet. The awful spectre of "socialism" would be invoked to preserve their ability to maintain their fleet of yachts and still donate millions to maintain the minority rule they enjoy today.

 

[angelo]

What do you think they want by opposing police efforts to detect illegal firearms in NYC? Other than votes of course.

...to keep more brown people from having guns to defend themselves against out of control fearful cops who are white biasedly implementing white biased laws.

Perhaps you'd like to see a law for African/Americans/Hispanics ect and another much harsher law for people who dare to be born white?

 

[Elixir]

Perhaps you'd like to see a law for African/Americans/Hispanics ect and another much harsher law for people who dare to be born white?

Heh... your slip is showing. You must love the two sets of unwritten enforcement protocols that are in place today. If you were stopped and frisked at the frequency with which it happens to black people in NYC, you'd be wailing for less equality. Especially if it was black cops stopping and frisking you every couple of days...

 

[ZiprHead]

Perhaps you'd like to see a law for African/Americans/Hispanics ect and another much harsher law for people who dare to be born white?

Heh... your slip is showing. You must love the two sets of unwritten enforcement protocols that are in place today. If you were stopped and frisked at the frequency with which it happens to black people in NYC, you'd be wailing for less equality. Especially if it was black cops stopping and frisking you every couple of days...

Every couple days? For some, it was every couple blocks on the same day.