Posted on 11/08/2024 8:48:42 AM PST by 13Sisters76
You want some hard truths about the democrat party? Well, allow me to give you some. I am a historian, and I have the paperwork to prove it and I have been involved with politics since I worked on Reagan's first campaign. I know the democrat party's history- pretty interesting stuff when you get into it. The democrat party has ALWAYS been the party of the wealthy elite- the plantation owners with their feudalistic, two tier caste system and slavery. They were willing to kill 300k o their own citizens and 340k of OURS to hold on to it with the Civil War, and one of their politicians even tried to beat a republican senator, Chas. Sumner, to death on the Senate floor. Know what democrats did? Sent more canes to Preston Brooks with "Hit him again!" engraved on them. Even after they lost, they STILL tried to hold on to control with the KKK, Jim Crow and segregation, fought the civil rights laws with days-long filibusters- the filibuster they are now trying to kill- and fought to keep "segregation now, segregation forever". Beginning about 1860 and until now, a brand new European ideology made its way to this country and was fully embraced by the leftists HERE and in the democrat party- socialism. The democrats had found a brand new home! Marx wrote that with the use of "useful idiots" this ideology could be presented to the gullible working class as a benefit to them. Alinsky would write the same thing 100 years later. The "continental" democrats would elevate the absolute worst people who ever lived to icon status, people like Havelock Ellis, Margaret Sanger, Lothrop Stoddard and Alfred Kinsey. Woodrow Wilson was elected by these people as president. Perverts and anti-Semites, rabid racists and segregationists. These people are still admired by today's democrats as "great thinkers". This has led to the democrat mindset that government should only be run by those "fit to rule" as Hillary has said and never by the people- those unfit human weeds. They relied on the likes of John Dewey, to destroy our education system and turn it into an indoctrination system. As Dewey famously said: "You can't make a good socialist out of an individual". This party has NEVER been the party of the working class except as rhetoric, never been the party for minorities, has NEVER been the party of the family and hates Christian conservatives far above anything else. They feel nothing but contempt for the middle class, and you know why? Because the working middle class is the economic engine of liberty- the one thing they want to destroy. They are the party they have always been, the party of the wealthy elites. They are better than you and smarter than you. They believe that fact that they are richer than you proves it. And NOW, bigger and older money has moved in and taken full ownership of the party, the wealthy foreign globalists. One way or another, they intend to control this country and YOU, "you will own nothing and you will be happy". They own the corporate media who lies to you, hires smear merchants and creates hysterical hoaxes- what do you mean you don't believe it? How dare you! They steal elections, in your face, and defy you to do anything about it, something they have been perfecting since Boss Tweed and Tammany Hall. They have twisted our judicial system and our policing agencies until we can't trust them anymore. They hold political prisoners in what have become gulags, denying them their Constitutional rights along the way. They created agencies with unaccountable bureaucrats to oppress American citizens and with the express purpose of making end runs around the Constitution. Even before Obama, they embedded democrat operatives in every agency to see that Americans have NO voice in their regulations and rules and to block every initiative by our elected officials to rein in this threat. The party of the working class? Absolutely not and never has been.
That's the way the Left thinks. It's what Democrats do.
The Dems have never changed. They have been the party of violence from the 1800s to today.
That's a cliche. It ignores the reality of how the Democrats came to exist, and how they have evolved over the decades to be very different from what they used to be.
People gloss over the fundamentals when they characterize people as unchanging groups or classes. We are all the same species of humans, so somehow some of us become "Democrats" or "Liberals", and if you got rid of all of them, over time, the same sort of people and ideas would just reemerge again.
I used to ponder how we get rid of all the liberals, and then I realized, if you did get rid of all the liberals, more would pop into existence from the remaining population.
I think Liberalism is primarily a side effect or consequence of prosperity. If you've looked at the issue, you notice all the wealthy places tend to be liberal.
Where in our society does this liberalism stuff come from? Well Massachusetts, New York, and California are all liberal. What makes them that way?
You say the Dems are the party of violence, but didn't the Republicans launch the invasion of them back in 1861? Didn't their armies burn cities and kill people?
Seems like violence is just a human thing, and both sides will use it when they think it is the best answer.
I think a lot of people know that a willingness to go to violence has a tendency to keep people behaving. Notice how we didn't have any wars when Trump was in office before? People were worried he would go Defcon 3 if they pissed him off.
Kept the peace.
Funny to see the modern democrats so defensive of the old time democrat slave owner’s actions against an abolitionist.
Things don’t change much...
The problem isn’t “liberalism.” A liberal can have a civil conversation. A person could take a liberal position on some issues and conservative on others.
The problem is leftism. Leftists are not liberals. They gang up and harass you if you don’t agree with them. They riot, loot, and kill if they do not get their way. They stomp you if they feel offended or throw you into prison for offending them.
The Democratic Party is not liberal. It is leftist. It’s all about force.
I’m not saying every Democrat is violent. I’m saying the party has a long history of violence… and force.
In Sumner’s time, congressmen threw insults at each other. Sometimes, Sumner was the target, yet he never physically attacked anyone in retaliation.
What Brooks did was not self-defense. It is different from a president striking back against a foreign enemy who attacks us.
And when has industry not protected its profits no matter the political or social environment? They didn’t continue to produce goods and sell them to support slavery OR anti-slavery, and has little to do with the topic.
But here is what is particularly interesting- I wrote of much in the democrat party history that was ugly and anti-human, yet those who responded singled out one of the least important (yet so telling) points I made.
The entire point of the essay was that the democrat party is traitorous, anti-American, anti- Constitution, leftist, globalist and enemies of the people. With even the slightest bit of luck and a whole lot of prayer, Patriots will be able to vote them out and into history, alongside the Whigs.
Our revolution began in 2008 with the Tea Party and has been building.
In case no one noticed, THIS is OUR revolution, without violence (except from the left), without killing and bloodshed (except from the left) and without sending our children to die (except to leftist foreign proxy wars).
Please stop referring to me in “endearing” terms. I am NOT your “dear”, your “honey” or your “sweetie”.
We do not know each other, and it is condescending and childish.
It will never convince me, or anyone else, that you are smarter or better than anyone you are posting to.
“Diogenes Lamp”? prob not.
How about “Lecter’s flatware”? “Nurse Rached’s Keyring”? “Iago’s Scarf”?
Bullies are neither attractive nor particularly prone to impressing folks with their brilliance.
I wouldn't know. I don't talk to any modern Democrats. They usually go crazy if you try to talk politics with them.
Depends on how you want to look at the problem. I don't want to get into a discussion about the difference between classical liberalism and modern liberalism. It has become commonplace to regard liberal and leftist as interchangeable, and in our current times, they pretty much are.
In Sumner’s time, congressmen threw insults at each other. Sometimes, Sumner was the target, yet he never physically attacked anyone in retaliation.
Did anyone suggest he was diddling his slaves? (Yes, I know he didn't have any.) Suppose someone had insinuated he was diddling his children? Are those fighting words?
Sumner should have not crossed the line. He chose to cross the line, and he found out.
What Brooks did was not self-defense.
No, he was acting as a champion for a man who could not do it himself.
Nothing wrong with that... *UNTIL* you use the government to do it for you. We are now overwhelmed with companies that rely on the government to force everyone to partake of their company's services. The recent vax mandates are an example.
Using the government to force others to buy your products is skirting with Fascism.
The entire point of the essay was that the democrat party is traitorous, anti-American, anti- Constitution, leftist, globalist and enemies of the people.
I take issue with trying to characterize the Democrat party as being the same throughout history. It has changed quite a lot since Andrew Jackson founded it in the 1820s. The Modern Democrat party is basically the 1860 Republican party, and if you start comparing positions, behavior, and locations of the people in the party, you realize there is a great deal of similarity between Modern Democrats and 1860s Republicans, up to and including the use of Government to get what they want.
The 1860 Republican party wanted high taxes. They wanted protectionist laws. They wanted massive government spending projects. They blurred the distinction between government and private corporations. (Such as the Railroads and Shipping industries.) They wanted "Social Change." They wanted to impose their view of morality on others. They lived in Boston, New York, Chicago, Baltimore, etc. All places that are the strongholds of modern Democrats today.
In fact, I would have to think for a bit to point out some manner in which 1860 Republicans were different than Modern Democrats. They even owned most of the media and publishing back then. Same with the Universities. They had feminists like Elizabeth Cady Stanton, Susan B. Anthony, or Margaret Sanger. They were the "Progressives". They were the wealthy "Elite".
So to characterize the old Democrats as the same as the modern Democrats is an error. The Democrats wanted small government, low taxes, lassaiz fair economic policy, and no social change.
1860 Democrats are a very different animal from 2024 Democrats. Oh, and Ronald Reagan was a Democrat for much of his life.
Sigh.
With that said, Sumner did insult Butler's speaking ability.
If the Democrats wanted to "hit back" at Sumner, they could have insulted and ridiculed him in return (which they often did, according to what I've read).
There was no need to beat him nearly to death.
Adding to my last post...
What Brooks did was not self-defense. He was not defending Butler, either.
He attacked Sumner two days after Sumner’s speech. That was not self-defense. It was revenge. It was attempted murder because he beat him so badly, continuing to hit Sumner after Sumner fell unconscious.
The people of the South clearly thought there was. They lauded Brooks for doing it. I believe they put the head of his cane in a museum or something.
I think Sumner deserved a beating, though I think Brooks went too far.
I suspect the Southerners in the 1850s were hot headed and more willing to fight over insults than they are today.
Even his friends knew he went too far.
We’re going to have to agree to disagree here.
I was thinking the same thing.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.