Posted on 03/01/2023 12:05:54 AM PST by Impala64ssa
Florida Politics - Campaigns & Elections. Lobbying & Government. Blaise Ingoglia bill would ‘cancel’ Democratic Party Mike WrightFebruary 28, 20234min 1964 Civil Rights ActFlorida Democratic PartyPresident Lyndon B. JohnsonSB 1248Sen. Blaise IngogliaSlavery Related Articles ‘Take that for what it’s worth’: Ron DeSantis dismisses Donald Trump criticism Rick Scott demands answers for why ‘known gang member’ was free to kill Last Call for 2.28.23 — A prime-time read of what’s going down in Florida politics 'Some people want to have "uncomfortable conversations" about certain subjects.' Sen. Blaise Ingoglia is sponsoring the “Ultimate Cancel Act,” which would eliminate all political parties that once used slavery as part of its platform.
While “Democratic Party” isn’t mentioned in the bill, Ingoglia said that’s his target.
“For years now, leftist activists have been trying to ‘cancel’ people and companies for things they have said or done in the past. This includes the removal of statues and memorials, and the renaming of buildings,” he said. “Using this standard, it would be hypocritical not to cancel the Democratic Party itself for the same reason.”
The measure (SB 1248) would switch Democratic voters to no-party voters or give them the option of choosing another party.
The Democratic Party adopted pro-slavery positions in their platforms during the conventions of 1840, 1844, 1856, 1860 and 1864, Ingoglia noted.
Indeed, the Democratic Party’s beginnings were rooted in states’ rights, including slavery. The party split during the Civil War, with Southern Democrats favoring slavery in all territories and Northern Democrats arguing it should go to a popular vote.
A century later, it was a Democratic president from the South, Lyndon Johnson, who signed the Civil Rights Act.
According to Ingoglia’s bill, the Division of Elections would decertify any political party that has “previously advocated for, or been in support of, slavery or involuntary servitude.”
Registered voters of that party would receive notices from the state that their party has been “canceled” and that they’re now no-party voters.
As for the canceled Democratic Party, it could re-register with the state so long as the name is “substantially different from the name of any other party previously registered.”
Ingoglia said Democrats should be called upon to face their past.
“Some people want to have ‘uncomfortable conversations’ about certain subjects,” he said. “Let’s have those conversations.”
Seems mild to me compared to what the national Democrat party’s long term goal seems to be in America: white genocide.
The Democratic Party was founded on genocide. Just ask the Cherokees.
This rocks! It’s theater, of course, but smart effective Alinsky theater.
Rule 4: “Make the enemy live up to its own book of rules.”
Poorly written bill. It would also mean elimination on the Republican Party... freeing the slaves is using the slaves in its platform
“. . . freeing the slaves is using the slaves in its platform”
Please provide more detail.
This bill is absolutely in keeping with current Democrat policy.
Do it! Let the Democrats defend keeping their ties to slavery.
Now, let’s talk about Democrat reparations. Five million per sounds about right.
The democrats de-facto died in 2019 . . . they jus’ ain’t laid down yet . . . we’re workin’ on ‘em . . .
The Republican platform of 1860 permitted slavery in the states where it already existed.
if the bill calls for the elimination of a party that uses slaves in its platform, the democrats wanted to keep slaves and the repubs wanted to free them... both using slaves in their platform.
i will read the bill, but the wording in the article is duplicitous.
it is like the old joke, i bet you a hundred dollars that you cannot make a bet for a whole day.
you’re on.
you lose. gimme my $100.
It is a great, educational, bill.
Not to pass, but to educate.
Brilliant, just brilliant. Use their own tactics against them! How can they possibly defend it?
“A Democratic president from the South, Lyndon Johnson signed the Civil Rights Act,” but had to rely on GOP votes in both Houses of Congress to get a majority.
The DNC is a terrorist organization for sponsoning Un-Natural Born Citizens for POTUS and VPOTUS. Neither Hussein Obama nor Kamala Harris were born of US citizen parents at the time of their birth. The FEC should de-certify the DNC and turn all the (D)s into (I)s.
I'm not familiar with the Republican Party platform calling for the abolition of slavery - I thought Lincoln said he wanted to restrict the expansion of slavery; Lincoln said he had no power, or intention, to abolish slavery.
If there is written documentation saying otherwise, I'd like to read it.
Slaveholders in 1860 correctly feared that without a guarantee of territorial expansion for slavery and the admission of slave states in equal number to free states, the slave states would soon become decisively outnumbered in Congress and that slavery would be "put on the path to extinction," to use the phrase of that era.
Since cotton cultivation exhausted the soil, slavery gradually became uneconomic without constant territorial expansion. In the long run, Southern strategists saw a need for not just expansion in North America but also in the Caribbean so that America's surplus of slaves could be exported to new venues for the cultivation of tobacco, rice, and sugar cane, which, along with cotton, were definitive slave crops.
Fundamentally, unless the natural surplus of slaves in the American South was balanced in some manner by increased demand for slaves, emancipation was inevitable because slavery would become uneconomic. This is a key reason why the slavery issue was deferred in the Constitution.
Until the invention of the cotton gin, even Southerners saw slavery as untenable in the long run. Even Southerners though who disliked slavery feared the chaos that would ensue from immediate emancipation and the ensuing collapse of the Southern economy and way of life.
Unfortunately, once the cotton gin was invented, the wealth suddenly possible from cotton cultivation led to a new enthusiasm for slavery in the South. The higher price for slaves meant that even declining plantations could earn by selling off surplus slaves.
By 1860 though, this phase was near to running its course because the American territory suitable for the expansion of cotton cultivation and slavery was running out. The 1860 Republican platform writers knew this, so opposing territorial expansion of slavery but leaving slavery alone where it existed meant that slavery would be constrained and peacefully ended within a decade or two.
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.