The Original Gay Porn Community - Free Gay Movies and Photos, Gay Porn Site Reviews and Adult Gay Forums

  • Welcome To Just Us Boys - The World's Largest Gay Message Board Community

    In order to comply with recent US Supreme Court rulings regarding adult content, we will be making changes in the future to require that you log into your account to view adult content on the site.
    If you do not have an account, please register.
    REGISTER HERE - 100% FREE / We Will Never Sell Your Info

    To register, turn off your VPN; you can re-enable the VPN after registration. You must maintain an active email address on your account: disposable email addresses cannot be used to register.

Chicago Chases Trump Away

Benvolio said:
I read your post, pretending there were two democrat parties in an attempt to explain away the Jewish participation in the party of Jim Crow and the KKK. It is just not true.
Click to expand...

It just is true.

In the 100 years between the Fire Eaters and the Conservative Coalition, the Democratic Party was a weak association between North and South.

Jewish support of Democrats closely follows the party's historic support of separation between church and state - first espoused by the Jeffersonian Democrats. When Jews switched to the party of Lincoln, it was due in part opposition to the "peculiar institution" and part denunciation of anti-Semitism. That lasted until Taft destroyed the party's Jewish vote with his support of Russian trade. At the same time 20th century Republicans restricted Jewish immigration and refused to pass anti-discrimination laws.

To suggest that Jews supported the anti-Semitic KKK and Jim Crow elements of the Democratic Party in the South is totally unbelievable. Southern Jews supported the northern Democratic candidates for president (e.g. Woodrow Wilson) whom also supported the interests of the entire American Jewish population as a whole, not the local Southern Democrats whom wished to suppress them.
 
Alnitak said:
It just is true.

In the 100 years between the Fire Eaters and the Conservative Coalition, the Democratic Party was a weak association between North and South.

Jewish support of Democrats closely follows the party's historic support of separation between church and state - first espoused by the Jeffersonian Democrats. When Jews switched to the party of Lincoln, it was due in part opposition to the "peculiar institution" and part denunciation of anti-Semitism. That lasted until Taft destroyed the party's Jewish vote with his support of Russian trade. At the same time 20th century Republicans restricted Jewish immigration and refused to pass anti-discrimination laws.

To suggest that Jews supported the anti-Semitic KKK and Jim Crow elements of the Democratic Party in the South is totally unbelievable. Southern Jews supported the northern Democratic candidates for president (e.g. Woodrow Wilson) whom also supported the interests of the entire American Jewish population as a whole, not the local Southern Democrats whom wished to suppress them.
Click to expand...

You're talking to someone who conveniently forgets to mention that the Southern Democrats and the Republicans swapped sides after the civil rights revolution, with the Democrats embracing liberal policies while the Republicans embraced southern white racists.
 
Kabluey said:
You're talking to someone who conveniently forgets to mention that the Southern Democrats and the Republicans swapped sides after the civil rights revolution, with the Democrats embracing liberal policies while the Republicans embraced southern white racists.
Click to expand...

There were no fewer than five different party systems in US history and they share little in common with the modern one. Before the 21st century both parties were at various times split into factions, often by region. Those factions coalesced around common interests to elect presidents. Coalitions were at times inter-party. Sometimes they were bipartisan. So to throw around guilt by association reflects an impoverished command of American history.
 
Kabluey said:
You're talking to someone who conveniently forgets to mention that the Southern Democrats and the Republicans swapped sides after the civil rights revolution, with the Democrats embracing liberal policies while the Republicans embraced southern white racists.
Click to expand...
But... but.... Robert Byrd!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
 
Alnitak said:
There were no fewer than five different party systems in US history and they share little in common with the modern one. Before the 21st century both parties were at various times split into factions, often by region. Those factions coalesced around common interests to elect presidents. Coalitions were at times inter-party. Sometimes they were bipartisan. So to throw around guilt by association reflects an impoverished command of American history.
Click to expand...

This is far too complicated to be perceived as far from reality as Planet Conservabot.
 
Kabluey said:
You're talking to someone who conveniently forgets to mention that the Southern Democrats and the Republicans swapped sides after the civil rights revolution, with the Democrats embracing liberal policies while the Republicans embraced southern white racists.
Click to expand...

This is the standard blog "cut & paste" mandate to RWNJ. Keep reporting the same thing over and over and it will stick to the low information voter. Leave out the well known southern strategy and how the Dixiecrat flocked to the Republican party. Keep telling people that it is the Democrats that align with the KKK and are racist. Its pure bullshit and only a moron would not understand their aren't any Klansman or skin heads that support the Democratic party in 2016 America. Thick as a frigging brick these dinosaurs are.
 
Trump gets the last laugh - he wins Illinois

If he gets the 1237 required ......... he's gonna get hammered in the general
 
His path to the 1237 became a little bit more murky tonight, as he lost Winner-Take-All OHIO.

I still haven't seen any reply to my question about comparing tonight's final percentage margins to what the polls were forecasting last week? I think that will give an indication whether the Anybody But Trump stuff has been working. I don't think I saw any evidence that he increased his margins, and I really don't remember seeing North Carolina as close as it turned out to be?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top