When the left tries to pull the party switch narrative about them starting the KKK and opposing the civil rights act, remind them that more Dems have switched to Republicans since 2016 than they claim in the 1970s. So that must mean the parties switched back again.
2016 – Karen MacBeth, Rhode Island State Representative
2016 – Yancey McGill, Lieutenant Governor of South Carolina (2014–2015)
2016 – David Hillman, Arkansas State Representative
2016 – Jeff Wardlaw, Arkansas State Representative
2016 – Joe Jett, Arkansas State Representative
2016 – Wilbur Ross, later United States Secretary of Commerce (2017–present)
2017 – Michelle Rehwinkel Vasilinda, former Florida State Representative
2017 – Mariellen MacKay, New Hampshire State Representative
2017 – William Brisson, North Carolina Assemblyman
2017 – Rupert Phillips, West Virginia State Delegate
2018 – Mike Oliverio, former West Virginia State Senator
2018 – Bobby Bright, former U.S. Representative from Alabama (2009–2011)
2018 – Ken Luttrell, Oklahoma State Representative
2018 – Johnny Tadlock, Oklahoma State Representative
2019 – Nick Bain, Mississippi State Representative
2019 – Carroll Hubbard, former U.S. Representative from Kentucky (1975–1993)
2019 – Jeff Van Drew, U.S Representative from New Jersey (2019–present)
2019 – Wanda Vázquez Garced, Governor of Puerto Rico (2019–present) and former Secretary of Justice of Puerto Rico (2017–2019)
You could always try to point out several inconvenient facts during the timeline:
Lincoln was a Republican
First black senator was in 1870 - a Republican
The KKK in the early 1900's were all Democrats
The Civil Rights Act of 1964 was voted in favor by 80% of Republicans, but only 60% of Democrats
LBJ on creating the welfare state in the mid-60's: "I'll have those ni**ers voting Democrat for 200 years"
Republicans start winning the South in the 70's -- after racism had gone down from the Jim Crow era
Despite this, Bill Clinton (a Democrat) won using the "Southern Strategy"
The first black Democrat senator in US history was elected in 1993
The second black Democrat senator in US history was...Barrack Hussein Obama in 2005
Robert Byrd, former Grand Cyclops of the KKK and longest serving senator (Democrat) in US history dies in 2010 and has endless praise by Hillary Clinton and other Dems.
Ask them where in that timeline the parties "switched".
FDR, clearly a very liberal, and socialist President as far as his ideology goes. If the parties switched in 1964 over civil rights, then that would mean FDR would have an ideology of a modern Republican which is very clearly not the case.
Oh yeah, FDR's first supreme court appointment was Hugo Black, a KKK member.
The parties couldn't have switched (Republicans supposedly turned into racists and DemocRATS became black-loving civil rights advocates) in 1964 because, when the Civil Rights Act of 1964 came before the full Senate for debate on March 30, 1964 - despite LBJ's push for its passage (because he said he'd have those n***ers voting DemocRAT for 200 years) - the "Southern Bloc," led by Georgia DEMOCRAT Richard Russell and composed by EIGHTEEN DemocRAT Senators and only ONE Republican Senator, launched a 54-day FILIBUSTER to PREVENT its passage.
When the bill was voted on, in the Senate, Republicans voted in favor of the bill by a margin of 27–6 (82%), and DemocRATS by a margin of 46–21 (69%). In the House, Republicans voted in favor of the 1964 Civil Rights Act by a margin of 138–34 (80.2%), and DemocRATS by a margin of 152–96 (61.7%).
The DemocRATS had a large majority in both chambers of Congress, so in total numbers, of course, more Democrats voted in favor of the Civil Rights Act, but the number of DemocRATS who voted against the bill was also a lot higher then the number of Republicans who voted against it, and proportionally, Republicans voted in favor of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 at a much higher rate than the Democrats did, which proves that Republicans did not turn into racists in 1964 and neither did Democrats turn into black-loving civil rights advocates.
As the black vote started to become more and more important to win elections, Democrats had to adapt and had to start their pandering (while making sure that blacks remained dependent and stuck in their plantation), but they didn't change who they were. And Republicans, who fought for the end of slavery and had been fighting for civil rights for blacks since slavery was abolished, certainly didn't suddenly change into racists.
When Congress voted on the civil rights bills of 1965 and 1968, Republicans still voted to pass those bills at a significantly higher rate than Democrats did.
Yep, the 1875 Civil Rights Act, which affirmed “equality of all men before the law” and prohibited racial discrimination in public places and facilities, was also passed by Republicans only, but it was taken to court by DemocRATS and, somehow, the Supreme Court found the law to be "unconstitutional," so the law couldn't go into effect.
Before that, there was the Civil Rights Act of 1866. Despite DemocRAT objections and unanimous opposition to it, Republicans wrote and passed the first Civil Rights Act in 1866. The law conferred U.S. citizenship to all blacks, giving them “full and equal benefit of all laws and proceedings for the security of person and property as is enjoyed by white citizens.”
The Republican congress had to override the veto of the DemocRAT president at the time, Andrew Johnson, who had been Lincoln's VP and became president only because Lincoln was assassinated by a violent, Confederate/DemocRAT sympathizer (leftist violence never changes).
And Johnson was probably one of the worst people to take over. Lincoln wanted him as VP because he felt the South would look very favorably to Lincoln using one of their men in the VP position to help with Reconstruction. Instead, Johnson was destructive in the cause of creating a United states.
Johnson and Obama are actually somewhat very similar. They caused mass division and wanted the other party to pay, and both stoked the fires of racism. If Grant was VP and helped pursue Lincolns vision of Reconstruction, it is entirely possible that we could have a very united country....
I kid, I kid. The DemocRATs thrive on division and hate. No matter what, they would find a way. No doubt they would have still created the KKK.
I like you, leing15, you are a wealth of knowledge.
"the actual voting record for both Houses of Congress shows that the Civil Rights Act of 1964 passed the Senate on a 73-to-27 vote. The Democratic supermajority in the Senate split their vote 46 (69%) for and 21 (31%) against. The Republicans, on the other hand, split their vote 27 for (82%) and 6 against (18%). Thus, the no vote consisted of 78% Democrats. Further, the infamous 74-day filibuster was led by the Southern Democrats, who overwhelmingly voted against the act."
"An examination of the House vote shows a similar pattern. The House voted 290 to 130 in favor. Democrats split their vote 152 (61%) to 96 (39%) while Republicans split theirs 138 (80%) to 34 (20%). The no vote consisted of 74% Democrats. Clearly, the 1964 Civil Rights Act could not have been passed without the leadership of Republicans such as Everett Dirksen and the votes of Republicans."
Wait a second.....there was a twelve year gap from the first and second black democratic senator? What happened to all their talk about having the government look like America? That lack of diversity deeply offends me. We need a revolution! I'm going to sit at home and complain about it on twitter!
The party switch narrative is one completely diverged from reality. Not a single member of the Democrat party who filibustered the Civil Rights Act of 1964 were expelled, most continued to serve for decades. I believe only one switched parties, Strom Thurmond. As well the Jim Crow states continued to send Democrats to DC to represent them, and their state governments remained Democrat. It wasn't until long after the Civil Rights Act of 1964 that people started to switch to the GOP in those areas, because the message of liberty is powerful in the end. It just took a long time to break through the Democrats centuries long hold on those areas. It's the same story today except it isn't the rural south but urban centers like Seattle, LA, and NY; everything they touch turns to shit.
You hit the nail on the head. Reagan, in my opinion, would have endorsed and voted for Trump, but they keep saying Trump wouldn't fit in with the GOP of Ronald Reagan. Just a eight years earlier, they said Obama was just like Ronald Reagan. Yet, Obama wouldn't fit in with the Dem party of JFK because JFK was pro-2A , opposed communism and was against the Civil Rights Act and had MLK Jr. spied on.
You are the only person I have met in the wild that I have seen say this.
Someone called out that the parties switched and provided “proof” on Reddit once, and it looked to be true, so I read into it. And kept digging into it more and more.
Long story short, yes, the parties switched, but it’s not that easy. You could write a whole history book on it. Both platforms constantly had ideas that differed and even there are ideas that one party was against that they were later pushing. Read up on all former presidents. Herbert Hoover is a good start, go back and forth from there.
Plus they say republicans were the confederacy. Look up the 1860 election. The confederacy voted for neither republicans nor democrats. Also look up elections and what state was what color. There is no consistent correlation between party and region.
Sure, the parties switched, but the “switch” was over so long and back and forth so many times, that it doesn’t even mean anything at this point.
The parties did not switch. Its absurd to say the overnight two distinct groups of people took completely opposing views because 3 people switched parties.
Ya like it’s musical chairs or something. Whoever believes that nonsense narrative must just enjoy having their intelligence insulted. I question how anyone that actually thinks it’s true can function in life.
And just like that, all of the super Racist slave owning, KKK forming, Jim Crow Law passing, segregationist Democrats all just decided they loved black people and switched to the Republican Party, while all of the Republicans that freed the slaves, made blacks American Citizens with full rights, fought against all of the Dems Racist policies just woke up one day and said Fuck Niggers! Get a Rope!
God works in mysterious ways pede. You will be surprised how quickly their survalence state would fall apart if they implanted socialism all over.
No one willing to work means no one is fixing the infrastructure which means it's not maintained and will at some point fail. When they go to fix it, everyone they can find to do the job will do it shoddy.
Dont be fooled. I actually do believe that we win in the end. Their ideas dont make enough sense to maintain control without everything disintegrating over the years. Take a look at parts of Russia for good examples. Socialism is feed off its host until the host dies. The host his capitalism. Once capitalism is dead, socialism dies because everyone is dead from starvation 😂 they cant have a long term Orwellian surveillance state and have socialism at the same time. You shouldnt have either of both imo
Oh good, millions of us just get to starve to death before the braindeads realize they were wrong.
I have no intent of being dragged into a socialist technocracy. Bullets will fly. This planet isn't worth staying on under the rule of globohomo.
We're all being such cucks right now. If the founders were brought back today, they'd be so disappointed that not a single patriot has stacked not one single body. They went to war over voting rights and taxes. We are fucked on both and just bitch about it.
Agree pede. Idk though about the founding fathers part. I bet they're up there looking at us smiling at all the people who got their message even 244 years later. I bet life back when they walked earth felt awful similar to how it does now. I dont think they would be disappointed. I think if they were alive today they would say the way things are going is kind of expected. If you read the consitution its clear as day 244 years ago they were worried about the exact same things we are today darn near literally. Minus the mental illness. Then again, they abolished slavery so I bet the founding fathers new all about mental illness.
I think our founding fathers are proud of us. They got their maga hats on. They had their maga hats on since 1776
Socialists are mentally handicapped libkids with happy meal degrees who do not possess the ability to reason.
In place of normal, rational thoughts, John Lennon’s Imagine plays on repeat, filling their hollow skull with childlike fantasies of a reality that factually can’t exist without immense suffering. But this doesn’t matter to these morally superior creatures, because they are supreme good and everyone else is a movie villain hellbent on tying women to train tracks and holding minorities down. This kind of juvenile fantasizing is a result of being told by their parents that they could do no wrong and that even though they cannot hit the baseball beyond the pitcher’s mound, that they still deserve a home run. This permanate, flawed perception is learned at a young age and actively destroys everything that is good about human achievement and societal morals. Socialism/Communism is a malignant cancer upon society.
Yeah it started a long time ago, things like Credit, credit cards, lines of credit.. debit/interac cards..
FinTech has been moving at lightning speed for a while - in Canada we're about 3yrs ahead of the USA (because our pop is 10%, so it's a better test market)
All steps towards a socialist cashless credit-score caste society.
I burned my credit score down to zero when I was 18-20, I take responsibility but will still acknowledge it's a system designed to bankrupt and the educational system (and often parents) are negligent in preparing kids to deal with credit. I had to go 10 years without a credit card (e.g. Cashing my paycheck), I've used my debit more heavily at times than others but always prefer to have the bulk of my money out of the bank and in my hands.
It's disgusting that businesses are using Covid-19 as an excuse to not accept Cash, in some places. If I can, I'll avoid patronizing those places. I've already refused to go into one store and told the manager I'd be back for their 'Going out of Business Sale'.
Beijing Investors own majority of the FinTech companies. They own the commercial credit analysis for short term loans with consumer product management systems. Beijing has been using US companies and American innovation to create unique offerings that take steps toward the social credit scoring. Most small to regional banks do not even realize it. Larger banks typically have custom systems and compete heavily with regional banks. The software products drive a lot of behavior with A.I. Social Media data sharing has accelerated everything.
Not to mention the tentacles they have into those points cards and Branded loyalty credit cards.. (Like HBC 500$ credit cards that only work at their stores)..
+++ insurance companies and the scam that it all is..
For instance if you get a store credit card, the store has insurance in the case you don't pay it off. It's assumed that when you've maxed it out you're going to default on it at some point. That 'debt' under your name is sold on the market to some collections agency for - let's say - 50 cents on the dollar that you owe.
The Store has been reimbursed for the 500$ already (insurance), plus the profit from selling the debt they managed to get on the books for you. So let's say 750$.
The Collection agency will try to get every dollar of the 500$ back from you to make the most profit on the debt they bought. They can offer you down to what they paid for your debt, or sell the debt off to another agency. The bigger the debt, the higher the stakes obviously. No legs get broken over anything under a Million unless you're dealing with loan sharks.
On that note; did you know it's Legal to lend money up to a rate of like 28.9% interest before it's considered loan sharking - and illegal. At least where I am it's that way..
First thing to do under those circumstances is for everyone to destroy every camera they see. It would not take long for their eyes to be taken away. Smart people would stop carrying a cell phone.
You cannot as such take for granted that the eventual state will be one that the human species and civilization will be able to recover from, even given hundreds of thousands of years or much more time than that. If you for instance end up in a set of systems where "positive" change is not possible or never survives for long, always reverts to the previous state, no matter how much time passes, then stagnation (possibly at a very low developmental state) might become indefinite.
Another issue is that geography in the past helped isolate different ways, cultures, systems, peoples in various voids, and that meant that extremely toxic, evil and all-destroying sets of systems would be much more likely destroy or stagnate by themselves than potentially spread to other sets of systems elsewhere. But at this point in time, there are no more voids, and geography is much, much, much less of a hindrance or barrier. Airplanes, ships, cars, trains, maps of the world, etc., all mean that the barriers are lessened extremely much. And, if one extremely toxic, evil and all-destroying set of systems spread everywhere (and was extremely good at spreading and also destroying any other sets of systems that might come into being or changes to the all-destroying set of systems), there might well be no more voids for possibly new sets of systems to come into existence to. One can hope that things turn out a certain way, or that it turns out that recovery is certain/likely, but one cannot take that for granted.
If civilization and the human species had spread to multiple different planets and multiple different solar systems, and each planet was very isolated from the other, then it seems like there would be much less risk, because if one or more place(s) fall(s), other places can survive. But, with the current planet, it seems like it is becoming a single place. This might well be another reason why colonizing space might well be extremely and incredibly important for the survival and success of the human species (apart from other reasons why colonizing space is incredibly important for the survival of the human species and civilization). And then consider images such as this: https://i.maga.host/OsOlodK.png .
I wont beleive it till the tide HAS turned. sorry I just dont believe "happenings" anymore. they make you feel good and hopeful for like a day then you find out it's not what you thought or they yank it away.
we have far too many "progressives" in NJ and it's getting worse.
Besides, it's a primary win, which just means he won his own party's nomination. He hasnt won the seat yet
Thanks for posting the source but that page hasn't been updated since December 12, 2019. Van Drew only switched his affiliation in that same month, December of 2019. Also, instead of looking at the overall percentage, I looked at the specific votes on which he disagreed with Trump. He suppported Trump during the impeachment.
Going to be tough going against a Kennedy. Once the ill informed voter (most of the population) hears that name they think of them as heros. Not the history of their drunken driving, rapes, money laundering and all sorts of other scandals.
Pedes, please make sure to donate to Jeff Van Drew's campaign! I did it the moment he switched to R. He needs to be rewarded by us for good behavior and to help encourage others to do the same.
When the left tries to pull the party switch narrative about them starting the KKK and opposing the civil rights act, remind them that more Dems have switched to Republicans since 2016 than they claim in the 1970s. So that must mean the parties switched back again.
2016 – Karen MacBeth, Rhode Island State Representative
2016 – Yancey McGill, Lieutenant Governor of South Carolina (2014–2015)
2016 – David Hillman, Arkansas State Representative
2016 – Jeff Wardlaw, Arkansas State Representative
2016 – Joe Jett, Arkansas State Representative
2016 – Wilbur Ross, later United States Secretary of Commerce (2017–present)
2017 – Michelle Rehwinkel Vasilinda, former Florida State Representative
2017 – Mariellen MacKay, New Hampshire State Representative
2017 – William Brisson, North Carolina Assemblyman
2017 – Rupert Phillips, West Virginia State Delegate
2018 – Mike Oliverio, former West Virginia State Senator
2018 – Bobby Bright, former U.S. Representative from Alabama (2009–2011)
2018 – Ken Luttrell, Oklahoma State Representative
2018 – Johnny Tadlock, Oklahoma State Representative
2019 – Nick Bain, Mississippi State Representative
2019 – Carroll Hubbard, former U.S. Representative from Kentucky (1975–1993)
2019 – Jeff Van Drew, U.S Representative from New Jersey (2019–present)
2019 – Wanda Vázquez Garced, Governor of Puerto Rico (2019–present) and former Secretary of Justice of Puerto Rico (2017–2019)
You could always try to point out several inconvenient facts during the timeline:
Ask them where in that timeline the parties "switched".
FDR, clearly a very liberal, and socialist President as far as his ideology goes. If the parties switched in 1964 over civil rights, then that would mean FDR would have an ideology of a modern Republican which is very clearly not the case.
Oh yeah, FDR's first supreme court appointment was Hugo Black, a KKK member.
Snort
The parties couldn't have switched (Republicans supposedly turned into racists and DemocRATS became black-loving civil rights advocates) in 1964 because, when the Civil Rights Act of 1964 came before the full Senate for debate on March 30, 1964 - despite LBJ's push for its passage (because he said he'd have those n***ers voting DemocRAT for 200 years) - the "Southern Bloc," led by Georgia DEMOCRAT Richard Russell and composed by EIGHTEEN DemocRAT Senators and only ONE Republican Senator, launched a 54-day FILIBUSTER to PREVENT its passage.
When the bill was voted on, in the Senate, Republicans voted in favor of the bill by a margin of 27–6 (82%), and DemocRATS by a margin of 46–21 (69%). In the House, Republicans voted in favor of the 1964 Civil Rights Act by a margin of 138–34 (80.2%), and DemocRATS by a margin of 152–96 (61.7%).
The DemocRATS had a large majority in both chambers of Congress, so in total numbers, of course, more Democrats voted in favor of the Civil Rights Act, but the number of DemocRATS who voted against the bill was also a lot higher then the number of Republicans who voted against it, and proportionally, Republicans voted in favor of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 at a much higher rate than the Democrats did, which proves that Republicans did not turn into racists in 1964 and neither did Democrats turn into black-loving civil rights advocates.
As the black vote started to become more and more important to win elections, Democrats had to adapt and had to start their pandering (while making sure that blacks remained dependent and stuck in their plantation), but they didn't change who they were. And Republicans, who fought for the end of slavery and had been fighting for civil rights for blacks since slavery was abolished, certainly didn't suddenly change into racists.
When Congress voted on the civil rights bills of 1965 and 1968, Republicans still voted to pass those bills at a significantly higher rate than Democrats did.
And it was Eisenhower who passed the first civil rights legislation (civil rights act of 1957) since the civil rights act of 1875.
It has always been Republicans blazing the trails for everybody.
Yep, the 1875 Civil Rights Act, which affirmed “equality of all men before the law” and prohibited racial discrimination in public places and facilities, was also passed by Republicans only, but it was taken to court by DemocRATS and, somehow, the Supreme Court found the law to be "unconstitutional," so the law couldn't go into effect.
Before that, there was the Civil Rights Act of 1866. Despite DemocRAT objections and unanimous opposition to it, Republicans wrote and passed the first Civil Rights Act in 1866. The law conferred U.S. citizenship to all blacks, giving them “full and equal benefit of all laws and proceedings for the security of person and property as is enjoyed by white citizens.” The Republican congress had to override the veto of the DemocRAT president at the time, Andrew Johnson, who had been Lincoln's VP and became president only because Lincoln was assassinated by a violent, Confederate/DemocRAT sympathizer (leftist violence never changes).
And Johnson was probably one of the worst people to take over. Lincoln wanted him as VP because he felt the South would look very favorably to Lincoln using one of their men in the VP position to help with Reconstruction. Instead, Johnson was destructive in the cause of creating a United states.
Johnson and Obama are actually somewhat very similar. They caused mass division and wanted the other party to pay, and both stoked the fires of racism. If Grant was VP and helped pursue Lincolns vision of Reconstruction, it is entirely possible that we could have a very united country....
I kid, I kid. The DemocRATs thrive on division and hate. No matter what, they would find a way. No doubt they would have still created the KKK.
I like you, leing15, you are a wealth of knowledge.
"the actual voting record for both Houses of Congress shows that the Civil Rights Act of 1964 passed the Senate on a 73-to-27 vote. The Democratic supermajority in the Senate split their vote 46 (69%) for and 21 (31%) against. The Republicans, on the other hand, split their vote 27 for (82%) and 6 against (18%). Thus, the no vote consisted of 78% Democrats. Further, the infamous 74-day filibuster was led by the Southern Democrats, who overwhelmingly voted against the act."
"An examination of the House vote shows a similar pattern. The House voted 290 to 130 in favor. Democrats split their vote 152 (61%) to 96 (39%) while Republicans split theirs 138 (80%) to 34 (20%). The no vote consisted of 74% Democrats. Clearly, the 1964 Civil Rights Act could not have been passed without the leadership of Republicans such as Everett Dirksen and the votes of Republicans."
They can never tell you when the party switched.. not once not never.
Awsum recap !!!! Thanks alot for posting !!!!!
Wait a second.....there was a twelve year gap from the first and second black democratic senator? What happened to all their talk about having the government look like America? That lack of diversity deeply offends me. We need a revolution! I'm going to sit at home and complain about it on twitter!
There’s only two black Democrats in the Senate today! Black people make up 25% of the dem vote (2016), but only 4.4% of dem senators are black.
The party switch narrative is one completely diverged from reality. Not a single member of the Democrat party who filibustered the Civil Rights Act of 1964 were expelled, most continued to serve for decades. I believe only one switched parties, Strom Thurmond. As well the Jim Crow states continued to send Democrats to DC to represent them, and their state governments remained Democrat. It wasn't until long after the Civil Rights Act of 1964 that people started to switch to the GOP in those areas, because the message of liberty is powerful in the end. It just took a long time to break through the Democrats centuries long hold on those areas. It's the same story today except it isn't the rural south but urban centers like Seattle, LA, and NY; everything they touch turns to shit.
Nice post, muh Switch
dont give them any ideas - CNN will report this as a fact in a few years!
You hit the nail on the head. Reagan, in my opinion, would have endorsed and voted for Trump, but they keep saying Trump wouldn't fit in with the GOP of Ronald Reagan. Just a eight years earlier, they said Obama was just like Ronald Reagan. Yet, Obama wouldn't fit in with the Dem party of JFK because JFK was pro-2A , opposed communism and was against the Civil Rights Act and had MLK Jr. spied on.
You are the only person I have met in the wild that I have seen say this.
Someone called out that the parties switched and provided “proof” on Reddit once, and it looked to be true, so I read into it. And kept digging into it more and more.
Long story short, yes, the parties switched, but it’s not that easy. You could write a whole history book on it. Both platforms constantly had ideas that differed and even there are ideas that one party was against that they were later pushing. Read up on all former presidents. Herbert Hoover is a good start, go back and forth from there.
Plus they say republicans were the confederacy. Look up the 1860 election. The confederacy voted for neither republicans nor democrats. Also look up elections and what state was what color. There is no consistent correlation between party and region.
Sure, the parties switched, but the “switch” was over so long and back and forth so many times, that it doesn’t even mean anything at this point.
Don’t follow the party, follow the platform.
The parties did not switch. Its absurd to say the overnight two distinct groups of people took completely opposing views because 3 people switched parties.
I was being facetious.
Ya like it’s musical chairs or something. Whoever believes that nonsense narrative must just enjoy having their intelligence insulted. I question how anyone that actually thinks it’s true can function in life.
And just like that, all of the super Racist slave owning, KKK forming, Jim Crow Law passing, segregationist Democrats all just decided they loved black people and switched to the Republican Party, while all of the Republicans that freed the slaves, made blacks American Citizens with full rights, fought against all of the Dems Racist policies just woke up one day and said Fuck Niggers! Get a Rope!
The shit is ridiculous on its face lmao.
“Sure, we’ll switch and take on your 150 year history or supporting racism and creating the KKK” 🤣🤣
Better not let the Kancel Kulture Karens find that post, your life will be ruined for a word so bad, that the targets of said word use it constantly.
That says a lot about black people, who vote 95% Democrat.
You can enslave them and treat them like shit for decades, but the moment you give them free money they become your most reliable voter block.
😂😂😂😂
The parties did switch when they became the Uniparty, that was a switch.
God works in mysterious ways pede. You will be surprised how quickly their survalence state would fall apart if they implanted socialism all over.
No one willing to work means no one is fixing the infrastructure which means it's not maintained and will at some point fail. When they go to fix it, everyone they can find to do the job will do it shoddy.
Dont be fooled. I actually do believe that we win in the end. Their ideas dont make enough sense to maintain control without everything disintegrating over the years. Take a look at parts of Russia for good examples. Socialism is feed off its host until the host dies. The host his capitalism. Once capitalism is dead, socialism dies because everyone is dead from starvation 😂 they cant have a long term Orwellian surveillance state and have socialism at the same time. You shouldnt have either of both imo
Oh good, millions of us just get to starve to death before the braindeads realize they were wrong.
I have no intent of being dragged into a socialist technocracy. Bullets will fly. This planet isn't worth staying on under the rule of globohomo.
We're all being such cucks right now. If the founders were brought back today, they'd be so disappointed that not a single patriot has stacked not one single body. They went to war over voting rights and taxes. We are fucked on both and just bitch about it.
Agree pede. Idk though about the founding fathers part. I bet they're up there looking at us smiling at all the people who got their message even 244 years later. I bet life back when they walked earth felt awful similar to how it does now. I dont think they would be disappointed. I think if they were alive today they would say the way things are going is kind of expected. If you read the consitution its clear as day 244 years ago they were worried about the exact same things we are today darn near literally. Minus the mental illness. Then again, they abolished slavery so I bet the founding fathers new all about mental illness.
I think our founding fathers are proud of us. They got their maga hats on. They had their maga hats on since 1776
Socialists are mentally handicapped libkids with happy meal degrees who do not possess the ability to reason. In place of normal, rational thoughts, John Lennon’s Imagine plays on repeat, filling their hollow skull with childlike fantasies of a reality that factually can’t exist without immense suffering. But this doesn’t matter to these morally superior creatures, because they are supreme good and everyone else is a movie villain hellbent on tying women to train tracks and holding minorities down. This kind of juvenile fantasizing is a result of being told by their parents that they could do no wrong and that even though they cannot hit the baseball beyond the pitcher’s mound, that they still deserve a home run. This permanate, flawed perception is learned at a young age and actively destroys everything that is good about human achievement and societal morals. Socialism/Communism is a malignant cancer upon society.
They've never in history been able to implement socialism with the technocracy combined with a cashless society..
Covid has exascerbated both..
"But that wasnt real socialism!"
Their glue is a social credit score. It's a re-imagined socialism that has no way of lasting 10 years without invading other countries.
Yeah it started a long time ago, things like Credit, credit cards, lines of credit.. debit/interac cards..
FinTech has been moving at lightning speed for a while - in Canada we're about 3yrs ahead of the USA (because our pop is 10%, so it's a better test market)
All steps towards a socialist cashless credit-score caste society.
I burned my credit score down to zero when I was 18-20, I take responsibility but will still acknowledge it's a system designed to bankrupt and the educational system (and often parents) are negligent in preparing kids to deal with credit. I had to go 10 years without a credit card (e.g. Cashing my paycheck), I've used my debit more heavily at times than others but always prefer to have the bulk of my money out of the bank and in my hands.
It's disgusting that businesses are using Covid-19 as an excuse to not accept Cash, in some places. If I can, I'll avoid patronizing those places. I've already refused to go into one store and told the manager I'd be back for their 'Going out of Business Sale'.
Beijing Investors own majority of the FinTech companies. They own the commercial credit analysis for short term loans with consumer product management systems. Beijing has been using US companies and American innovation to create unique offerings that take steps toward the social credit scoring. Most small to regional banks do not even realize it. Larger banks typically have custom systems and compete heavily with regional banks. The software products drive a lot of behavior with A.I. Social Media data sharing has accelerated everything.
Not to mention the tentacles they have into those points cards and Branded loyalty credit cards.. (Like HBC 500$ credit cards that only work at their stores)..
+++ insurance companies and the scam that it all is..
For instance if you get a store credit card, the store has insurance in the case you don't pay it off. It's assumed that when you've maxed it out you're going to default on it at some point. That 'debt' under your name is sold on the market to some collections agency for - let's say - 50 cents on the dollar that you owe.
The Store has been reimbursed for the 500$ already (insurance), plus the profit from selling the debt they managed to get on the books for you. So let's say 750$.
The Collection agency will try to get every dollar of the 500$ back from you to make the most profit on the debt they bought. They can offer you down to what they paid for your debt, or sell the debt off to another agency. The bigger the debt, the higher the stakes obviously. No legs get broken over anything under a Million unless you're dealing with loan sharks.
On that note; did you know it's Legal to lend money up to a rate of like 28.9% interest before it's considered loan sharking - and illegal. At least where I am it's that way..
PAYDAY LOANS HAS ENTERED THE CHAT
I'm glad there are still some voices on here not giving into the "We're all dead!" panic mindset.
Infiltration and grooming on our side. Just like they did to us.
We are actual over due for some massive solar flares that could have dire consequences.
First thing to do under those circumstances is for everyone to destroy every camera they see. It would not take long for their eyes to be taken away. Smart people would stop carrying a cell phone.
Where do they mount them? Should make them easier to spot
Will have to fight.
More like 1000 years
You cannot as such take for granted that the eventual state will be one that the human species and civilization will be able to recover from, even given hundreds of thousands of years or much more time than that. If you for instance end up in a set of systems where "positive" change is not possible or never survives for long, always reverts to the previous state, no matter how much time passes, then stagnation (possibly at a very low developmental state) might become indefinite.
Another issue is that geography in the past helped isolate different ways, cultures, systems, peoples in various voids, and that meant that extremely toxic, evil and all-destroying sets of systems would be much more likely destroy or stagnate by themselves than potentially spread to other sets of systems elsewhere. But at this point in time, there are no more voids, and geography is much, much, much less of a hindrance or barrier. Airplanes, ships, cars, trains, maps of the world, etc., all mean that the barriers are lessened extremely much. And, if one extremely toxic, evil and all-destroying set of systems spread everywhere (and was extremely good at spreading and also destroying any other sets of systems that might come into being or changes to the all-destroying set of systems), there might well be no more voids for possibly new sets of systems to come into existence to. One can hope that things turn out a certain way, or that it turns out that recovery is certain/likely, but one cannot take that for granted.
If civilization and the human species had spread to multiple different planets and multiple different solar systems, and each planet was very isolated from the other, then it seems like there would be much less risk, because if one or more place(s) fall(s), other places can survive. But, with the current planet, it seems like it is becoming a single place. This might well be another reason why colonizing space might well be extremely and incredibly important for the survival and success of the human species (apart from other reasons why colonizing space is incredibly important for the survival of the human species and civilization). And then consider images such as this: https://i.maga.host/OsOlodK.png .
BuT mUh BlUe WaVe!!
I wont beleive it till the tide HAS turned. sorry I just dont believe "happenings" anymore. they make you feel good and hopeful for like a day then you find out it's not what you thought or they yank it away.
we have far too many "progressives" in NJ and it's getting worse.
Besides, it's a primary win, which just means he won his own party's nomination. He hasnt won the seat yet
and they mentioned mail in ballots. the democrats are going to cheat. Voter ID not being law is crazy.
Agreed, sometimes I think this place should be renamed ItsHappening.win
The tide is turning because a RINO won the GOP nomination?!?!?
Nice try.
Jeff Van Drew has voted with Trump just 11.7% of the time (source)
Over the past two years, Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez has voted with Trump more often than Van Drew (12.5%) (source)
Thanks for posting the source but that page hasn't been updated since December 12, 2019. Van Drew only switched his affiliation in that same month, December of 2019. Also, instead of looking at the overall percentage, I looked at the specific votes on which he disagreed with Trump. He suppported Trump during the impeachment.
Rep. Van Drew has voted against a majority of House Republicans 34 times (25.4%) in the 116th Congress (2019-20). He ranks 1st among all representatives in voting against his party. The average House Republican votes against his or her party 8.6% of the time.
No good. He better tighten the fuck up
RUNFORYOURLIFEAWAY
yeah I trust absolutely none of these "walk away" types, infiltration is a strategy in war
Going to be tough going against a Kennedy. Once the ill informed voter (most of the population) hears that name they think of them as heros. Not the history of their drunken driving, rapes, money laundering and all sorts of other scandals.
you think liberals remember that? Kid was droolin like his Auntie Rosemary after having her brain scooped out
Outside of Trump and a few others, neither party really has a platform anymore besides "We're not the straw man we pretend the other guy is."
It's really sickening. I worry about what's going to happen in 2024.
Yeah but what about the turned... have they tables?
What's the projected impact?
Proof of concept - that when you have had enough of the insanity on the Left, there is a place for you to go.
I mean in the race - what's the momentum? I'm foggy on the details.
And then he turns in to a RINO?
I guess a RINO is better then a Dem, but even so, this is not our guy.
Maybe there's hope for ny and california after all.
Hopefully he can hold on and win the general election in November.
Votes compared to 2018 for the NJ 2nd District Primary
2018 - Democrats total votes 29,658 2018-Republican Total votes 26,159 2020 - Democrats total votes 31,339 2020-Republican Total Votes 27,298
Pretty much the same margins, just more votes from each party, in this one particular race.
Pedes, please make sure to donate to Jeff Van Drew's campaign! I did it the moment he switched to R. He needs to be rewarded by us for good behavior and to help encourage others to do the same.
Uniter.
That dude who won is a worthless liberal. If we have to become liberals to win then what's the point?
Happening: it's