https://ivn.us/2017/05/02/courts-can...ampaign=buffer

This is a good reason why Hillary lost. OK, so maybe Putin played a role, maybe sexism played a role, but *your* party says they don't need to follow their own rules?! and *your* candidates are out trying to sell their "I'm part of the resistance crap...?"

Also, Isn't it a bit ridiculous that the DNC swayed the primary process in Hillary's favor and they are saying it is ok and they will do it again? This just shows politics is crooked and both sides are not doing what the will of the voters are expecting. Seems like, big money lobbyists and backroom deals are who and where the candidates are actually chosen...

On Thursday, May 4, 2017 at 7:20:26 AM UTC-4, Tim wrote:
https://ivn.us/2017/05/02/courts-can...ampaign=buffer

This is a good reason why Hillary lost. OK, so maybe Putin played a role, maybe sexism played a role, but *your* party says they don't need to follow their own rules?! and *your* candidates are out trying to sell their "I'm part of the resistance crap...?"

Also, Isn't it a bit ridiculous that the DNC swayed the primary process in Hillary's favor and they are saying it is ok and they will do it again? This just shows politics is crooked and both sides are not doing what the will of the voters are expecting. Seems like, big money lobbyists and backroom deals are who and where the candidates are actually chosen...

"The last time the court rejected the “private party rights� argument was in 1944 when, despite the Democratic Party’s objections, the court held that the party had to let African-Americans participate in “their� primary. "

Dirty scoundrels back then, and nothing has changed.

On Thu, 4 May 2017 05:11:25 -0700 (PDT), Its Me
wrote:

"The last time the court rejected the “private party rights� argument was in 1944 when, despite the Democratic Party’s objections, the court held that the party had to let African-Americans participate in “their� primary. "

Dirty scoundrels back then, and nothing has changed.

1944 was a low point for "democracy" in the democrat party. The
apparatchiks in the party rammed Truman through in spite of the fact
that Wallace (the incumbent) was the popular choice for VP and
ultimately the president. There will always be speculation that if we
had simply presented the terms the Japanese signed in Tokyo Bay in the
spring of 45 they would have signed then. We were still insisting on
them losing the emperor before the bomb.

On 5/4/2017 12:46 PM, wrote:
On Thu, 4 May 2017 05:11:25 -0700 (PDT), Its Me
wrote:

"The last time the court rejected the “private party rights� argument was in 1944 when, despite the Democratic Party’s objections, the court held that the party had to let African-Americans participate in “their� primary. "

Dirty scoundrels back then, and nothing has changed.

1944 was a low point for "democracy" in the democrat party. The
apparatchiks in the party rammed Truman through in spite of the fact
that Wallace (the incumbent) was the popular choice for VP and
ultimately the president. There will always be speculation that if we
had simply presented the terms the Japanese signed in Tokyo Bay in the
spring of 45 they would have signed then. We were still insisting on
them losing the emperor before the bomb.



The reason FDR dumped Wallace for Truman for his forth term was because
Wallace was a known Communist sympathizer, dating back to pre-war years.
The new reputation that communism took on during WWII (because of
Stalin) made Wallace a potential liability.

On 5/4/2017 12:46 PM, wrote:
On Thu, 4 May 2017 05:11:25 -0700 (PDT), Its Me
wrote:

"The last time the court rejected the “private party rights� argument was in 1944 when, despite the Democratic Party’s objections, the court held that the party had to let African-Americans participate in “their� primary. "

Dirty scoundrels back then, and nothing has changed.

1944 was a low point for "democracy" in the democrat party. The
apparatchiks in the party rammed Truman through in spite of the fact
that Wallace (the incumbent) was the popular choice for VP and
ultimately the president. There will always be speculation that if we
had simply presented the terms the Japanese signed in Tokyo Bay in the
spring of 45 they would have signed then. We were still insisting on
them losing the emperor before the bomb.



It was more than just the Japanese Emperor. The Japanese actually
accepted the terms of surrender but added an addendum that protected the
Japanese military types (including Tojo) *and* the Emperor from being
tried for war crimes. That was unacceptable to Truman.

Even after the second bomb was dropped (August 9th, 1945) it took
another 6 days (August 15th) for the Emperor and his military to finally
accept an unconditional surrender.

On Thu, 4 May 2017 13:01:48 -0400, "Mr. Luddite"
wrote:

On 5/4/2017 12:46 PM, wrote:
On Thu, 4 May 2017 05:11:25 -0700 (PDT), Its Me
wrote:

"The last time the court rejected the “private party rights� argument was in 1944 when, despite the Democratic Party’s objections, the court held that the party had to let African-Americans participate in “their� primary. "

Dirty scoundrels back then, and nothing has changed.

1944 was a low point for "democracy" in the democrat party. The
apparatchiks in the party rammed Truman through in spite of the fact
that Wallace (the incumbent) was the popular choice for VP and
ultimately the president. There will always be speculation that if we
had simply presented the terms the Japanese signed in Tokyo Bay in the
spring of 45 they would have signed then. We were still insisting on
them losing the emperor before the bomb.



It was more than just the Japanese Emperor. The Japanese actually
accepted the terms of surrender but added an addendum that protected the
Japanese military types (including Tojo) *and* the Emperor from being
tried for war crimes. That was unacceptable to Truman.

Even after the second bomb was dropped (August 9th, 1945) it took
another 6 days (August 15th) for the Emperor and his military to finally
accept an unconditional surrender.

.... and that debate rages on 70 years later ;-)

I also understand "soft on communism" was the battle cry for a half
century but it brought us 50 years of cold war, 2 major wars and a
number of other little wars. It bankrupted the Soviets and drove our
debt until the bailouts finally surpassed it. That is the main reason
fir the growth of the military industrial complex and why we are
creeping up on a trillion dollar DoD budget.
I know there are people who think history was the only way it could
ever be but being a real free thinker with intellectual curiosity I
have to ask if things could have gone better with wiser decisions at
the top.

On 5/4/2017 1:27 PM, wrote:
On Thu, 4 May 2017 13:01:48 -0400, "Mr. Luddite"
wrote:

On 5/4/2017 12:46 PM, wrote:
On Thu, 4 May 2017 05:11:25 -0700 (PDT), Its Me
wrote:

"The last time the court rejected the “private party rights� argument was in 1944 when, despite the Democratic Party’s objections, the court held that the party had to let African-Americans participate in “their� primary. "

Dirty scoundrels back then, and nothing has changed.

1944 was a low point for "democracy" in the democrat party. The
apparatchiks in the party rammed Truman through in spite of the fact
that Wallace (the incumbent) was the popular choice for VP and
ultimately the president. There will always be speculation that if we
had simply presented the terms the Japanese signed in Tokyo Bay in the
spring of 45 they would have signed then. We were still insisting on
them losing the emperor before the bomb.



It was more than just the Japanese Emperor. The Japanese actually
accepted the terms of surrender but added an addendum that protected the
Japanese military types (including Tojo) *and* the Emperor from being
tried for war crimes. That was unacceptable to Truman.

Even after the second bomb was dropped (August 9th, 1945) it took
another 6 days (August 15th) for the Emperor and his military to finally
accept an unconditional surrender.

... and that debate rages on 70 years later ;-)

I also understand "soft on communism" was the battle cry for a half
century but it brought us 50 years of cold war, 2 major wars and a
number of other little wars. It bankrupted the Soviets and drove our
debt until the bailouts finally surpassed it. That is the main reason
fir the growth of the military industrial complex and why we are
creeping up on a trillion dollar DoD budget.
I know there are people who think history was the only way it could
ever be but being a real free thinker with intellectual curiosity I
have to ask if things could have gone better with wiser decisions at
the top.



The nature of communism changed almost immediately after WWII. It was no
longer a bastion of hope for the poor and disadvantaged.
Stalin demonstrated his desire for global domination, a fact that
Churchill, Truman and others were keenly aware of. The Soviet Union
successfully tested their A-bomb in 1949, mainly thanks to the
spies they had working at Los Alamos. I can't see that there was any
way to avoid the "cold war" and it's resulting arms race.

7:11 AMIts Me
- show quoted text -
"The last time the court rejected the “private party rights� argument was in 1944 when, despite the Democratic Party’s objections, the court held that the party had to let African-Americans participate in “their� primary. "

Dirty scoundrels back then, and nothing has changed.
......

Uh-huh. And conservatives are called "racists".

Yeah buddy!

On 5/4/17 2:14 PM, Tim wrote:
7:11 AMIts Me
- show quoted text -
"The last time the court rejected the “private party rights� argument was in 1944 when, despite the Democratic Party’s objections, the court held that the party had to let African-Americans participate in “their� primary. "

Dirty scoundrels back then, and nothing has changed.
.....

Uh-huh. And conservatives are called "racists".

Yeah buddy!



I know you were out shooting squirrels and such when it happened, Timmy,
but in the mid-1960s, the Democratic Party (the liberals) kicked out the
southern racists and that's when those folks began their takeover of the
GOP, a movement that was enabled by Richard Nixon's "southern strategy."

1:18 PMKeyser Soze
- show quoted text -
I know you were out shooting squirrels and such when it happened, Timmy,
but in the mid-1960s, the Democratic Party (the liberals) kicked out the
southern racists and that's when those folks began their takeover of the
GOP, a movement that was enabled by Richard Nixon's "southern strategy."
....

So they kicked out the George Wallace liberal democrats and brought new the LB "N bill 1957" J, and the "when I appoint a N to the SPCUS, I want everybody to know he's a N". That LBJ?

You mean "those " southern racists?

Here Harry, you "care for some gopher?"