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.