Questioning witnesses in the first impeachment hearing staged by House Republicans, Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez prompted each to say they were not presenting “firsthand witness accounts” of crimes committed by Joe Biden.
The New York Democrat also accused Republicans of fabricating supposed evidence of corruption involving the president and his surviving son, Hunter Biden.
Republicans on the House oversight committee called three witnesses, Democrats one.
Nah. Lincoln was the republican president 169 years ago. Also Teddy Roosevelt was pretty cool. Trust busting and all.
There are exceptions but for most of that time it’s been the party of hateful douchebags.
For almost a century of the 169 years posted, Republicans were the more progressive of the two parties.
The parties did not align as-is until the Civil Rights Act was passed and the racists left the Democrats as a result.
Democrats during the Hoover era were famously corrupt, for instance, and them refusing to work with Hoover to prevent his re-election almost certainly worsened the Great Depression.
It’s important to remember that the parties were originally both coalitions - that’s why the same Republicans who are racist as fuck today still call the Dems the “party of slavery” - it’s bullshit and the smart ones know it, but most people don’t understand the history.
I did not say the Democratic party was any better at any point either. They’re shades of shit one at times more “progressive” than the other.
This isn’t a “both sides” thing for me, just clarifying the history of the parties.
Currently, and basically since the CRA, there is clear superiority of one side.
It’s not both sides for me either boss. Pointing out that the system itself is flawed not simply a party or the parties but the system itself.
Take for instance Lincoln’s proclivity for hanging native Americans and pardoning people that murdered natives. Ie. Progress is a relative term.
I mean the Native Americans in this instance did murder a bunch of people.
We can argue the morality of that (I tend to just default to agreeing with them), but the legality was not up for debate.
Invaders, yes.
No argument, it’s wholly moral to protect your family from invaders by force of necessary. The legality is up for debate, who’s law do you use? The invaded or the invader?
Save your waffling, the two party system is flawed and your “progressive” parties are usually just fucking someone else society cares less about.