Comments by "pplr1" (@pplr1) on "The Constitution: Presidential Powers | 5-Minute Videos" video.

  1. brantpam222, 1 video that comes to mind as being dishonest is when Prager tried to put racism and slavery on the Democratic Party but skip over the switch on Civil Rights that took place between the 2 major parties during the 20th Century. That is deceptive and a highly edited version of US history.
    2
  2. And that side rightfully should. We are past the age where voting is limited to white land owning men instead of all citizens of age. Also the Electoral College hasn't exactly produced the best leaders recently.
    2
  3. I'll actually take current Presidents over current state legislatures-especially from my state but others as well. Thanks to being able to gerrymander themselves in the legislatures are no long accountable to the citizens of their state since their elections have been rigged. Presidents still are.
    1
  4. ​ @brantpam222  This is an example of the truth hurting. Anyway the switch in Parties arguably started with Truman (a Democratic President) desegregating the military. FDR was important in recording the history of former slaves with one of many activities that was part of the New Deal but efforts to help black people were limited in the South out of fear of annoying Southern States/politicians. It was Democratic President Johnson (LBJ) that took the step of pushing for Civil Rights despite knowing it would cost his party the South. Those Democrats that opposed civil rights often weren't the Northern liberals but Southern conservatives-who later became Republicans. Not all at once and not in the same way. Perhaps most interesting is former Democrat Strom Thurmond. He left the Democratic Party and helped build up the racist and largely Southern Dixiecrat third party. This was before supporting Barry Goldwater (a Republican opposed to the Civil Rights Act) as well as joining the Republican Party himself. And there were Republican steps towards embracing racism that also slowly happened beyond Goldwater. Nixon ran his "lily white" campaign. Ronald Reagan promoted "State's rights". Interestingly in places outside the South such as the Upper Midwest the Republican party became the party that controlled suburban areas which racism (due to not wanting to live in the same neighborhood as black people) helped build. There is also Republican Jesse Helms who is associated with the organization described as racist that did much of the work for and funded the book titled "The Bell Curve" which also has racist arguments. Now you would get some points for pointing to Planned Parenthood as being founded by a bigoted eugenist (Sanger), except the same rightwing (politically) judges Republicans tend to support with the goal of upending Roe v Wade Planned Parenthood is so concerned about now have also been undoing efforts to protect minority voting rights-especially but not limited to black voters. President Lincoln may be spinning in his grave that Trump, who welcomed bigots as "fine" people, is the last Republican President but change happens-including within political parties.
    1
  5. Neil Barembaum I already gave part of the answer to you in my reply to brantpam222-which I'll include in my reply to you. I'll also include some things addressing what you did and didn't bring up. For example, when the Civil Rights Act passed a greater % of Democratic Congresspeople outside the South voted for it than Republican. That little detail is something Prager purposefully leaves out of its videos and most discussions of the % of members of both parties that voted to pass the Civil Rights Act. Additionally the only Republican Senator from a Southern state voted against the Civil Rights Act meaning Southern Republicans in the Senate voted against it at a 100% rate-higher than the conservative Southern Democratic rate of 95%. Further getting into what Prager (and you) didn't mention is that outside of the South the rate of Republican Congresspeople voting for the Civil Rights Act was lower (85%) than that of Democratic Congresspeople (95%) out side of the South. As I mentioned to brantpam222 most opposition within the Democratic Party to Civil Rights come from Democrats that were Southern and had more conservative politics. So there is a major geographic issue here. To their credit most Democrats and Republicans that were outside of the South supported Civil Rights. To his credit Democratic President Johnson (LBJ) knew pushing through Civil Rights would hurt his party in the South but did it anyway. I touched on other events and figures in the switch where the Republican Party increasingly accepted racists and the Democratic Party increasingly fought racism and embraced Civil Rights. It was a process that happened during the 20th Century-which Prager (purposefully I suspect) does not do a good or accurate job of representing the videos I've seen by it put discussing the history of the time. Fun fact about Ike-who I'd give credit for trying to help black people in the South. 1 of the 1st things he did after federalizing the national guard to bring black students into school was have the news that he did so translated into other languages-especially Russian-so it could be transmitted internationally where the Soviet Union had been scoring political hits on the USA over segregation and racism. On this "major Democratic politicians saying blacks are unable to get photo ID" you didn't mention why. A lot of "photo ID" bill Republicans pushed through make it so photo IDs many people have are no longer considered valid. A % of older black people who moved North from the South often don't have the type of records people typically get at a hospital in modern times (like a birth certificate) thus for paperwork related reasons were initially prevented from getting IDs. Now the photo ID thing gets more interesting for a different reason not associated with race in that the claim was made photo IDs would bring integrity to elections and thus people trusting them. However after the 2020 election many of the ballots that Republicans tried to get thrown out in court-thus not counted and depriving citizens of their rights and votes-were cast by people who used photo IDs to get their ballots-indicating election integrity wasn't what really mattered here. Mentioning rights and voting.. something that matters a great deal in recent years is that Republicans and not Democrats have been the ones blocking updates to Civil Rights and voting bills-including after Republican appointed Judges struck down part of Civil Rights and voting protections. In my reply to brantpam222 I didn't mention that Ike (President Eisenhower) supported Civil Rights for black people. He was President long before Reagan's sympathies for "State's Rights" or Trump's activities. Including him-or not-does not contradict my point about the 2 parties switching on Civil Rights since he came and went before the change really got going rather than after. If Prager counted up the number of people in Congress who voted for and against the Civil Rights bill and made a point about which party they were part of then that also means Prager likely knew what geographic location they were from-pointedly from inside or outside of the South. That a higher % of Democratic Congresspeople outside the South voted for the Civil Rights Act than Republicans outside the South does contradict Prager pushing the narrative a higher % of Republican Congresspeople than Democratic Congress people support the Civil Rights Act. Withholding that is hiding evidence that challenges a narrative. Thus Prager was being deceptive and in a fashion beyond what is simply "opinion" since it leaves very relevant facts hidden. Anyway here is what I said to brantpam222: This is an example of the truth hurting. Anyway the switch in Parties arguably started with Truman (a Democratic President) desegregating the military. FDR was important in recording the history of former slaves with one of many activities that was part of the New Deal but efforts to help black people were limited in the South out of fear of annoying Southern States/politicians. It was Democratic President Johnson (LBJ) that took the step of pushing for Civil Rights despite knowing it would cost his party the South. Those Democrats that opposed civil rights often weren't the Northern liberals but Southern conservatives-who later became Republicans. Not all at once and not in the same way. Perhaps most interesting is former Democrat Strom Thurmond. He left the Democratic Party and helped build up the racist and largely Southern Dixiecrat third party. This was before supporting Barry Goldwater (a Republican opposed to the Civil Rights Act) as well as joining the Republican Party himself. And there were Republican steps towards embracing racism that also slowly happened beyond Goldwater. Nixon ran his "lily white" campaign. Ronald Reagan promoted "State's rights". Interestingly in places outside the South such as the Upper Midwest the Republican party became the party that controlled suburban areas which racism (due to not wanting to live in the same neighborhood as black people) helped build. There is also Republican Jesse Helms who is associated with the organization described as racist that did much of the work for and funded the book titled "The Bell Curve" which also has racist arguments. Now you would get some points for pointing to Planned Parenthood as being founded by a bigoted eugenist (Sanger), except the same rightwing (politically) judges Republicans tend to support with the goal of upending Roe v Wade Planned Parenthood is so concerned about now have also been undoing efforts to protect minority voting rights-especially but not limited to black voters. President Lincoln may be spinning in his grave that Trump, who welcomed bigots as "fine" people, is the last Republican President but change happens-including within political parties.
    1
  6.  @brantpam222  In other words you don't have a rebuttal but don't want to admit it. Good to know.
    1
  7.  @ThethomasJefferson  Funny you used the phrase "new plantation" without much in terms of describing what it did or even was. I suspect the details would undermine your claim but your have yet to show any. Also I wouldn't say the whole party is racist. Just that Republicans have become more welcoming to white racists for the electoral advantages it gave them-not just in the South (though it did) but also to an extent in suburbs outside the South that tend not to be that diverse ethnically or skin colorwise (if there is a difference). I watched what he said. It was in reference to Charlottesville. But even if I set aside the racists rallying in that town at the time and go with your argument about removing statues it isn't a good argument since those statues were put up to promote racism. The South started the Civil War to preserve slavery-specifically slavery based on skin color. The statues to display those who fought for the Confederacy weren't simply to remember who did so but to celebrate them and promote elements of the Confederacy in the South such as racism, Jim Crow, and-less well acknowledged-an authoritarian situation for black people to endure.
    1
  8.  @ThethomasJefferson  The history of many of these statues is that part of the reason they were put was putting black people down and reminding them that they were 2nd class citizens. That is far beyond and worse than just teaching history. Also I will argue that fighting a war against your own nation for the sake of preserving slavery doesn't make someone "great" nor an "American hero". It is that action in specific that is celebrated in these statues. Yes, I'll bet Prager has propaganda videos on what the "New plantation" is. Judging by the Prager video that misleads viewers on the history of Civil Rights and both major parties I would fully expect such a video to be laden with distortions and dishonesty.
    1
  9. Our current President (Biden) cut the Federal deficit by over a trillion dollars. The biggest increases to the National Debt in recent decades have come under Republicans. It is one of those ironies where the facts contradict the political meme.
    1
  10. Trump earned it. But if Republicans win the House I wouldn't be shocked to see them try it because some are bored or MTG said to.
    1
  11. That was avoided thankfully.
    1
  12. Trump had 4 years. That is incompetence plus corruption.
    1
  13. I see you are pushing lies papered over with high language here. There were dozens of court cases on the legality of the 2020 election and they largely said it was legal. Moreover the misrepresentations requested by the losing side in court had the intent of denying large numbers of citizens their right to vote.
    1
  14. It has its positives and negatives. A parliament can enact important changes or change what the last parliament did back to what it was. I'm not sure what the flaws in Indian politics are but 1 of them in the US is that currently money is seen as speech thus price can be put on it and bribes can flow to politicians. Much better than Russia right now though still has problems that should be fixed.
    1
  15. SCOTUS hasn't ruled on letting state legislatures rig elections yet so we will see if that is the case or not.
    1
  16. Being on Prager is often a reason to be less than impressed. That this professor told then VP Pence not to break the law is a reason to be more impressed.
    1
  17. We could do away with the electoral college to fix that.
    1
  18. Arguably Democrats didn't go after Trump hard enough. Regardless Trump abusing his power was a valid reason for impeachment. Ditto for trying to steal the 2020 Presidential election later.
    1
  19. I'm still glad about it, especially vs the person before him and how corrupt and incompetent that guy was.
    1
  20. This is a decent video. Don't go with Prager for too long though. Sadly the organization was started less to be educational and more to push partisan PR. Now partisan political folks can push their PR, but they are often honest enough to not call themselves a university when they do it. I hope S. Africa gets a less corrupt government-from across the ocean(s) I've read that can be an issue (though hopefully one that can be fixed.)
    1
  21.  @RodMartinJr  Some people don't have the time to take apart and examine all the videos Prager points out-including the wide number of them that include dishonesty of some form or another. If they did then what you propose is a worthwhile idea. As things are Prager seems to exist for politics. I've seen over a dozen of their videos and most are basically undercutting liberals. One of the videos that is very partisan and also misrepresents US history focuses on Civil Rights and the Democratic Party. It ignores and misrepresents much of the 20th Century where the Democratic Party increasingly became the party of fighting for Civil Rights while the Republican Party became the opposite. It starts with, correctly, mentioning that the Republican Party opposed slavery but tries to rewrite history and leave important details unmentioned to mislead viewers about the history of both parties. EDIT: Anyway thank you for asking for an example and if you want I'll go into further details later-probably weekend after next if I can dig it out.
    1
  22. Thank you for being interested in the USA. This is probably one of the better Prager videos. Sadly most of the other ones (at least from earlier years) fell into partisan PR. Still there is a great deal of history the US has to offer if you are interested.
    1
  23. US SpursFan Actually there isn't a record of him saying that and the earliest recorded quote comes from the 1950s rather than the time he lived. The phrase may have been invented by someone looking to counter the point taxes are the price paid to live in a civilized society-but that is just me guessing.
    1
  24.  @billvigus3719  I think he may be repeating some of the excuses made to try to argue state legislatures (especially those which have been gerrymandered thus rigged their own elections rather than represent the citizens of their states) should be able to pick/steal Presidential elections.
    1
  25.  @ThethomasJefferson  In many places in US history it was limited to people of those three types. People already know that black people couldn't vote while slavery was around. Women weren't allowed to vote for a long time as well. But initially there was also a limitation to property owners so if you were a white male without land you may not have been allowed to vote either. Now this was 200+ years ago. I think it has been a good thing the changes were made to remove these limitations.
    1
  26.  @ThethomasJefferson  Did you delete a comment you made in this thread? I don't see a question from you right now.
    1
  27. I didn't come to that conclusion. I pointed out that early on (not long after the revolution) some in the time of the Founding Fathers did and put that limitation into law. I think it was a mistake but I can see how it happened since it falls along the biases of the time.
    1