For those who assume supporting a Trump presidency over a Biden one means being a MAGA Trumper....

[JaySecrets]

Populism has never been a synomyn of democracy, they are entirely different concepts.

President Barack Obama defied the notion that Donald Trump was leading a populist revolution, quibbling with the media’s branding of the historic rise of the billionaire’s run for president.

“Maybe somebody can pull up in the dictionary quickly the phrase ‘populism’ but I’m not prepared to concede the notion that some of the rhetoric that’s been popping up is populist,” Obama said.

The president made his remarks at the end of a press conference with Canadian Prime Minister Justin Trudeau and Mexican President Enrique Pena Neito after the North America Leaders’ Summit.

Obama argued that his 2008 campaign and his entire presidency was more about populism, arguing he cared more about poor people and working people.

“I suppose that makes me a populist,” he said confidently.

He alluded to people like Trump who worked against some of the policies pushed by liberal Democrats.

“They don’t suddenly become a populist because they say something controversial in order to win votes,” Obama said. “That’s not the measure of populism. That’s nativism or xenaphobia. Or worse. Or it’s just cynicism.”

Obama told reporters to “be careful” about referring to the rising anti-elitist sentiment fueled by dissidents to his liberal agenda as “populist.”

“Where have they been? Have they been on the front lines working on behalf of working people?” he asked.

He admitted however that Sen. Bernie Sanders was a populist, because he had “worked in the vineyard” of making life better for poor people.

Obama warned voters to avoid political figures offering simple solutions to fixing the economy.

“Sometimes there’s simple solutions out there, but I’ve been president for seven and a half years, and it turns out that’s pretty rare,” he said.

 

[stxjimmy]

President Barack Obama defied the notion that Donald Trump was leading a populist revolution, quibbling with the media’s branding of the historic rise of the billionaire’s run for president.

“Maybe somebody can pull up in the dictionary quickly the phrase ‘populism’ but I’m not prepared to concede the notion that some of the rhetoric that’s been popping up is populist,” Obama said.

The president made his remarks at the end of a press conference with Canadian Prime Minister Justin Trudeau and Mexican President Enrique Pena Neito after the North America Leaders’ Summit.

Obama argued that his 2008 campaign and his entire presidency was more about populism, arguing he cared more about poor people and working people.

“I suppose that makes me a populist,” he said confidently.

He alluded to people like Trump who worked against some of the policies pushed by liberal Democrats.

“They don’t suddenly become a populist because they say something controversial in order to win votes,” Obama said. “That’s not the measure of populism. That’s nativism or xenaphobia. Or worse. Or it’s just cynicism.”

Obama told reporters to “be careful” about referring to the rising anti-elitist sentiment fueled by dissidents to his liberal agenda as “populist.”

“Where have they been? Have they been on the front lines working on behalf of working people?” he asked.

He admitted however that Sen. Bernie Sanders was a populist, because he had “worked in the vineyard” of making life better for poor people.

Obama warned voters to avoid political figures offering simple solutions to fixing the economy.

“Sometimes there’s simple solutions out there, but I’ve been president for seven and a half years, and it turns out that’s pretty rare,” he said.

Normal practice is to say where those quotes come from.

 

[JaySecrets]

If that’s the case then why not show Pelosi’s speech or the fact that her side won the debate.
Instead you post a video purporting to show her being destroyed, yet no mention of that result 177-68.
That’s cherry picking and deception.

Because I don't care what a group of rabid liberals and socialists felt about his argument. Because she was clearly destroyed in the eyes of any rational, non-brainwashed person watching. And because the argument, not the opinions of a group of elitists and liberal, Marxist useful idiots, was the point. That's not cherry picking. That's staying on topic. Something your side seems woefully unable to do.

 

[JaySecrets]

Normal practice is to say where those quotes come from.

The president made his remarks at the end of a press conference with Canadian Prime Minister Justin Trudeau and Mexican President Enrique Pena Neito after the North America Leaders’ Summit.

It's in the article, but I am happy to read it for you.

 

[JaySecrets]

Normal practice is to say where those quotes come from.

2016, by the way. And that's the point there. Your side changed the meaning between 2016 and 2020. I wonder why.

 

[stxjimmy]

Because I don't care what a group of rabid liberals and socialists felt about his argument. Because she was clearly destroyed in the eyes of any rational, non-brainwashed person watching. And because the argument, not the opinions of a group of elitists and liberal, Marxist useful idiots, was the point. That's not cherry picking. That's staying on topic. Something your side seems woefully unable to do.

Liberal and Marxist?
We’ve only your word she was destroyed as you don’t show her speaking.
Relying on rational, non brainwashed persons watching.
These aren’t winning arguments, they’re merely polemic.

 

[YDB95]

Ummm.... Watch the videos I posted. They are the ones saying who were and are making the honest, well reasoned arguments.

According to you. It's not any one person's place to determine what is honest OR well-reasoned.

And they are former libs. You know, the ones you said aren't convinced by such arguments. And they are pretty friggin smart people.

Again, "pretty friggin smart" according to you. Which isn't to say they aren't necessarily smart, but "because I said so" doesn't make it true.

Nope, you and your ilk either just ignore their voices (very racist of you) or label them in passive racism at best, active racism (remember when your side started calling Tim Scott "Uncle Tim"? And we aren't even starting with what your side says of Candice Owens or Larry Elder or Thomas Sowell) at your ugliest.

Even if I agreed with any of this, that's still not the same as denying their existence, which is what you accused me of.

Of course he said it. Your side just hates that he did . Not supposed to say the quiet parts out loud.

You have absolutely no evidence to support that. Heck, you probably didn't even know about the one (extremely unreliable) source I alluded to. You just think it's something "everybody knows", like George Washington and the cherry tree. Guess what? That never happened, and neither did that LBJ quote. If something sounds too good to be true, it probably is.

Again, you might not want to tout your side's history on race. It's not good.

That's irrelevant to the point I was making here. And "my side's" take on race in history is that, after 1877, neither party was really what it should have been. But since 1964 at least the Democrats have tried to do the right thing more often than not.

That shift happened under Reagan with the Regan Democrats.

No, it started twenty years earlier with the South voting for Goldwater. It arguably came to full fruition under Reagan (who famously kicked off his 1980 campaign by declaring his belief in states' rights in Philadelphia, Mississippi - a town known for one thing and one thing only), but it started in 1964.

I'm saying watch the videos. That is specifically addressed by members of the black community in at least 3 of them, from different angles too. Pretty good analysis too.

Pretty good according to you. But here's what you really don't get: just because you found a few Black Americans who agree with you, doesn't mean anything whatsoever in the bigger picture.

Everything you have said about black conservatives has, for the most part, been at least passively so. And lazy, passive racism is the most dangerous kind. It enslaves minds while wearing the facade of "virtue".

In other words, you have no examples to point to of me referring to Black conservatives with racist language, much less "the most racist words imaginable".

https://news.gallup.com/poll/609776/democrats-lose-ground-black-hispanic-adults.aspx

That link doesn't say what you claimed it says. Rightguide syndrome strikes again!

Again, I take you to the videos of former libs. Maybe listen to what they say before commenting.

Don't assume I haven't listened just because I don't agree with them.

 

[JaySecrets]

Liberal and Marxist?

Yes. It's not a secret that this is the dominant philosophy coming from professors and departments in these places, and that Conservatives are often openly mocked by profs and students alike in the classrooms.

We’ve only your word she was destroyed as you don’t show her speaking.

She is shown speaking twice. What she's says at those points says everything, and that is the point. Those were her honest, unplanned, true responses to his words, and they exposed her for what she is.

Relying on rational, non brainwashed persons watching.
These aren’t winning arguments, they’re merely polemic.

Nope. They are observations.

 

[YDB95]

Yes. It's not a secret that this is the dominant philosophy coming from professors and departments in these places, and that Conservatives are often openly mocked by profs and students alike in the classrooms.

I'd be lying to say I didn't remember a fair amount of wingnut-bashing outside the classroom when I was in college, but in the classroom? If you expressed an opinion, no matter how popular, you were expected to back it up with evidence and you were called on it if you didn't.

 

[JaySecrets]

According to you. It's not any one person's place to determine what is honest OR well-reasoned.

Again, "pretty friggin smart" according to you. Which isn't to say they aren't necessarily smart, but "because I said so" doesn't make it true.

Even if I agreed with any of this, that's still not the same as denying their existence, which is what you accused me of.

You have absolutely no evidence to support that. Heck, you probably didn't even know about the one (extremely unreliable) source I alluded to. You just think it's something "everybody knows", like George Washington and the cherry tree. Guess what? That never happened, and neither did that LBJ quote. If something sounds too good to be true, it probably is.

That's irrelevant to the point I was making here. And "my side's" take on race in history is that, after 1877, neither party was really what it should have been. But since 1964 at least the Democrats have tried to do the right thing more often than not.

No, it started twenty years earlier with the South voting for Goldwater. It arguably came to full fruition under Reagan (who famously kicked off his 1980 campaign by declaring his belief in states' rights in Philadelphia, Mississippi - a town known for one thing and one thing only), but it started in 1964.

Pretty good according to you. But here's what you really don't get: just because you found a few Black Americans who agree with you, doesn't mean anything whatsoever in the bigger picture.

In other words, you have no examples to point to of me referring to Black conservatives with racist language, much less "the most racist words imaginable".

That link doesn't say what you claimed it says. Rightguide syndrome strikes again!

Don't assume I haven't listened just because I don't agree with them.

At this point, because I am a real person not living off the state, and I have a life and a job and actual bills I have to work hard to pay, and because you are rehashing your same, tired, useless lies, I am going to use your tactic just this once...

"Yadda, yadda... I'm triggered by the truth and can't handle actual thoughts the media and my Marxist gods haven't fed me. I am a closet racist cloaked in a white sheet... I mean robe of virtue. I don't care about blacks or minorities really. I just want my free stuff from the government."

We hear you loud and clear. You lose. Thanks for playing. Bye.

Damn, that did feel good. No wonder you and your buddies turn off your reasoned arguments and do that so often.

Seriously though. You are wrong about everything you say, I have a life and a real job. I don't have time for your bs anymore right now.

 

[YDB95]

That's a lot of words for "I won't even try to address your points". Thanks for at least being somewhat honest about that!
And I have a real job too, but it's Sunday last I checked.

 

[JaySecrets]

I'd be lying to say I didn't remember a fair amount of wingnut-bashing outside the classroom when I was in college, but in the classroom? If you expressed an opinion, no matter how popular, you were expected to back it up with evidence and you were called on it if you didn't.

https://www.campusreform.org/article/video-leftists-taunt-conservative-students/14000

https://www.tiktok.com/t/ZTLtTNEf2/

Yeah... You run with your story

 

[YDB95]

Yeah... You run with your story

At least it really is my story, not me regurgitating a bunch of stuff you found on Youtube where you have no way of knowing the other side of the story.

 

[coati]

Wow, the MAGAt who started this thread keeps regurgitating MAGAt talking points and memes to try to make us think he's not a MAGAt.

 

[Lazaran]

Wow, the MAGAt who started this thread keeps regurgitating MAGAt talking points and memes to try to make us think he'd not a MAGAt.

I’m convinced…

 

[RoryN]

Wow, the MAGAt who started this thread keeps regurgitating MAGAt talking points and memes to try to make us think he'd not a MAGAt.

It's remarkable, right?

Best self-inflicted wounds on the PB this year.

 

[YDB95]

https://www.campusreform.org/article/video-leftists-taunt-conservative-students/14000

https://www.tiktok.com/t/ZTLtTNEf2/

Yeah... You run with your story

By the way, I did watch these videos. One common thread here: there are two sides to every story. It's possible that some of the complaints here are valid, but we are only hearing one side.

Also, the second video centers on an essay she wrote about Margaret Sanger. She actually reads the paper...and as anyone who knows anything about Sanger might have guessed, she includes several quotes that the anti-choice movement always pulls out of context to argue that she believed certain things she absolutely did not. In other words, agree or disagree, it was a poorly researched paper.

 

[JaySecrets]

At least it really is my story, not me regurgitating a bunch of stuff you found on Youtube where you have no way of knowing the other side of the story.

No, it's your FICTION. And, by the way, it was a very well researched paper of she had quoted showing Sanger as a racist, a vile woman who wanted to exterminate a part of the population and had a vile hatred for motherhood and Christianity. Let's take that in her own words:

---

1. "But for my view, I believe that there should be no more babies."
— Interview with John Parsons, 1947.

2. "The most merciful thing that the large family does to one of its infant members is to kill it."
— Woman and the New Race, Chapter 5, "The Wickedness of Creating Large Families." (1920).

3. "We don’t want the word to go out that we want to exterminate the Negro population."
— Letter to Dr. Clarence J. Gamble, December 10, 1939, p. 2.

4. “I accepted an invitation to talk to the women's branch of the Ku Klux Klan... I was escorted to the platform, was introduced, and began to speak...In the end, through simple illustrations I believed I had accomplished my purpose. A dozen invitations to speak to similar groups were proffered.”
— Margaret Sanger, An Autobiography, published in 1938, p. 366.

5. “I think the greatest sin in the world is bringing children into the world, that have disease from their parents, that have no chance in the world to be a human being practically... Delinquents, prisoners, all sorts of things just marked when they’re born. That to me is the greatest sin—that people can—can commit.”
— Interview with journalist Mike Wallace, 1957.

6. “The most serious evil of our times is that of encouraging the bringing into the world of large families. The most immoral practice of the day is breeding too many children."
— Woman and the New Race, Chapter 5, The Wickedness of Creating Large Families. (1920).

7. “Eugenics without birth control seems to us a house builded [sic] upon the sands. It is at the mercy of the rising stream of the unfit.”
— The Birth Control Review, Birth Control and Racial Betterment (1919).

8. “As an advocate of birth control, I wish to take advantage of the present opportunity to point out that the unbalance between the birth rate of the ‘unfit’ and the ‘fit,’ admittedly the greatest present menace to civilization, can never be rectified by the inauguration of a cradle competition between these two classes.”
— The Birth Control Review, The Eugenic Value of Birth Control Propaganda, p. 5 (1921).

9. “The most urgent problem today is how to limit and discourage the over-fertility of the mentally and physically defective.”
— Ibid.

10. "No more children should be born when the parents, though healthy themselves, find that their children are physically or mentally defective.”
— The Birth Control Review, When Should A Woman Avoid Having Children? Nov. 1918, 6-7, Margaret Sanger Microfilm, S70:807.

11. “A marriage license shall in itself give husband and wife only the right to a common household and not the right to parenthood."
— America Needs a Code for Babies, Article 3, March 27, 1934.

12. "No woman shall have the legal right to bear a child, and no man shall have the right to become a father, without a permit for parenthood."
— Ibid, Article 4, March 27, 1934.

13. "Permits for parenthood shall be issued upon application by city, county, or state authorities to married couples, providing they are financially able to support the expected child, have the qualifications needed for proper rearing of the child, have no transmissible diseases, and, on the woman’s part, no medical indication that maternity is likely to result in death or permanent injury to health."
— Ibid, Article 5, March 27, 1934.

14. "No permit for parenthood shall be valid for more than one birth..."
— Ibid, Article 6, March 27, 1934.

15. "Apply a stern and rigid policy of sterilization and segregation to that grade of population whose progeny is tainted, or whose inheritance is such that objectionable traits may be transmitted to offspring."
— “My Way to Peace,” Jan. 17, 1932. Margaret Sanger Papers, Library of Congress 130:198.

16. "These two words [birth control] sum up our whole philosophy... It means the release and cultivation of the better elements in our society, and the gradual suppression, elimination and eventual extinction, of defective stocks -- those human weeds which threaten the blooming of the finest flowers of American civilization."
— High Lights in the History of Birth Control, Oct. 1923.

17. "Organized charity itself is the symptom of a malignant social disease..."
— The Pivot of Civilization, (1922).

18. "My own position is that the Catholic doctrine is illogical, not in accord with science, and definitely against social welfare and race improvement."
— The Pope's Position on Birth Control, Jan. 27, 1932.

19. “All of our problems are the result of overbreeding among the working class... Knowledge of birth control is essentially moral. Its general, though prudent, practice must lead to a higher individuality and ultimately to a cleaner race.”
— Morality and Birth Control, Feb./Mar. 1918.

20. “Feeble-mindedness perpetuates itself from the ranks of those who are blandly indifferent to their racial responsibilities. And it is largely this type of humanity we are now drawing upon to populate our world for the generations to come. In this orgy of multiplying and replenishing the earth, this type is pari passu (“on equal footing”) multiplying and perpetuating those direst evils which we must, if civilization is to survive, extirpate by the very roots.”
— The Pivot of Civilization, 1922.

21. “Birth control itself, often denounced as a violation of natural law, is nothing more or less than the facilitation of the process of weeding out the unfit, of preventing the birth of defectives or of those who will become defectives… If we are to make racial progress, this development of womanhood must precede motherhood in every individual woman.”
— Woman and the New Race, 1920.

 

[JaySecrets]

By the way, I did watch these videos. One common thread here: there are two sides to every story. It's possible that some of the complaints here are valid, but we are only hearing one side.

Also, the second video centers on an essay she wrote about Margaret Sanger. She actually reads the paper...and as anyone who knows anything about Sanger might have guessed, she includes several quotes that the anti-choice movement always pulls out of context to argue that she believed certain things she absolutely did not. In other words, agree or disagree, it was a poorly researched paper.

And the prof did NOT read the paper. She stopped 4 pages in AND objected because the young woman did not agree that women are oppressed in America. Because women, and blacks, and Hispanics, and Asians, and any other people group you might mention, are NOT oppressed in America. But your intersectionality, CRT, Feminist fanatic, grievance culture profs and libs in general can't have that. People who have everyone else to blame for their problems are easily controlled. People who take responsibility for their own lives, actions, and consequences know that rarest of blessings: freedom.

 

[JaySecrets]

At least it really is my story, not me regurgitating a bunch of stuff you found on Youtube where you have no way of knowing the other side of the story.

I wonder, do you afford the same grace to police officers when selective video only shows part of the story, and do you call for a wait and see response before the terms police brutality or racist cop get thrown around? Do you have the same care for the rest of the story when a former or current president who happens to have an R in front of his name gets accused of a wrong or ill advised action? Do you seek out full quotes and full context when a snippet of a quote by a conservative is used to demonize him or her and paint him or her in a negative light? And do you seek to spare the life of a pre-born baby because their side of the story needs told too?

Of course you don't. Because your statement here is disingenuous and is only applied when evidence is presented against your stance.

And for the record, we DO know the whole story because it is ubiquitous across public universities, public highschools, and even public grade schools across this country. We know because it has been so heavily documented that to deny it is to deny obvious truth.

 

[JaySecrets]

Wow, the MAGAt who started this thread keeps regurgitating MAGAt talking points and memes to try to make us think he'd not a MAGAt.

First, I am not using memes. I am posting extensive well-placed or well stated conservative arguments and evidence for those arguments. That you are so offended says more about your willful ignoring truth than anything presented. And, based on your worldview, how dare you question the validity of their truth or mine? Oh, because you know truth is immovable and absolute too, you just don't like the content of those absolutes.

And the arguments being made, they aren't MAGA. They were being made when Obama was president. And Clinton. And the Bushes... Regan was making many of them in a different context. They are classic conservatism. The only thing new is that, for pragmatic reasons (at least that is my opinion of his motive), Trump embraced some of those conservative principles in his policies. That doesn't make them MAGA. It means MAGA happens to agree on those points.

But that requires nuance of thought and respect for actual history that isn't "contextualized" or revised to fit your narrative. And your side isn't all that great at those kinds of thought. So your confusion is understandable.

 

[YDB95]

No, it's your FICTION.

You weren't there. You have no way of knowing anything about my experience.

And, by the way, it was a very well researched paper of she had quoted showing Sanger as a racist, a vile woman who wanted to exterminate a part of the population and had a vile hatred for motherhood and Christianity.

Wrong.

Let's take that in her own words:
"But for my view, I believe that there should be no more babies."
— Interview with John Parsons, 1947.

Here, the context was the postwar recovery in Europe, where just about the entire infrastructure was destroyed; and it was for ten years, not for good. Radical suggestion? Sure, but not the absurdity you suggest here.

2. "The most merciful thing that the large family does to one of its infant members is to kill it."
— Woman and the New Race, Chapter 5, "The Wickedness of Creating Large Families." (1920).

This statement is taken out of context from Margaret Sanger's Woman and the New Race (Sanger, 1920).Sanger was making an ironic comment — not a prescriptive one — about the horrifying rate of infant mortality among large families of early 20th-century urban America. The statement, as grim as the conditions that prompted Sanger to make it, accompanied this chart, illustrating the infant death rate in 1920:
Deaths During First Year
1st born children 23%
2nd born children 20%
3rd born children 21%
4th born children 23%
5th born children 26%
6 thborn children 31%
7th born children 31%
8th born children 33%
9th born children 35%
10th born children 41%
11th born children 51%
12th born children 60%

3. "We don’t want the word to go out that we want to exterminate the Negro population."
— Letter to Dr. Clarence J. Gamble, December 10, 1939, p. 2.

Sanger was aware of African-American concerns,passionately argued by Marcus Garvey in the 1920s, that birth control was a threat to the survival of the black race. This statement, which acknowledges those fears, is taken from a letter to Clarence J.Gamble, M.D., a champion of the birth control movement. In that letter, Sanger describes her strategy to allay such apprehensions. A larger portion of the letter makes Sanger's meaning clear:

It seems to me from my experience . . . inNorth Carolina, Georgia, Tennessee, and Texas, that while the colored Negroes have great respect for white doctors, they can get closer to their own members and more or l ess lay their cards on the table. . . . They do not do this with the white people, and if we can train the Negro doctor at the clinic,he can go among them with enthusiasm and with knowledge, which, I believe, will have far-reaching results. . . . His work, in my opinion, should be entirely with the Negro profession and the nurses, hospital, social workers, as well as the County's whitedoctors. His success will depend upon his personality and his training by us.The minister's work is also important, andalso he should be trained, perhaps by theF ederation, as to our ideals and the goal that we hope to reach. We do not want word to go out that we want to exterminate the Negro population, and the minister is the man who can straighten out that idea if it ever occurs (Sanger, 1939, December).

4. “I accepted an invitation to talk to the women's branch of the Ku Klux Klan... I was escorted to the platform, was introduced, and began to speak...In the end, through simple illustrations I believed I had accomplished my purpose. A dozen invitations to speak to similar groups were proffered.”
— Margaret Sanger, An Autobiography, published in 1938, p. 366.

At no point does she indicate that she supported the Klan in any way. And the ellipsis represents a removed portion of the quote that makes that abundantly clear, which is why it was removed in whatever website you pulled this from.

 

[YDB95]

5. “I think the greatest sin in the world is bringing children into the world, that have disease from their parents, that have no chance in the world to be a human being practically... Delinquents, prisoners, all sorts of things just marked when they’re born. That to me is the greatest sin—that people can—can commit.”
— Interview with journalist Mike Wallace, 1957.

Nothing offensive about that.

6. “The most serious evil of our times is that of encouraging the bringing into the world of large families. The most immoral practice of the day is breeding too many children."
— Woman and the New Race, Chapter 5, The Wickedness of Creating Large Families. (1920).

Nothing offensive about that.

7. “Eugenics without birth control seems to us a house builded [sic] upon the sands. It is at the mercy of the rising stream of the unfit.”
— The Birth Control Review, Birth Control and Racial Betterment (1919).

It's only fair to remember we're talking about an era when many hereditary and chronic ailments had no treatment. Eugenics is rightly rejected today, but she was not an outlier in supporting some elements of it at the time.

8. “As an advocate of birth control, I wish to take advantage of the present opportunity to point out that the unbalance between the birth rate of the ‘unfit’ and the ‘fit,’ admittedly the greatest present menace to civilization, can never be rectified by the inauguration of a cradle competition between these two classes.”
— The Birth Control Review, The Eugenic Value of Birth Control Propaganda, p. 5 (1921).

Again, nothing offensive about that.

9. “The most urgent problem today is how to limit and discourage the over-fertility of the mentally and physically defective.”
— Ibid.

See my above comment about eugenics

10. "No more children should be born when the parents, though healthy themselves, find that their children are physically or mentally defective.”
— The Birth Control Review, When Should A Woman Avoid Having Children? Nov. 1918, 6-7, Margaret Sanger Microfilm, S70:807.

Odds are the parents in question would agree, at least in 1918 when medical technology was nowhere near where it is today.

15. "Apply a stern and rigid policy of sterilization and segregation to that grade of population whose progeny is tainted, or whose inheritance is such that objectionable traits may be transmitted to offspring."
— “My Way to Peace,” Jan. 17, 1932. Margaret Sanger Papers, Library of Congress 130:198.

See my above comment about eugenics.

16. "These two words [birth control] sum up our whole philosophy... It means the release and cultivation of the better elements in our society, and the gradual suppression, elimination and eventual extinction, of defective stocks -- those human weeds which threaten the blooming of the finest flowers of American civilization."
— High Lights in the History of Birth Control, Oct. 1923.

Again, there were a lot more incurable and untreatable conditions then than there are now. Trying to wipe out hereditary conditions is not without its ethical quandaries, but you've got to look at it in the context of the era.

17. "Organized charity itself is the symptom of a malignant social disease..."
— The Pivot of Civilization, (1922).

That's from an article where she argues - quite correctly - that charity alone simply isn't enough to alleviate poverty, that there's a more fundamental problem to be addressed.

18. "My own position is that the Catholic doctrine is illogical, not in accord with science, and definitely against social welfare and race improvement."
— The Pope's Position on Birth Control, Jan. 27, 1932.

That's how a lot of us - including many Catholics - feel about the church's stance against a woman's right to choose.

19. “All of our problems are the result of overbreeding among the working class... Knowledge of birth control is essentially moral. Its general, though prudent, practice must lead to a higher individuality and ultimately to a cleaner race.”
— Morality and Birth Control, Feb./Mar. 1918.

In other words, birth control = fewer mouths to feed, and families could choose to have only as many children as they could afford to. That's a good thing.

20. “Feeble-mindedness perpetuates itself from the ranks of those who are blandly indifferent to their racial responsibilities. And it is largely this type of humanity we are now drawing upon to populate our world for the generations to come. In this orgy of multiplying and replenishing the earth, this type is pari passu (“on equal footing”) multiplying and perpetuating those direst evils which we must, if civilization is to survive, extirpate by the very roots.”
— The Pivot of Civilization, 1922.

21. “Birth control itself, often denounced as a violation of natural law, is nothing more or less than the facilitation of the process of weeding out the unfit, of preventing the birth of defectives or of those who will become defectives… If we are to make racial progress, this development of womanhood must precede motherhood in every individual woman.”

If your objection here is to the word "racial", she was referring to the human race, not to any racial group therein.

And the prof did NOT read the paper. She stopped 4 pages in AND objected because the young woman did not agree that women are oppressed in America.

Again, that is the student's side of the story. You and I have no way of knowing exactly what happened.

Because women, and blacks, and Hispanics, and Asians, and any other people group you might mention, are NOT oppressed in America.

Or so says a man who is none of these.

 

[ll74]

https://www.pressreader.com/uk/bbc-history-magazine/20190905/282213717477909

And the historical references to the Nazi use of "useful idiots". Hmmm... Think I just pointed this out.

So now we're back to historical definitions instead of practical and current ones.

A useful idiot is a person who unwittingly spreads bullshit because they're too stupid to understand it's bullshit, allowing propagandists to spread their lies faster.

It does not have to be a Nazi message or a communist message.

Obfuscation , lack of context, people who switch parties talking about how reasonable they are..... Etc.

 

[ll74]

https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/useful idiot

a naive or credulous person who can be manipulated or exploited to advance a cause or political agenda