That's up to you. But political parties represent ideologies and the Democrats represent an elitist ideology which inherently believes that some people are better than others. That's simple fact. And when you believe that some people are entitled to rule by virtue of having a (D) next to their name, that is inherent bigotry. It's simple fact that the Democratic Party has THE history of racism in the United States - and they have never given it up or acknowledged it! They were behind the KKK. They were behind the very Jim Crow laws which Joe Biden now tries to associate with expanded voting! They were the ones who stonewalled the Equal Rights movement in the 1960's. They are the ones who have been pushing for expanded welfare and abortion to blacks which have destroyed the black family. And more. Who calls for inclusion while instituting policies which do nothing but divide? Democrats!

"Why would we even expect political parties to sort people..."

Again, its all about ideology. Does any given politician espouse the idea that all men are equal under the law? If so, they are against bigotry. It's just that simple. The converse is also true: that those who push the idea that some are "more equal than others" (Animal Farm) are bigoted. It is that simple.

No, these days, the guy who wants the 19 year old pervert who's molested the 10 year old arrested is the one being called a "domestic terrorist."

I have a 10-y/o and 12-y/o; I obviously don't want anyone at all preying on them. I am very cautious about laws beyond variants of hitting, stealing, and damaging people’s property. That’s sick? I wonder if I’m a “domestic extremist”.

So you think there's nothing wrong with a 19 year old preying on a 10 year old? That's sick!

"Are they victims themselves"
I truly believe mostly of this is a state of mind. Life has so many random ups and downs, including freak accidents and diseases that kill for no reason. But wallowing in grievance is pointless; actions people can choose to take usually have more impact than all the things they're victims of.

"was the whole planet colonized by native people?"
I recommend Sapiens: A Brief History of Humankind and Guns, Germs, and Steel.

Yeah. I hit +1. I wish this site had a "thumbs up" or "thanks" button.

My friend says “thanks Lucky”.
He also was wondering how far back are people responsible for other folks actions. Are they responsible for crimes before they were born?
Are they victims themselves from abuses their ancestors suffered from?
My friend says we are being abused today by IDIOTS pushing the retribution and racist $hit.

A friend tells me:
In Malaysia the Malay controlled government has for many years had the slogan- "sons of the soil" (Bumiputra). It is an excuse for racial discrimination.
Be careful tho', it may or may not be racial, public conversion to Islam helps to gain Bumiputra status for the family.

Meddling obsessive control freaks are not "people people" yet there are plenty of them in politics.

Edit add: I didn't down vote your post.

Just the facts. Candace Owens who is black .... lays it all out. Destroy the family, destroy the value system (rap culture) , destroy self determination (victim mentality) all done and promoted by DEM policies. Who has time or interest in bigotry? Those that make money off of it. BLM now stands for Buy Lots of Mansions.

Did native people sprout from the ground or was the whole planet colonized by native people?
Just asking for someone else.

You will not be able to convince me that it's about political parties. It never made sense to me, and the older I get the less sense it means. Why would we even expect political parties to sort people according to who is more effective at dealing with problems like bigotry? It seems so absurd to me that an argument that shows me another view would be an epiphany for me. I think "people people" go into politics, and popularly electing them within a Constitutional framework is the worst form of gov't except for all the others that have been tried.

"[Legislators] want to see a world in which there are no rules they can't break"
If this is true, we need to find out why our system of selecting people to make laws recruits lawless people.

"I think the group of us here could come up with some great ideas [for a Constitution] to be sure."
If history repeats itself, that will happen when people establish a colony somewhere that's somewhat out of reach, like on the moon. I don't think history has to repeat, though, and I would like to see it happen in some radical free trade zone. I love the space colony idea, but I think space travel is just too hard for Earth, much harder than it was for colonists to live off the land in the Americas. So I think it will have to come from some sort of "zona franca". A seastead is conceivable. I think space colonies are centuries away.

I have a singular view on this. I don't endorse abusive relationships, but I do believe people are adapted to feel an urge to find their own way as teenagers. There is a trend toward wanting to treat people as children at older ages. I'm just constitutionally against this. I think people going out and finding their way is key to liberty.

Unfortunately, it's not a "slippery slope." NAMBLA (an organization that I feel should be outlawed, and membership be grounds for criminal prosecution) promotes exactly the concept that children are "being denied their sexuality" by making sex with adults a crime. A law recently passed in California made sex with a minor a crime only if the adult was more than ten years senior to the minor. That's an existing endorsement of pedophile crime!

I think the group of us here could come up with some great ideas to be sure.

It would be entertaining to write a new Constitution in this forum!

I'd love to see a provision that made any bill requiring funding (even for enforcement) automatically sunset every two years unless there was an express and individual bill passed to prolong it (for another two years). Can you imagine what that would do to Congress? I'm betting it would put 90% of the Federal Government out of business in the first round it was in effect. It would sure occupy Congress with all the re-authorization bills which would have to be put up and keep them from introducing crap like 10,000 page healthcare bills and other monstrosities.

Yes, I know. I'm evil and anti-government. And I'm proud of it. ;)

We so need a do-over on most laws. I really wish they had a time limit (e.g. 20 years, after which all laws expire, unless renewed.

I agree, though I'm going to quibble slightly here, as marriage is arguably the most important institution in society. It is through marriage that society is perpetuated at all. The problem is in allowing government to tamper with the institution that is inherently defined (by biology at a bare minimum). But I absolutely do think that there are certain rights over children which come from being a parent which the governments ought to have to prove the very highest standard to override. We have allowed government to override and lower those standards seemingly on a whim by allowing them to set school curriculae, determine if minors can get an abortion, etc.

We absolutely should recognize marriage both societally and governmentally, but we should restore the policy bar to defer to parents on all things unless the government proves on a case-by-case basis the need to interfere (such as in the cases of extreme neglect or abuse).

It is both stupidity and ideology. They want to see a world in which there are no rules they can't break and no prohibitions which maintain equality and consistency across society. They want to see a return to the feudal system because they see themselves as part of the elite class of rulers. The funny thing (in a tragic sort of way) is that the inconsistency and stupidity of their proposals is its inherent Achilles' Heel.

Agreed. That was my point, less clearly stated. We are expanding an institution that shouldn't be an institution.

If someone is making their own living and supporting themselves financially, then I agree: they should have the right to be treated as an adult. But how many <17-yr-olds are in this category? Almost none. Now one can argue that this is largely because of public policy and culture. I would agree. The issue is that you can't simultaneously propose that people be treated as responsible adults when they haven't taken on the responsibilities which go with adulthood - notably being responsible for your own livelihood. That's the tradeoff. (Of course, I would also argue that those who rely on government welfare to live also ought not to be treated as full adults with voting rights, but that's another topic.)