Forum Settings
       
Reply To Thread

Omnibus Politics Thread: Campaign 2016 EditionFollow

#252 Oct 15 2015 at 9:37 AM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
I didn't see a source for the Carson story besides an obviously satirical HuffPo article.
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#253 Oct 15 2015 at 9:45 AM Rating: Excellent
Will swallow your soul
******
29,127 posts
That's probably the headline I saw, didn't read the article but it did seem... odd.
____________________________
In a time of universal deceit, telling the truth is a revolutionary act.

#254 Oct 15 2015 at 10:19 AM Rating: Good
******
49,192 posts
Clickbait can be entertaining at times. This quick view amused me.
____________________________
George Carlin wrote:
I think it’s the duty of the comedian to find out where the line is drawn and cross it deliberately.
#255 Oct 15 2015 at 10:26 AM Rating: Good
The All Knowing
Avatar
*****
10,134 posts
Gbaji wrote:
The point you and many liberals just can't seem to get through your heads is that race ceased to be a winning platform issue in the south like 50 years ago. The GOP has *never* run on that platform, vague claims of coded messages and "southern strategies" aside. Voters moved to the GOP because the GOP was *not* the party of racism. I'm just not sure how many different ways I can say this.

1. The confederate flag?
2. "Blue lives Matter" / "All lives Matter"
#256 Oct 15 2015 at 10:35 AM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
But the Confederate Battle flag was never about racism... or slavery... or.... umm... it's, like, about grits and Coca-Cola or something.
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#257 Oct 15 2015 at 10:54 AM Rating: Excellent
***
3,025 posts
Having lived through the 60's, I proclaim Gbaji full of Bullshit.

It's really quite sad how he spins fairy tales to try to make the GOP look better then the Dem's.

While I've been a Democrat most of my life, I did register as Republican while living in CA, so to be able to vote for my local congressman during the primaries. When the GOP nominate someone for office that is better then the Democratic choice, I been known to vote a split ballot. Not that they often nominate a decent candidate in my district, here in Maryland.

BTW my ex, who is from Escondido, CA. use to tell people of how the town had the largest KKK membership outside of the Southeast. Having spent time, there while waiting for housing in NAS Lemoore, I can believe that.

____________________________
In the place of a Dark Lord you would have a Queen! Not dark but beautiful and terrible as the Morn! Treacherous as the Seas! Stronger than the foundations of the Earth! All shall love me and despair! -ElneClare

This Post is written in Elnese, If it was an actual Post, it would make sense.
#258 Oct 15 2015 at 2:14 PM Rating: Decent
Encyclopedia
******
34,721 posts
Jophiel wrote:
gbaji wrote:
The voters moved to the GOP because the GOP wasn't the party of racists.

In 1964, after the passage of the CRA by Johnson, the deep south went Republican.


No, it didn't (also "after" != "because"). The Deep south voted for Goldwater, a politician who was not terrifically aligned with the GOP platform of the day, and had huge support problems. It did not elect a wave of GOP congressmen. Using just one election in one year does not support your claim at all. You're claiming that the GOP party of *today* is racist because a wave of southern racists all joined it and influenced it's policies since then 60s. You need to show an ongoing trend from 1964 and onward to support that. But there is no such trend.

Quote:
In 1968, they all voted for segregationist George Wallace.


Uh... A Democrat. It's like you're making my argument for me.

Quote:
So your argument is NOW that all the poor oppressed anti-racists were forced to vote Democratic until 1964, then they were freed of their shackles to vote non-racist Republican -- for one cycle then they all voted for the segregationist. then they went back to non-racist Republicans (except for regional son, Jimmy Carter, who couldn't even hold the south for two cycles).


I'm saying that the claim that the GOP is racist today because the racists in the south all left the Democratic party and joined the GOP and made it the party of racism is blatantly false. There is no evidence to support that claim. You're cherry picking one race here, and one race there to try to feebly make this point, but it's totally countered by the much larger other factors in play at the time. I get why you, and most Democrats, strongly desire to spread this narrative, but it's just plain false.

The fact is that as the winning political issues in the south changed from pro-segregation to pro-economy, the power switched from the party that won on a pro-segregation platform (that's the Democrats) to one that won on a pro-economy platform (that would be the GOP, just in case you're not keeping track). The GOP didn't run on race. Just as they don't run on race today. It's your party that had an obsession with race back then, and still has an obsession with it today.

Quote:
Quote:
You're cherry picking one year and one election and missing the broader pattern.

You're cherry picking the year most likely to show a response to Civil Rights legislation! How UNFAIR!


Really? So a large enough number of people gathered together in that short a time to enact this massive plan to switch parties in response to legislation passed just a year earlier? All done in secret, of course, using coded messages and whatnot, right? And it had such a strong effect, that it was able to make a presidential candidate who won like 6 states, win 5 of them in the south because of this super secret racist plan. You honestly think a group of people, with a failed ideology, who'd been unable to hold sufficient political power to prevent the CRA in the first place, were somehow able to pull this off?

Or maybe Goldwater just wasn't a very strong candidate in the first place? I guess my issue is with the absurdity of thinking that a group of people who feel really strongly about a position, upon the party they've been supporting for like a century abandoning that position (failing to prevent it from losing actually), would choose to respond to that by leaving that party and joining the one that had been actively fighting against that position for that same century. Um... That makes zero sense at all. It would be like the Tea Party all voting for the Democrats in 2010 because the GOP failed to prevent the passage of Obamacare. It's just that insane.

What they did instead was fight to repeal it, right? Find some way to get their party to fight against whatever it is that just happened that they don't like. Which, btw is sorta what happened in the south in 1968 with George Wallace. What we saw there was a split in the Democratic party. It had nothing at all to do with the GOP. The idea that the Wallace Democrats shifted into the GOP after 1968? That's nuts. They went back into the Democratic party and have attempted to quietly influence Dem social policy ever since. Which, given the way the Democrats social policies have really screwed over black people in this country, would appear to have worked really really well.

Edited, Oct 15th 2015 1:31pm by gbaji
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#259 Oct 15 2015 at 3:51 PM Rating: Good
***
3,025 posts
What Gbaji fails to see is that you can't look at the Civil Rights Act by which party voted for or against it. What you have to realize is the political parties back then were not so far apart policy wise as both parties tried to cater to more of the middle and one needs to look at regions when comparing who voted for and against the CRA.

https://i.guim.co.uk/img/static/sys-images/Guardian/Pix/pictures/2013/8/27/1377639850437/bothcivilrights.jpeg?w=620&q=85&auto=format&sharp=10&s=ba4f7a5f7188dc5f22c139b8cdf97230

http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2013/aug/28/republicans-party-of-civil-rights

Quote:
Thus, it seems to me that minorities have a pretty good idea of what they are doing when joining the Democratic party. They recognize that the Democratic party of today looks and sounds a lot more like the Democratic party of the North that with near unity passed the Civil Rights Bill of 1964 than the southern Democrats of the era who blocked it, and today would, like Strom Thurmond, likely be Republicans.


Changes in GOP party platform.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/gop-platform-through-the-years-shows-partys-shift-from-moderate-to-conservative/2012/08/28/09094512-ed70-11e1-b09d-07d971dee30a_story.html

Politicians who changed party affiliation

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Party_switching_in_the_United_States

So why one might try to paint the GOP as the party of Civil Rights, when we look at the actual record of who voted by region and the jump from the Democratic party to the GOP in the 60's and 70's we can see a pattern of Southern Democrats who having voted against the CRA, changing party affiliation, as they saw the GOP better reflected their views.

I watch this all happening, as my parents control the TV when there was any political coverage and I grew up watching both parties conventions every four years. We watch the news with our parents if we wanted to partake in the before dinner snacks and soda. Therefore I grew up a news junkie.

Added so to read later after watching the evening news


Edited, Oct 15th 2015 5:56pm by ElneClare
____________________________
In the place of a Dark Lord you would have a Queen! Not dark but beautiful and terrible as the Morn! Treacherous as the Seas! Stronger than the foundations of the Earth! All shall love me and despair! -ElneClare

This Post is written in Elnese, If it was an actual Post, it would make sense.
#260 Oct 15 2015 at 4:02 PM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
gbaji wrote:
Quote:
In 1968, they all voted for segregationist George Wallace.
Uh... A Democrat. It's like you're making my argument for me.

Is your argument that you're not very smart? Wallace ran on a separate platform, the Segregationist Party. If the people in the deep south had wanted to vote Democrat, they would have voted for Humphrey. Instead, he lost to Wallace in those states by 3:1 or 4:1 margins. Protip: The voters in those states weren't comparing Humphrey's and Wallace's stances on the capital gains tax.

So, yeah, following the CRA the deep south went overwhelming Republican, then Segregationist, then back to Republican with the sole exception of Good ole Georgia Boy Carter's single win. But, sure, let's pretend it was about the economy or something. Whatever helps you sleep at night.
Quote:
So a large enough number of people gathered together in that short a time to enact this massive plan to switch parties in response to legislation passed just a year earlier? All done in secret, of course, using coded messages and whatnot, right?

Did your mother slam vodka and lead paint shooters while she was pregnant? That's a serious question, by the way. I'm trying to figure out how you arrived at this absurd strawman and massive fetal brain damage seemed the most likely reason.
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#261 Oct 15 2015 at 4:11 PM Rating: Good
***
3,025 posts
gbaji wrote:
Really? So a large enough number of people gathered together in that short a time to enact this massive plan to switch parties in response to legislation passed just a year earlier?


But Jophiel, anything is possible in Gbaji's GOP Fairy Tales.

Sure some of them may have dragged their feet changing affiliation, but fact show that Southern Democrats did change their party affiliation during the years after the CRA was past. See Wiki article I just posted.
____________________________
In the place of a Dark Lord you would have a Queen! Not dark but beautiful and terrible as the Morn! Treacherous as the Seas! Stronger than the foundations of the Earth! All shall love me and despair! -ElneClare

This Post is written in Elnese, If it was an actual Post, it would make sense.
#262 Oct 15 2015 at 4:23 PM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
Wiki is, like, liberal media man. What you need to do is get all your information from right wing sources and then say "Now, I know this is a right wing source but..."
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#263 Oct 15 2015 at 4:27 PM Rating: Good
***
3,025 posts
Jophiel wrote:
Wiki is, like, liberal media man. What you need to do is get all your information from right wing sources and then say "Now, I know this is a right wing source but..."


Well I used Google and I didn't see any right wing sources on the first page. Then I understand History has a Liberal Bias.
____________________________
In the place of a Dark Lord you would have a Queen! Not dark but beautiful and terrible as the Morn! Treacherous as the Seas! Stronger than the foundations of the Earth! All shall love me and despair! -ElneClare

This Post is written in Elnese, If it was an actual Post, it would make sense.
#264 Oct 15 2015 at 4:59 PM Rating: Decent
Encyclopedia
******
34,721 posts
ElneClare wrote:
What Gbaji fails to see is that you can't look at the Civil Rights Act by which party voted for or against it. What you have to realize is the political parties back then were not so far apart policy wise as both parties tried to cater to more of the middle and one needs to look at regions when comparing who voted for and against the CRA.


I do see that. Obviously, the issue was regional. Segregation was a popular policy position in the south. Thus, if you wanted to get elected in the south, you had to adopt a pro-segregation position. This did cross party boundaries. But if we look at the makeup of the parties, and how many Democrats were elected in the south on a pro-segregation platform versus Republicans, you kinda have to conclude that Democrats were more willing to adopt that position to win elections than Republicans were. Which means that the pro-segregation position was more prevalent in the Democratic party than the Republican party. Thus, the pro-segregation position held more sway over the national party platform of the Dems than that of the GOP. That is not (or at least should not) be in question.

The question is what happened after the CRA was passed (actually really during the build up to and time period after if we want to study the whole process). The point is that during this time period, a pro-segregation platform changed from being a winning one, to a losing one. And this process started well before 1964. It was a combination of two main factors:

1. An increase in industrialization in the south. This brought new workers into the region who did not hold strong segregationist views. These voters tended to vote Republican (where it was even possible for the GOP to mount a candidate, that is).

2. Erosion of black disenfranchisement. The civil rights movement had been steadily chipping away at Jim Crow for nearly a century. It was still not yet enough, but this gradual change slowly filtered through the southern states, changing perceptions (and party representation) as it went.

Once a critical mass was reached, the whole process fell apart. It was dependent on disenfranchisement to work. The number of staunch segregationists was actually relatively small among white voters, but had been in power for so long, that they could basically rig elections to ensure that only pro-segregation candidates had any chance of winning. Read up on Wallace's governor's races in Alabama for some interesting data about this.

I guess my point here is that the idea that racism was still a winning strategy in the south and that it just shifted to the GOP, and this somehow explains their gains in the south after 1964 (really after 1972) is incredibly weak. The trend had been against racial policies for some time. The primary obstacle to GOP success in the south had been that the same disenfranchisement that prevented black from voting also made it very hard for Republicans to even run for office. Once those obstacles were removed, they started winning elections. Not because of some shift of racists to the GOP, but because their platform had always appealed to voters, but voters were scared out of voting for it. Once the threats and intimidation tactics were eliminated (which didn't happen immediately after the passage of the CRA by any means), the GOP started winning elections.


GOP success in the south had nothing to do with racial politics, and still does not. I'm sure this myth does have some value to Democrats and Liberals, but it's just not backed up with evidence.

Quote:
http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2013/aug/28/republicans-party-of-civil-rights

Quote:
Thus, it seems to me that minorities have a pretty good idea of what they are doing when joining the Democratic party. They recognize that the Democratic party of today looks and sounds a lot more like the Democratic party of the North that with near unity passed the Civil Rights Bill of 1964 than the southern Democrats of the era who blocked it, and today would, like Strom Thurmond, likely be Republicans.


I disagree. I think that's an incredibly simplistic way of looking at things. A better explanation for the data is that while a Democrat could get elected in the south merely by being a Democrat (and perhaps be willing to vote for something like the CRA), it was impossible for a Republican to get elected without being a very staunch supporter of segregation and convince the powers that be who controlled things, that he was moreso than a Democratic opponent. Again, because in the south, the racist political machine was geared towards supporting Democrats by default because they had been the party that supported them for so long.

I'll also point out (again) that the issues and platforms shifted from racially directed to economically directed over time. The GOP just got there first, with a focus on free markets and promoting individual prosperity. As a result, the Dems adopted a more large government economic platform. The reason this appeals to minorities today isn't because of some insidious hidden racism in the GOP platform, but the simple fact that minorities, especially those that the Dems had been suppressing for so long, were the most likely to benefit directly from big government social programs.

So yeah, minority voters do know what they're doing, but it's not about race. It's about economic policies and which one appears to benefit them the most. I don't see this as some kind of support for the theory that the racists all moved to the GOP and created their modern platform. The fiscal conservative movement had been growing in the GOP for decades before the passage of the CRA, and during the same time period when the GOP was also leading the fight against segregation and racial discrimination in the south. So one would have to speculate that the same economic ideology which was entirely non-racist (and arguably anti-racist) in the 40s, 50s, and 60s, magically became racist in the late 60s and beyond. Because.... Why again?


It's a convenient claim to make if you're a Democrat and want to hand wave away your party's past. It's not a very good claim in terms of facts though.

Quote:


Again though, that doesn't say *why* they switched. You could claim they were all dedicated racists, got fed up with their party swapping on segregation, and flocked to the GOP to continue their evil agenda there. Or you could say, that as politicians tend to do, they rode the winds of public opinion and shifted to the party that was now winning votes in their districts and states. As you pointed out earlier, positions on segregation and race were not specifically party aligned, but regionally aligned. A politician might have joined the Democratic party early in his career simply because that was his best shot at winning office. And when that changed, so did the affiliation.

Quote:
So why one might try to paint the GOP as the party of Civil Rights, when we look at the actual record of who voted by region and the jump from the Democratic party to the GOP in the 60's and 70's we can see a pattern of Southern Democrats who having voted against the CRA, changing party affiliation, as they saw the GOP better reflected their views.


Only one Democrat who voted against the CRA shifted parties to the Democrats. And that almost certainly had nothing to do with thinking he could continue to foster some kind of racist policies in the GOP. There's no doubt that Thurmond himself was a racist, but his joining of the GOP had less to do with alignment with the ideology of the party as it did political necessity if he wanted to remain in office. And yeah, the GOP wasn't exactly going to say no, again for political convenience, not because of ideology on race. As I've pointed out several times, the GOP was primarily focused on economics and individual liberties, not race. And yes, politics sometimes makes strange bedfellows, but it would be an amazing stretch to suggest that the GOP somehow radically changed its stance on race because of one racist defector from the Democrats.

The additional point is all the folks in the Dem party who voted against the CRA and who remained in that party. If we're speculating that the presence of racists in a party will influence that party's policies in a racist direction, then we'd have to conclude that racism continued to be a far stronger factor in the Democratic party than in the Republican. I'll also (again) point out that the GOP platform didn't center on race, while the Dem platform did then, and still does. It's like comparing apples to oranges. Racists in a party where race is a central platform component will tend to influence that platform. Racists in a party where race is not a central platform component will tend to have no effect.
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#265 Oct 15 2015 at 5:05 PM Rating: Good
GBATE!! Never saw it coming
Avatar
****
9,139 posts
History threads with gbaji are always so entertaining since he'd rather immolate his own genitals with an acetylene torch than admit he's wrong.

Y'know, like his hero Bill O'Reilly.
____________________________
Anna wrote:
People often say that if someone doesn't agree then, they don't understand their point. That's not true. Sometimes they don't agree with it.
#266 Oct 15 2015 at 5:17 PM Rating: Excellent
***
3,025 posts
Quote:
History threads with gbaji are always so entertaining since he'd rather immolate his own genitals with an acetylene torch than admit he's wrong.


I know. I could keep posting fact after fact, and he would still spin history to fit his world view. Having lived in the 60's and watch all of this on the nightly news (and my parents watched all 3 networks, when we lived 3 blocks from D.C. in Chevy Chase) Plus looking for the facts, and trying to find source documents would be useless as he hunkers down. Studies show that conservatives world view is fixed in stone and no amount of facts will change their views.

Meanwhile if he needs a acetylene/oxy torch, I have one that needs the tanks filled. and be happy to cover the costs if he wants to borrow it.
____________________________
In the place of a Dark Lord you would have a Queen! Not dark but beautiful and terrible as the Morn! Treacherous as the Seas! Stronger than the foundations of the Earth! All shall love me and despair! -ElneClare

This Post is written in Elnese, If it was an actual Post, it would make sense.
#267 Oct 15 2015 at 5:42 PM Rating: Excellent
GBATE!! Never saw it coming
Avatar
****
9,139 posts
ElneClare wrote:
Having lived in the 60's and watch all of this on the nightly news (and my parents watched all 3 networks, when we lived 3 blocks from D.C. in Chevy Chase)
In gbajiland your whole life is anecdotal, sorry.Smiley: frown

ElneClare wrote:
Meanwhile if he needs a acetylene/oxy torch, I have one that needs the tanks filled. and be happy to cover the costs if he wants to borrow it.
Note to self: Anger not the Queen.Smiley: um
____________________________
Anna wrote:
People often say that if someone doesn't agree then, they don't understand their point. That's not true. Sometimes they don't agree with it.
#268 Oct 15 2015 at 5:42 PM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
Anecdotes are Data!
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#269 Oct 15 2015 at 7:09 PM Rating: Decent
Encyclopedia
******
34,721 posts
Jophiel wrote:
gbaji wrote:
Quote:
In 1968, they all voted for segregationist George Wallace.
Uh... A Democrat. It's like you're making my argument for me.

Is your argument that you're not very smart? Wallace ran on a separate platform, the Segregationist Party. If the people in the deep south had wanted to vote Democrat, they would have voted for Humphrey. Instead, he lost to Wallace in those states by 3:1 or 4:1 margins. Protip: The voters in those states weren't comparing Humphrey's and Wallace's stances on the capital gains tax.


It's not about why the voters voted for him, Joph, but what party he most associated with (remember, this was about where the politicians went). You're conveniently forgetting that Wallace ran for the Democratic nomination in 1964, then ran as an independent in 1968, then regained his governorship (as a Democrat) in 1970, then ran for the nomination in 1972 also as a Democrat. So the GOP was so inviting to pro-segregation southern politicians that even after leaving the party for one election, he still saw the Dems as his best chance to succeed on a national scale.

That kinda speaks volumes about which party he thought would most support his racist platform.

Quote:
So, yeah, following the CRA the deep south went overwhelming Republican, then Segregationist, then back to Republican with the sole exception of Good ole Georgia Boy Carter's single win. But, sure, let's pretend it was about the economy or something.


If you only look at race, then I can see how you might view it that way. Or you could look at it as the last gasps of a failed ideology trying desperately to find a way to regain power. The point is that as the south has become less racist, the south has become more Republican. You can sit around pretending that race is the primary reason for GOP success in the south, but that's just not true. You're trying to define current political reality based on the reality of 60+ years ago.

Quote:
Whatever helps you sleep at night.


I'm not the one trying to desperately rewrite history in order to wash away the stench of a century of Jim crow from my party's history. I'm just trying to stand up to those who are.

Edited, Oct 15th 2015 6:18pm by gbaji
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#270 Oct 15 2015 at 7:26 PM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
Yeah, I'm not "forgetting" anything. You're pretending that his support from a majority of the deep south was anything but support for his racist platform. That's why they voted for him. If they wanted to support a Democrat, they would have voted for the Democrat. They didn't; they wanted to support the Segregationist. In the election prior, they supported the Republican after the Democratic president signed the CRA. In almost every election after, they continued to support the Republican candidate.

If you need to call that simple statement of fact "rewriting history", that's fine. It's sort of sad, but then I'm not the one writing long posts trying to justify an erroneous theory where Southern Democrats didn't flip parties due their racism. I don't need to write a thousand words to try and explain away a red and blue map and pretend it doesn't mean anything.

Edited, Oct 15th 2015 8:27pm by Jophiel
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#271 Oct 15 2015 at 8:01 PM Rating: Good
***
3,025 posts
No one is trying to deny that Southern Democrats were not Racists. Before the passage of the CRA, no good old boy in the Confederate states would think of joining the Party of Lincoln. The Civil Rights Act, force busing and fear of violence, were all used by the GOP to bring conservative voters into their fold. By the time Nixon ran against Humphrey, the middle of country was beginning to feel ignored.

Then you only have history that you find that supports your version of history. I actually lived through all of this and the images of police dogs being unleashed on Civil Right protesters is etched in my memory. I had to live during all of this and due to a very visual memory I haven't forgotten how ugly those years were.



edited because I left out important words in sentence. Elnese and pain makes the Queen make no sense.

Edited, Oct 15th 2015 10:21pm by ElneClare
____________________________
In the place of a Dark Lord you would have a Queen! Not dark but beautiful and terrible as the Morn! Treacherous as the Seas! Stronger than the foundations of the Earth! All shall love me and despair! -ElneClare

This Post is written in Elnese, If it was an actual Post, it would make sense.
#272 Oct 15 2015 at 8:10 PM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
Gbaji insisting that everyone is trying to ignore the Democrats of the 60s allows him to distract from and ignore the Republicans of today.

"Look, a black woman yelling Obamaphone!!!"
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#273 Oct 15 2015 at 8:20 PM Rating: Good
GBATE!! Never saw it coming
Avatar
****
9,139 posts
Jophiel wrote:
Gbaji insisting that everyone is trying to ignore the Democrats of the 60s allows him to distract from and ignore the Republicans of today.

"Look, a black woman yelling Obamaphone!!!"
Sensitive conservatives refer to her as "urban" you racist pig.
____________________________
Anna wrote:
People often say that if someone doesn't agree then, they don't understand their point. That's not true. Sometimes they don't agree with it.
#274 Oct 15 2015 at 8:33 PM Rating: Excellent
Prodigal Son
******
20,488 posts
Jophiel wrote:
But the Confederate Battle flag was never about racism... or slavery... or.... umm... it's, like, about grits and Coca-Cola or something.

It's all about the S'mores Schnapps.
____________________________
publiusvarus wrote:
we all know liberals are well adjusted american citizens who only want what's best for society. While conservatives are evil money grubbing scum who only want to sh*t on the little man and rob the world of its resources.
#275 Oct 16 2015 at 8:02 AM Rating: Excellent
******
49,192 posts
gbaji wrote:
I disagree.
Your agreement isn't really necessary for facts to have happened.
gbaji wrote:
The point is that as the south has become less racist [...] I'm not the one trying to desperately rewrite history in order to wash away the stench of a century of Jim crow from my party's history.
You're the one trying to desperately rewrite history in order to wash away the stench of a century of Jim Crow from your party's genealogy while trying to take credit from the other's tree.
____________________________
George Carlin wrote:
I think it’s the duty of the comedian to find out where the line is drawn and cross it deliberately.
#276 Oct 16 2015 at 10:35 PM Rating: Decent
Encyclopedia
******
34,721 posts
Jophiel wrote:
Yeah, I'm not "forgetting" anything. You're pretending that his support from a majority of the deep south was anything but support for his racist platform. That's why they voted for him. If they wanted to support a Democrat, they would have voted for the Democrat. They didn't; they wanted to support the Segregationist.


Yes. Who was a Democrat prior to that, and was a Democrat after that. Let's not forget that the claim I'm refuting is that the politicians who ran on a racist platform and/or wanted to continue to implement racist policies, shifted from the Democratic party to the Republican party. The example of Wallace show's that's not the case. The example of Thurman is the exception, not the rule. All of the other Democrats who voted against the CRA remained Democrats after doing so. None of them ever switched parties, so it's hard to see where this myth comes from. Because one guy switched? That's hardly a trend.

Quote:
In the election prior, they supported the Republican after the Democratic president signed the CRA. In almost every election after, they continued to support the Republican candidate.


And again, you are arguing the exception and not the rule. The trend was that the GOP had been gaining ground in the south, among southern whites in particular, since well before the passage of the CRA. Eisenhower was very anti-segregation, and it was during his terms that the GOP made gains in the south. And, as I pointed out earlier, it was in the periphery states (Texas, Florida, North Carolina, etc) that the GOP made their first gains in the south. They made gains among southern whites who were not pro-segregation. The idea that the GOP somehow became the party of racism after the CRA was passed just isn't supported by the facts.

That's not to say that some racist voters, angered by the CRA and seeing the Dems as having abandoned them, may have voted for the GOP out of spite or something (basically Goldwaters run). But that one case does not a trend make. The evidence far more supports the assumption that racism and segregation simply ceased to be effective political platforms anymore, and the parties and the voters moved on to other things.


Quote:
It's sort of sad, but then I'm not the one writing long posts trying to justify an erroneous theory where Southern Democrats didn't flip parties due their racism.


They didn't. The sad part is how many liberals steadfastly cling to this version of events.
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#277 Oct 16 2015 at 10:46 PM Rating: Decent
Encyclopedia
******
34,721 posts
ElneClare wrote:
No one is trying to deny that Southern Democrats were not Racists. Before the passage of the CRA, no good old boy in the Confederate states would think of joining the Party of Lincoln. The Civil Rights Act, force busing and fear of violence, were all used by the GOP to bring conservative voters into their fold. By the time Nixon ran against Humphrey, the middle of country was beginning to feel ignored.


Again though, the GOP had been winning ground in the south well before the passage of the CRA. While the Dems were still running on "segregation today, segregation forever" the GOP was gaining districts and electoral votes in the south, running on an economic prosperity platform. GOP gains in the south had *nothing* to do with race. If anything, people flocked to the GOP because they weren't the party of racism and they wanted to distance themselves from those who were (ie: the Democrats). You don't honestly think that everyone just magically forgot what the Dem politicians were doing and saying just a year before the CRA was passed? And you can't possibly think that passage of that act just magically caused all the Dem politicians to abandon their positions?

Quote:
Then you only have history that you find that supports your version of history. I actually lived through all of this and the images of police dogs being unleashed on Civil Right protesters is etched in my memory. I had to live during all of this and due to a very visual memory I haven't forgotten how ugly those years were.


Yes. Police dogs released by police appointed by Democratic politicians, in Democratically controlled cities, in Democratically controlled states. It was only the gradual shift of power from the Dems to the GOP that trickled down (yeah, I'll use the phrase here, sue me!) to the city level and the abuses and refusals to comply with the CRA finally stopped. You do remember that the greatest violence occurred *after* the CRA was passed, right? The rioting in 1968? You do remember that, right?

That was the last gasp of the old guard Democrats trying to cling to their racist policies in the face of a new paradigm. It was absolutely not newly elected Republicans appointing racists to positions of power and suddenly enacting new racist policies that people needed to riot against. It took nearly a decade for the effects of the CRA to ripple through the south. And one of those effects was the shift of power from the Dems to the GOP. Not because the GOP adopted racism, but because they were the party that wasn't racist. If you wanted to get rid of the corrupt racist police and DAs, and whatnot, you had to elect Republicans to office.

To the degree that racial politics had anything to do wit it. that's why the GOP gained ground in the south. The southerners were sick of the racists running things and picked a different party. The idea that the racists shifted to the GOP is just plain ridiculous.
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#278 Oct 17 2015 at 12:03 AM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
gbaji wrote:
Yes. Who was a Democrat prior to that, and was a Democrat after that.

And who wasn't a Democrat during the election that actually mattered since it plainly showed where the interests of the voters lay.
Quote:
And again, you are arguing the exception and not the rule.

Every election after the signing of the CRA is the "Exception"? Well... ummm... whatever you need to tell yourself?

Look, it's great that you looked up some NRO blogs and stuff but maybe you need to read something besides Republicans trying to console themselves that they're not really racists and it's all the mean ole Democrats spreading lies about them. You know, maybe take some ownership for the past fifty years? Just a thought. I'm sure that "blame Democrats" is easier though.
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#279 Oct 17 2015 at 9:14 AM Rating: Decent
Prodigal Son
******
20,488 posts
So, if not then, when *did* the GOP become the party of racism?
____________________________
publiusvarus wrote:
we all know liberals are well adjusted american citizens who only want what's best for society. While conservatives are evil money grubbing scum who only want to sh*t on the little man and rob the world of its resources.
#281 Oct 19 2015 at 7:40 AM Rating: Good
******
49,192 posts
Jophiel wrote:
You know, maybe take some ownership for the past fifty years?
Personal responsibility is for other people to take.
____________________________
George Carlin wrote:
I think it’s the duty of the comedian to find out where the line is drawn and cross it deliberately.
#282 Oct 19 2015 at 9:01 AM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
Of course, all of this leads to the obvious question: So why do minorities so disproportionately vote Democratic? Which gives interesting answers ranging from "Democrats have tricked 90% of blacks for fifty years" to Romney's "Minorities all want to vote for Santa Claus and get free stuff" reasoning.

Hey, wait, I think I discovered part of the reason why they vote disproportionately Democratic!
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#283 Oct 19 2015 at 9:12 AM Rating: Good
GBATE!! Never saw it coming
Avatar
****
9,139 posts
Jophiel wrote:
Of course, all of this leads to the obvious question: So why do minorities so disproportionately vote Democratic? Which gives interesting answers ranging from "Democrats have tricked 90% of blacks for fifty years" to Romney's "Minorities all want to vote for Santa Claus and get free stuff" reasoning.

Hey, wait, I think I discovered part of the reason why they vote disproportionately Democratic!
I'm busy crafting a joke about the GOP and dancing lessons, but it needs work before I can post it.Smiley: frown
____________________________
Anna wrote:
People often say that if someone doesn't agree then, they don't understand their point. That's not true. Sometimes they don't agree with it.
#284 Oct 20 2015 at 7:10 AM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
Looking probable that Ryan will be the next Speaker. He's gone from "No" to "Ehhh... no" to "Maybe" to saying he'll run but he won't negotiate to do it to now saying he's placing conditions on the conservative House "Freedom Caucus".
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#285 Oct 20 2015 at 7:21 AM Rating: Good
******
49,192 posts
More amusing is Trump vs Bush on Twitter over George and 9/11.
____________________________
George Carlin wrote:
I think it’s the duty of the comedian to find out where the line is drawn and cross it deliberately.
#286 Oct 20 2015 at 8:08 AM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
I do like how the "Bush kept us safe!" mantra always conveniently begins on September 12, 2001.
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#287 Oct 20 2015 at 8:57 AM Rating: Excellent
Will swallow your soul
******
29,127 posts
Looks like Carly "Crazy Eyes" Fiorina is losing support. Live by the crazy, die by the crazy.
____________________________
In a time of universal deceit, telling the truth is a revolutionary act.

#288 Oct 20 2015 at 11:08 AM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
Jim Webb is dropping out of the race. Lincoln Chafee and Martin O'Malley are presumably scrambling to lock in the 0.5% of the vote Webb was commanding.
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#289 Oct 20 2015 at 11:32 AM Rating: Decent
Scholar
***
1,216 posts
Friar Bijou wrote:
Jophiel wrote:
Of course, all of this leads to the obvious question: So why do minorities so disproportionately vote Democratic? Which gives interesting answers ranging from "Democrats have tricked 90% of blacks for fifty years" to Romney's "Minorities all want to vote for Santa Claus and get free stuff" reasoning.

Hey, wait, I think I discovered part of the reason why they vote disproportionately Democratic!
I'm busy crafting a joke about the GOP and dancing lessons, but it needs work before I can post it.Smiley: frown


Wanna dig out MCRove?
____________________________
Your soul was made of fists.

Jar the Sam
#290 Oct 20 2015 at 11:40 AM Rating: Good
******
49,192 posts
Jophiel wrote:
Jim Webb is dropping out of the race.
Was he the one with the "I eat babies" smile?
____________________________
George Carlin wrote:
I think it’s the duty of the comedian to find out where the line is drawn and cross it deliberately.
#291 Oct 20 2015 at 11:44 AM Rating: Excellent
Will swallow your soul
******
29,127 posts
lolgaxe wrote:
Jophiel wrote:
Jim Webb is dropping out of the race.
Was he the one with the "I eat babies" smile?


Can you narrow that down a little?
____________________________
In a time of universal deceit, telling the truth is a revolutionary act.

#292 Oct 20 2015 at 11:47 AM Rating: Good
******
49,192 posts
If it is who I think it is, he's the one that answered the "do you have any enemies" question with a "probably the guy I brutally killed" answer.
____________________________
George Carlin wrote:
I think it’s the duty of the comedian to find out where the line is drawn and cross it deliberately.
#293 Oct 20 2015 at 2:10 PM Rating: Default
The All Knowing
Avatar
*****
10,134 posts
Jophiel wrote:
I do like how the "Bush kept us safe!" mantra always conveniently begins on September 12, 2001.
How convenient. Even more convenient how Benghazi was bad for President Obama in his 2012 re-election because it happened under his watch.

Didn't the GOP blame Super Storm Sandy on President Obama?!Smiley: lol
#294 Oct 20 2015 at 2:19 PM Rating: Excellent
Will swallow your soul
******
29,127 posts
It was going to be his Katrina, they said, all excited about impending disaster hitting someone else so they could score points.

The overlap between politicians and sociopaths must be close to a circle.
____________________________
In a time of universal deceit, telling the truth is a revolutionary act.

#295 Oct 21 2015 at 11:39 AM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
Biden, unsurprisingly, will not run for president. A month ago, I would have been happy to see him enter the race but I (or he, it seems) can't really see a plausible path for him this late in and with Clinton on the rebound.

Also, Sanders was apparently right when he said that Americans were sick of hearing about Clinton's emails:
PW wrote:
A new Monmouth poll finds that 52% of the American public feels that Hillary Clinton’s use of a private email account during her time as Secretary of State was mainly a matter of convenience compared to 33% who say this behavior suggests she has something to hide.

In addition, 59% of the public are tired of hearing about this issue while just 32% say the media should continue to cover it.


Edited, Oct 21st 2015 12:40pm by Jophiel
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#296 Oct 21 2015 at 12:13 PM Rating: Good
******
49,192 posts
Feel the same about 9/11, but **** me if it isn't used in one form or another.
____________________________
George Carlin wrote:
I think it’s the duty of the comedian to find out where the line is drawn and cross it deliberately.
#297 Oct 21 2015 at 12:16 PM Rating: Excellent
Will swallow your soul
******
29,127 posts
lolgaxe wrote:
Feel the same about 9/11, but **** me if it isn't used in one form or another.



I know, right? 9/11, emails, Benghazi, cocaine abuse, attacking rabbit, Alzheimer's... man, we just get hold of one little flaw and worry it to death.
____________________________
In a time of universal deceit, telling the truth is a revolutionary act.

#298 Oct 21 2015 at 12:32 PM Rating: Excellent
Will swallow your soul
******
29,127 posts
In other news, I wonder what concessions Uncle Joe got from the viable candidates in return for not entering the race. It'll be interesting to see if he graciously accepts a cabinet post should the Ds win the election.
____________________________
In a time of universal deceit, telling the truth is a revolutionary act.

#299 Oct 21 2015 at 12:40 PM Rating: Good
******
49,192 posts
He gets to keep the cot in the Oval Office where he spends most of his time napping.
____________________________
George Carlin wrote:
I think it’s the duty of the comedian to find out where the line is drawn and cross it deliberately.
#300 Oct 21 2015 at 12:57 PM Rating: Excellent
Will swallow your soul
******
29,127 posts
Aw, that'll be nice. Maybe Jill will let him put it in his man cave.
____________________________
In a time of universal deceit, telling the truth is a revolutionary act.

#301 Oct 21 2015 at 1:05 PM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
lolgaxe wrote:
Feel the same about 9/11, but **** me if it isn't used in one form or another.

Perhaps you're unaware that 9/11 changed everything.
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
Reply To Thread

Colors Smileys Quote OriginalQuote Checked Help

 

Recent Visitors: 69 All times are in CDT
gbaji, Jophiel, Anonymous Guests (67)