You are not logged in. Please register or login.
- Topics: Active | Unanswered
- Smoking Guns
- Rep: 330
Re: US Politics Thread
I noticed the Clinton voters are being real dicks to a fellow Clinton voter in Randall. Fucked up you would eat your own like that.
Re: US Politics Thread
I noticed the Clinton voters are being real dicks to a fellow Clinton voter in Randall. Fucked up you would eat your own like that.
It is not my intention to come off that way...I am trying very hard to focus on the conversation and not the insults
Re: US Politics Thread
misterID wrote:But Obama and Farakhan didn't share ideology, Bannon and Duke do... Sorry!
Aw, I love it when repubs have to back track 100 years to prove they're awesome with race. Too bad a majority of of those democrats switched to Republicans after Johnson signed The Civil Rights Act because they were racist bigots. You're quoting a time when liberals were republicans. Try again!
You guys say this shit and then when asked for the slightest bit of evidence, you go quiet. What party was pushing for the CRA for a decade before it passed? What party nearly unanimously voted for it, while the other was a little over half with a famous filibuster?
If you're going to claim the parties flipped because the DNC was against women's suffrage and ending Jim Crow, WHAT POLICY POSITIONS DID THE GOP TAKE FROM THE DNC? Answer the fucking question.
You're just repeating absolute nonsense without a single shred of evidence. Your party still goes around treating people differently based on their race. YOU'RE A FUCKING RACIST! I've tried being nice with you guys, but it's obvious you're too dense to let it sink in. You can't qualify your opinions with facts, so you lob insults at people to quiet them and pat yourself on the back.
The Republican party has always argued for equality under the law. The DNC has always argued for inequality under the law. The DNC just doesn't scream "Ni****" anymore.
Call me a racist. Call me a bigot. But you're the only one who treats people different based on their skin color. You're the one unable to provide a single objective shred of evidence to support your claims. In short, liberalism has become the ideology of the intellectually lazy and you and your cohorts continual unsubstantiated claims prove this.
I didn't insult you. I said you seemed to have found commonality with Bannon, and I said, if you don't find him to be an anti Semitic bigot, there's no issue then. And just because he isn't yelling nigger, doesn't mean he can't or shouldn't be held to account for his publications, like calling someone a Renegade Jew. Again, I did give you evidence, you said you didn't believe it, or didn't find anything wrong with it. You defended him and seemed in line with him. You decided to bring up Jay Z. I didn't. I gave you facts, historical facts. Democrats became Republicans in the 1960s after the civil rights bill was passed, and continued prejudiced behavior. Those are facts. I'm sorry you are steeped in conservative ideology that you self destruct when presented with facts.
I'm not a liberal, I'm a moderate. I'm really not liked by Democrats!
Re: US Politics Thread
I noticed the Clinton voters are being real dicks to a fellow Clinton voter in Randall. Fucked up you would eat your own like that.
Cry me a river. Because we voted the same we have to agree on Bannon? I made my thoughts clear before the election on Bannon.
Re: US Politics Thread
With everything that's been posted about him, and you don't have a problem with any of it, there's no point continuing anything. That's all that needs to be said really.
Yup.
You either accept reality, or you do not. Bannon is a racist and anti Semite, shown by his work at Breitbart alone.
Trump is also packing his cabinet with lobbyists. I guess they'll deny that too.
- Randall Flagg
- Rep: 139
Re: US Politics Thread
Randall Flagg wrote:mitchejw wrote:This is absurd RF....and I'm going to post a bunch of stuff and avoid responding to your question and defend my original claim by providing a wall of text?
That's nice, but answer the question. What did the GOP take from the DNC to make the parties flip. You claimed it, now support it.
I don't understand what you mean by "take?" - part of the problem here may be that I don't understand your question. I never used the phrase "flipped" I don't think....but if I did then it I shouldn't have....Flip is not the right word...
Equality under the law is another very vague term. But to me it implies that all the advantages of being here for centuries are totally fair game...and anyone new the to game needs 'get in line.' It's like we're playing a game of monopoly but you get to go around the board 10 times before my first turn.
In general, and correct me if I'm wrong, Republicans prefer as few rules and laws as possible. They view that as "equality" because no one gets an unfair advantage over anyone else....but the means we have to pretend what I said in the previous paragraph doesn't exist.
I will attempt to answer you question about 'taking' but I already admit I'm not certain what you mean by that.
Essentially, I view Southern Democrats in the days of the 1850s as people who were vehemently opposed to change. The were opposed to social changes especially. They did not want the fundamentals of southern life to change at all. They have done their damnedest to keep the old south's ideals alive even to this day. They were extremely conservative and defensive of their way of life. It was the northern Yankee Repubs that were actually in favor of changes in fundamental aspects of society. That to me seems progressive. Politics seems to be the same story over and over again. One party trying to change society, and one party trying to keep it the same. Take the terms Republican and Democrat out of it. In our 2-party system, it's always one party vying for change and one party trying to keep things the same. I do believe though that the system makes it difficult to make large scale changes. I think that's probably a good thing.
Before I go on...I need to know if this is acceptable as an argument for you. I won't waste my time if it's going to be dismissed.
First off, thank you for the tone of this post. I appreciate it.
I don't disagree with what you said in concept. When people mention your "monopoly" example, they normally use that to argue for affirmative action of blacks. You didn't state any race, but that is the common argument. If you don't mean that, please say so, but in previous discussions on this topic, that is the intended audience.
My issue with that is that I don't believe you can make a claim of having a leg up "by being here for hundreds of years" by looking at the color of someone's skin. Why should a poor child in Chicago get preferential treatment over a poor child in West Virginia? The current system doesn't take this into account. It makes general statements based on skin color, which to me, is the very definition of racism. Let's use the Missou protests this year. The leader of that protest was a black person who's family was worth millions. He was a graduate student at a very large and well known school. Yet he and his cohorts were protesting under the guise of oppression and ending privilege. Let me say that again, a millionaire who has never wanted a day in his life was seriously taken as a poster child of oppression.
When 70% of a group is born out of wedlock and 50% don't earn a high school diploma, I think we should start there rather than try to tie crimes and transgressions committed over 150 years ago. Being raised by a single parent and often one who lacks a high school diploma is the single most cited cause of poverty and criminal involvement regardless of ethnicity. So when one demographic is so heavily hit by this phenomena, I say we try to resolve this. But any discussion on this issue is quickly silenced under the guise of opposing racism. If we can't even have an honest discussion about the root cause, how can we find common ground on a solution? And before you say that single parents are a result of legal discrimination, up until the war on poverty, the amount of children born out of wedlock was almost identical across all ethnicities. It only increased (and continues to increase across all demographics) in the later half of the 20th century.
Sure, I'll agree with your definition of Republicans, but I would also caveat that modern Republican are no better in their expanded use of government power and regulation than Democrats. You need to look no further back than Bush to see a "Republican" who didn't hold with fiscally conservative views. And based on what Trump has said, it doesn't look like he fits that definition either.
To me, the Democratic party has always been about expanded role of government and government assistance. Whites have always historically been split pretty even across party lines. But until the 1930s or so, Blacks had been aligned with the Republican party. But after the New Deal and massive expansion of government assistance, Black voters swung over to the Democrats. This is despite the party of the time heavily supporting segregation. To me, this is the evidence that the war on poverty and concerted effort of the DNC to cater to inner city blacks as the root of why they are economically disadvantaged as a larger group. The party they have aligned with has refused to take any action to actually resolve the issues that cause economic discrepancy. Increases in percent of people on public assistance only makes it more difficult to escape the culture of poverty. Again, this is an idea. It's far too complex to point to any one issue, but it dismisses the notion that minorities vote Democratic because of GOP racism as we know they were voting Democratic long before the CRA and the alleged changing of the parties.
So when people say the parties swapped roles, I have to ask what they mean? More often than not, the other conversation participant argues that after the 60s, the GOP became the party of "racists" and often point to the Southern Strategy as evidence. You haven't explicitly made that argument, so I won't assume you will. But I don't believe there is any legislation you can point to that would qualify the GOP as racist, and further, because of the GOP's historic place as a leader of equality under the law (defining that as no one is treated differently based on race, sex or religion), I'd expect a high standard of evidence to qualify claims that the GOP is the party of racists.
Re: US Politics Thread
I'm getting pretty annoyed at the idiots posting fake news links (still). It's getting infuriating and tends to be from the right amongst the ones I'm seeing. An acquantance just posted a fake "4 year old girl dies due to Anti Trump Protestors block traffic" article. Someone else called him out on it due to a Snopes link, but still, Cmon, that's obviously fake but at least google it first
- Randall Flagg
- Rep: 139
Re: US Politics Thread
Notice anything familiar? Radical Obama appointees according to the right:
http://www.westernjournalism.com/exclus … n-history/
http://www.keywiki.org/Barack_Obama_-_C … Associates
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the … thing-new/
I have no idea the quality of any of those sites save the post. I just picked the top hits in google. So if western journalism is a white power group, I'm not endorsing them.
Re: US Politics Thread
Notice anything familiar? Radical Obama appointees according to the right:
http://www.westernjournalism.com/exclus … n-history/
Sortof a moot point tho now since his cabinet selections seem to have all made it thru pretty much unscathed (Unless I'm forgetting some news stories early on). You can disagree with the stances & philosophies (Eric Holder, EPA) but they weren't a disaster of a choice.
Trumps picks, while they do deserve to earn their legacy, the book is unwritten.
Maybe I'm missing something.
