DesertPenguin
(Banned)
- 10,691
- Long Island, New York
- DesertPenguin_
I think the fact that we are "rustled" up enough to ask him about it is enough for a win in his twisted mind.
America - The Official Thread
- Thread starter ///M-Spec
- 39,252 comments
- 1,756,540 views
Danoff
Premium
- 34,011
- Mile High City
I can't be bothered about that. I like having discussions here. Even about clickbait.
DesertPenguin
(Banned)
- 10,691
- Long Island, New York
- DesertPenguin_
Dotini
(Banned)
- 15,742
- Seattle
- CR80_Shifty
I've been sleeping the last few hours.
But anyway, the Professor is a Marxist who says capitalism has a major problem and that it is going to collapse in a few months. He has facts and data and an argument I cannot refute. I hope he's wrong, but I think I acknowledge that there are major problems at work that I cannot explain away. I'm looking for an explanation from both liberals and conservatives why he is wrong. Simple as that.
But anyway, the Professor is a Marxist who says capitalism has a major problem and that it is going to collapse in a few months. He has facts and data and an argument I cannot refute. I hope he's wrong, but I think I acknowledge that there are major problems at work that I cannot explain away. I'm looking for an explanation from both liberals and conservatives why he is wrong. Simple as that.
DesertPenguin
(Banned)
- 10,691
- Long Island, New York
- DesertPenguin_
Dotini
(Banned)
- 15,742
- Seattle
- CR80_Shifty
- 1,302
- CZE
- novcze
they are not paid the same as legals (on average), possibility of wage theft, no social security, no federal benefits
I'm not advocating for anything and certainly not for what you've suggested. People should enter another country legaly, but since you have so many illegals your priority should be some kind of legalization. I'll guess that even illegals would like to be legal someday, because why wouldn't they? (is there any advantage for illegals to be illegal?)
ok, so how do you regulate who is coming in, because (warning exaggeration incoming) otherwise you end up with south america moving into the US.
I'm lost here, what is "broad stroke prohibitions"? Visas?
I can totally see reasons for ban of face covering, I'm not sure about beijing bikini maybe it's major problem maybe not, so I picked one option.
It's like with our statue guy "maybe communist" "maybe art lover" "maybe historian", you need to pick one you like to express your opinions.
Danoff
Premium
- 34,011
- Mile High City
So... hiring them is exploiting them because they're not provided federal benefits because they're undocumented? So... not hiring them would be NOT exploiting them?
Yea there are some advantages. It's hard to track you if you want to commit crimes, and it can be easier to find certain kinds of work. Those small advantages are overwhelmed by the disadvantages though. I agree that a better path to legal status is needed, but if I were living in mexico, and had no path to legal entry into the US, I think I would strongly consider entering illegally.
At least he's starting to make the right overtures.
DesertPenguin
(Banned)
- 10,691
- Long Island, New York
- DesertPenguin_
- 6,064
- Simcoeace
Here's what this amateur doesn't get ... from what I understand you guys have jobs. You even claim to have families.
Foxies are convinced George Soros is paying thousands of leftist trolls to flood the Fox comment boards ... but who's paying the full-time libertarian posters on GTPlanet?
- 3,308
- Kentucky
- Chrunch_Houston
The Civil Rights Act would not have passed if it were not for the Republicans.
Sure, by a version of the party that doesn't exist anymore. Again, you're being black and white here, and leaning on the word "Republicans" without acknowledging the history behind it all. When Johnson signed the Civil Rights Act and ended Jim Crow, the Democrats suddenly and completely lost their long-standing grip on southern politics. Pretty much overnight, millions of former Democrats abandoned the party, and the Republicans' very successful "Southern Strategy" to win those voters over by stoking racial resentment and fear was born. And you don't have to take my word for it, many political strategists, probably most notably Reagan chief advisor Lee Atwater, openly admitted it.
In many very real ways, the parties pretty much switched places because of the Civil Rights movement. So to give credit for that to the modern Republican party is laughably uninformed and short-sighted. This, of course, has been pointed out many times in this very thread, but I suspect it won't be heard by any more ears now than it has been before.
More Republicans (by percentage) voted for it than Democrats. And it wasn't even close.
In the house, 80% of Republicans voted for it, and only 63% of Democrats.
In the senate, 82% of Republicans voted for it, and only 69% Democrats.
From what I recall, only one house member, and one senator switched from Democrat to Republican.
Remember when the Republican governor blocked the schoolhouse door and wouldn't let the black kids in?
Neither do I. It was Democrat George Wallace.
Longtime Democrat Senator, Robert Byrd created a chapter of the KKK, and was unanimously elected Exalted Cyclops. Whatever that is.
Hillary's mentor
The notion that the Southern Democrats flipped is just not true.
I will tell you what is true though, after four years inept leadership by Democrat Jimmy Carter, The country was happy to vote for Republican Ronald Reagan. My own mother voted for Carter's first term because he was a 'born again Christian', but she was happy as hell to vote for Reagan.
You are right. I thought you were talking about race. My bad.
Danoff
Premium
- 34,011
- Mile High City
Ignoring that little bit of statistical manipulation for a moment... this is supposed to show... continuity... in party politics?
- 3,308
- Kentucky
- Chrunch_Houston
- 3,749
- Elizabeth, New Jersey, USA
And the Karen people, too. An indigenous group endemic to parts of Thailand and Burma. That's the first result that comes up when you google the term "Karen".
- 11,844
- Marin County
The Civil Rights Act would not have passed if it were not for the Republicans.
More Republicans (by percentage) voted for it than Democrats. And it wasn't even close.
In the house, 80% of Republicans voted for it, and only 63% of Democrats.
In the senate, 82% of Republicans voted for it, and only 69% Democrats.
From what I recall, only one house member, and one senator switched from Democrat to Republican.
Remember when the Republican governor blocked the schoolhouse door and wouldn't let the black kids in?
Neither do I. It was Democrat George Wallace.
Longtime Democrat Senator, Robert Byrd created a chapter of the KKK, and was unanimously elected Exalted Cyclops. Whatever that is.
Hillary's mentor
The notion that the Southern Democrats flipped is just not true.
I will tell you what is true though, after four years inept leadership by Democrat Jimmy Carter, The country was happy to vote for Republican Ronald Reagan. My own mother voted for Carter's first term because he was a 'born again Christian', but she was happy as hell to vote for Reagan.
You are right. I thought you were talking about race. My bad.
Are you suggesting that George Wallace would be a Democrat if he were in office today?
- 3,308
- Kentucky
- Chrunch_Houston
Yes. Robert KKK Byrd died a Democrat in 2010.
- 3,900
- St.Pete, FL
- NotThePrez
- NotThePrez
Well for one, a significant majority of representatives in both parties voted in favor of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 (which your twisted statistics also suggest, btw). Also, if we look at it by region, almost all Southern Democrats and Republicans at the time voted against the Civil Rights Act. Not only did the overwhelming majority of Northern Representatives in both parties vote in favor of the Civil Rights Act, the Northern Democratic vote in both the House & The Senate was significantly higher than the Northern Republican Vote Percentage-wise. Hell, there were more Southern Democrats that voted in favor of the bill than Southern Republicans.
Now, if I were (completely) insane, I could make an argument that based on that data Republicans by far are more racist than the Democrats, and it would hold more water.
Edit: Last bit was admittedly a tad mean.
Last edited:
- 3,749
- Elizabeth, New Jersey, USA
@Chrunch Houston,
The whole "the parties never switched" talking point that conservatives love to throw around is in my opinion, the most disingenuous talking point of all used by the Right. This talking point can be so easily disproven that it's genuinely insane how so many seem to think it's a "gotcha" towards the Left. Even if you know next-to-nothing about politics, this notion that a political party that has been around for nearly two centuries has never modified any of it's tenets as time went on and peoples' views progressed is absolutely absurd. As demonstrated historically, it's a normal occurrence for a political party to change their core values and what demographics they want to appeal/pander to. The Democrats supported slavery, the KKK, and Jim Crow segregation laws back when they were the conservative, reactionary party. The Southern Strategy was a real thing, you know. The Republican Party had shifted from the party of small government/limited governmental interference to a reactionary party that touts neoconservatism, corporatism, and "family values", and pandered to evangelicals and white southerners (Dixie-Crats). The Democratic Party, though still very flawed (but you and I think would so for vastly different reasons), in turn decided to emphasize civil rights, diplomacy, and more governmental intervention when it comes to social issues. Furthermore, the KKK endorsed Donald Trump in 2016, a Republican candidate. Virtually everyone with white supremacist viewpoints and those who fly the Rebel flag identify themselves with the Republican party today, not the Democratic party, and that's no coincidence. And virtually everyone who is pushing for racial equity and civil rights today belongs to the Democratic Party. And if you're still not convinced by this, I ask you this question. If the parties never indeed switched, than how come post-1964, every Southern state quickly transformed from staunchly Democratic to staunchly Republican?
Oh, and in 1964, then president Lyndon Johnson even said, after signing the Civil Rights Act into law, "The Democrats just lost the South for a generation. I think we just delivered the South to the Republican party for a long time to come".
The whole "the parties never switched" talking point that conservatives love to throw around is in my opinion, the most disingenuous talking point of all used by the Right. This talking point can be so easily disproven that it's genuinely insane how so many seem to think it's a "gotcha" towards the Left. Even if you know next-to-nothing about politics, this notion that a political party that has been around for nearly two centuries has never modified any of it's tenets as time went on and peoples' views progressed is absolutely absurd. As demonstrated historically, it's a normal occurrence for a political party to change their core values and what demographics they want to appeal/pander to. The Democrats supported slavery, the KKK, and Jim Crow segregation laws back when they were the conservative, reactionary party. The Southern Strategy was a real thing, you know. The Republican Party had shifted from the party of small government/limited governmental interference to a reactionary party that touts neoconservatism, corporatism, and "family values", and pandered to evangelicals and white southerners (Dixie-Crats). The Democratic Party, though still very flawed (but you and I think would so for vastly different reasons), in turn decided to emphasize civil rights, diplomacy, and more governmental intervention when it comes to social issues. Furthermore, the KKK endorsed Donald Trump in 2016, a Republican candidate. Virtually everyone with white supremacist viewpoints and those who fly the Rebel flag identify themselves with the Republican party today, not the Democratic party, and that's no coincidence. And virtually everyone who is pushing for racial equity and civil rights today belongs to the Democratic Party. And if you're still not convinced by this, I ask you this question. If the parties never indeed switched, than how come post-1964, every Southern state quickly transformed from staunchly Democratic to staunchly Republican?
Oh, and in 1964, then president Lyndon Johnson even said, after signing the Civil Rights Act into law, "The Democrats just lost the South for a generation. I think we just delivered the South to the Republican party for a long time to come".
Last edited:
- 4,722
- United Kingdom
I agree.
It's also not clever to use a blanket negative term to describe any female who one deems to fit into one's idea of a stereotype. Or
Is one a pronoun?
I ask because I didn't know whether to use an apostrophe in one's.
Last edited:
Dotini
(Banned)
- 15,742
- Seattle
- CR80_Shifty
On the same day the Reverend Doctor Martin Luther King Jr was marching on Washington DC, I and my best friend and his family were marching on the Federal Courthouse in Seattle. I identify as Libertarian. But contrary to every single person on this forum I have ever encountered, I endorse some form of reparation to blacks. I always put my money where my mouth is.
Last edited by a moderator:
Danoff
Premium
- 34,011
- Mile High City
Measuring in terms of percentage instead of actual numbers to make it look like more republicans voted for something. That's a manipulation of statistics to try to get you to draw an incorrect conclusion. Yes facts are facts, and facts can be used to trick you.
No one has the time to list everything that is racist about the Republicans either. What was your point here? What you did was argue against yourself in your previous post. You were trying to show continuity and you showed discontinuity.
- 2,620
- Lincoln, NE
- huskeR_32
I didn't say otherwise. My point was that those Republicans aren't today's Republicans.
Funny you would throw in that "by percentage" caveat without telling us the absolute numbers behind it. Here they are, for the curious:
The original House version:
- Democratic Party: 152–96 (61–39%)
- Republican Party: 138–34 (80–20%)
- Democratic Party: 44–23 (66–34%)
- Republican Party: 27–6 (82–18%)
- Democratic Party: 46–21 (69–31%)
- Republican Party: 27–6 (82–18%)
- Democratic Party: 153–91 (63–37%)
- Republican Party: 136–35 (80–20%)
So what numbers do matter to my point? Glad you asked. Here they are:
The House of Representatives:
- Northern: 281–32 (90–10%)
- Southern: 8–94 (8–92%)
- Northern: 72–6 (92–8%)
- Southern: 1–21 (5–95%)
So what happens at the intersection of party and region? This:
The House of Representatives:
- Southern Democrats: 8–87 (7–93%)
- Southern Republicans: 0–10 (0–100%)
- Northern Democrats: 145–9 (94–6%)
- Northern Republicans: 138–24 (85–15%)
- Southern Democrats: 1–20 (5–95%)
- Southern Republicans: 0–1 (0–100%)
- Northern Democrats: 45–1 (98–2%)
- Northern Republicans: 27–5 (84–16%)
Your attempt to paint the Republicans as the ever-present good guys falls utterly flat when you see that ZERO southern Republicans voted in favor of the act. Not a single one.
Now, there were only 11 of them. And we've finally arrived at the crux of my original point. A point I'm fairly sure you knew already, and tried to cherry-pick your way out of.
Not even 60 years ago, Democrats dominated Southern politics. Just look at the numbers. They held 95 seats in the House (in southern states) against the Republicans' 10. They held 21 Senate seats against the Republicans' 1.
To anybody who only pays attention to current U.S. politics, that must be astounding. After all, the South is the staunchest stronghold of the Republican party today. So, what happened?
This vote happened. As @GranTurNismo pointed out, President Johnson knew what would happen the minute he signed the Civil Rights Act into law:
From roughly the end of the Civil War until 1964, the southern states almost always voted Democrat in national elections. It was so reliable that, at the time, the region was known as the "Solid South," the backbone of Democrat politics. Then, in a bit of foreshadowing, when Truman ran on a platform in 1948 that included Civil Rights, southerners walked out of the Democratic convention and formed the "Dixiecrat" Party. The rift was temporarily healed in the '50s, but the damage was done and it became clear what would happen if and when Democrat politicians moved to enact Civil Rights reform in the U.S.
So, 1964 comes, the Civil Rights Act is passed by a Democrat president, and the northern members of Congress, and southern voters again revolt. This time completely. The only Democrat president since then to carry the south was Jimmy Carter, a southerner. Clinton carried some of the south in 1992, and again, he was a southerner. But by and large, southern politics switched overnight from Democrat to Republican. They perpetually elect Republicans to their state houses, their Governor's offices, the House, the Senate, and the White House. I'm not going to flood this thread with the numbers backing all of that up, it's easy enough to find.
The South's switch from Democrat to Republican was quick, and it was complete. The voters were shown to be pretty well single-issue voters, and there was one party happy to play to that issue and scoop those voters up. And again, you don't have to take my word for it. While serving as Reagan's advisor in the 1980's, Lee Atwater openly admitted to targeting those voters, and laid out the coded racist language they used to do it.
For that vote in 1964, yes. What happened after? What has become of southern politics since that point? See above.
So a few of the old guard labored on for a few more years claiming to be the "true Democrats" and won votes from folks pining for those good old days. And within the state of Alabama, without any balancing force from northern votes, it propelled Wallace to the Governor's office. Cool. What happened when Wallace ran for president? For your argument here to hold any water, we'd need to see widespread Democrat support for him across the country, not just the south, right? Let's go to the map:
Well, whaddya know? Outside of the deep south, Democrats voted for Humphrey. And Wallace, now competing on the national stage, couldn't even run as a Democrat; he had to run as an independent. Only four years after the passage of the Civil Rights Act, and already the old realities had abandoned poor George. And we can see clearly the emergence of some of today's traditional Democrat strongholds in the northeast and Pacific northwest.
That happened in the 1940s, two decades before what we're talking about here. You, of course, know this; you're just trying to muddy the waters.
I went over this already with Ryzno. And you trotting it out now, when it has nothing at all to do with the question at hand, is supposed to prove... what, exactly?
Do me a favor. Click through this map, year by year, and watch the south change from blue to red. Then come back and repeat this claim with a straight face. And take note of the point in the time it all seemed to change. Then come back and tell me I'm wrong about what prompted the change.
I honestly can't believe that Republicans ever try to argue about this. The flipping of the South is one of the most obvious and consequential events in American political history.
I will tell you what is true though, after four years inept leadership by Democrat Jimmy Carter, The country was happy to vote for Republican Ronald Reagan. My own mother voted for Carter's first term because he was a 'born again Christian', but she was happy as hell to vote for Reagan.
So let me get this straight. You're trying to win this "the south didn't flip" argument by 1) posting a map in which the entire south save one is red, and 2) telling me that your mother, who presumably lived in the south, was "happy as hell" to vote Republican? Think about that for a bit.
Last edited:
- 3,749
- Elizabeth, New Jersey, USA
- 11,844
- Marin County
The more I read about George Wallace, and particularly his 1968 Presidential bid, the more he actually reminds me of Trump.
Of note, he was the first nominee of the far right American Independent Party You still want to say George Wallace, a man who ran for President on a far right platform, would be a Democrat in the year 2020? Something about far right and liberal just don't seem to go together.
Maybe the whole political party thing is obscuring things. Progressives pushed to end slavery. Progressives pushed through to enact civil rights. It certainly wasn't conservatives in either case, whatever party they belonged to.
Of note, he was the first nominee of the far right American Independent Party You still want to say George Wallace, a man who ran for President on a far right platform, would be a Democrat in the year 2020? Something about far right and liberal just don't seem to go together.
Maybe the whole political party thing is obscuring things. Progressives pushed to end slavery. Progressives pushed through to enact civil rights. It certainly wasn't conservatives in either case, whatever party they belonged to.
- 5,585
- Alabamistan
"I am a conservative. I intend to give the American people a clear choice. I welcome a fight between our philosophy and the liberal left-wing dogma which now threatens to engulf every man, woman, and child in the United States. I am in this race because I believe the American people have been pushed around long enough and that they, like you and I, are fed up with the continuing trend toward a socialist state which now subjects the individual to the dictates of an all-powerful central government."
Who said this? Donald Trump in 2016? Nope, it was George Wallace in 1964. But it sounds like it could have came from any number of Republican politicians in the last decade or more.
The entire Wallace 1964 speech referenced above http://www.let.rug.nl/usa/documents...rights-movement-fraud-sham-and-hoax-1964-.php
A good comparison between George Wallace and today's Republican party.
https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/2020/04/george-wallace-donald-trump/607336/
As someone that has lived in Alabama my entire 54 years. I can assure you that if George Wallace were alive today, there is no way he would be a Democrat in this state if he hoped to have a chance to be elected. He would fall right into line and become a Republican.
Who said this? Donald Trump in 2016? Nope, it was George Wallace in 1964. But it sounds like it could have came from any number of Republican politicians in the last decade or more.
The entire Wallace 1964 speech referenced above http://www.let.rug.nl/usa/documents...rights-movement-fraud-sham-and-hoax-1964-.php
A good comparison between George Wallace and today's Republican party.
https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/2020/04/george-wallace-donald-trump/607336/
As someone that has lived in Alabama my entire 54 years. I can assure you that if George Wallace were alive today, there is no way he would be a Democrat in this state if he hoped to have a chance to be elected. He would fall right into line and become a Republican.
