America - The Official Thread

  • Thread starter ///M-Spec
  • 39,073 comments
  • 1,710,004 views
huskeR32
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%)
Cloture in the Senate:
  • Democratic Party: 44–23 (66–34%)
  • Republican Party: 27–6 (82–18%)
The Senate version:
  • Democratic Party: 46–21 (69–31%)
  • Republican Party: 27–6 (82–18%)
The Senate version, voted on by the House:
  • Democratic Party: 153–91 (63–37%)
  • Republican Party: 136–35 (80–20%)
In every case, more Democrats voted in favor than Republicans. So what? Yeah, so what. It doesn't really have anything to do with my point either. Just wanted to bring the cherries you didn't pick to the table.

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%)
The Senate:
  • Northern: 72–6 (92–8%)
  • Southern: 1–21 (5–95%)
So, much more than being a party issue, it was a regional divide (note that, here, "southern" is defined as the 11 states that joined the Confederacy, and "northern" is everyone else.

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%)
The Senate:
  • Southern Democrats: 1–20 (5–95%)
  • Southern Republicans: 0–1 (0–100%)
  • Northern Democrats: 45–1 (98–2%)
  • Northern Republicans: 27–5 (84–16%)
This makes things even more clear. In both absolute numbers and percentages, more Democrats voted in favor of the Civil Rights Act than Republicans, when you apply a North/South filter to the voting.

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:

Map_1968_Election2.gif


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.



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.
Click to expand...

Thank you for taking the time & trouble to post a definitive rebuttal to the patently absurd argument put forward by present day Republicans expounding one of the most egregious examples of whataboutism.
 
Violent protests are again expected in Seattle. But there are a couple of new twists in the mix.
1) Federal officers are on standby to protect federal buildings and personnel.
2) Seattle Police have been legally stripped of all the routine crowd control weapons they have been trained with, essentially reducing them to batons (and pepper spray under some instances).

Accordingly, the police union is indicating it will decline to intervene in situations where their members are likely to suffer the same sorts of mass injuries recently suffered. Last night there was riot on Capitol Hill in which stores were freely burned and looted with complete tolerance and no action by police.

This city is becoming one of the great laboratories of democracy. I have heard reports that the personal homes of city council members as well as police officers have been identified and targeted for protest, siege and vandalism. The mayor, whose address is on a protected secret list due to her past career as a prosecutor, had her home besieged by a protest crowd led by openly socialist council member. Kshama Sawant. The system here is literally eating its own people. This is all very entertaining. Until it touches you personally.

 
Last edited:
Eunos_Cosmo
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.
Click to expand...

I read a little bit more about this...turns out the American Independent Party, the one that selected George Wallace to run on their very first presidential ticket, actually endorsed Donald Trump in the 2016 election. He's plastered all over their party website as "their" candidate...but I can't say I would advise looking it up. Even google thinks it's not secure. :lol:

Biggles
Didn't have to wait eight months:

https://www.foxnews.com/politics/go...o-ban-democratic-party-over-past-slavery-ties

Good ol' Louis Gohmert! :dopey:
Click to expand...

Has anyone ever seen Gohmert and Crunch in the same room at the same time?
 
BobK
Are you suggesting the Democratic Party does not have a racist past? Given how many people today are being held accountable for things they did or said decades ago, why should the Democratic Party be any different?
Click to expand...

Of course they have a racist past. But what's more concerning is the racist present, which follows a direct line from people like George Wallace & the GOP electoral strategy adopted by Republicans under Richard Nixon, through to Donald Trump.


"With President Trump's increasing reliance on racial grievance to be reelected, the comparisons to the 1968 campaign of Alabama Gov. George Wallace, the Democrat turned third-party presidential candidate who fanned flames of racial division, seem obvious. In many ways, Trump is an updated version of Wallace, in their similar use of language and campaigns built upon angry divisiveness. But the Trump campaign, however much it fans those same flames, may actually be fanning the embers at the end of the racial politics that Wallace once introduced onto a national stage.

A month before the 1968 election, Wallace's nakedly racist law-and-order campaign polled the support from more than 25 percent of white Americans, but his real legacy was more than the introduction of coded racist political rhetoric. He played a key role in creating a more conservative national politics motivated by racial divisions.

Southern whites, in particular, stirred by Wallace's message, cut themselves loose from the Democratic Party and ultimately became part of a new conservative Republican base after Ronald Reagan's presidency in the 1980s and the Newt Gingrich capture of the U.S. House in 1994. As the South turned deep red, every national Republican campaign benefited from a realignment initially stoked by racial division."

https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics/donald-trump-may-end-what-george-wallace-started/ar-BB171rrD
 
huskeR32
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%)
Cloture in the Senate:
  • Democratic Party: 44–23 (66–34%)
  • Republican Party: 27–6 (82–18%)
The Senate version:
  • Democratic Party: 46–21 (69–31%)
  • Republican Party: 27–6 (82–18%)
The Senate version, voted on by the House:
  • Democratic Party: 153–91 (63–37%)
  • Republican Party: 136–35 (80–20%)
In every case, more Democrats voted in favor than Republicans. So what? Yeah, so what. It doesn't really have anything to do with my point either. Just wanted to bring the cherries you didn't pick to the table.

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%)
The Senate:
  • Northern: 72–6 (92–8%)
  • Southern: 1–21 (5–95%)
So, much more than being a party issue, it was a regional divide (note that, here, "southern" is defined as the 11 states that joined the Confederacy, and "northern" is everyone else.

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%)
The Senate:
  • Southern Democrats: 1–20 (5–95%)
  • Southern Republicans: 0–1 (0–100%)
  • Northern Democrats: 45–1 (98–2%)
  • Northern Republicans: 27–5 (84–16%)
This makes things even more clear. In both absolute numbers and percentages, more Democrats voted in favor of the Civil Rights Act than Republicans, when you apply a North/South filter to the voting.

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:

Map_1968_Election2.gif


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.



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.
Click to expand...
"All true, but why let facts get in the way of a good emotional argument?"

Eunos_Cosmo
Has anyone ever seen Gohmert and Chrunch in the same room at the same time?
Click to expand...
dd0.jpg


BobK
Are you suggesting the Democratic Party does not have a racist past? Given how many people today are being held accountable for things they did or said decades ago, why should the Democratic Party be any different?
Click to expand...
False equivalence. This isn't an attempt to hold an individual accountable, rather it's an "attempt" (but really it's just pandering and trolling) to hold an entire group accountable for the actions of a minority within the group.

Of course, this totally ignores the fact that Confederates were fighting for states' rights (totally not to continue owning slaves, because that's wrong) against the tyranny of the strong federal government that Lincoln sought.

Confederates were conservatives, as Republicans--the party of Lincoln, who freed the slaves--purport to be, but Republicans love the Confederacy, who were Democrats, who Republicans hate. That'll knot your noodle.
 
Liquid
At least we've finally found the one topic Donald Trump doesn't know a lot about.
Click to expand...

Child-trafficking involving an American citizen alongside a senior figure of worldwide renown and imbued "importance" is being investigated by the primary national law enforcement branch of his administration. As the seal carrier of the citizens of the United States he should be very clear on every matter in this investigation, right down to the cost of Pizza Express doughballs in 2001.

Trump is either telling the truth or he's lying. If he really doesn't know, that's scary. If he's lying, that's even scarier given his propensity for generating the whiff of an old man who likes teenagers a little too much, not to mention his connections with Ol' Suicide Jeff.
 
One community in Seattle has taken upon itself assumption of responsibility for patrolling its own neighborhood, which is directly adjacent (south) to downtown, and only a few blocks from the courthouses.





In downtown Portland, block after block of businesses are closed down and covered by plywood. The same thing is happening in Seattle.

 
Last edited:
Breaking news:

Arson and looting have broken out on Capitol Hill in the middle of the the day. Large crowds are converging on the East Police Precinct. Much more to come.

Riot has been declared. Many protesters are equipped with umbrellas. So far only pepper spray has been deployed by police. One officer hospitalized with injury from explosive device. At least 11 arrests have been made.

Fire has been started in the lobby of the precinct.

IED's composed of multiple commercial fireworks taped together have been seen by reporters.

The Chief says no tear gas will be deployed today. More arrests taking place. Police using bicycles as shields to move protesters.

Chaotic scenes from excellent helicopter and ground coverage.

Protesters now on the move after numerous additional arrests.

IED's shown on TV are 4 cylinders ~6" long and ~1" in diameter, taped together.
 
Last edited:
Local Seattle TV stations are providing live coverage from the air and ground. Main takeaway: Police are no longer giving the mob a free pass to looting and arson.
 
My bad. I thought every city had a "Capitol Hill" where the City Hall and municipal buildings are.

woke.net is a great source of local on the ground footage.
 
Here, Capitol Hill is an old, wealthy, liberal, and gay residential and commercial neighborhood, just east and uphill of downtown. It is enduring gentrification. Protesters are skillfully maneuvering in at least 4 or 5 groups of several hundred each.

Most officers are mainly equipped with batons, about 40" long and 2" in diameter, made of heavy "ironwood".

The press coverage is concluding they are mainly trying to protect the east precinct. A trail of destruction, arson and looting is being made over an area of Capitol Hill. After dark, hours away, the mob may head downtown to attack the main precinct and federal buildings. - just a guess on my part.
 
Last edited:
Yes, Twitter's trends are a compilation of the most frequently used words or phrases.

So if lots of people are criticising Trump by name, as a specific example, it's going to be one of the most commonly tweeted subjects, easily viewable by others.

Some trends don't make sense unless you click on them for the context; as a more abstract example for balance, something seemingly random like "Birmingham are" can be one of the top trends, as it was in the UK the other day when Birmingham City Football Club made the headlines for something specific.
 
TenEightyOne
Child-trafficking involving an American citizen alongside a senior figure of worldwide renown and imbued "importance" is being investigated by the primary national law enforcement branch of his administration. As the seal carrier of the citizens of the United States he should be very clear on every matter in this investigation, right down to the cost of Pizza Express doughballs in 2001.

Trump is either telling the truth or he's lying. If he really doesn't know, that's scary. If he's lying, that's even scarier given his propensity for generating the whiff of an old man who likes teenagers a little too much, not to mention his connections with Ol' Suicide Jeff.
Click to expand...

Trump is incapable of telling the truth, the big beautiful truth....

All his life he has been lying more than breathing.

Clearly he is lying as usual.
 

Similar threads

Ross
  • Poll
Britain - The Official Thread
441 442 443
Replies
13K
Views
588K
Liquid
Liquid
Dylan
2025 NASCAR Discussion Thread
Replies
9
Views
934
Eggstor
Eggstor
Harley45
What did you do in GT7 today?
440 441 442
Replies
13K
Views
703K
HarVee
HarVee
The_Greaser
Forza Motorsport (2023): The Bugfest Thread
2 3 4
Replies
96
Views
18K
UKMikey
UKMikey
Dotini
Trump's Legacy: the US Space Force and conservative judges
Replies
1
Views
684
Dotini
Dotini

Latest Posts

Back