The 2016 US General Election

[YellowFever]

YF,



that's the same thing.

-you- choose to interpret "Dixiecrats" as Congressmen so you can make a strawman argument.

my explanation has been the same from the beginning.

Uh no.

Ever since I got here, your position was that the Dixicrats switched side to Republicans after the civil rights bill of 1964. Now you say you meant the people of the South? I don't think so. You don't get to pick and choose your definition of Dixicrats.

[The States' Rights Democratic Party (usually called the Dixiecrats) was a short-lived segregationist political party in the United States in 1948. It originated as a breakaway faction of the Democratic Party in 1948,

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dixiecrat

and what they were championing "state over federal" about? in the 1860s and then the 1950s?

i'm sure race had nothing to do with it at all. it must be tariffs!

Of course race had a lot to do with it. We're talking about the 1860's and to a lesser degree the 1950's where a huge portion of the country was a racist by today's standards...both Democrat and Republican.

But the fact of the matter was that for the South at least the thinking was state rights should trump federal laws.

what?? FDR's dominance was such that his Dem Party was called the -New Deal Coalition- which included Southern whites. they loved it because it was federal largess which also pretty clearly gave a lot more to whites than blacks. the South -loved- stuff like the Tennessee Valley Authority.

1936 Presidential Election:

[ATTACH]42005[/ATTACH]

blacks didn't start favoring the Democratic Party until Truman, whom pushed for desegregation of the armed services. for that matter blacks in the South -didn't- have any political power to speak of because of Jim Crow.

Blacks voted en mass for FDR IN 1936. It started before Truman.



On a side note, an interesting paper I found on why Blacks started voting Democrats. The Republicans were just apathetic to the Black vote. Short sighted and stupid thinking on their part. And the Democrats took big advantage of it.

http://digitalcommons.salve.edu/cgi/...xt=pell_theses

lol, they loved the federal largess but hated the civil rights portion of it.

Of course they did. We're still talking about the South of the 1950's and 60's.

look at the American Independent Party platform of 1968 which won the states in the South.



in short, they were for spending money on white people, using states' rights to bludgeon the civil rights movement. if you read the full platform, the only specific parts are their plans to undo federally mandated desegregation, increase Social Security, and provide greater subsidies and price support for farmers.

oh yeah, libertarian principles were the reason why the South supported Goldwater in 1964.

I don't see what's so racist about what you highlighted. And I don't see any body of people refusing social programs or hand outs. All I said was the South believed in state rights since the country was founded....not that they practiced what they preached.

ugh, the bill was first called for by JFK and pushed by a Dem president.

JFK called for it and LBJ signed it.

Everett McKinley Dirksen Had the biggest part of drafting the bill and pushing it through the legislative branch.

and Goldwater, the Republican Presidential nominee, specifically opposed it because he felt that it gave the Federal government powers that it shouldn't have.

This, Goldwater won the South. He was heavily pushing the state right thing....something the South loved.

We can go back and forth on this, dude, and your point was that the south was racist (and I agree if you look at the timeline. Hell, most of the country still was) and started voting for the Republicans because of this and my contention was the South started turning red when Republicans started pushing the smaller government and state rights thing.

yes, the original strawman which i've already answered. "Are Muslims terrorists?"

I think there's going to be some similarity in the way we answer those questions.

like before, it's a yes or no answer.

You don't have to make it so hard or qualify your answers.

How about this question....how much does racist attitude influence Republican policies?

[YellowFever]

Right, apparently immigrants coming in and taking over 7/11 is exactly the same as saying that some other immigrants are sending their rapists and murderers.

There you go excusing the Dems again because of your bigotry towards the Republicans.

Racism is racism. Stop making excuses.

[YellowFever]

I agree. If the best thing you can do is quote some KKK idiot who is going to support Hillary for her "hidden agenda" then it is better to refrain and not embarrass yourself further.

Funny, I seem to remember this conversation started because you were hanging Trump because some KKK idiot was supporting him. :roll eye:

Everybody believes both those things, we had a secret meeting and concluded that. What is your next move?

Cool.

So I'm a racist that hate Blacks and Asians and you're a commie.

It was a simple question.

Why do people around here have trouble answering simple questions? Sheesh....

[antimony]

Funny, I seem to remember this conversation started because you were hanging Trump because some KKK idiot was supporting him. :roll eye:

Yes it did. The KKK dude supporting Trump said that he was supporting Trump's stated position. The KKK nutjob supporting Hillary said that he is supporting her because he does not believe her stated agenda and instead believes she has a hidden, different agenda. See the difference?

Cool.

So I'm a racist that hate Blacks and Asians and you're a commie.

It was a simple question.

Why do people around here have trouble answering simple questions? Sheesh....

Probably because it is a silly question?

[YellowFever]

Probably because it is a silly question?

A silly question you answered.

Not just racists, a lot of other things (like sexist and homophobic) come to mind

Just stop it dude.

[antimony]

There you go excusing the Dems again because of your bigotry towards the Republicans.

Racism is racism. Stop making excuses.

The problem here is that you choose not to distinguish between simple stereotyping (Asian kids are great at math, Jews are rich, Russians are sloshed and Irish are lucky) which many people, regardless of political affiliation have towards other cultures and the more virulent sort of racism that actively denigrates and tries to harm other races and ethnicities.

As an ethnic minority, I do not care if someone looks at me and decides that I own a Dunkin Donut or my kids are super geniuses. I do however care that I do not get beaten up or worse, just because I "look" like some of those towel headed, 'Muurica hatin', Allah lovin' A-rabs that our boys are fighting in I-Raq or some 'Stan or the other.

Stop acting like you do not know the difference.

Now, do i think all Republicans think like that? No, I certainly do not. In fact I believe the GOP tried to make some outreach efforts to reach outside their traditional strongholds. However that seems to be history now. The ones that do seem to be the "race realist" types seem to be coalescing around Trump. Does that answer your question?

Here is a tidbit for you. Trump supporters threw out a Indian origin man who was out there to support him. This guy is decked out in full on "Trump 2016" and is still thrown out? Why?
https://www.washingtonpost.com/poste...=.d647b85a824c

[antimony]

A silly question you answered.

Course I did, it was fun

Just stop it dude.

Why?

[Officer of Engineers]

The problem here is that you choose not to distinguish between simple stereotyping (Asian kids are great at math, Jews are rich, Russians are sloshed and Irish are lucky) which many people, regardless of political affiliation have towards other cultures and the more virulent sort of racism that actively denigrates and tries to harm other races and ethnicities.

They're one and the same. Racism is that you're different and therefore, you're NOT ONE OF US. The Jews were rich because they stole from the Aryans and the Slavs were just lazy dirt farmers occupying Reich lands.

And Hindus do not belong in the Land of the Pure.

You may not care that your kids are viewed as geniuses or you own a Dunkin Donut but you're allowing yourself to be a target be it subtle or overt.

[Parihaka]

As an ethnic minority,

The problem here is that we no longer give a fuck that you're an "ETHNIC MINORITY". I'm an ethnic minority, yellow's an ethnic minority, OoE's an ethnic minority, everyone here is an ethnic minority. We don't fell sorry for you snowflake.

[Monash]

The problem here is that we no longer give a fuck that you're an "ETHNIC MINORITY". I'm an ethnic minority, yellow's an ethnic minority, OoE's an ethnic minority, everyone here is an ethnic minority. We don't fell sorry for you snowflake.

Totally agree, except of course in the case of Kiwis, those bastards beat us a rugby and therefore deserve to be treated with disdain and contempt. Shootings to good for them I say.

[Parihaka]

Totally agree, except of course in the case of Kiwis, those bastards beat us a rugby and therefore deserve to be treated with disdain and contempt. Shootings to good for them I say.

Churr bro.

[astralis]

YF,

Ever since I got here, your position was that the Dixicrats switched side to Republicans after the civil rights bill of 1964. Now you say you meant the people of the South? I don't think so. You don't get to pick and choose your definition of Dixicrats.

[The States' Rights Democratic Party (usually called the Dixiecrats) was a short-lived segregationist political party in the United States in 1948. It originated as a breakaway faction of the Democratic Party in 1948,

now you're attacking some post i may or may not have made in the past. unless you drag it out, i can't really defend myself here.

my posts are directly addressing yours, which is:

One of the biggest ones is this myth that dixicrats switched party affiliations to Republicans soon after the Civil Rights act of 1964.

Democrats (and quite honestly, people on this forum) now talk about it as if it's the gospel truth.

which is true for Southern voters AND the American Independent Party of George Wallace.

your bringing up The States' Rights Democratic Party is nonsensical because it dissolved after the 1948 election.

But the fact of the matter was that for the South at least the thinking was state rights should trump federal laws.

ONLY on the issue of civil rights. there were no other substantive issues where they were concerned about federal over-reach.

Blacks voted en mass for FDR IN 1936. It started before Truman.

you're mistaking voting for a candidate for party identification. they're closely correlated now-a-days but wasn't so prevalent in the past. look at the 1936 presidential election again; FDR won with a margin of 25%, which in a democracy means everyone except their odd mother in law voted for the man.



huge collapse for black support for GOP in 1948 as i mentioned. partial recovery in 1956 and 1960, due to Eisenhower using federal troops to enforce de-segregation.

complete collapse with Goldwater and Nixon.

All I said was the South believed in state rights since the country was founded....not that they practiced what they preached.

and you must know that this belief in states' rights was completely due to the slavery and then the civil rights issue.

the GOP prior to 1964 had championed individual freedoms (see their campaign against the New Deal) but did not address states' rights because everyone knew what that was code for. remember, the GOP legacy in the civil war was precisely about the Union > states' rights.

this only became a "thing" within the GOP beginning in the 1950s, when William F. Buckley of National Review fame wanted to find a way to distinguish the GOP and conservatism, and tied in cultural conservatism with individual freedoms and states' rights. (and by cultural conservatism, he explictly stated "the cultural superiority of the white over the negro.")

https://adamgomez.files.wordpress.co...evail-1957.pdf

Everett McKinley Dirksen Had the biggest part of drafting the bill and pushing it through the legislative branch.

very true. there was still a huge section of Northeast Republicans, aka Rockefeller/Eisenhower Republicans, at the time. it was only after 1980 with the rise of Reagan that they were overtaken, and probably not until 1994 with the Gingrich Revolution that most of them departed the fix.

but as we've discussed, the effects of national voting on the legislature is delayed because most people usually have no problem with their own Congresscritter...just others.

started voting for the Republicans because of this and my contention was the South started turning red when Republicans started pushing the smaller government and state rights thing.

we're not far apart. but what i'm getting at is that "states rights" in the 1950s-1960s was simply code for upholding white supremacy. that's why Goldwater explicitly said the following:

My basic objection to this measure is, therefore, constitutional, but in addition I would like to point out to my colleagues in the Senate and to the people of America, regardless of their race, color or creed, the implications involved in the enforcement of regulatory legislation of this sort. To give genuine effect to the prohibitions of tho bill will require the creation of a Federal police force of mammoth proportions. It also bids fair to result in the development of an "informer" psychology in great areas of our national life--neighbors spying on neighbors, workers spying on workers, businessmen spying on businessen, where those who would dharass their fellow citizens for selfish and narrow purposes will have ample inducement to do so. These, the Federal police force and an "informer" psychology, are the hallmarks of the police state and landmarks in the destruction of a free society.

I repeat again: I am unalterably opposed to discrimination of any sort and I believe that though the problem is fundamentally one of the heart, some law can help--but not law that embodies features like these, provisions which fly in the face of the Constitution and which require for their effective execution the creation of a police state. And so, because I am unalterably opposed to any threats to our great system of government and the loss of our God-given liberties, I shall vote "No" on this bill.

This vote will be reluctantly cast, because I had hoped to be able to vote "Yea" on this measure as I have on the civil right bills which have preceded it; but I cannot in good conscience to the oath that I took when assuming office, cast my vote in the affirmative. With the exception of Titles II and VII, I could wholeheartedly support this bill; but with their inclusion, not measurably improved by the compromise version we have been working on, my vote must by "No".

If my vote is misconstrued, let it be, and let me suffer its consequences. Just let me be judged in this by the real concern I have voiced here and not by words that others may speak or by what others may say about what I thick.

the South as a whole WASN'T for Goldwater's libertarian/small government streak, EXCEPT on the pivotal issue of civil rights.

like before, it's a yes or no answer.

You don't have to make it so hard or qualify your answers.

the problem is, you're lambasting Dems for painting Republicans with the broad brush of racism...yet you're asking questions in such a way that either i use that broad brush or say that no, racism has played no role within the GOP. both are false. so i have to qualify to be fair.

how much does racist attitude influence Republican policies?

it would be easier to answer the question prior to Trump's nomination. i mean that in the most non-partisan way possible.

IE before Trump, the modern GOP of the last few elections was just tone-deaf, and generally treated racism as a thing of the past. (for instance, "Today we remember Rosa Parks's bold stand and her role in ending racism.")

Trump is a different beast; I'll let Avik Roy, advisor to three GOP candidates (Romney, Perry, Rubio) do the explaining. (i disagree with his...whitewashing...of the legacy of William Buckley, but the overall theme is more or less correct.)

http://www.forbes.com/sites/aviksaro...onalist-party/

[antimony]

The problem here is that we no longer give a fuck that you're an "ETHNIC MINORITY". I'm an ethnic minority, yellow's an ethnic minority, OoE's an ethnic minority, everyone here is an ethnic minority. We don't fell sorry for you snowflake.

I don't give a fuck on what you give a fuck, little birdie
Look up the context of the discussion before you start screaming and get your head out of the dark place you have put it in. Also, get some coffee.

[antimony]

They're one and the same. Racism is that you're different and therefore, you're NOT ONE OF US. The Jews were rich because they stole from the Aryans and the Slavs were just lazy dirt farmers occupying Reich lands.

And Hindus do not belong in the Land of the Pure.

Are you serious ? Sikh guys get beaten up because they are mistaken as arabs. You want me to equate that with some silly stereotype about my kids being smart? Subtle racism or stereotyping is an annoyance and a hindrance, overt racism represents danger,

You may not care that your kids are viewed as geniuses or you own a Dunkin Donut but you're allowing yourself to be a target be it subtle or overt.

What do you want to do? Remove all personal thoughts and feelings? You and I had a discussion where you stressed (and I agreed) that in a free society, people should feel free to be racists dickheads. When the PC crowd tells everyone to pull back and consider what to say in public, do you tell them to fuck off or not?

[Officer of Engineers]

Are you serious ? Sikh guys get beaten up because they are mistaken as arabs. You want me to equate that with some silly stereotype about my kids being smart? Subtle racism or stereotyping is an annoyance and a hindrance, overt racism represents danger,

One leads to the other.

When your kids get denied that raise or hits the glass ceiling because they're not one of "them?" When your kids are counting on that raise or promotion to get the new house or start a family and then see someone else gets the job because they're one of "them?"

How soon when "they" initiate violence because you're not one of them? Let me tell you. 24 hours. British India's partition into India and Pakistan should tell you how fast subtle racism turned into violence.

It's not the skinhead you have to worry about. It's the banker who's sorry he can't renew your mortgage while he has all the information to give to the skinhead where and how to find you and your family.

What do you want to do? Remove all personal thoughts and feelings? You and I had a discussion where you stressed (and I agreed) that in a free society, people should feel free to be racists dickheads. When the PC crowd tells everyone to pull back and consider what to say in public, do you tell them to fuck off or not?

Use your head. Don't start a fight you can't win, even if you're in the right. You may be forced into a fight you can't win but don't start one.