Let's go back to when America was Great (again) - Donald Trump Discussion

[–] Bubbathegut (18054) 6 years ago

Its amazing to see history repeating itself, its been like this since the late 1700's.

reply

[–] crc32 (2584) 6 years ago

Of course you don't think America was ever great. Your progressive philosophy is founded on self deprecation of your own nation that your not really allowed to see the great things the US has done. Your seem to recognize the civil rights movement the US went through but incorrectly identified that as a democratic victory when it was actually republican efforts that ushered in the civil rights movement as it was southern democrats that were fighting civil rights. It was JFK that accused martin luther king of being a communist and had the FBI watching him.

reply

[–] [deleted] 6 years ago

“Self deprecation of your own nation “....is that like siding with Putin over America in Helsinki for the whole world to witness?

reply

[–] crc32 (2584) 6 years ago

You know exactly what self deprecation of ones own nation means. Don't even try to imply I suggested siding with putin over anything. Or better yet stop pretending I will ever come to the defense of Donald Trump.

reply

[–] TJLamb0518 (3316) 6 years ago

Yes, he knows. And, surprisingly, he named a VERY accurate example of the behavior.

Acknowledge that.

reply

[–] crc32 (2584) 6 years ago

Oh what ever. The issue I raised was the motivation for him to mention trump for no other reason to strawman that I shouldn't discourage people from trashing our country until I/we solve the trump problem plaguing our nation. He's just one man compared to the army on the left that hates their own country.

reply

[–] TJLamb0518 (3316) 6 years ago

And that's a salient point. As I have said many times before, Trump is not the disease. He's the visible symptom of a much bigger disease that's been there for quite a while.

It's the GOP being taken over by the alt-right and true Republicans taking it because it got them some leverage.

It's the Democrats shouting impotently while doing little to actually solve the problem (what candidates have they been grooming for 2020? I know it's 2018, but by this point we'd at least have an idea.).

It's people taking black or white sides in things that are so outside their sphere of knowledge and then refusing to listen (i.e. most people who think every illegal immigrant should just be made a citizen probably don't interact with many illegals and most Trump supporters who keep holding up the stock market as the banner of his "greatness"....don't own any stocks outside what their job may invest for them).

It's people having invested so much time and effort (mostly online) forging their persona and outlook that they refuse to budge one inch even in the face of overwhelming evidence (that applies to both sides, but really leans heavily on the diehard Trump supporters who will excuse anything he does).

reply

[–] crc32 (2584) 6 years ago

Kinda reminds me of this forum. I don;t excuse trump for anything. He had no qualms about destroying the 2016 campaign by threatening to run 3rd party if he lost the GOP primaries. We'd all have been better off if both parties had better candidates. 2016 was the election america was gonna loose regardless of which candidate won.

reply

[–] TJLamb0518 (3316) 6 years ago

Absolutely. BOTH parties took the path of least resistance. They took known quantities and ran them instead of taking time to get the right candidate and socializing them to the public.

reply

[–] eYeDEF (5050) 6 years ago

It's true that southern segregationist Dixiecrats, which were Democrats, proved the strongest resistance to passing the Civil Rights Act. But it's revisionist to say republican efforts drove that bill into law. It was a collective effort to be sure, but it was President Lyndon B Johnson who was the indispensable hero of shepherding that bill through congress. It was President Johnson who cut a deal with House Republican Leader Charles Halleck of Indiana for his support in exchange for securing a NASA research facility at Purdue University, in Halleck’s district. It was also the president that recruited an army of businessmen, civil-rights leaders, labor officials, journalists, and allies on the Hill to publicly pressure undecided members of congress. He cut a deal that secured half a dozen votes from the Texas delegation. He showed Martin Luther King a list of uncommitted Republicans and “told King to work on them.” He directed one labor leader to “talk to every human you could,” saying, “if we fail on this, then we fail in everything.”

And according to this Atlantic's well documented blow-by-blow "the entire Republican caucus in the House was wilting under Johnson’s relentless and very public campaign to portray “the party of Lincoln” as obstructing civil rights by opposing the discharge petition." Evidence presented by Purdum and Caro suggests that it was also Johnson’s importuning, bribing, and threatening in the Senate that turned a dozen Senators to vote for its passage.

https://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2014/04/what-the-hells-the-presidency-for/358630/

reply

[–] Thrillhouse (1509) 6 years ago

The wonky technical minutia of how a bill is passed doesn't matter. The news cycle media loves to use this tactic to hide the truth by removing context and perspective.

If you look at what really happened, big business didn't need to be recruited by LBJ as you said. They were already on board, same story we saw with Obamacare. With Freedom of Association out of the way, the bus company didn't have to run two seperate lines anymore. Busing was opposed by blacks at least as much as by whites. The purpose was to destroy communities and justify central planning. They had psychological studies showing this would happen. The black illegitimacy rate went from 25% to over 75% in the mere two generations since. LBJ was notorious for using the N word and started the Vietnam war as an attempt to kill as many blacks as possible. That's something he has in common with fellow progressives FDR of World War 2 and Woodrow Wilson of World War 1. That is their legacy, along with central banking. The Republicans are just harmless business shills by comparison to these big picture intellectuals. Did you know the minimum wage was first proposed by progressives as a way to price blacks out of the workforce?

reply

[–] eYeDEF (5050) 6 years ago

WTF does that have anything to do with the fact that LBJ was instrumental to the passage of the Civil Rights Act? As usual with your rambling answers ... nothing at all.

Of course details matter. That bill would not have passed without LBJ's efforts. That's why it languished in committee for the entirety of Kennedy's presidency until LBJ decided to make it a personal crusade of his to pass the bill. If what you say were true, Kennedy would have been able to pass it with flying colors.

Everyone knows LBJ used racial slurs in private. So what? So did Eisenhower, but that didn't prevent him from desegregating the military when he was president. LBJ rose the occasion to get that bill passed through congress, something Kennedy could not do.

reply

[–] Keelai (34864) 6 years ago

"...LBJ was instrumental..."

Blacks marched, demonstrated, boycotted and filed lawsuits to effect change in the 50s and 60s for civil rights. Many were arrested, beaten and died.

LBJ didn't wake up one day and decide there should be civil rights legislation. Change happened because blacks fought for it therefore blacks were instrumental. The majority of blacks voted for JFK and expected him to pass legislation.

It was easier for LBJ to get the legislation passed in both Houses because of his connections as a former senator and congressman and the still strong emotions after the JFK assassination as a way to honor JFK since he promoted it.

reply

[–] eYeDEF (5050) 6 years ago

You should read that link I included. I'm not discounting the movement behind it. But LBJ's mastery of congress was pretty special, even among presidents. That was his domain.

reply

[–] Keelai (34864) 6 years ago

I know. I mentioned it only because there are students who are taught that change happens through politicians writing laws instead of it being preceded through active struggle by citizens. An attempt to create future passivity?

The article presents Johnson as hero and blacks as practically passive which wasn't the case. Perhaps a few added paragraphs to give more balance would have helped.

reply

[–] eYeDEF (5050) 6 years ago

I didn't get the sense it ever implied blacks were "passive". If anything there was an implicit assumption by Foer, perhaps naively, his audience reading about LBJ's legislative exploits in congressional arcana were already well versed in the plight of civil rights activists that led to the movement that called for legislative action. I know for myself I learned about MLK and Rosa Parks in first grade, long before I knew the names of any presidents of that era, and this was from public elementary school education smack in white suburbia in the 80s. Maybe things have changed, but it's hard to imagine it would change that drastically that this topic would be absent from today's essential course curriculum.

reply

[–] Keelai (34864) 6 years ago

There have been changes in school curriculum since the 80s.

Out of the blue, my supervisor said the American Civil War had nothing to do with slavery. I was so shocked that I was speechless. I found out that there are school books saying the civil war was a states rights issue instead of about ending slavery. Maybe he was reading one of his kids' school books.

The important role of social activism is being removed from school history books which ended up being confirmed when I read a post by someone who was completely unaware of the connection between activism and new legislation.

Foers audience may be well aware of civil rights activists, but we're on a message board about Trump with his supporters - the ones who can be told an obvious lie by him repeatedly until they believe it. Obviously, critical thinking skills need to be taught in schools, too.

reply

[–] crc32 (2584) 6 years ago

80% of republicans voted for the civil rights act of 94 where as only 63 and 69 percent of democrates voted for it. LBJ was nice enough not to veto the bill.

reply

[–] Keelai (34864) 6 years ago

civil rights act of 64.

The problem wasn't party, but region. Among Southern politicians who voted for it:

The original House version:
Southern Democrats - 7%
Southern Republicans - 0%

The Senate version:
Southern Democrats - 5%
Southern Republicans - 0%

As you can see from the above stat, no Republican supported ending racism.

If you count only Northern politicians, then the percentage of Democrats who voted for the legislation is actually higher than Republicans:

The original House version:
Northern Democrats - 94%
Northern Republicans - 85%

The Senate version:
Northern Democrats - 98%
Northern Republicans - 84%

As you can see from the above stat, Democrats gave more support to end racism than Republicans.

Your statistic only shows that there were more Southerners who wanted to continue to discriminate against black people.

reply

[–] crc32 (2584) 6 years ago

You can chalk it off to region if you want which the irony is there were more democrats in the southern states but my statistics still stand. More democrats opposed the bill then did republicans. Theres nothing deceptive in my statistics.

reply

[–] fishpan (544) 6 years ago

Your statistics stand because you want them to stand but lacks naunce of what each local party member stood for at the time.

Also Southern states shifted from Democrat to Republican after that period to the point that today no state legislative in the South is now democrat. If they were that loyal to the parties as they were in the civil war that would not be the case.

reply

[–] crc32 (2584) 6 years ago

Theres no nuance here. I say more democrats were opposed to the civil rights movement while the opposing argument is saying "hey wait thats not fair thats only because more democrats where southern bigots at the time." Like that some how divorces democrats from their southern idealogies at the time. Yet even more telling is your attempt to now paint republicans as bigots since they appear to have a lock on the south which is indicative that the leftiest want to have it both ways.

And now your argument is that the parties have flipped some how yet unless you stretch the progressive idea that "if your against blindly giving all sorts of handouts for minorities" then your party is bigoted. I'm ok with differences of opinions its just exhausting trying to compromise with the left considering how seperated they are from reality.

All I'm saying is democrats can get off their high horse as history isn't on your side. Todays america is much less bigoted then the 1960s(When democrats were in charge of the south) even with republicans dominating the south. Infact today much of the unrest is in democratic controlled areas.

I don't want the democratic party to disappear a balance is always needed to keep each other honest but the democratic party of today (Or maby its just the left I'm thinking of) is not being honest with them selves and their history.

reply

[–] fishpan (544) 6 years ago

Actually what the Southern democrats stood for and promised their electorate is a huge thing. Just like what the republicans had promised theirs regarding abortion in the past as wasn't it a republican governor and legislator that legalised abortion in New York pre Roe v Wade.

Without looking at the make up of an electorate and what their politicians promise them hanging onto the label is a piss poor analysis

reply

[–] crc32 (2584) 6 years ago

Really? Their promises are subjective while there voting record is objective. Perhaps you should focus on what political parties actually do instead of relying on the unmeasurable words and promises each party spews out. When judging party you can focus on their actions with out neglecting their words.

This is getting ad nauseam so I'll make my counter argument more explicit. Let me ask you this when deflecting the issue of democratic opposition to the civil rights movement are you saying 1. the democrats who dominated the south are just bigots from the south and should not be considered to be real democrats(no true scotsman fallacy) or 2. Its just a coincidence that more democrats controlled the south and that their opposition to the civil rights movement has no bearing on democratic policies. Even that fails the null hypothesis check since something caused democrats to be more popular in the south then the republicans of the time.

reply

[–] fishpan (544) 6 years ago

No I am not saying that those men should not be counted as democrats.

I am saying what was considered acceptable to the democrats may not be acceptable now and has little baring on the grand statement of Make America Great Again as no one can agree when that was, if it truly was ever outside its own marketing.

Because what caused the democrats to be popular in the south back then was the same thing that caused them to be popular with northern blacks in the 30's - they played to their electorate. That is what politicians do, if they work out change is in their favour they will do so. LBJ passed the civil rights act and they began to lose the South which went to the republicans, and not some other party (ie local ones like the dixiecrats)

Why did that happen if it wasn't because democrats did or didn't do something that the local electorate didn't agree with,like stop the passing of the act that gave them an economic edge over other people in their area who they believed they were better than. Oh and who took advantage of that? Who won the areas that are seen to be more racist than others - republicans. Why did republicans win - they were seen to provide policies and hold values that resonated with the locals.

So that being said was considered republican then may not be what is now. What is considered republican now may not be so in the future. Hell Reagan would be considered too left wing in some areas of the freedom caucus if he was running today.

So look at the whole damn picture instead of cheery picking your damn nuances.

reply

[–] crc32 (2584) 6 years ago

I am saying what was considered acceptable to the democrats may not be acceptable now and has little baring on the grand statement of Make America Great Again as no one can agree when that was, if it truly was ever outside its own marketing.

Ok thats fair enough. I'll accept that democrats are reformed now but I always have rejected that republicans are the party of racism.

" So look at the whole damn picture instead of cheery picking your damn nuances. "
I'll try to but I only ask that the left do the same when they try gaslight republicans into thinking
they're bigots as the bulk of the party is not.

reply

[–] fishpan (544) 6 years ago

they try gaslight republicans into thinking they're bigots as the bulk of the party is not

Then argue with things the republicans are doing now.

You have a Republican president that refuses to out and out condemn white supremacists, who lump 'illegal' immigrants in with MS13. Almost as many whites as blacks receive welfare (38.8% compared to 39.8% off all welfare recipients brandongraille.com) but the right wing media doesn't paint it like that and high up republicans aren't doing a lot to call them out.

Give me facts that show they aren't prepared to wallow in a racist wave that is keeping them in power today!

Saying in 1964 more republicans voted for the civil rights bill so trying to claim credit for it does nothing regarding how the republican party functions today!

reply

[–] crc32 (2584) 6 years ago

https://www.census.gov/newsroom/press-releases/2015/cb15-97.html
Blacks are participating in welfare at 51%, hispanics at 36% and non hispanic whites are at 13.2%. you again forget the history of your own party and are buying into the myth that the GOP is a bigot party based simply cause they acknowledge the country doesn't have the resources to just surrender its borders to the lower economic class that even mexico can't tolerate. Admitting you can't afford to give handouts to every social economic class isn't bigotry its just common sense.

reply

[–] fishpan (544) 6 years ago

I am not buying into any myth.

You are buying into a victimisation mode which is sad.

I am saying show me today's GOP programs that contradict what we are seeing from Trump and co. Don't go on about history. You and I and every person on the planet once pissed themselves and wallowed in it, we were babies, it was allowed. - doesn't mean today we haven't been potty trained.

Plus the statistics you quote - that makes more than 100% By the looks of it they were talking of participation rate among each population, not a break down of which race gets how much, which when looking at a budget is kind of important.

And admitting you can't give handouts to every socio economic group isn't bigotry.
Outside those that wish a universal basic wage I haven't heard anyone say lets give every socio economic group. But it is telling that you go on about 51% or blacks and 36% of hispanics are participating in programs and then you jump to 'we can't give money to every socio economic class'

When did race become a short hand in your world for your socio economic group?
There are huge economic differences in every racial population.

Giving money to those in need to get them out of the poverty line is smart long term as long as you give the education and have the infrastructure in place to make sure they aren't receiving long term. But giving handouts in the form of tax breaks to the top tier no matter what race while claiming everyone who is on lower entitlements are lazy good for nothings and deserve everything they get, while dog whistling black and brown people collectively is stupidity.

So show me that today the GOP are doing something to control those on their right wing. Show me that the GOP rep isn't deserved by showing that they are doing something about borders outside screaming Wall and calling ICE/police everytime they see a dark skinned person that isn't Ben Carson.

reply

[–] crc32 (2584) 6 years ago

Its pretty simple republicans don't want to pay for every ones failures. Democrats thrive on failure as there the party of victim hood.

Its not racist to think that allowing the lowest economic class of a nearly third world country to march in in droves is probably not a good idea. We can't afford it. Which goes to the real problem of the democrat party.

Show me a democrat who doesn't believe that taking money from successfull people to pay for every one else's shortcommings is a charitable act. Or the party that claims to be for minorities seems to have the most problems in their inner cities in terms of crime and poverty.

reply

[–] fishpan (544) 6 years ago

Fine don't support groups you don't need to support - republicans should let farmers fail.

End of.

People will buy what food they want, so let soya farmers deal with a 'free' market and republicans deal with the consequences of the tariffs Trump put in. But you aren't going to say that.

As for going on about showing you a democrat who doesn't believe in taking money from successful people - why turn it on me. You tell me why republicans believe that letting successful people shouldn't pay their fair share as they drive on the same roads everyone else does. Trickle down?

Trickle down doesn't work - it hasn't worked in 40 years. Kansas shows that.

As for inner city crime - poverty is the biggest issue no matter what the make up of the population. Infrastructure in all senses of the word and decent opportunity helps everyone. Refusing to pay for infrastructure hurts people

And socio economic group and third world when you talk about immigration. So doctors from India, refugees fleeing for their lives, skilled workers from non 'developed' nations aren't welcome.

How about fix the damn system. Don't block official border crossing and accost anyone speaking spanish in the street to check their papers. Don't tear up families to look tough and then find the US paying for the bad care for kids that the tax payer shouldn't be paying for.

Work with the other party and fix the damn system.

reply

[–] crc32 (2584) 6 years ago

And socio economic group and third world when you talk about immigration. So doctors from India, refugees fleeing for their lives, skilled workers from non 'developed' nations aren't welcome.

I said the bottom economic class of thrid world countries. That clearly isn't a reference to doctors from india. And I love how the left tries to frame them selves on the moral high ground by crying and demanding we care and feed the rest of the world yet we don't even have the resources to feed and fight poverty amount our own population. I'm sure it feels great being on the left but those feelings don't solve any of our problems and only serve to make every one poorer.

reply

[–] Frogarama (12942) 6 years ago

Theres no nuance here. I say more democrats were opposed to the civil rights movement while the opposing argument

SCREW these racist "arguments" about THE PAST.

How about this statistic: 100% of the people who practiced slavery were HUMANS just like you and me. 100% of racists are HUMANS just like you and me.

Does that make you want to renounce your humanity?

No????

Then why the hell should anyone care about what people did in the name of Democrats or Republicans in an era that is long gone?

OMG A DEMOCRAT IN THE 60'S WAS A RACIST, I'M GOING TO RENOUNCE THE DEMOCRAT PARTY BECAUSE SOME GUY ONLINE THINKS I SHOULD.

This entire "argument" is being foisted ALL OVER THE INTERNET by desperate Republicans, I see it everywhere.

It's SICK.

reply

[–] crc32 (2584) 6 years ago

[quote]
How about this statistic: 100% of the people who practiced slavery were HUMANS just like you and me. 100% of racists are HUMANS just like you and me.[/quopte]
Straw man argument in play. I never demanded anyone renounce their ansestors for slavery nor asked anyone to renounce their democratic ideolgy I only ask that democrats recognize their past just like we are expected to remember the inhumanity of slavery of our ancestors.

"This entire "argument" is being foisted ALL OVER THE INTERNET by desperate Republicans, I see it everywhere.

It's SICK."

The whole point of this exercise was to refute the busted reality that the republican party is raciest as well as the myth both today and in the past. This isn't about a single democrat in the 60s its about the pattern that the party dominated the south and at the time had its ideology.

reply

[–] Keelai (34864) 6 years ago

"...the irony is there were more democrats in the southern states..."

Which is why fewer Democrats voted for civil rights legislation. That is the exact point that my stats show which is presented as a percentage.
0-7% percent support from Southerners vs. 84-98% support from Northerners.

Southern politicians - both Democrat and Republican - were racists.

"Theres nothing deceptive in my statistics."

I believe my stats are from the same source as yours. You are being deceptive by only presenting partial stats. I decided to present what you omitted.

As a matter of fact, I'm not afraid of complete facts therefore I'm providing a link for anyone who wants to see the stats for themselves:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Civil_Rights_Act_of_1964

reply

[–] crc32 (2584) 6 years ago

I already posted the links earlier. Even when you try to paint this as a southern issue which of course its a souther issue you again acknowledge that this was a southern issue but again ignore the then obvious need to untie the democrats to southern ideology which you can't do nor are willing to do. The deception is on your side for trying to deflect the original claim that democrats historically have been apposed to civil rights. As of now I question their motives for civil advancement of african americans as it seems like democrats want to maintain the victimized status the african american community is currently trapped in rather then advancing african americans into a better economic position.

reply

[–] eYeDEF (5050) 6 years ago

Veto the bill? What do you mean?

reply

[–] crc32 (2584) 6 years ago

this is a counter against the assertion that LBJ ushered in the civil rights act to which I am showing that congress did the work he just signed the bill. Thats all I'm saying. Theres this notion that since a democratic president signed the bill this is to be chalked up to a solely democratic movement.

This whole discussion is to counter the narritives that the GOP has been historically bigoted which is the irony since Abraham Lincoln was the first GOP president, and also would not accept slavery and grudgingly tried to avoid a civil war but eventually hade to fight one over it. And also to show that republicans supported the civil rights movement more then democrats by percentage of their respective party.

I've even heard a progressive here in the forums literally declare the definition of the democrat party to be inclusive while republicans party is all about exclusion and later declare anyone who disagrees to be uneducated and unaware of history. These are some harsh eye rolling events for those of us that are disillusioned by the lefts hatred for their own nation as well as their inability to see the progress the US has made and even worse take credit for that progress with out realizing its their own party that was more opposed to this progress. I don't understand how the left has been able to reverse history in their own perceptions of their own party while villainizing the party that actually banned slavery.

reply

[–] eYeDEF (5050) 6 years ago

Wait, but did you even bother to read my post or the link I gave you? It's just empirically not true that congress did the work and he just signed the bill.

Look, there are idiots on the right and the left, this forum's no different. Just because you see other people stooping to creating an empirically false narrative to make themselves feel better, why engage in the same behavior? Anyone familiar with history knows Lincoln was a Republican and is responsible for freeing the slaves. He's consistently ranked our greatest American president among historians for this reason.

Just like anyone familiar with the history, as I acknowledged in my last post, knows that many southern racist dixiecrats were Democrats prior to 1964, and many including notorious racist Strom Thurmond switched to the Republican party after 1964 as a response to the Democratic party embracing civil rights legislation. This is just a fact.

You shouldn't count me among those on the left that you're convinced 'hate our country'. I see us as a work in progress, there are many aspects of America I love and cherish but there are also many problems we still need to address in order to become the "more perfect union" as declared in our Constitution. All we have is the truth to guide us in addressing what those issues are and fixing them. Responding to truth with a false narrative, or what you refer to as a "counter" is just reducing yourself to the level of the behavior that you yourself admit to despising in those you see practicing it on the left. It doesn't help with getting your point across or moving the dialog forward.

reply

[–] crc32 (2584) 6 years ago

Thats fair enough I don't mean to lump you in with the left but I just don't see historical democrats. I also find it harder to determine if their is indeed a switch of democrats to the republican party as it doesn't make sense why would some one switch to a party that is also voting for racial segregation. You say its "just a fact" though. I'm guessing your more of a leftward leaning centrist which is more fair then the extremes on the left or the right so I won't count you as being apart of the nutty left. But I still don't see the democratic party as embracing the civil rights movements of 1964 the way you do. Perhaps I should be giving LBJ more credit than I am giving him but I totally oppose the narritive that the GOP was and is the party of racism. Do you agree that the current trend of enfourcing the perception of victimization coming from the left is counter productive? Do you believe the GOP is a platform dominated by racists?

reply

[–] eYeDEF (5050) 6 years ago

I should clarify that when I mean 'switch' I'm referring to the rank and file white conservative democrats in the south aka dixiecrats who had solidly voted Dem prior to '64, began to vote Republican in federal elections. This is because the '64 GOP candidate Barry Goldwater was opposed to the civil rights act. You've never heard of the infamous Republican "southern strategy"? If not I highly encourage you to look into it, since it was an actual and deliberate strategy by the GOP to peel away these conservative white democrat dixiecrat voters to the Republican party by appealing to their racism.

You've never heard of the Lee Atwater? Notorious Republican political strategist for Reagan and Bush whose blunt confessional interview recorded as he was dying of brain cancer on how the GOP would appeal to racists with coded language known as "dog whistles" as part of the "southern strategy" made waves when it was revealed in '05. Goldwater and Nixon's deployment of the southern strategy also had the effect of permanently alienating most black voters from the Republican party. I encourage you to read what he actually said, as it's not fit to paste here. It's shocking:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lee_Atwater#%22Southern_Strategy%22

Nixon adviser John Ehrlichman also admitted in 1994 that the GOP War on Drugs campaign began by Nixon was an excuse to lock up blacks and protesters.

https://www.forbes.com/sites/eriksherman/2016/03/23/nixons-drug-war-an-excuse-to-lock-up-blacks-and-protesters-continues/

So on the federal level at least, candidates for the Republican party since '64 incorporated racist appeals and policy initiatives into their campaigns and governing.

Dixiecrat rank and file voters continued to vote Democrat at the state and local level, but even this waned over time until the conversion to voting solidly down ticket Republican was complete by the time of the House GOP takeover in the 90s.

reply

[–] eYeDEF (5050) 6 years ago

As to your question as to whether the GOP is "dominated by racists", I'd say Trump supporters are dominated by racists, or least racist Trump supporters tend to be among his most vocal defenders. Would you disagree? And according to polling Trump does have 75% support of Republicans so it's hard not to think the Republican party is now the party of Trump. I'm glad to know not all Republicans support Trump but many good Republicans have also left the party because of him, so as the party gets smaller it becomes more dominated by Trump supporters.

As with the narrative of victimization I'm 100% with you. It's one of the debates among the left right now, with some pushing back against the victimization narrative that, in my opinion, can be counterproductive for those that have suffered legitimate oppression, be it policy, systemic or otherwise. Another debate between the moderates and far left wing is over political correctness and identity politics, with some of us pushing back on its destructive excesses in stifling debate and willingness to confront empirical truths that might not be politically correct.

From the way I'm framing these issues it should be clear I fall into the moderate camp on these topics.

reply

[–] [deleted] 6 years ago

To think Nixon now commands more reverence than the other guy now in office. Shocking to say the least.

reply

[–] Gd5150 (11750) 6 years ago

Yet every era that the ignorant hate filled demokkkrats rip on, we find the entire world fighting to move to and take advantage of the greatest opportunity in the world. The American dream. Funny how that works.

These sad progressives are just a product of ignorant hate filled demokkkrat media/education industries that were corrupted by
communism back in the 50s.

They went on to create the dumpster 60s that they all celebrate. And that they’ve been desperately trying to recreate ever since.

What today’s modern brainless leftwing protestors don’t understand is people like Bobby Kennedy. John F Kennedy, and Martin Luther King Jr, were inspiring. Optimistic. They had vision. Proactive ideas and solutions.

Who’s leading today’s worthless left? Rosie O’donnel? Nancy Pilosi? Don Lemon? Lmao!!!!!!

Today they offer no ideas. No solutions. And no platform. Just obsessive hate. And that’s why they’ve lost 1250 seats nationwide since 2010. It’s why they’re losing the black community. The working class. And the middle class.

They’re a cancer to the country that they ignorantly hate. The OP has never lived anywhere else, anywhen else. Just regurgitating what his demokkkrat media/party slavemasters tell him. You’d be best to open your mind and educate yourself. You’re being played. Otherwise enjoy your perpetual demokkkrat hate and mysery.

#TheresNoWaveComing
#WalkAway
#OpenYourMind
#HateIsAllThatsLEFT
#HateIsNotAPlatform

reply

[–] [deleted] 6 years ago

Who’s leading today’s worthless left? Rosie O’donnel? Nancy Pilosi? Don Lemon? Lmao!!!!!!

Asks the jackass who's right-wing lunatic party is run by Roseanne Barr, Devin Nunes and Sean Hannity.

reply

[–] dteam6 (5073) 6 years ago

"Making America Great Again" is nothing more than an empty slogan that Trump used to stimulate the simple brains of the simpleton backwoods masses who make up the majority of Trump's base.

Basically, Trump wants to take us back to a bastardized version of the "Nuclear Family" era. That's why his main base is boomers/elderly. He wants that 20's-60's style back but wants it as a two-class system: rich and poor. It was also a time where immigration was almost nonexistent and the most common families you would see are white "Leave it to Beaver" type families.

People are bashing that Omarosa woman for her claims that Trump uses the N-word a lot and, while I take what she says with a grain of salt myself, MANY people who knew Trump have said these same things. MANY. In fact--almost everyone who once worked for Trump but is now against him has basically said the same things about him: he hates blacks, Mexicans, Asians, etc. They all basically said he rambles incoherently and talks about himself constantly in conversations. And almost all of them have said one very distinct thing: "Whenever I was left alone with him a room I felt uneasy and had a large urge to leave".

He's a rambling crazy man who knew just who to appeal to and how to appeal to for a vote. It worked, he got it and now he's trying to keep it.

As for when America actually WAS great...that's entirely subjective.

reply

[–] B1cKsurN (17425) 6 years ago

Nuclear family is superior.

reply

[–] dteam6 (5073) 6 years ago

Superior to what?

reply

[–] BourbonKing (5777) 6 years ago

Trump's campaign promise was just that, a promise. It was formulated as a romantic revisionist dream about America's past when it dominated the global markets (right after World War 2 to be specific) and the media portrayed what was mostly a White culture living in freshly built suburbs where happy families roamed. What Trump tapped into was the yearning to go back to a time when you could earn less than $25K/year and finance a new home, car, and have a family of 3. Today, that's not even a feasible goal today's youth.

As we are seeing now, his tariff policies are backfiring as they're not compatible with the global markets that the US and the rest of the developed world are already engaged in. In his mind, he can't accept that China is a major economic, military, and political power and wants to believe that he can push them back into the 19th Century.

reply

[–] slimone (7996) 6 years ago

America has always been great. It's the idiots who govern who cause the trouble.

reply

[–] [deleted] 6 years ago

Just Make America Normal Again! I am sick of this shoddy s*** reality show carnival. Sure we had problems but at least we could live each day knowing that some sentient beings working on it.

reply