-
Re: Trump meeting rocket man
Quote:
Originally Posted by
El Kabong
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Kirkland Laing
Even Fox News are calling it gerrymandering. Not redisctricting. Redistricting is the periodic process of changing the boundaries of districts according to the rules governing the redistricting process. It's a process with a comprehensive jurisprudence and with a legal definition. Gerrymandering is something else entirely. Had the GOP gerrymandering not been gerrymandering and had followed the established redistricting process it would never have gone to court and the GOP would not have been accused of gerrymandering and would not have had a succession of federal judges find that they were guilty of gerrymandering. As usual you jumped in and mouthed off about something you knew absolutely nothing about and now you're furiously trying to misdirect and change the subject to media bias or whatever. I know how difficult it is for you with your shelf and you won't be able to remember the start of this argument due to it beginning several days ago but just go back and reread the whole thing. It's ridiculous. It's like arguing with a small child. Just try fucking googling stuff just once the next time you're about to put your foot in it.
Good for them. Yeah, I know the difference between the two and I know certainly how they are used it's almost like when I posted "Democrats do it and it's called "redistricting".....Republicans do it and it's ALWAYS called "gerrymandering"." that it was 100% the case....astonishing how you can continue to attempt to talk past me and then act like I'm dense. Kirkland, I'll ask you something, I figure you won't participate but just in case you do try to Google "Democrat gerrymandering" or "Democrat Party gerrymandering" or "Democratic gerrymandering" or any mix of the words and find me a story that talks about the Democrats gerrymandering
ANYTHING it could be about a race for dog catcher, and I care not about the source it could be from DailyKos it could be from Infowars it could be from Breitbart it could be from Buzzfeed it could be from your favorite mother Jones....show me ANYTHING related to 1 or many Democrats gerrymandering anything. All of the gerrymandering talk is sour grapes about the Dems focusing on the White house instead of local races which they ended up losing pre 2010 and here were are in 2018 after the redistricting of several states which made it more favorable for Republicans and non-Democrats and now looking ahead for 2020 they're getting nervous again. Why worry about Republicans in North Carolina anyway? I know that you specifically believe in the Southern strategy and this idea of a great shift in politics where the Southern states became republican instead of Democrat because a Democrat President LBJ voted for the Civil Rights Act of 1968 (passed almost entirely by Republicans) so they switched from Democrat to Republican because the Republican Party was more open to racism :dontknow: .....it makes 0 sense, but whatever I suppose you know what you're doing.
At least I got you to google something. I'm guessing you googled Democratic gerrymandering, couldn't find anything remotely equivalent to the various GOP gerrymandering cases currently going through the court system and because you couldn't find anything you see this as the liberal media ignoring Democratic gerrymandering. Am I right?
I mentioned North Carolina after you initially claimed that the gerrymandering in question was actually redistricting. The North Carolina gerrymandering case has been national news for a long time now and has been back and forwards to the Supreme Court. I was showing you that you don't even have a clue what's going on in your own state. The GOP southern strategy is well documented history.
Lee Atwater worked on every major presidential campaign from the sixties onwards and ran Reagan and Bush 41's presidential campaigns. Here's what he said about it:
Atwater: As to the whole Southern strategy that Harry Dent and others put together in 1968, opposition to the Voting Rights Act would have been a central part of keeping the South. Now [Reagan] doesn't have to do that. All you have to do to keep the South is for Reagan to run in place on the issues he's campaigned on since 1964 ... and that's fiscal conservatism, balancing the budget, cut taxes, you know, the whole cluster... Questioner: But the fact is, isn't it, that Reagan does get to the Wallace voter and to the racist side of the Wallace voter by doing away with legal services, by cutting down on food stamps? Atwater: You start out in 1954 by saying, "Nigger, nigger, nigger." By 1968 you can't say "nigger" — that hurts you. Backfires. So you say stuff like forced busing, states' rights and all that stuff. You're getting so abstract now [that] you're talking about cutting taxes, and all these things you're talking about are totally economic things and a byproduct of them is [that] blacks get hurt worse than whites. And subconsciously maybe that is part of it. I'm not saying that. But I'm saying that if it is getting that abstract, and that coded, that we are doing away with the racial problem one way or the other. You follow me — because obviously sitting around saying, "We want to cut this," is much more abstract than even the busing thing, and a hell of a lot more abstract than "Nigger, nigger."
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Southern_strategy
Some more reading for you:
https://newrepublic.com/article/1300...trump-possible
https://www.npr.org/sections/codeswi...y-in-the-1960s
-
Re: Trump meeting rocket man
Yes, This Is Going to Be Worse Than Watergate
In 1973, there were still some independent-minded lawmakers in the Grand Old Party. Today, not so much.
Where are we headed? If Trump fires Sessions and brings in whomever, and that person does fire Mueller, we will be in the midst of a major constitutional crisis. The standard line is “the worst since Watergate.” But this one is looking like it could be far worse than Watergate. Why?
Because in 1973, we had a Republican Party with some independent-minded lawmakers in it..............
https://www.thedailybeast.com/yes-th...than-watergate
This is not looking good for Trump. He just got turned down by one of the top lawyers in Washington for the second time. Not one of the top lawyers in the country want to represent him. I wonder why that is. He's starting to attack Mueller openly now as well. He definitely seems worried about something. If you're innocent the last thing you're going to do is attack the credibility of the man you know will clear you of all charges.
-
Re: Trump meeting rocket man
Carol Swain, Professor of Political Science at Vanderbilt University
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UiprVX4os2Y
But hey I'm CERTAIN you know more than her and/or Ben Shapiro as well. You're Kirkland Laing, you know ALL!!!!!!
I know there's plenty of bellyaching by the Democrats in my state and I know very well the history of my state. Like there have been only 59 Republican Representatives from my state, there have been only 10 Republican Senators from my state, there have been only 7 Republican Governors....in my state's history which stretches back to May 20th, 1775. But please do continue to lecture me.
-
Re: Trump meeting rocket man
Quote:
Originally Posted by
El Kabong
Carol Swain, Professor of Political Science at Vanderbilt University
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UiprVX4os2Y
But hey I'm CERTAIN you know more than her and/or Ben Shapiro as well. You're Kirkland Laing, you know ALL!!!!!!
I know there's plenty of bellyaching by the Democrats in my state and I know very well the history of my state. Like there have been only 59 Republican Representatives from my state, there have been only 10 Republican Senators from my state, there have been only 7 Republican Governors....in my state's history which stretches back to May 20th, 1775. But please do continue to lecture me.
And you posted a video. I've definitely got full house now or whatever you say when you win the bingo. And I don't watch videos, but here's somebody who already watched it explain why it's a load of rubbish:
In watching the first four minutes of this almost six-minute clip, Professor Carol Swain is actually very accurate. In the distant past, the Democratic Party was the party of racism, defending the unconscionable act of owning slaves. Democrats largely resided in the south and were willing to go so far as to commit treason and split from the nation to form a confederacy to defend their “right†to continue to practice slave labor.
But from that point on, her commentary becomes misplaced and evasive:
Professor Swain’s quote: “Since it’s founding in 1829, the Democratic Party has fought against every major civil rights initiative, and has a long history of discrimination.”
I seem to remember the Civil Rights Act of 1964 being the creation of JFK (a Democrat), and then finished and implemented under LBJ (a Democrat). And as for Congress, the support for the legislation had nothing to do with party affiliation and everything to do with whether the congressmen represented the north or the south. This indisputable fact of voting correlation is one that she does not even acknowledge. Instead, she untruthfully affixes vote direction to political party:
Professor Swain’s quote: “Democratic Senator’s fillibusted for 75 days..”
The Senator’s who filibustered the legislation were Richard Russell (Georgia), Strom Thurmund (South Carolina), Robert Byrd (West Virginia) and Sam Ervin (North Carolina). Bringing the argument into the more modern era – those are all states that Republican’s enjoy comfortable dominance in. Those men who represented those states are appropriately referred to as “Dixiecrats”, and their constituency swung to the Republican Party during the late 1960’s when Democratic presidents created and passed the Civil Rights Act Of 1964- a swing that was solidified even further when Nixon decided to pander to the “states rights” racists in the south. These states have voted predominantly Republican since then.
Professor Swain’s quote: “..the only serious Congressional opposition to the landmark Civil Rights Act of 1964 came from Democrats. 80 percent of Republicans in Congress supported the bill, less than 70 percent of Democrats did.”
Putting aside the fact that a little bit more than 10 percent separating the respective parties support of the legislation is hardly constitutes one side being fully supportive, and the other being the “serious Congressional opposition”, let’s move on to the her more egregious representation of vote correlation.
It is a completely misleading implication to state that the “yeas” and “nays” had any correlation whatsoever to political party. Her claim can be discarded just by looking at the actual vote tallies. The verified fact regarding the way in which a congressman voted has nothing to do with political party and everything to do with the region they were representing. As the vote tallies show below, if you were in the south, you very likely opposed the legislation. If you were representing a northern state, you generally favored it with few exceptions. Whether you were a Democrat or Republican mattered little as seen by the voting tallies below for the Civil Rights Act of 1964 by region:
The original House version:
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 version:
Southern Democrats: 1-20 (5-95%) (only Ralph Yarborough of Texas voted in favor)
Southern Republicans: 0-1 (0-100%) (John Tower of Texas)
Northern Democrats: 45-1 (98-2%) (only Robert Byrd of West Virginia voted against)
Northern Republicans: 27-5 (84-16%)
Notice the actual fact of which you’d never be privy to in watching this Prager video – ” the “Northern Democrats” actually supported the bill in a larger proportion than the “Northern Republicans” in both chambers of Congress.
Perhaps most startling of all, there was not a single vote cast in favor of the legislation by southern Republicans by any of their 11 total representatives in both chambers.
What you see above is clear and undisputed – a strong correlation of how a congressmen voted can be drawn from the region they representation, with no correlation drawn from the political party they were affiliated with.
Perhaps a decade ago, a Conservative may have examined the above voting tally, showing that Professor Swain purposely made a completely erroneous correlation to promote a political ideology (I say purposely because she’s a history professor at Vanderbilt University- of course she’d be familiar with the fact that party representation of Congressmen had no correlation with how they voted). And now knowing that this video is propaganda not designed to inform and educate accurately, maybe they say to themselves:
“I’m not going to absorb any more information from this video clip, and will take future Prager U videos with a grain of salt, as it’s representation of the voting tally was completely misleading. Using my own analysis, I can easily see that there is little correlation in how members of the two political parties voted, but a very strong correlation based on the region they represented. This wasn’t a Democrat vs. Republican issue, but a North vs. South issue.”
It doesn’t mean the reader should cease to have conservative principals. It simply means that they’ve utilized a bit of common sense and rationale to determine that the way the voting was represented in this clip was completely disingenuous. And then upon arriving at that conclusion, they make an educated decision to perhaps learn about this issue from a different source.
and
Inexplicably, Professor Swain makes no attempt to address the state of race-relations of each political party as it pertains to the last 50 years of American history, other than to taint the modern Democratic party with broad generalizations that exist only in the deep caverns of the echo chamber that Rush Limbaugh carved out seemingly eons ago.
Although one would think perhaps the greatest amount of time should be spent on Nixon’s Southern Strategy, as it was a monumental sea change which has the single most bearing on where each party stands today on this issue, she instead chooses to wrap up the commentary.
At a certain point in the video, Swain informs all the students at Prager U of a racist comment that Lyndon B. Johnson “purportedly” said. Nothing like students garnering an extensive knowledge base on statements “purportedly” made. If Prager U is the alternative to a “liberal education,” than I’m more than proud to have been “liberally indoctrinated.”
Because in a fact-free environment, the word “purportedly” is free to exist anywhere and everywhere.
Let me conclude by allowing serious political players of the Republican Party to explain the”Southern Strategy” since Professor Swain decided to end her history lesson at around 1964. This are not statements “purportedly” made, but are actual verified statements from interviews.
“From now on, the Republicans are never going to get more than 10 to 20 percent of the Negro vote and they don’t need any more than that…but Republicans would be shortsighted if they weakened enforcement of the Voting Rights Act. The more Negroes who register as Democrats in the South, the sooner the Negrophobe whites will quit the Democrats and become Republicans. That’s where the votes are. Without that prodding from the blacks, the whites will backslide into their old comfortable arrangement with the local Democrats.”
-Kevin Philips, Richard Nixon political strategist
“You start out in 1954 by saying, ‘Ni***r, ni***r, ni***r.’ By 1968 you can’t say ‘ni***r’ as that hurts you, backfires. So you say stuff like, uh, forced busing, states- rights, and all that stuff, and you’re getting so abstract. Now, you’re talking about cutting taxes, and all these things you’re talking about are totally economic things and a byproduct of them is, blacks get hurt worse than whites… We want to cut this, is much more abstract than even the busing thing, uh, and a hell of a lot more abstract than ‘Ni***r, ni***r.'”
-Lee Atwater, consultant and strategist to the Republican party, adviser to Ronald Reagan and George H.W. Bush.
https://www.thomhartmann.com/users/c...modern-history
It's like you posting a video of somebody who claims that slavery wasn't the cause of the civil war. One person doesn't outweigh the historical record.
It looks like I was right about you and Democractic gerrymandering, eh? What a surprise. And you're really quiet about the Mueller investigation these days. Why is that Lyle?
-
Re: Trump meeting rocket man
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Gandalf
Don't know what you are all on about. I really want to see Trump hang out with Elton John.
They both have ridiculous ......" Hair "
https://images-na.ssl-images-amazon....1L._SY606_.jpg
-
Re: Trump meeting rocket man
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Beanz
That stuff really works by the way. I drink a bottle of it after a mescaline session and it doesn't fuck about. Mescaline tends to bung me up.
-
Re: Trump meeting rocket man
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Kirkland Laing
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Beanz
That stuff really works by the way. I drink a bottle of it after a mescaline session and it doesn't fuck about. Mescaline tends to bung me up.
Good to know finally you print something actually enlightening
-
Re: Trump meeting rocket man
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Kirkland Laing
It looks like I was right about you and Democractic gerrymandering, eh? What a surprise. And you're really quiet about the Mueller investigation these days. Why is that Lyle?
If you feel you were right then good for you.
What you and Thom Hartmann seem to be implying is that Southern Democrats AND Republicans are horribly racist and vile evil people. Ah yes the South has the relative stranglehold on racism :rolleyes:
Hartmann brings up Senator Robert Byrd (West Virginia)....Hillary Clinton's MENTOR or as Hillary said herself "My friend and mentor Robert C. Byrd"....who was not only IN the KKK but LEAD the KKK. If we're to believe YOUR take on history then surely Robert C. Byrd would have stopped being a Democrat and become a Republican had the parties switched. ONLY Strom Thurmond switched parties, he was the ONLY one. So there goes the whole idea of "the parties switched".
Were there bad actors in the Republican Party in those days? Just as sure as there were bad actors in the Democrat Party, you think LBJ was actually down for the struggle? HAHA
Correlations don't prove cause and effect Kirkland, you know that or rather you should know that and Thom Hartmann should know that too.
As for the Mueller investigation, what the fuck about it, has ANYTHING at all been found? Anything? Can we expect impeachment soon Kirkland? Or am I going to have to wait until Trump's second term?
-
1 Attachment(s)
Re: Trump meeting rocket man
-
Re: Trump meeting rocket man
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RCAbBnWm4LM
I think we can all take time to enjoy this ;)
-
Re: Trump meeting rocket man
Quote:
Originally Posted by
El Kabong
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Kirkland Laing
It looks like I was right about you and Democractic gerrymandering, eh? What a surprise. And you're really quiet about the Mueller investigation these days. Why is that Lyle?
If you feel you were right then good for you.
What you and Thom Hartmann seem to be implying is that Southern Democrats AND Republicans are horribly racist and vile evil people. Ah yes the South has the relative stranglehold on racism :rolleyes:
Hartmann brings up Senator Robert Byrd (West Virginia)....Hillary Clinton's MENTOR or as Hillary said herself "My friend and mentor Robert C. Byrd"....who was not only IN the KKK but LEAD the KKK. If we're to believe YOUR take on history then surely Robert C. Byrd would have stopped being a Democrat and become a Republican had the parties switched. ONLY Strom Thurmond switched parties, he was the ONLY one. So there goes the whole idea of "the parties switched".
Were there bad actors in the Republican Party in those days? Just as sure as there were bad actors in the Democrat Party, you think LBJ was actually down for the struggle? HAHA
Correlations don't prove cause and effect Kirkland, you know that or rather you should know that and Thom Hartmann should know that too.
As for the Mueller investigation, what the fuck about it, has ANYTHING at all been found? Anything? Can we expect impeachment soon Kirkland? Or am I going to have to wait until Trump's second term?
The north/south vote breakdown is about as clear as you can get, isn't it. I rest my case.
As for the various Democratic Senators like Byrd and Thurmond, they were told if they wanted to remain part of the Democratic party they'd have to accept and campaign for civil rights and racial equality from then on. Some like Byrd accepted that and spent the rest of their political careers working to further racial equality, some retired. Thurmond, who'd earlier in his career campaigned on a pro-lynching platform, couldn't stomach supporting racial equality and joined the Republican party.
And the Mueller investigation has so far indicted Manafort, Trump's campaign manager, the guy who replaced Manafort as campaign manager, Trump's National Security Advisor, one of his foreign policy advisors. Three of these guys are now co-operating witnesses. So lots more to come at some point.
I'm not sure he'll be impeached. Impeachment is a political process, not a legal one. The Democrats would rather run against a mortally wounded Trump in 2020 than have Trump on his way to prison and an untainted relatively normal noncontroversial Pence to run against. The GOP wouldn't vote to impeach Trump right now but who knows what Mueller will find?
-
Re: Trump meeting rocket man
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Kirkland Laing
Quote:
Originally Posted by
El Kabong
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Kirkland Laing
It looks like I was right about you and Democractic gerrymandering, eh? What a surprise. And you're really quiet about the Mueller investigation these days. Why is that Lyle?
If you feel you were right then good for you.
What you and Thom Hartmann seem to be implying is that Southern Democrats AND Republicans are horribly racist and vile evil people. Ah yes the South has the relative stranglehold on racism :rolleyes:
Hartmann brings up Senator Robert Byrd (West Virginia)....Hillary Clinton's MENTOR or as Hillary said herself "My friend and mentor Robert C. Byrd"....who was not only IN the KKK but LEAD the KKK. If we're to believe YOUR take on history then surely Robert C. Byrd would have stopped being a Democrat and become a Republican had the parties switched. ONLY Strom Thurmond switched parties, he was the ONLY one. So there goes the whole idea of "the parties switched".
Were there bad actors in the Republican Party in those days? Just as sure as there were bad actors in the Democrat Party, you think LBJ was actually down for the struggle? HAHA
Correlations don't prove cause and effect Kirkland, you know that or rather you should know that and Thom Hartmann should know that too.
As for the Mueller investigation, what the fuck about it, has ANYTHING at all been found? Anything? Can we expect impeachment soon Kirkland? Or am I going to have to wait until Trump's second term?
The north/south vote breakdown is about as clear as you can get, isn't it. I rest my case.
As for the various Democratic Senators like Byrd and Thurmond, they were told if they wanted to remain part of the Democratic party they'd have to accept and campaign for civil rights and racial equality from then on. Some like Byrd accepted that and spent the rest of their political careers working to further racial equality, some retired. Thurmond, who'd earlier in his career campaigned on a pro-lynching platform, couldn't stomach supporting racial equality and joined the Republican party.
And the Mueller investigation has so far indicted Manafort, Trump's campaign manager, the guy who replaced Manafort as campaign manager, Trump's National Security Advisor, one of his foreign policy advisors. Three of these guys are now co-operating witnesses. So lots more to come at some point.
I'm not sure he'll be impeached. Impeachment is a political process, not a legal one. The Democrats would rather run against a mortally wounded Trump in 2020 than have Trump on his way to prison and an untainted relatively normal noncontroversial Pence to run against. The GOP wouldn't vote to impeach Trump right now but who knows what Mueller will find?
You must have have taken notes last time harry Reid was banging you, or u him
-
Re: Trump meeting rocket man
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Kirkland Laing
The north/south vote breakdown is about as clear as you can get, isn't it. I rest my case.
As for the various Democratic Senators like Byrd and Thurmond, they were told if they wanted to remain part of the Democratic party they'd have to accept and campaign for civil rights and racial equality from then on. Some like Byrd accepted that and spent the rest of their political careers working to further racial equality, some retired. Thurmond, who'd earlier in his career campaigned on a pro-lynching platform, couldn't stomach supporting racial equality and joined the Republican party.
And the Mueller investigation has so far indicted Manafort, Trump's campaign manager, the guy who replaced Manafort as campaign manager, Trump's National Security Advisor, one of his foreign policy advisors. Three of these guys are now co-operating witnesses. So lots more to come at some point.
I'm not sure he'll be impeached. Impeachment is a political process, not a legal one. The Democrats would rather run against a mortally wounded Trump in 2020 than have Trump on his way to prison and an untainted relatively normal noncontroversial Pence to run against. The GOP wouldn't vote to impeach Trump right now but who knows what Mueller will find?
Well if it is then your bellyaching about "muh gerrymandering" is kind of ummmm fucking dumb because then both Republicans AND Democrats would be restricting the voted of blacks in the South moron.
Thurmond wasn't "pro lynching" quite the opposite actually, never read about what he did in the wake of the lynching of Willie Earle have you? Strom Thurmond had a daughter with a black woman so yeah while he indeed was very PRO-segregation he was very ANTI-lynching and for good reason. Now ol' bedsheets Byrd quite a different story, but hey you know what you're talking about don't you son ;)
So Mueller has indicted Trump? No? Then nothing is happening, nothing has happened....wake me up when THAT happens.
"B-b-b-b-but there's more to come........at some point"
LOL
-
Re: Trump meeting rocket man
Quote:
Originally Posted by
El Kabong
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Kirkland Laing
The north/south vote breakdown is about as clear as you can get, isn't it. I rest my case.
As for the various Democratic Senators like Byrd and Thurmond, they were told if they wanted to remain part of the Democratic party they'd have to accept and campaign for civil rights and racial equality from then on. Some like Byrd accepted that and spent the rest of their political careers working to further racial equality, some retired. Thurmond, who'd earlier in his career campaigned on a pro-lynching platform, couldn't stomach supporting racial equality and joined the Republican party.
And the Mueller investigation has so far indicted Manafort, Trump's campaign manager, the guy who replaced Manafort as campaign manager, Trump's National Security Advisor, one of his foreign policy advisors. Three of these guys are now co-operating witnesses. So lots more to come at some point.
I'm not sure he'll be impeached. Impeachment is a political process, not a legal one. The Democrats would rather run against a mortally wounded Trump in 2020 than have Trump on his way to prison and an untainted relatively normal noncontroversial Pence to run against. The GOP wouldn't vote to impeach Trump right now but who knows what Mueller will find?
Well if it is then your bellyaching about "muh gerrymandering" is kind of ummmm fucking dumb because then both Republicans AND Democrats would be restricting the voted of blacks in the South moron.
Thurmond wasn't "pro lynching" quite the opposite actually, never read about what he did in the wake of the lynching of Willie Earle have you? Strom Thurmond had a daughter with a black woman so yeah while he indeed was very PRO-segregation he was very ANTI-lynching and for good reason. Now ol' bedsheets Byrd quite a different story, but hey you know what you're talking about don't you son ;)
So Mueller has indicted Trump? No? Then nothing is happening, nothing has happened....wake me up when THAT happens.
"B-b-b-b-but there's more to come........at some point"
LOL
How would Democrats be suppressing the black vote and how would that make any difference to the ability of a state to gerrymander its districts?
-
Re: Trump meeting rocket man
Report: Dems Need Wave Unseen In 40 Years To Overcome GOP In Midterms
https://talkingpointsmemo.com/news/b...term-elections
Its like a banana Republic with all the gerrymandering.
-
Re: Trump meeting rocket man
And a sitting president can't be indicted, only impeached. Even if he's guilty he can pardon himself or anybody else. But only for federal crimes. If there's evidence of money laundering or tax evasion or fraud, the NY Attorney General can prosecute him and/or the rest of his family.
-
Re: Trump meeting rocket man
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Kirkland Laing
How would Democrats be suppressing the black vote and how would that make any difference to the ability of a state to gerrymandering its districts?
Well you seem to be under the assumption that regardless of party affiliation the South as a whole is racist. So yeah, interesting question that YOU should ponder a bit before responding.
-
Re: Trump meeting rocket man
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Kirkland Laing
And a sitting president can't be indicted, only impeached. Even if he's guilty he can pardon himself or anybody else. But only for federal crimes. If there's evidence of money laundering or tax evasion or fraud, the NY Attorney General can prosecute him and/or the rest of his family.
Wether or not a president has the authority to pardon himself is debatable. He may very well have such power but it has never come before the courts. There was an article about it in a recent law journal. Trump may very well be impeached, just as Clinton and Bush were. Impeachment has become a political thing. If the dems get a majority mid term schumer and pelosi will get great air time if they move for impeachment but it will be meaningless. After all the scandal in the mueller investigation no one, other than CNN has faith in his investigation, he allowed too many bias characters access to the investigation and had documented trump haters on board who were not even pretending to be impartial. It seems like you should be a bit more concerned with your own country Kirk. Oh, and to whatever your response is it's a crock of shit
-
Re: Trump meeting rocket man
Quote:
Originally Posted by
El Kabong
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Kirkland Laing
How would Democrats be suppressing the black vote and how would that make any difference to the ability of a state to gerrymandering its districts?
Well you seem to be under the assumption that regardless of party affiliation the South as a whole is racist. So yeah, interesting question that YOU should ponder a bit before responding.
I'm not under the impression that the south as a whole is racist. However there are a lot of racists in the south.
Back in 2008 the republican brand was in the toilet. Iraq, Katrina and a whole bunch of scandals had left Bush and Cheney and the GOP with historical low approval ratings and historically high disapproval ratings. And then to top it off their eight year abdication of any regulation or oversight of the financial industry resulted in the biggest financial crash since 1929.
As this map of the country shows, it was impossible for the GOP facing those kind of headwinds to get more votes in districts/states in 2008 than they had done in 2004. Apart from a large swathe of the south and Appalachia where somehow they improved on the 2004 showing:
https://images.newrepublic.com/f1d73...b4d8d37c84.png
Blue is where Obama did better than Kerry. Red is where he did worse.
-
Re: Trump meeting rocket man
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Kirkland Laing
I'm not under the impression that the south as a whole is racist. However there are a lot of racists in the south.
Back in 2008 the republican brand was in the toilet. Iraq, Katrina and a whole bunch of scandals had left Bush and Cheney and the GOP with historical low approval ratings and historically high disapproval ratings. And then to top it off their eight year abdication of any regulation or oversight of the financial industry resulted in the biggest financial crash since 1929.
As this map of the country shows, it was impossible for the GOP facing those kind of headwinds to get more votes in districts/states in 2008 than they had done in 2004. Apart from a large swathe of the south and Appalachia where somehow they improved on the 2004 showing:
https://images.newrepublic.com/f1d73...b4d8d37c84.png
Blue is where Obama did better than Kerry. Red is where he did worse.
You actually said "The north/south vote breakdown is about as clear as you can get, isn't it." where you included Southern Republicans and lumped them in with Southern Democrats for the 1968 Civil Rights Act vote. That's what you did and THEN you complain about gerrymandering in the South which makes little to no sense if you're accusing both parties in that geographical area of being racist.
Also you DO realize that the map you've decided to use has North Carolina, a state you wanted to make a great deal about their "gerrymandering", as pretty much blue from Murphy (Westernmost city in NC) to Rodanthe (Easternmost city in NC). Why would that be the case if North Carolina is gerrymandered and/or racist?
So I guess I don't understand what it is you're actually attempting to push here.....are just the Southern Republicans racist? Is it the South in general? Is it North Carolina specifically that is racist?
-
Re: Trump meeting rocket man
-
Re: Trump meeting rocket man
Quote:
Originally Posted by
walrus
And there too it's Conservatives doing the "gerrymandering"....I'm sure that is only a coincidence though
-
Re: Trump meeting rocket man
Quote:
Originally Posted by
El Kabong
Quote:
Originally Posted by
walrus
And there too it's Conservatives doing the "gerrymandering"....I'm sure that is only a coincidence though
Yes Lyle but I'm sure Kirk can't reconcile this
https://www.google.com/amp/s/amp.the...r-constituency
-
Re: Trump meeting rocket man
Quote:
Originally Posted by
El Kabong
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Kirkland Laing
I'm not under the impression that the south as a whole is racist. However there are a lot of racists in the south.
Back in 2008 the republican brand was in the toilet. Iraq, Katrina and a whole bunch of scandals had left Bush and Cheney and the GOP with historical low approval ratings and historically high disapproval ratings. And then to top it off their eight year abdication of any regulation or oversight of the financial industry resulted in the biggest financial crash since 1929.
As this map of the country shows, it was impossible for the GOP facing those kind of headwinds to get more votes in districts/states in 2008 than they had done in 2004. Apart from a large swathe of the south and Appalachia where somehow they improved on the 2004 showing:
https://images.newrepublic.com/f1d73...b4d8d37c84.png
Blue is where Obama did better than Kerry. Red is where he did worse.
You actually said "The north/south vote breakdown is about as clear as you can get, isn't it." where you included Southern Republicans and lumped them in with Southern Democrats for the 1968 Civil Rights Act vote. That's what you did and THEN you complain about gerrymandering in the South which makes little to no sense if you're accusing both parties in that geographical area of being racist.
Also you DO realize that the map you've decided to use has North Carolina, a state you wanted to make a great deal about their "gerrymandering", as pretty much blue from Murphy (Westernmost city in NC) to Rodanthe (Easternmost city in NC). Why would that be the case if North Carolina is gerrymandered and/or racist?
So I guess I don't understand what it is you're actually attempting to push here.....are just the Southern Republicans racist? Is it the South in general? Is it North Carolina specifically that is racist?
You're conflating southern racists voting against the Civil Rights Act over half a century ago with current day events.
What difference would gerrymandering make in a statewide election? In what way do you think gerrymandering would affect changes in the vote between 2004 and 2008 in the same NC districts? You still don't understand what it is. I'm going to get my ten year old niece to register here and explain it to you.
-
Re: Trump meeting rocket man
Quote:
Originally Posted by
walrus
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Kirkland Laing
And a sitting president can't be indicted, only impeached. Even if he's guilty he can pardon himself or anybody else. But only for federal crimes. If there's evidence of money laundering or tax evasion or fraud, the NY Attorney General can prosecute him and/or the rest of his family.
Wether or not a president has the authority to pardon himself is debatable. He may very well have such power but it has never come before the courts. There was an article about it in a recent law journal. Trump may very well be impeached, just as Clinton and Bush were. Impeachment has become a political thing. If the dems get a majority mid term schumer and pelosi will get great air time if they move for impeachment but it will be meaningless. After all the scandal in the mueller investigation no one, other than CNN has faith in his investigation, he allowed too many bias characters access to the investigation and had documented trump haters on board who were not even pretending to be impartial. It seems like you should be a bit more concerned with your own country Kirk. Oh, and to whatever your response is it's a crock of shit
It's biased, not bias. Bias is a verb as well as a noun.
Although polls show the public has far more faith in Mueller than in Trump to tell the truth over the Russia investigation it doesn't matter either way. Evidence isn't Democratic or Republican, it's evidence. Proof is proof. If there are any people with bias on the Mueller investigation then they've shown Republican bias. Those "Trump haters" slagged off both Trump and Hillary in various texts, the only 2016 candidate either of them liked was John Kasich. And either way, having a political opinion doesn't prevent you from investigating somebody otherwise politicians could never be investigated.
Maybe you should be a little concerned that the response of Trump and people around him to being investigated is to immediately attack the credibility of the people investigating him and attempt to shut it down. If he really was innocent the last thing he would do to the man who is going to publicly exonerate him is attack his credibility.
-
Re: Trump meeting rocket man
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Kirkland Laing
You're conflating southern racists voting against the Civil Rights Act over half a century ago with current day events.
What difference would gerrymandering make in a statewide election? In what way do you think gerrymandering would affect changes in the vote between 2004 and 2008 in the same NC districts? You still don't understand what it is. I'm going to get my ten year old niece to register here and explain it to you.
Well you called the South racist and both parties in the South racist and if they were still racist why did NC vote for Obama and not support John Kerry?
Again, you called the South and both parties racist, NC voted more for Obama than Kerry which begs the question "Where's the racism?"
Yeah maybe your niece makes more sense than you Kirk...fucking ridiculous.
-
Re: Trump meeting rocket man
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Kirkland Laing
Quote:
Originally Posted by
walrus
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Kirkland Laing
And a sitting president can't be indicted, only impeached. Even if he's guilty he can pardon himself or anybody else. But only for federal crimes. If there's evidence of money laundering or tax evasion or fraud, the NY Attorney General can prosecute him and/or the rest of his family.
Wether or not a president has the authority to pardon himself is debatable. He may very well have such power but it has never come before the courts. There was an article about it in a recent law journal. Trump may very well be impeached, just as Clinton and Bush were. Impeachment has become a political thing. If the dems get a majority mid term schumer and pelosi will get great air time if they move for impeachment but it will be meaningless. After all the scandal in the mueller investigation no one, other than CNN has faith in his investigation, he allowed too many bias characters access to the investigation and had documented trump haters on board who were not even pretending to be impartial. It seems like you should be a bit more concerned with your own country Kirk. Oh, and to whatever your response is it's a crock of shit
It's biased, not bias. Bias is a verb as well as a noun.
Although polls show the public has far more faith in Mueller than in Trump to tell the truth over the Russia investigation it doesn't matter either way. Evidence isn't Democratic or Republican, it's evidence. Proof is proof. If there are any people with bias on the Mueller investigation then they've shown Republican bias. Those "Trump haters" slagged off both Trump and Hillary in various texts, the only 2016 candidate either of them liked was John Kasich. And either way, having a political opinion doesn't prevent you from investigating somebody otherwise politicians could never be investigated.
Maybe you should be a little concerned that the response of Trump and people around him to being investigated is to immediately attack the credibility of the people investigating him and attempt to shut it down. If he really was innocent the last thing he would do to the man who is going to publicly exonerate him is attack his credibility.
Ok so nothing on English gerrymandering pal I'm not bothered by the misuse of a word as spell check always makes it interesting
-
Re: Trump meeting rocket man
Quote:
Originally Posted by
El Kabong
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Kirkland Laing
You're conflating southern racists voting against the Civil Rights Act over half a century ago with current day events. What difference would gerrymandering make in a statewide election? In what way do you think gerrymandering would affect changes in the vote between 2004 and 2008 in the same NC districts? You still don't understand what it is. I'm going to get my ten year old niece to register here and explain it to you.
Well you called the South racist and both parties in the South racist and if they were still racist why did NC vote for Obama and not support John Kerry? Again, you called the South and both parties racist, NC voted more for Obama than Kerry which begs the question "Where's the racism?" Yeah maybe your niece makes more sense than you Kirk...fucking ridiculous.
You're conflating what I said about the south over half a century ago with the events of a few years ago. And once again I didn't say the entire south was racist. I just said there are lots of racists in the south.
-
Re: Trump meeting rocket man
Quote:
Originally Posted by
walrus
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Kirkland Laing
Quote:
Originally Posted by
walrus
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Kirkland Laing
And a sitting president can't be indicted, only impeached. Even if he's guilty he can pardon himself or anybody else. But only for federal crimes. If there's evidence of money laundering or tax evasion or fraud, the NY Attorney General can prosecute him and/or the rest of his family.
Wether or not a president has the authority to pardon himself is debatable. He may very well have such power but it has never come before the courts. There was an article about it in a recent law journal. Trump may very well be impeached, just as Clinton and Bush were. Impeachment has become a political thing. If the dems get a majority mid term schumer and pelosi will get great air time if they move for impeachment but it will be meaningless. After all the scandal in the mueller investigation no one, other than CNN has faith in his investigation, he allowed too many bias characters access to the investigation and had documented trump haters on board who were not even pretending to be impartial. It seems like you should be a bit more concerned with your own country Kirk. Oh, and to whatever your response is it's a crock of shit
It's biased, not bias. Bias is a verb as well as a noun. Although polls show the public has far more faith in Mueller than in Trump to tell the truth over the Russia investigation it doesn't matter either way. Evidence isn't Democratic or Republican, it's evidence. Proof is proof. If there are any people with bias on the Mueller investigation then they've shown Republican bias. Those "Trump haters" slagged off both Trump and Hillary in various texts, the only 2016 candidate either of them liked was John Kasich. And either way, having a political opinion doesn't prevent you from investigating somebody otherwise politicians could never be investigated. Maybe you should be a little concerned that the response of Trump and people around him to being investigated is to immediately attack the credibility of the people investigating him and attempt to shut it down. If he really was innocent the last thing he would do to the man who is going to publicly exonerate him is attack his credibility.
Ok so nothing on English gerrymandering pal I'm not bothered by the misuse of a word as spell check always makes it interesting
So conservatives are gerrymandering in England too. So what?
Anyway, the Mueller witch hunt as seen through the eyes of a Fox News contributor:
Four decades ago, as a U.S. Army second lieutenant, I took an oath to “support and defend the Constitution.” In moral and ethical terms, that oath never expires. As Fox’s assault on our constitutional order intensified, spearheaded by its after-dinner demagogues, I had no choice but to leave.
[...]
Fox never tried to put words in my mouth, nor was I told explicitly that I was taboo on Trump-Putin matters. I simply was no longer called on for topics central to my expertise. I was relegated to Groundhog Day analysis of North Korea and the Middle East, or to Russia-related news that didn’t touch the administration. Listening to political hacks with no knowledge of things Russian tell the vast Fox audience that the special counsel’s investigation was a “witch hunt,” while I could not respond, became too much to bear. There is indeed a witch hunt, and it’s led by Fox against Robert Mueller.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/outlook/why-i-left-fox-news/2018/03/30/d1224648-32bb-11e8-8bdd-cdb33a5eef83_story.html
-
Re: Trump meeting rocket man
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Kirkland Laing
Quote:
Originally Posted by
walrus
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Kirkland Laing
Quote:
Originally Posted by
walrus
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Kirkland Laing
And a sitting president can't be indicted, only impeached. Even if he's guilty he can pardon himself or anybody else. But only for federal crimes. If there's evidence of money laundering or tax evasion or fraud, the NY Attorney General can prosecute him and/or the rest of his family.
Wether or not a president has the authority to pardon himself is debatable. He may very well have such power but it has never come before the courts. There was an article about it in a recent law journal. Trump may very well be impeached, just as Clinton and Bush were. Impeachment has become a political thing. If the dems get a majority mid term schumer and pelosi will get great air time if they move for impeachment but it will be meaningless. After all the scandal in the mueller investigation no one, other than CNN has faith in his investigation, he allowed too many bias characters access to the investigation and had documented trump haters on board who were not even pretending to be impartial. It seems like you should be a bit more concerned with your own country Kirk. Oh, and to whatever your response is it's a crock of shit
It's biased, not bias. Bias is a verb as well as a noun. Although polls show the public has far more faith in Mueller than in Trump to tell the truth over the Russia investigation it doesn't matter either way. Evidence isn't Democratic or Republican, it's evidence. Proof is proof. If there are any people with bias on the Mueller investigation then they've shown Republican bias. Those "Trump haters" slagged off both Trump and Hillary in various texts, the only 2016 candidate either of them liked was John Kasich. And either way, having a political opinion doesn't prevent you from investigating somebody otherwise politicians could never be investigated. Maybe you should be a little concerned that the response of Trump and people around him to being investigated is to immediately attack the credibility of the people investigating him and attempt to shut it down. If he really was innocent the last thing he would do to the man who is going to publicly exonerate him is attack his credibility.
Ok so nothing on English gerrymandering pal I'm not bothered by the misuse of a word as spell check always makes it interesting
So conservatives are gerrymandering in England too. So what?
Anyway, the Mueller witch hunt as seen through the eyes of a Fox News contributor:
F
our decades ago, as a U.S. Army second lieutenant, I took an oath to “support and defend the Constitution.” In moral and ethical terms, that oath never expires. As Fox’s assault on our constitutional order intensified, spearheaded by its after-dinner demagogues, I had no choice but to leave.
[...]
Fox never tried to put words in my mouth, nor was I told explicitly that I was taboo on Trump-Putin matters. I simply was no longer called on for topics central to my expertise. I was relegated to Groundhog Day analysis of North Korea and the Middle East, or to Russia-related news that didn’t touch the administration. Listening to political hacks with no knowledge of things Russian tell the vast Fox audience that the special counsel’s investigation was a “witch hunt,” while I could not respond, became too much to bear. There is indeed a witch hunt, and it’s led by Fox against Robert Mueller.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/outlook/why-i-left-fox-news/2018/03/30/d1224648-32bb-11e8-8bdd-cdb33a5eef83_story.html
The England has all kinds of political ties to Russia. Every smoke screen you bring up actually takes place in ur own country. It's a bit hypocritical of you. I don't get why you don't focus on the issues in your own country like nazi dogs and the erosion of freedom. Why is Russia planting fake news such an issue. We all try to influence elections, England, the US, Israel Russia and more. Are you surprised? The collusion thing is a joke compared to the Hillary cash trail and out democratic senate taking money from Iron man Putin
-
Re: Trump meeting rocket man
So what gerrymandering is happening in England? Aren't u currently posting fake news about the same in the US like some kind of whistle blower.
-
Re: Trump meeting rocket man
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kirkland Laing
You're conflating what I said about the south over half a century ago with the events of a few years ago. And once again I didn't say the entire south was racist. I just said there are lots of racists in the south
No I'm not conflating it at all. Has something changed in the South since 1968? If there has been any major political event to shift parties or have the people be better educated and less racist you certainly have not made mention of it. Indeed, you didn't say the entire South was racist only Southern Democrats AND Southern Republicans, I assume everyone else was alright though, I don't know because you've not said how this has all played out other than to suggest that because Strom Thurmond decided to become a Republican that is proof positive of 'The Southern Strategy' that was made use of by Republicans.
So walk us through a timeline of how the Southern man votes and why
-
Re: Trump meeting rocket man
Democrats Hate Gerrymandering—Except When They Get to Do It
https://www.thedailybeast.com/democr...ter&via=mobile
I’m from western Maryland, the 6th Congressional district that was for many years represented by conservative Republican Roscoe Bartlett (the Supreme Court is currently looking into this). This is culturally more akin to West Virginia or central Pennsylvania than it is to the Maryland of the Baltimore-Washington nexus (I went to college in West Virginia, and my mom now lives in Pennsylvania). This point is buttressed by the fact that Bartlett is now a survivalist living in the Mountain State, and that his heir apparent, former Maryland State Senator Alex Mooney, is now West Virginia Congressman Mooney.
Why did Bartlett go off the grid and why did Mooney have to move across the James Rumsey bridge? Because Democrats decided to give themselves another Congressional seat. As Mother Jones describes it, “Democrats added a strange-looking appendage to the district, reaching all the way down into the affluent Washington DC, suburbs to scoop up Democratic voters. More than 360,000 people were moved out of the district, and nearly as many were moved in. It went from solidly Republican to reliably Democratic; the Cook Political Report identified it as the biggest district swing in the country.”
Imagine.....my......shock......:-X
-
Re: Trump meeting rocket man
Quote:
Originally Posted by
El Kabong
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kirkland Laing
You're conflating what I said about the south over half a century ago with the events of a few years ago. And once again I didn't say the entire south was racist. I just said there are lots of racists in the south
No I'm not conflating it at all. Has something changed in the South since 1968? If there has been any major political event to shift parties or have the people be better educated and less racist you certainly have not made mention of it. Indeed, you didn't say the entire South was racist only Southern Democrats AND Southern Republicans, I assume everyone else was alright though, I don't know because you've not said how this has all played out other than to suggest that because Strom Thurmond decided to become a Republican that is proof positive of 'The Southern Strategy' that was made use of by Republicans.
So walk us through a timeline of how the Southern man votes and why
Conflating the events of over half a century ago with the present day is exactly what you're doing. Try reading over the last few posts Lyle. They happened a few days ago now so they've already fallen off your shelf. The only actual coherent point you make is that North Carolina now has enough Democratic voters to vote Democratic. That's mainly due to the concentration of the financial industry there over recent years. It means lots of educated people from the shoe-wearing regions of the country have moved there and they overwhelmingly vote Democratic.
As far as changes in voting patterns in the south go here's a nice little summary for you. There are endless much longer in depth articles but there's zero chance you'll ever read one:
But a couple of researchers recently found some: Gallup poll data starting in the late 50s that asks if you’d be willing to vote for a qualified presidential candidate who happened to be black. Respondents who answered no were coded (quite reasonably) as racially conservative. They then looked at differences between the Democratic Party ID of Southern whites who were and weren’t racially conservative. Here’s their conclusion:
We find that except for issues involving racial integration and discrimination, whites in the South and elsewhere have indistinguishable preferences on both domestic and foreign policy in the 1950s….We find no evidence that white Southerners who have negative views of women, Catholics or Jews differentially leave the Democratic party in 1963;
the exodus is specific to those who are racially conservative. Finally, we
https://www.motherjones.com/wp-conte...ine_1963_0.jpgfind no role for Southern economic development in explaining dealignment.
So: why did Democrats lose the white South? For the reason common sense and all the evidence suggests: because the party became too liberal on civil rights, and racist white Southerners didn’t like it. Southern white flight from the party began in the 1940s, took a sharp dive in the early 60s, and continued to decline for several decades after as Democrats became ever more committed to black equality. This might not be the only reason for Southern realignment, but it’s surely the most important by a long stretch.
https://www.motherjones.com/kevin-dr...e-white-south/
And don't complain about the source. It's a factual piece referencing poll data, facts and evidence. Once the Democratic party came out for equal rights for black people white southerners started leaving it in droves. That's it in a nutshell Lyle.
-
Re: Trump meeting rocket man
Quote:
Originally Posted by
walrus
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Kirkland Laing
Quote:
Originally Posted by
walrus
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Kirkland Laing
Quote:
Originally Posted by
walrus
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Kirkland Laing
And a sitting president can't be indicted, only impeached. Even if he's guilty he can pardon himself or anybody else. But only for federal crimes. If there's evidence of money laundering or tax evasion or fraud, the NY Attorney General can prosecute him and/or the rest of his family.
Wether or not a president has the authority to pardon himself is debatable. He may very well have such power but it has never come before the courts. There was an article about it in a recent law journal. Trump may very well be impeached, just as Clinton and Bush were. Impeachment has become a political thing. If the dems get a majority mid term schumer and pelosi will get great air time if they move for impeachment but it will be meaningless. After all the scandal in the mueller investigation no one, other than CNN has faith in his investigation, he allowed too many bias characters access to the investigation and had documented trump haters on board who were not even pretending to be impartial. It seems like you should be a bit more concerned with your own country Kirk. Oh, and to whatever your response is it's a crock of shit
It's biased, not bias. Bias is a verb as well as a noun. Although polls show the public has far more faith in Mueller than in Trump to tell the truth over the Russia investigation it doesn't matter either way. Evidence isn't Democratic or Republican, it's evidence. Proof is proof. If there are any people with bias on the Mueller investigation then they've shown Republican bias. Those "Trump haters" slagged off both Trump and Hillary in various texts, the only 2016 candidate either of them liked was John Kasich. And either way, having a political opinion doesn't prevent you from investigating somebody otherwise politicians could never be investigated. Maybe you should be a little concerned that the response of Trump and people around him to being investigated is to immediately attack the credibility of the people investigating him and attempt to shut it down. If he really was innocent the last thing he would do to the man who is going to publicly exonerate him is attack his credibility.
Ok so nothing on English gerrymandering pal I'm not bothered by the misuse of a word as spell check always makes it interesting
So conservatives are gerrymandering in England too. So what?
Anyway, the Mueller witch hunt as seen through the eyes of a Fox News contributor:
F
our decades ago, as a U.S. Army second lieutenant, I took an oath to “support and defend the Constitution.” In moral and ethical terms, that oath never expires. As Fox’s assault on our constitutional order intensified, spearheaded by its after-dinner demagogues, I had no choice but to leave.
[...]
Fox never tried to put words in my mouth, nor was I told explicitly that I was taboo on Trump-Putin matters. I simply was no longer called on for topics central to my expertise. I was relegated to Groundhog Day analysis of North Korea and the Middle East, or to Russia-related news that didn’t touch the administration. Listening to political hacks with no knowledge of things Russian tell the vast Fox audience that the special counsel’s investigation was a “witch hunt,” while I could not respond, became too much to bear. There is indeed a witch hunt, and it’s led by Fox against Robert Mueller.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/outlook/why-i-left-fox-news/2018/03/30/d1224648-32bb-11e8-8bdd-cdb33a5eef83_story.html
The England has all kinds of political ties to Russia. Every smoke screen you bring up actually takes place in ur own country. It's a bit hypocritical of you. I don't get why you don't focus on the issues in your own country like nazi dogs and the erosion of freedom. Why is Russia planting fake news such an issue. We all try to influence elections, England, the US, Israel Russia and more. Are you surprised? The collusion thing is a joke compared to the Hillary cash trail and out democratic senate taking money from Iron man Putin
If it turns out that the Trump people conspired with a hostile foreign power to try and affect the result of an American presidential election it'll be the biggest political scandal in history. What is this cash trail you speak of and who is taking money from Putin?
-
Re: Trump meeting rocket man
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Kirkland Laing
Conflating the events of over half a century ago with the present day is exactly what you're doing. Try reading over the last few posts Lyle. They happened a few days ago now so they've already fallen off your shelf. The only actual coherent point you make is that North Carolina now has enough Democratic voters to vote Democratic. That's mainly due to the concentration of the financial industry there over recent years. It means lots of educated people from the shoe-wearing regions of the country have moved there and they overwhelmingly vote Democratic.
As far as changes in voting patterns in the south go here's a nice little summary for you. There are endless much longer in depth articles but there's zero chance you'll ever read one:
But a couple of researchers recently found some: Gallup poll data starting in the late 50s that asks if you’d be willing to vote for a qualified presidential candidate who happened to be black. Respondents who answered no were coded (quite reasonably) as racially conservative. They then looked at differences between the Democratic Party ID of Southern whites who were and weren’t racially conservative. Here’s their conclusion:
We find that except for issues involving racial integration and discrimination, whites in the South and elsewhere have indistinguishable preferences on both domestic and foreign policy in the 1950s….We find no evidence that white Southerners who have negative views of women, Catholics or Jews differentially leave the Democratic party in 1963;
the exodus is specific to those who are racially conservative. Finally, we
https://www.motherjones.com/wp-conte...ine_1963_0.jpgfind no role for Southern economic development in explaining dealignment.
So: why did Democrats lose the white South? For the reason common sense and all the evidence suggests: because the party became too liberal on civil rights, and racist white Southerners didn’t like it. Southern white flight from the party began in the 1940s, took a sharp dive in the early 60s, and continued to decline for several decades after as Democrats became ever more committed to black equality. This might not be the only reason for Southern realignment, but it’s surely the most important by a long stretch.
https://www.motherjones.com/kevin-dr...e-white-south/
And don't complain about the source. It's a factual piece referencing poll data, facts and evidence. Once the Democratic party came out for equal rights for black people white southerners started leaving it in droves. That's it in a nutshell Lyle.
OK keep being belligerent I guess :dontknow:
"Little shelf, my 10 year old niece, shoe-wearing regions of the country" just nothing but hostility from you ALL THE TIME....not complaining, just pointing it out in case anyone else missed it though I'd find it hard to believe they would.
All I've done is DARE to ask you to follow up on the claims you make about the South being racist which YES absolute you have said that and you're continuing to say it right now.
"The north/south vote breakdown is about as clear as you can get, isn't it. I rest my case."
That's Republican AND Democrat votes and that's YOUR quote saying the whole South, both parties, were racist.
These people you talk about haven't moved anywhere and only 1 Democrat turned Republican which apparently proves you right about the "Southern strategy" :rolleyes: and that dude was in SOUTH Carolina. To expound on that a bit, you never did get back to what Strom Thurmond did in the wake of Willie Earle being lynched, but that's cool it's another story for another day when you apparently feel like answering questions instead of being a hostile jackass.
OK so banking brings in "shoe wearing people" (because that's not insulting to myself or my state) and MAGICALLY Democrats become LESS racist than Republicans who now OWN racism in the South and everywhere else according to you.
Neither you or the author of the 'Mother Jones' article (shocking you'd use them again) define what constitutes "racially conservative". Define the term, how does one become "racially conservative" how do you define it? If you'd kindly define your term then maybe your fucking graphs would mean something.
I really would enjoy hearing this kind of thing from you live in person, it would amuse me a great deal.
-
Re: Trump meeting rocket man
@Kirkland Laing why are you so fixated on the US when your country does the same shit. Is it just for arguments sake. How do u feel about the erosion of personal liberty in the UK
-
Re: Trump meeting rocket man
Make Kirkland a US citizen. Let him run for President as the first Geordie President. Pushing forward new language forms one President at a time. 'All yous Southerners is racists, you know'.
-
Re: Trump meeting rocket man
What does any of this have to do with Rocket Men anyway? I come on here wanting my Rocket Man fix and you are all waffling about 'Racism'.
-
Re: Trump meeting rocket man
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Gandalf
Make Kirkland a US citizen. Let him run for President as the first Geordie President. Pushing forward new language forms one President at a time. 'All yous Southerners is racists, you know'.
He's a Geordie?! Bwahaha!
