Trump meeting rocket man

[walrus]

So Trump Korea yeh. Thread has turned into another slap fight on the open board surprise surprise. I'd like to invite the two of you to ignore one another if you can't sort it out. And ffs all concerned lets leave families out of it.

Anyone have the specifics on what Trump tweeted about South Korea? Going out on a limb and saying this 'meet' doesn't happen in May. Wasn't sure about Tilerson but he was dismissed with less respect than a failed dishwasher. No idea on Pompao and not sure bullfrog with the jacked up haircut has even responded to Trump??

Hey, even the possibility of a meeting is much more progress than we have made recently. That shit was getting hot. Best Korea hasn't launched anything in a while. id like it to get to the point where we can see Kim addressing the UN in New York, that would be entertaining. I liked a lot of what Rex had to say by the way

[El Kabong]

So Trump Korea yeh. Thread has turned into another slap fight on the open board surprise surprise. I'd like to invite the two of you to ignore one another if you can't sort it out. And ffs all concerned lets leave families out of it.

Anyone have the specifics on what Trump tweeted about South Korea? Going out on a limb and saying this 'meet' doesn't happen in May. Wasn't sure about Tilerson but he was dismissed with less respect than a failed dishwasher. No idea on Pompao and not sure bullfrog with the jacked up haircut has even responded to Trump??

I'd love nothing more than for Beanz to leave me alone @Spicoli been wanting that for ages. I USED to have him on block but apparently Kirkland didn't like that so he wouldn't let that rest.


All I want is to post without being followed by Beanz, every single chance he gets it's just him taking shots at me and when I hit back he cries about it. I didn't bring his family up he did and I don't give a single fuck about them.

[Spicoli]

So Trump Korea yeh. Thread has turned into another slap fight on the open board surprise surprise. I'd like to invite the two of you to ignore one another if you can't sort it out. And ffs all concerned lets leave families out of it.

Anyone have the specifics on what Trump tweeted about South Korea? Going out on a limb and saying this 'meet' doesn't happen in May. Wasn't sure about Tilerson but he was dismissed with less respect than a failed dishwasher. No idea on Pompao and not sure bullfrog with the jacked up haircut has even responded to Trump??

I'd love nothing more than for Beanz to leave me alone @Spicoli been wanting that for ages. I USED to have him on block but apparently Kirkland didn't like that so he wouldn't let that rest.


All I want is to post without being followed by Beanz, every single chance he gets it's just him taking shots at me and when I hit back he cries about it. I didn't bring his family up he did and I don't give a single fuck about them.

Yes you've made that last part clear thanks. And block is a wonderful feature so don't let Kirkland decide things. @Beanz you too, you guys are not going to change one another. Or there's always agree to disagree.

[Kirkland Laing]

This post is like Lyle bingo. After having made a completely ignorant statement that is disproved by facts double down on the stupid with a ridiculous argument that just made a ten year old girl laugh out loud when I got her to read it (she said "he's trolling you", I said no he really is that dumb ), dismiss a factual article full of linked checkable facts as rubbish because you don't like the source, BLOCK CAPS. I call stupid house. Ffs Lyle.

You made my brother's daughter laugh though. God bless you.

Here's some more GOP gerrymandering from your home state.

http://www.newsobserver.com/opinion/...197852639.html

If you wish to read and believe Ezra Klein or Matthew Yglesias or David Corn, that's fine go right ahead and just take everything they write as the gospel truth. I'm not stopping you, but I'm not taking them as "middle of the road" "non partisan" objective journalists because they aren't and that is an absolute undeniable fact. The head of Vox, Ezra Klein started the JournoList...ever hear of the JournoList? I mean you wouldn't care anyway because you're sympathetic to their views.

NC =/= PA not sure if you understand redistricting or geography but those are actual things which you might want to actually learn about.


Cute you have a "woke" niece....that's lovely....I let my dog read your post and he called you a faggot so there ya go

The gerrymandering the article is covering has been widely reported in every outlet and newspaper you can mention. You would already know about it if you read a fucking newspaper. From the Commies at the WSJ:

Pennsylvania GOP Lawmakers Submit New Map in Gerrymandering Case

State’s Supreme Court had overturned current congressional districts as unfair to Democrats


Voters in Pennsylvania, a perennial battleground state, often split closely between Democrats and Republicans in statewide elections. The state’s congressional delegation, however, tilts 13-to-5 in favor of Republicans under the district lines the GOP drew in 2011.
Political analysts say Democrats could pick up three to four additional seats under new district boundaries. The party needs to gain a net 24 seats nationwide in November to retake the U.S. House, which has been under Republican control since 2011.

https://www.wsj.com/articles/pennsyl...ase-1518202728


Here's Fox News :



North Carolina congressional map illegally gerrymandered, judges rule


Federal judges ruled Tuesday that North Carolina's congressional district map drawn by legislative Republicans is illegally gerrymandered because of excessive partisanship that gave GOP a rock-solid advantage for most seats and must quickly be redone.
The ruling marks the second time this decade that the GOP's congressional boundaries in North Carolina have been thrown out by a three-judge panel. In 2016, another panel tossed out two majority black congressional districts initially drawn in 2011, saying there was no justification for using race as the predominant factor in forming them. The redrawn map was the basis for a new round of lawsuits.

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2018...dges-rule.html








I picked Vox as it's a nice easy explainer with lots of links. And just bear in mind for a minute the ridiculousness of somebody who gets their news from Alex Jones, Fox News and nutcases on the radio complaining about nonexistent bias in a factual article. And then telling me I "might want to actually read" about something to learn about it. You do a nice line in unintentional comedy Lyle.

[Kirkland Laing]

Just more Lyle posting what he wants to be true and then refusing to engage in debate when he gets confronted with what is widely reported as actually having happened by Kirkland.

Good point and Kirk only tells the truth

He is certainly more objective, which is why Lyle has to invent the lie that he Kirkland is a Hilary supporter etc. We have never subscribed to the binary polemic of red or blue quite so much in the UK, until recently, and yet yourself and Lyle seem unable to accept the fact that non of us criticizing Trump were ever Obama or Clinton supporters. Quite the opposite. It doesn't fit the narrative though and so you all insist on trying to lower the bar and make it all about binary politics. Everyone is rendered into a meme and opinons or life experience etc is ignored in favour of point scoring rubbish. For a millennial hipster like Lyle who thinks the interweb and TV he chooses to watch represents reality, I get it, but I assumed you were a bit more old school and would have seen the bullshit from every administration, just as we have here, whoever is in power.

https://twitter.com/nowthisnews/stat...50928714747906

[walrus]

Just more Lyle posting what he wants to be true and then refusing to engage in debate when he gets confronted with what is widely reported as actually having happened by Kirkland.

Good point and Kirk only tells the truth

He is certainly more objective, which is why Lyle has to invent the lie that he Kirkland is a Hilary supporter etc. We have never subscribed to the binary polemic of red or blue quite so much in the UK, until recently, and yet yourself and Lyle seem unable to accept the fact that non of us criticizing Trump were ever Obama or Clinton supporters. Quite the opposite. It doesn't fit the narrative though and so you all insist on trying to lower the bar and make it all about binary politics. Everyone is rendered into a meme and opinons or life experience etc is ignored in favour of point scoring rubbish. For a millennial hipster like Lyle who thinks the interweb and TV he chooses to watch represents reality, I get it, but I assumed you were a bit more old school and would have seen the bullshit from every administration, just as we have here, whoever is in power.

https://twitter.com/nowthisnews/stat...50928714747906

Ha, it's presented as a spin but the cuts of the videos are a spin. It is frickin crazy. Why did I click Kirk link, #bringbackbeanz

[Gandalf]

Don't know what you are all on about. I really want to see Trump hang out with Elton John.

[El Kabong]

The gerrymandering the article is covering has been widely reported in every outlet and newspaper you can mention. You would already know about it if you read a fucking newspaper. From the Commies at the WSJ:

Pennsylvania GOP Lawmakers Submit New Map in Gerrymandering Case

State’s Supreme Court had overturned current congressional districts as unfair to Democrats


Voters in Pennsylvania, a perennial battleground state, often split closely between Democrats and Republicans in statewide elections. The state’s congressional delegation, however, tilts 13-to-5 in favor of Republicans under the district lines the GOP drew in 2011.
Political analysts say Democrats could pick up three to four additional seats under new district boundaries. The party needs to gain a net 24 seats nationwide in November to retake the U.S. House, which has been under Republican control since 2011.

https://www.wsj.com/articles/pennsyl...ase-1518202728


Here's Fox News :



North Carolina congressional map illegally gerrymandered, judges rule


Federal judges ruled Tuesday that North Carolina's congressional district map drawn by legislative Republicans is illegally gerrymandered because of excessive partisanship that gave GOP a rock-solid advantage for most seats and must quickly be redone.
The ruling marks the second time this decade that the GOP's congressional boundaries in North Carolina have been thrown out by a three-judge panel. In 2016, another panel tossed out two majority black congressional districts initially drawn in 2011, saying there was no justification for using race as the predominant factor in forming them. The redrawn map was the basis for a new round of lawsuits.

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2018...dges-rule.html








I picked Vox as it's a nice easy explainer with lots of links. And just bear in mind for a minute the ridiculousness of somebody who gets their news from Alex Jones, Fox News and nutcases on the radio complaining about nonexistent bias in a factual article. And then telling me I "might want to actually read" about something to learn about it. You do a nice line in unintentional comedy Lyle.

Thanks again for not addressing the crux of my response:

Democrats do it and it's called "redistricting".....Republicans do it and it's ALWAYS called "gerrymandering", every single time, and it never fails.

Redistricting occurs every 10 years and the party in power in the individual state decides how to go about redistricting some of which answer to the federal government.

You picked Vox because Vox is 100% unabashedly LEFT, they operate under the assumption that the left is always correct and the right is always evil. Same when you use Mother Jones which you don't even think is left leaning despite being named after a trade union activist.

[Kirkland Laing]

The gerrymandering the article is covering has been widely reported in every outlet and newspaper you can mention. You would already know about it if you read a fucking newspaper. From the Commies at the WSJ:

Pennsylvania GOP Lawmakers Submit New Map in Gerrymandering Case

State’s Supreme Court had overturned current congressional districts as unfair to Democrats



Voters in Pennsylvania, a perennial battleground state, often split closely between Democrats and Republicans in statewide elections. The state’s congressional delegation, however, tilts 13-to-5 in favor of Republicans under the district lines the GOP drew in 2011.
Political analysts say Democrats could pick up three to four additional seats under new district boundaries. The party needs to gain a net 24 seats nationwide in November to retake the U.S. House, which has been under Republican control since 2011.

https://www.wsj.com/articles/pennsyl...ase-1518202728


Here's Fox News :



North Carolina congressional map illegally gerrymandered, judges rule



Federal judges ruled Tuesday that North Carolina's congressional district map drawn by legislative Republicans is illegally gerrymandered because of excessive partisanship that gave GOP a rock-solid advantage for most seats and must quickly be redone.
The ruling marks the second time this decade that the GOP's congressional boundaries in North Carolina have been thrown out by a three-judge panel. In 2016, another panel tossed out two majority black congressional districts initially drawn in 2011, saying there was no justification for using race as the predominant factor in forming them. The redrawn map was the basis for a new round of lawsuits.

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2018...dges-rule.html








I picked Vox as it's a nice easy explainer with lots of links. And just bear in mind for a minute the ridiculousness of somebody who gets their news from Alex Jones, Fox News and nutcases on the radio complaining about nonexistent bias in a factual article. And then telling me I "might want to actually read" about something to learn about it. You do a nice line in unintentional comedy Lyle.

Thanks again for not addressing the crux of my response:

Democrats do it and it's called "redistricting".....Republicans do it and it's ALWAYS called "gerrymandering", every single time, and it never fails.

Redistricting occurs every 10 years and the party in power in the individual state decides how to go about redistricting some of which answer to the federal government.

You picked Vox because Vox is 100% unabashedly LEFT, they operate under the assumption that the left is always correct and the right is always evil. Same when you use Mother Jones which you don't even think is left leaning despite being named after a trade union activist.

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.

[El Kabong]

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 .....it makes 0 sense, but whatever I suppose you know what you're doing.

[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 .....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

[Kirkland Laing]

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.

[El Kabong]

Carol Swain, Professor of Political Science at Vanderbilt University



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.

[Kirkland Laing]

Carol Swain, Professor of Political Science at Vanderbilt University



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?

[Beanz]

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 "