March 20, 2017
"We have no information to support those tweets. All I can tell you is that we have no information that supports them."
Said F.B.I. director, James B. Comey, testifying today before the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence, about Trump's assertion that Obama wiretapped Trump Tower.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Posts
487 comments:
«Oldest ‹Older 401 – 487 of 487You have a problem with cause and effect. The Southern Strategy exists as a concept to help Liberals feel morally superior. You don't need much help.
Preening suits you.
The only preening I see here is a Republican, Birkel, who thinks he speaks to Republican party policy better than Michael Steele or Ken Mehlman do.
What's the matter, you just don't like Michael Steele cause he's black? cause his last name is the same as a character named "Remington?"
Just fuck off and and walk away with your previous acknowledgement and credibility and honor intact. Stop being a fucking indian giver with the concessions, asshole!
Rance Fasoldt said...
ARM, the meaning of "bemused" is "confused," not "amused." Is that what you meant?
I would have said it was closer to mystified or nonplussed, which is how much of the country feels at the moment watching Trump's purposeless antics.
Mention it all:
Lol. That's ok. When you make a bad point I'm happy to let it stand on its own. No assistance from me needed on that one!
There is a system behind all this, and we all see this system in battle today. Its defending itself against an assault by the remnants of the middle class.
Yes, and we see the defenders of the Deep State. I assume they hope for handouts or crumbs from the table.
Off to bed now. Those of you who work, would do well to do the same. Inga and Ritmo have nothing to do but troll.
Hey everybody! Look at Michael K returned from "reading!" (Must have finished all his coloring early). Well, just thought you should know! It's not like anyone's going to notice him unless he makes an announcement!
Oh darn! Now he's off again -- this time to bed! Let's all go wish him a nice beddy bye time. Night, night, Little Mikey K! Too bad your nursemaid/wet nurse isn't here to tuck your saggy ass in! Oh well, I'm sure you'll find where the covers are all on your own.
What a big boy little Mikey K turned out to be! And to think, just a mere sixty years ago he was being nannied and nursed into the man who has to announce his presence and absence everywhere he goes today! How impressive.
What everyone forgets is that the Trump election has rendered all of the old rules and standards obsolete. No one out here in reality (a/k/a the boonies where the racist hicks live) cares about who is surveilling who in Washington. We just assume that everyone is at some level of corruption and that nearly everyone is interested only in keeping themselves in power.
Remember, Washington is broken. Neither party can in and of themselves can fix it. That's why all this back-and-forth about tax returns and college transcripts is utterly useless. It's inside baseball bullshit that only matters in the Capitol District. Us rubes out here in the hinterlands want to know if we can at least entertain the thought of 3% quarterly growth, regulation reduction, and a tax code that doesn't burden small businesses. Something that actually turns the gears of the American engine once again.
We're sick of the Balkanization of Everything. We just want a government that works a little bit more than it does now.
< Us rubes out here in the hinterlands want to know if we can at least entertain the thought of 3% quarterly growth, regulation reduction, and a tax code that doesn't burden small businesses. Something that actually turns the gears of the American engine once again.
Yes, us rubes with jobs. I'm not mentioning any names.
G'Night. 4 AM comes early.
Known Unknown said...
What everyone forgets is that the Trump election has rendered all of the old rules and standards obsolete.
The reason why people rely on conventions is because humans are quite bad at understanding complex systems. Conventions, traditions are work arounds, allowing us to deal with complex systems in a reasonably safe fashion using the wisdom of past experience. When you dispense with conventions you are implicitly stating that you are smarter than everyone else. We are seeing the limitations associated with that kind of thinking at the moment. Trump is in a system that is too complex for him to free-style it the way he is used to doing and he is too undisciplined to adapt to a more conventional style that history has shown to work.
AReasonableMan said....The reason why people rely on conventions is because humans are quite bad at understanding complex systems. Conventions, traditions are work arounds, allowing us to deal with complex systems in a reasonably safe fashion using the wisdom of past experience. When you dispense with conventions you are implicitly stating that you are smarter than everyone else.
Gee, that sounds a lot like that "conservatism" thing all those racist sexist homophobic Nazis always prattle on about.
You're not one of THEM, are you ARM?
TTR:
I am a conservative or a classical liberal. If you want a Republican you must look elsewhere. I read somewhere that Chuck is available.
That 43 year wait for the Southern Strategy to emerge separates cause and effect. It bolsters your already too high opinion of yourself. It stops your introspection. It prevents you and other Leftists from scrutinizing your policies. It alienated voters.
And it brings you Trump.
"Hombre says "dark". "Dark" huh? It got really dark when Putin got his useful idiot elected d POTUS."
-- Just because Obama promised him more flexibility doesn't make him a useful idiot.
How does the Southern Strategy meme work when the south was drifting Republican long before the 1960s and has elected several Republican minorities at various levels of government?
I mean, Richard Allen was an African American elected to the Texas House of Representatives in the 1890s. CLEARLY a sign of a racist Republican Southern Strategy that would come to fruition almost 70 years later.
I mean, consider this. FDR actively oppressed the African American and minority vote, like, with REAL oppression and poll taxes, not the made up "oppression" of requiring free state IDs for people to vote.
Do you think that maybe, once African Americans were able to vote, that just maybe, they'd vote Republican and not vote for their literal oppressors?
G'Night. 4 AM comes early.
Yes. It's hard to get to bed early when you're sundowning all evening long.
Do you think that maybe, once African Americans were able to vote, that just maybe, they'd vote Republican and not vote for their literal oppressors?
Do you think that, maybe, shortening polling stations and hours will lead to LESS voting by people who have to work hard all day and not just to enrich the corporation they work for? Huh? MAYBE?
I mean, Richard Allen was an African American elected to the Texas House of Representatives in the 1890s. CLEARLY a sign of a racist Republican Southern Strategy that would come to fruition almost 70 years later.
Clearly only a MORON or a delusionally dishonesty TRUMPLIKE figure thinks that parties never change positions. How down are you with the T.R. agenda?
Stop yer fucking lying, twit.
@ Matthew Sablan
You are wrong as to the timing. Southern state legislatures were controlled by Democrats into the 2000s, by and large. If the Southern Strategy existed it was the most poorly executed effort in history.
It is a Leftist Collectivist lie.
How does the Southern Strategy meme work when the south was drifting Republican long before the 1960s and has elected several Republican minorities at various levels of government?
I don't know. Ask the strategist who admitted to it and got it to work, asshole.
I'm tired of your lying bullshit. Just because you do it with some sort of a naive, innocent wink and a smile doesn't mean you're any less pernicious than when your Gaslighter-in-Chief does it.
"Do you think that, maybe, shortening polling stations and hours will lead to LESS voting by people who have to work hard all day and not just to enrich the corporation they work for?"
-- What does that have to do with my attempt to undermine the nonsense that is the Southern Strategy? FDR and Woodrow Wilson were racists. Once African Americans were able to vote their conscious, the racist legacy of oppression those two men left was defeated. They did some good things, but to pretend that Team Blue fought the good fight against racism when their presidents actively screened Birth of a Nation and promoted poll taxes to silence African Americans at the polls is historical illiteracy.
You are wrong as to the timing. Southern state legislatures were controlled by Democrats into the 2000s, by and large. If the Southern Strategy existed it was the most poorly executed effort in history.
It is a Leftist Collectivist lie.
Fine. Then give the 1980, 1988, 1992, 2000, 2008 and 2016 presidential election results back to the Democrats then if you think presidential elections are so inconsequential, YOU LYING ASSHOLE!
No one's as dumb as the version of yourself you try out your lies on.
"Southern state legislatures were controlled by Democrats into the 2000s."
-- Right, but we still have minorities elected under the Republican banner. If the Republicans were implementing a racist strategy, why, exactly, would we have Southern African American Republicans at all?
@ TTR
Is the Democrat strategy for winning the South 'call them racist until they fall in line'? You may want to consult a strategist to find if that will work.
Southern state legislatures were largely controlled by Democrats for 40 years after a racist Texas Democrat passed a law with Republican support. Can you explain that?
FDR and Woodrow Wilson were racists.
SO WERE MOST PEOPLE BACK THEN, DUMBFUCK. The stances (and the oppositional Southern Strategy against them) ONLY MATTER AFTER MLK AND THE FIGHT FOR CIVIL RIGHTS AND TO END LEGAL SEGREGATION - the last (major) vestiges of the system explicitly privileging whites over blacks, dumbshit.
You really are a stupid turd. It's in your tribe. I just watched a Texas Republican asking James Comey how he could know that a preference by Putin for seeing Hillary lose meant that he wanted Trump to win. You people are plutonium-grade stupid.
No wonder you're so easily led to follow the evil. The stupid following the evil. That's the Republican party today.
Is the Democrat strategy for winning the South 'call them racist until they fall in line'? You may want to consult a strategist to find if that will work.
I don't know. Unlike you, I don't stick a political finger to the wind before gathering the courage to tell the truth.
Southern state legislatures were largely controlled by Democrats for 40 years after a racist Texas Democrat passed a law with Republican support. Can you explain that?
Probably because national and state elections are decided on the basis of different issues, and attract different voting bases and level of support.
Dude, if you want the presidential election results of 1980, 1988, 1992, 2000, 2008 and 2016 overturned, just say so.
@ TTR
By your theory Democrats won on the state level but managed to lose on a nationwide level and that is due to a grand strategy by Republicans? And only the national elections matter and you can conveniently ignore that the majority of local offices were held by Democrats?
Again, I recognize the comfort you get from believing the lies that have become your received wisdom. And I know no cognitive dissonance can permeate your Leftist cocoon.
But it is fun to watch you avoid inconvenient truth.
"I don't know. Ask the strategist who admitted to it and got it to work, asshole. "
-- What quote are you referencing? Because all I hear about is the Lee Atwater quote, where he prefaces it talking about how his generation will be voting economically and non-racially.
And, that ignores the fact that this was coming after an era where Republicans LITERALLY defanged the racist state imposed by Democrats.
Oh, and FDR broke ranks and was the first president to hire blacks to his staff in significant numbers. I need a racist Democrat hater like Sablan to explain that one.
Racist, anti-racist.. the only thing Republicans stand for is cruelty.
@ THE
So act locally, think globally does not apply to politics? Were those voters racist when they were electing Democrats locally? Or Republicans nationally? Both? Neither?
Why were (are?) local Southern Democrats so racist?
"SO WERE MOST PEOPLE BACK THEN, DUMBFUCK. The stances (and the oppositional Southern Strategy against them) ONLY MATTER AFTER MLK AND THE FIGHT FOR CIVIL RIGHTS AND TO END LEGAL SEGREGATION - the last (major) vestiges of the system explicitly privileging whites over blacks, dumbshit."
-- Republicans weren't, which is why they worked to stop racist Democrats. And then they magically flipped just in time for the Current Generation to be able to be on the side of angels, I guess. Are there racist Republicans? Yes. But, to imagine there was some Grand Republican Racist Strategy is to ignore history before it is convenient to your argument.
"You really are a stupid turd. It's in your tribe. I just watched a Texas Republican asking James Comey how he could know that a preference by Putin for seeing Hillary lose meant that he wanted Trump to win. You people are plutonium-grade stupid."
-- I'm not a fan of Trump. Honestly, what makes you think Putin wanted Hillary -- who had given him everything he wanted and then some -- to lose and Trump -- who wanted to strengthen NATO to check Russian aggression -- to win?
And, that ignores the fact that this was coming after an era where Republicans LITERALLY defanged the racist state imposed by Democrats.
Not the point.
Let me ask you something - since you're so hung up on party/partisan loyalty, and apparently think that party stances never change, I guess you're admitting to me that Republicans could support ANY cause and you'd be down with them. Which means that if they supported racism, you'd follow them there.
Q.E.D.
@ THE
Right, FDR only hated Japanese. Or something.
Did you just use the "he had black friends, er staffers" excuse for FDR? Touching.
"Oh, and FDR broke ranks and was the first president to hire blacks to his staff in significant numbers. "
-- It doesn't matter if his administration hired people they thought were useful while oppressing them by instituting poll taxes.
-- Republicans weren't, which is why they worked to stop racist Democrats.
Like LBJ? Like RFK? You are a retard. Civil rights issues weren't all one party vs. the other, numbnuts. The acts did not pass along strict party lines.
People like you are what happen when cousins breed. And Trump is pro-NATO? That's laughable. Anti-Russian aggression? Trump doesn't even know what NATO is. He doesn't know its alliance was only invoked once - to assist the U.S. post-9/11.
You're as dumb as Trump. An easily flattered and manipulated nincompoop.
@ TTR
When you mean "not my point" it is poor form to type the article 'the' where 'my' belongs. Your point is ignoring history and inconvenient facts.
You preen real pretty.
"Let me ask you something - since you're so hung up on party/partisan loyalty, and apparently think that party stances never change, I guess you're admitting to me that Republicans could support ANY cause and you'd be down with them. Which means that if they supported racism, you'd follow them there."
-- Wrong. There are racist Republicans, and Republicans I disagree with. You're the one who seems to be unable to see that Wilson and FDR were incredibly flawed men. Ignoring that fact is the main problem in your argument. The 1960s era Republicans are primarily people who, in their living memories, remember that Democrats had thought about re-segregation and put Japanese in internment camps while instituting poll taxes on African Americans, and in the 1960s, at least one Democrat governor would try and bar African American children from education. The racial legacy of America is COMPLICATED.
The magical thinking of the Southern Strategy is dangerous because it turns a complex historical problem into a stupid meme so that people can feel good about their team while being convinced the other team has been Secret Racists this entire time.
The country hated the Japanese. It was commonplace and not a partisan thing. You people are too dumb to realize that attitudes change without one party of government making them change.
Blacks liked the idea of being hired and not thought "not good enough" for the white president as an example. So they voted for his party. It's not hard. You're now at the point of arguing that respecting people is about following the Republican example of refusing to employ them.
Nice.
See, you don't actually believe what you say. It's just a matter of your need to defend all the things that you don't know, but POLITICALLY NEED to go along with.
... You do realize that by having the other countries in NATO pony up and pay their dues that STRENGTHENS NATO, right?
@ THE
"The acts did not pass along strict party lines."
Correct. It was supported by a greater percentage of Republicans but some Democrats voted with them.
Now, why would that lead to a shift in voting patterns a mere 43 years later?
Why would you quote the sarcastic jab that shows your simplistic thinking and not quote the rest of the line that says "Are there racist Republicans? Yes. But, to imagine there was some Grand Republican Racist Strategy is to ignore history before it is convenient to your argument."
@ TTR
"You're now at the point of arguing that respecting people is about following the Republican example of refusing to employ them."
What is making shit up because it makes me feel morally superior, Alex?
Potent Potables for $200.
The magical thinking of the Southern Strategy is dangerous because it turns a complex historical problem into a stupid meme -
No it doesn't. Everything you said before that was true - even while omitting the important fact that RACIST ATTITUDES WERE COMMON UP THROUGH WWII and not seriously challenged until people looked at the fate of the Axis powers and started to scratch their heads and wonder where all of that tribalism leads. It doesn't mean that people before then couldn't decide to be more cruel to others or less based on race. But believing in racial equality prior to 1945 was as radical as believing in animal equality today. You might love your dog, talk about how kind you are to him, hate animal cruelty, and still oppose giving him rights equal to you. Such was the American attitude toward blacks or other races generally prior to civil rights.
You aren't secret racists. You want blacks to vote less. You're restricting hours not just requiring the magically foolproof ID for a nonexistent problem. Trump Team is opposed to registering to vote in two states. Then they saw that Steve Bannon and TIffany Trump are dual registrants. Oops.
You're just not serious about anything other than politics. And you'll do anything to win. You want the vote suppressed. And you want working folks to have less say than the moneyed classes. You know it's true. You just believe that hierarchy is better than equality.
Actually, in several colonies, African Americans had full rights. Several religious denominations, including some sects that became the LDS and notably Quakers, had stood for racial equality for generations.
Right. The Quakers. Really mainstream people, those folks. They really had no trouble at all growing their ranks and influence.
Stop grasping at straws. It's as bad as lying.
"Trump Team is opposed to registering to vote in two states."
-- Given how much money the federal government and state governments spend on databases and systems, there is no reason, save sloppiness, that a citizen should be registered in two states, assuming that we held states to any reasonable level of due diligence. I still get calls from the state I grew up in for jury duty, a decade after leaving and telling them I was no longer a resident. That's a gaping flaw in the system that needs to be closed, and that is just good governance.
The LDS persisted with mainstreaming racism all the way up until about 1980.
You're twisting in the wind. You're not winning points for your team. Just stop lying. Stop desperately rationalizing nonsense. When politicians win votes out of racism, they go racist. Trump refuses to disavow David Duke's support for a reason. He wants that man's vote and you're happy to see it go to him, too.
This is the part of any TTR conversation when the depressing alcoholic rage gets the better of him.
This is the part where I feel sorry for TTR because alcoholism is a serious disease.
...good governance.
What a nice theory. Republicans don't believe government should exist at all.
Try focusing on real problems for a change. Not the made-up ones that scare you.
"The LDS persisted with mainstreaming racism all the way up until about 1980."
-- Several sects did not, and in fact, there is at least one known African American Mormon. Stop over simplifying.
"Trump refuses to disavow David Duke's support for a reason."
-- So... uh... we then agree that Obama should disavow Ayers support, right? Right? The guy who doesn't just believe abhorrent things but would have killed innocent people if he and his friends weren't incompetent?
@ TTR
So Trump wanted David Duke's support because that would deliver the votes of the disaffected and traditionally Democrat voting people in Pennsylvania, Michigan and Wisconsin?
Learn something new every day.
Republicans clearly believe government should exist. This is what I mean by stupid memes ruining the ability to have real conversation.
Stop over simplifying.
Stop overcomplicating. A sect is not the same as mainstream leadership.
Republicans clearly believe government should exist.
Republicans want to minimize government to the point where the focus they want to give it - focusing on the useless and stupid stuff that feed into their paranoia - seems more manageable to them.
See, I thought that too, but then it seems Lee Atwater can speak for all Republicans and FDR and Wilson's racist histories can be ignored, so it seems we're a bit inconsistent on when we should consider mainstream leadership as the complete and total voice for a given group, and when we should ignore the mainstream leadership in favor of a given sect.
@ Matthew Sablan
Your facts are complicating the narrative. Stop it!
-- So... uh... we then agree that Obama should disavow Ayers support, right?
Right. Unless Obama did that then people would really start to rethink their murder laws. Yep, we really need strong political leadership to get to people to stand up against murder and violence. We really are a society that's about to descend into violence - I guess of the sort that Trump condones when he talks about punching people and shooting them on 5th Avenue.
"Republicans want to minimize government to the point where the focus they want to give it - focusing on the useless and stupid stuff that feed into their paranoia - seems more manageable to them."
-- Have you ever had an honest conversation with a Republican without calling them racist, stupid or ignorant? Because what you're saying sounds like a caricature of a Republican, not actual Republicans, much like if someone claimed Democrats wanted to tax the rich into the poor house so that we could feed puppies with aborted fetuses. I almost think you're just a novelty account trolling given how deliberately out there and provocative you are, but I'm willing to give you a shot.
Be honest: Have you ever actually TRIED to listen to the other side?
@ Matthew Sablan
Rule 1: Every Republican is responsible for every statement made by any Republican.
Rule 2: Democrats are only responsible for their own statements, depending on what the meaning of is is.
I hope that clears things up.
See, I think the same thing about Trump saying David Duke is a racist but can vote for him if he wants to as you think about Obama thinking a man who wanted to murder people's support is fine. The flaw is not with the politician, it is with the person giving them support. And, frankly, I'd rather Duke and Ayers support Trump or Obama as opposed to an actual racist president or an actual president who wanted to murder Americans because, at least then, the worst impulses of Duke and Ayers are both checked by the fact Trump and Obama do not share their particular faults.
See, I thought that too, but then it seems Lee Atwater can speak for all Republicans and FDR and Wilson's racist histories can be ignored, so it seems we're a bit inconsistent on when we should consider mainstream leadership as the complete and total voice for a given group, and when we should ignore the mainstream leadership in favor of a given sect.
Me llamo Matthew Sablan, I think that racist political leadership POST-civil rights and PRE-civil rights are equivalent, and have a real hard-on for wanting to believe that Reagan was anywhere near as consequential a leader as FDR or even Wilson.
Show me where FDR said anything like Atwater did. Wilson was more of a problem. FDR did a good job getting his coalition together and he wasn't anywhere near as cruel to blacks as most of the country in his day.
FDR literally supported poll taxes for blacks. He literally did not want them voting. If you see that and think, "well, hey, at least he got a coalition together," then maybe the problem is that you don't really care about racism.
-- Have you ever had an honest conversation with a Republican without calling them racist, stupid or ignorant? Because what you're saying sounds like a caricature of a Republican, not actual Republicans, much like if someone claimed Democrats wanted to tax the rich into the poor house so that we could feed puppies with aborted fetuses. I almost think you're just a novelty account trolling given how deliberately out there and provocative you are, but I'm willing to give you a shot.
Be honest: Have you ever actually TRIED to listen to the other side?
Have you ever actually TRIED making sense?
This is silly - it's like you're claiming victim status, which seems to be a popular way to proclaim one's republicanism these days. I think there are honorable and honest Republicans, like Drago and Achilles. But the party's priorities are screwy and misplaced. Those two question the party - they're not afraid to do so mercilessly, you don't. So there's no reason not to caricature you. It saves time. You made a very faint, half-hearted non-concession about Republicans not prohibiting racists from their ranks, as if that's some earth-shattering admission. It doesn't showcase you as someone independent enough to have a clear conversation with.
I'm not claiming victim status. I'm trying to understand you. After reading this, I get it.
You're a novelty troll account, at best. At least I know to save time in the future.
FDR literally supported poll taxes for blacks. He literally did not want them voting. If you see that and think, "well, hey, at least he got a coalition together," then maybe the problem is that you don't really care about racism.
Ok fine let's even admit that - which I'm not and I don't know. He's still a hell of a lot better leader than any Republican and did more for our country and society and more good, more positively and with a belief in the progress that leads to where RFK stood with it less than 25 years later than a party that's so lazy and morally lackadaisical to refuse to understand what Lee Atwater was up to, even while Ken Mehlman and Michael Steele didn't.
But I guess those guys would have been happy to have black votes and you aren't.
You quickly become very tedious to talk with.
That's fine, Sablan. More serious right-wing folks than you disagree, so I'm happy to have your misunderstanding. You've not proven worth taking seriously. You are naive beyond words.
Except Lincoln and TR, of course.
TR was a progressive, explicitly. I'd call Lincoln the same thing, given how radically opposed to cruelty he was.
Things that are anathema to Republicans today.
If this is winning, then he was right: I'm tired of it.
I'm a long way away, looking through a fog of biased reporting, but from here, it looks to me like Comey might be the one honest man in Washington.
He's a lawyer, and his answers are lawyers' answers, but they don't seem to close off the possibility that he's still investigating, and there might be something further to come out. He's not saying a lot and a lot can still happen.
The same sort of thing as happened before the election.
"@3:05. The certainty of your naive statements must be charming to somebody somewhere."
I can't compete with the brilliance of your Oscar Wilde wit, but I can play to the cheap seats.
"@3:07. Oh how we forget the certainty of our prediction of a Hillary win and loss of the senate followed by a multiweek disappearance while you hoped we all would forget."
Er, nice try. I commented the day after the election to acknowledge what I got wrong in my election prediction. And frankly my prediction was mostly right--that Hillary had an edge in the popular vote (which she did), and that it'd be a close election (which it was) and that the winner would be whomever could get enough people to hate the opponent more (as it turned out). I was wrong in thinking the Dems had a "blue wall" of solid states. I admitted that. But my call was FAR closer than many commenters here who thought Hillary would blow Trump out of the water or that Trump would blow Hillary out of the water.
And what's your point, then? That's I'm wrong that there won't be an impeachment? You then think there WILL be? If you're sure of that, feel free to go on those betting markets other commenters are linking to. It'd do you well to win some money from that.
I haven't been, and don't now, assert any "certainty". I make my predictions and give my take on it. I make clear that I could be wrong, and sometimes am. If you're bothered by this, that sounds like a personal issue.
Snopes on that $20,000 donation. Unproven, in other words, more bullshit
So while it’s true that The Telegraph reported (and other outlets disseminated) Quigg’s claim that the KKK was now supporting Hillary Clinton and had donated $20,000 to her campaign
The relevant portion of your link.
The rest was pure conjecture by the writer.
How does the Southern Strategy meme work when the south was drifting Republican long before the 1960s and has elected several Republican minorities at various levels of government?
It's also odd how, AFTER the "strategy" started, Carter and Clinton still managed to do pretty well in the South. And how long the legislatures remained Democratic.
Do you think that, maybe, shortening polling stations and hours will lead to LESS voting by people who have to work hard all day and not just to enrich the corporation they work for?
They have the identical polling rules as NY has. Doesn't seem to be a problem for NY.
I don't know. Ask the strategist who admitted to it and got it to work, asshole.
Over 40 years later? Shouldn't we ask a strategist who, apparently, isn't inept? "We're going to try this and it'll only take 43 years to work!!!"
Is the Democrat strategy for winning the South 'call them racist until they fall in line'? You may want to consult a strategist to find if that will work.
Hey, it MIGHT work. It'll just take over 40 years...
SO WERE MOST PEOPLE BACK THEN, DUMBFUCK. The stances (and the oppositional Southern Strategy against them) ONLY MATTER AFTER MLK AND THE FIGHT FOR CIVIL RIGHTS AND TO END LEGAL SEGREGATION - the last (major) vestiges of the system explicitly privileging whites over blacks, dumbshit.
Then why did ONE segregationist (Thurmond, who also changed his views on minorities) change parties while the rest remained Democrat until they left office? You'd think they'd have changed parties also.
Oh, and FDR broke ranks and was the first president to hire blacks to his staff in significant numbers. I need a racist Democrat hater like Sablan to explain that one.
After passing unionization rules that served to do little more than make blacks utterly unemployable as unions were --- and, let's be honest, still are --- horribly racist. And turning a blind eye while the South oppressed them. It took a Republican to integrate schools. Truman and FDR would have never done so.
The country hated the Japanese. It was commonplace and not a partisan thing.
Republicans didn't put them into camps. That was a Democrat policy.
Everything you said before that was true - even while omitting the important fact that RACIST ATTITUDES WERE COMMON UP THROUGH WWII
And for well more than 20 years afterwards by Democrats.
Republican states have never been much for oppressing other folks. Seems to have been a long-term issue for Democrat states.
Try focusing on real problems for a change. Not the made-up ones that scare you.
But enough on climate change, the "southern strategy", and Russian "interference" on behalf of Trump...
He's still a hell of a lot better leader than any Republican and did more for our country and society and more good, more positively and with a belief in the progress that leads to where RFK stood with it less than 25 years later than a party that's so lazy and morally lackadaisical to refuse to understand what Lee Atwater was up to, even while Ken Mehlman and Michael Steele didn't.
So, he supported really racist things, but because you liked an assassinated candidate 19 years after he died, FDR is cool?
Er, nice try. I commented the day after the election to acknowledge what I got wrong in my election prediction. And frankly my prediction was mostly right--that Hillary had an edge in the popular vote (which she did), and that it'd be a close election (which it was) and that the winner would be whomever could get enough people to hate the opponent more (as it turned out). I was wrong in thinking the Dems had a "blue wall" of solid states. I admitted that. But my call was FAR closer than many commenters here who thought Hillary would blow Trump out of the water or that Trump would blow Hillary out of the water.
Outside of CA, Trump won by over 2M votes. Clinton made a solid case that she should be the governor of CA, not the POTUS.
@ damikesc
And Barack Obama won North Carolina, Virginia and Florida.
Not to mention the nonsensical Southern Strategy managed to turn the Mountain West solidly Republican.
"Outside of CA, Trump won by over 2M votes. Clinton made a solid case that she should be the governor of CA, not the POTUS."
Yes, but CA is still a part of the country. If I made any predictions based on America excluding California, I'd obviously adjust my predictions.
And they're just that--predictions. I'm not making any guarantees, as there's always some variable that can affect it. For example, I highly doubt Trump will be impeached, but the possibility still exists if the Dems win the House.
@ TTR
You think Reagan's 44 and then 49 state victories are evidence of a Southern Strategy? Why not evidence of Minnesota's racism since they are a very white state that is the clear outlier?
And George HW Bush won 40 states. Minnesota is the outlier, again.
Then Clinton won 6 southern states in 1992 and 6 (five were the same) in 1996.
That Southern Strategy is the salve that soothes the savage soul of Leftists who require an other to otherize. Because reasons and stuff.
Brando wrote,
"Er, nice try. I commented the day after the election to acknowledge what I got wrong in my election prediction."
Fair enough. I didn't see that, but surprised I didn't. Like a lot of people I did a lot of comment reading that day.
"Fair enough. I didn't see that, but surprised I didn't. Like a lot of people I did a lot of comment reading that day."
No worries, I am not on here every day and when I am I don't usually go into all the comment sections.
482!
Yes, but CA is still a part of the country.
True, to a degree. But a state that is, we can agree, fairly accommodating to illegal aliens and is unlikely to spend much energy preventing them voting providing an election result FAR outside of the norm isn't really evidence that she was the choice of the country. I think that the "Hillary won the popular vote" complaints --- not that you've made them, because you have not --- are disingenuous. She didn't win the country by about 3M. She won CA by so much that it overtook the country popular vote.
...which was, kind of, the point of the EC in the first place. To not allow large states to dominate smaller ones.
487
Republicans didn't put them into camps.
Because they weren't in power. Because people didn't trust Republicans to get them out of the depression that they got them into or to fight WWII once it had started. So your counterfactual's just as moot as most counterfactuals always are.
Here's Nixon's speechwriter and advisor, Patrick J Buchanan, on civil rights, MLK and other things that swayed the party to go for coded appeals against black "welfare queens" and other targets to whip up white resentment against the newly enfranchised black populations:
On race relations in the late 1940s and early 1950s: “There were no politics to polarize us then, to magnify every slight. The ‘negroes’ of Washington had their public schools, restaurants, bars, movie houses, playgrounds and churches; and we had ours.” (Right from the Beginning, Buchanan’s 1988 autobiography, p. 131)
Buchanan, who opposed virtually every civil rights law and court decision of the last 30 years, published FBI smears of Martin Luther King Jr. as his own editorials in the St. Louis Globe Democrat in the mid-1960s. “We were among Hoover’s conduits to the American people,” he boasted (Right from the Beginning, p. 283).
White House adviser Buchanan urged President Nixon in an April 1969 memo not to visit “the Widow King” on the first anniversary of Martin Luther King’s assassination, warning that a visit would “outrage many, many people who believe Dr. King was a fraud and a demagogue and perhaps worse…. Others consider him the Devil incarnate. Dr. King is one of the most divisive men in contemporary history.” (New York Daily News, 10/1/90)
In a memo to President Nixon, Buchanan suggested that “integration of blacks and whites — but even more so, poor and well-to-do — is less likely to result in accommodation than it is in perpetual friction, as the incapable are placed consciously by government side by side with the capable.” (Washington Post, 1/5/92)
In a column sympathetic to ex-Klansman David Duke, Buchanan chided the Republican Party for overreacting to Duke and his Nazi “costume”: “Take a hard look at Duke’s portfolio of winning issues and expropriate those not in conflict with GOP principles, [such as] reverse discrimination against white folks.” (syndicated column, 2/25/89)
Trying to justify apartheid in South Africa, he denounced the notion that “white rule of a black majority is inherently wrong. Where did we get that idea? The Founding Fathers did not believe this.” (syndicated column, 2/7/90) He referred admiringly to the apartheid regime as the “Boer Republic”: “Why are Americans collaborating in a U.N. conspiracy to ruin her with sanctions?” (syndicated column, 9/17/89)
Yeah. Defend that.
@ TTR
You will never get a conservative to defend Pat Buchanan. Have you any further gambits?
That was a response to fellow Southern Strategy denier/minimizer "damikesc." Pat Buchanan was an advisor and speechwriter for Nixon, right around the time when the aftermath of civil rights made Nixon's response pertinent. If "damikesc" is not a conservative, then that's between you and him. I don't need to get into these fights; they're not mine. Ditto for Buchanan. If it helps you to distance yourself from the strategies Buchanan advised of his beloved boss, Nixon, to say he wasn't someone a conservative should defend, then that's also your fight, not mine.
I don't think it was a "gambit" to respond to "damikesc's" bizarre and ignorant rant aimed at denying the substance of my comments. If you like the 1st amendment, it might befit you to not take issue with my right to simply respond to a quixotic latecomer's attempt to derail some of the slightly more decent, serious discussions and limited agreement from before with his ramrodding partisan monkeywrench.
Post a Comment