Enough is Enough

[Mythos27]

42 minutes ago, Denali said:

And so you do everything you can do to derail the Presidency of someone that had absolutely nothing to do with any of that.

Yeah, party of tolerance. 

Instead of getting so fucking defensive, why don't you take a good look at that and grow up some.

Oh, that's right.  The Democratic party is the party of slavery.  No wonder you all behave the way you do.  You all live for this shit.

Do yourself a favor and look up the southern strategy. This is the most easily debunked right-wing talking point of all time and it's embarrassingly tone deaf when black people as a voting block want nothing to do with republicans and their ilk. Since the southern strategy, the KKK supports the republicans 100% of the time. They absolutely LOVED Trump and felt he represented them. Gee, I wonder why...

[TitanDuckFan]

 

 

 

Sorry guys, but I just couldn't resist.

LOL

[smokeater]

The obvious problem is the country is so polarized now, and I'm not sure there's any putting that cat back in the bag.  You have somewhere around half the country that fundamentally thinks the opposite of each other on every major issue.  This is due to a myriad of reasons and I suppose somewhat could be attributed to the failure of our success.  Humans are dumb when it come to groupthink and now with the advent of the internet, social media, and 24hr news we don't have to leave our living room to participate.  Our evolution, for whatever reason, allows us to be very smart as an individual, but when a large group of people are together you can get some really stupid thinking.

Neither a conservative or liberal at the base of their ideology is a bad thing and both types of policy can have successful societies sticking to the fundamentals of each, and we are better off with a mix of both.  People have become so afraid of the "slippery slope" mentality(give them an inch and they'll take a mile), however, that no one will compromise anything anymore and thus allowed the heavily leaning, and in some cases extremist, of each ideology to gain a lot of power.

Fighting for what you believe in is a powerful message that people in groupthink can take way too far.  We forget that while we should fight for what we believe in politically, in the end, we are all on the same team.  Many people don't see us as on the same team anymore, so...

FU YOU ORANGE SNOWFLAKE!

 

[No1TitansFan]

We could start by running the  House of Representatives, the one the founders intended to be the people's house,  as it was intended  by stopping implementing the so called Haster rule, where the Speaker only allows legislation to come to the floor that can pass with the vote of the majority party in control; and yes I get that Pelosi did it too, 2 wrongs don't make a  right. We might just get members to reach accross the aisle and try to find common ground for the good of the country,  imagine  that.

Edited February 21, 2017 by No1TitansFan

[TitanDuckFan]

21 minutes ago, TennesseeTuxedo said:

Should have told that to Harry Reid and Nancy Pelosi. They are the people who made the changes and help create this division of people.

Actually they're not Tux.  But the name of the rule #1 is talking about isn't the Raster rule, it's the Hastert rule.  Which it was dubbed while Denny Hastert was Speaker of the House.  Under most House leadership over the last 50 years or so this "rule" was unspoken whether it was put in force by the Speaker or not, but it has been around and accepted as SOP for ages.  Prior to it being named the Hastert rule it was known as "The Majority of the Majority Doctrine."

It only became an issue during the clinton presidency because repubs had control of both house of congress for the first time in 50 years, and it's just another example of choosing to label something to cast the other side in a bad light, for PR purposes.

 

[MamlngEnvy]

1 hour ago, TennesseeTuxedo said:

Should have told that to Harry Reid and Nancy Pelosi. They are the people who made the changes and help create this division of people.

Fangrandpa so stupid lol

[No1TitansFan]

4 hours ago, TitanDuckFan said:

Actually they're not Tux.  But the name of the rule #1 is talking about isn't the Raster rule, it's the Hastert rule.  Which it was dubbed while Denny Hastert was Speaker of the House.  Under most House leadership over the last 50 years or so this "rule" was unspoken whether it was put in force by the Speaker or not, but it has been around and accepted as SOP for ages.  Prior to it being named the Hastert rule it was known as "The Majority of the Majority Doctrine."

It only became an issue during the clinton presidency because repubs had control of both house of congress for the first time in 50 years, and it's just another example of choosing to label something to cast the other side in a bad light, for PR purposes.

 

 My bad on the typo, I was posting on my phone and corrected shortly after. No matter what you call it or which side does it, it does go against the way the house was intended to work and works to squash the spirit of compromise. All members of congress should have value and their input should be considered.

 

 

 

 

[Mythos27]

9 hours ago, TennesseeTuxedo said:

The KKK is a splinter group of the Democrat Party in both it's initial founding, and in it's resounding. The Dixiecrats were Democrats. You got punched in your attempt to throw out fake news.

So you're not familiar with the southern strategy either huh? If you think this is still the same democratic party that opposed the civil rights act then I don't know what to tell you. You're not punching anyone. You're swinging wildly at the bar stool that you're convinced called you a pussy. Go home, you're drunk. 

[TitanDuckFan]

53 minutes ago, Mythos27 said:

So you're not familiar with the southern strategy either huh? If you think this is still the same democratic party that opposed the civil rights act then I don't know what to tell you. You're not punching anyone. You're swinging wildly at the bar stool that you're convinced called you a pussy. Go home, you're drunk. 

http://www.nytimes.com/2006/12/10/magazine/10Section2b.t-4.html

Magazine

The Myth of ‘the Southern Strategy’

By CLAY RISENDEC. 10, 2006

Continue reading the main story Share This Page

[Mythos27]

46 minutes ago, TitanDuckFan said:

http://www.nytimes.com/2006/12/10/magazine/10Section2b.t-4.html

Magazine

The Myth of ‘the Southern Strategy’

By CLAY RISENDEC. 10, 2006

Continue reading the main story Share This Page

In their book “The End of Southern Exceptionalism,” Richard Johnston of the University of Pennsylvania and Byron Shafer of the University of Wisconsin argue that the shift in the South from Democratic to Republican was overwhelmingly a question not of race but of economic growth. 

This article doesn't even challenge the notion that a shift in voting happened and instead argues that the reasons for the shift weren't racial but instead economic. I disagree with their assertion but even if they are correct my entire point in this conversation is that to imply that today's democratic party holds to the same ideals as the democratic party of those days is intellectually dishonest at best. Today's republican party is not the party of poor minorities. It just isn't. The southern strategy isn't a myth. It is so real that the republican party publicly apologized for it.

[Dmeade-]

The Democratic Party has in large turned into the biggest cry asses on the planet. It's comical and yet also embarrassing for our country.

I'm independent as they come and wish more Americans were as well. 

[No1TitansFan]

3 hours ago, TitanDuckFan said:

http://www.nytimes.com/2006/12/10/magazine/10Section2b.t-4.html

Magazine

The Myth of ‘the Southern Strategy’

By CLAY RISENDEC. 10, 2006

Continue reading the main story Share This Page

    The problem with those numbers is they don't reflect the changing demographics; prior to 1965 and the Voting Rights ACT, there were practically no African Americans registered in southern states, especially  in the deep south. County clerks in MS and AL bragged about and ran on a platform of not allowing non whites to register in their counties. Starting in 1968 and going forward the registration rolls changed greatly. Most southern African Americans back then were not wealthy so the numbers would quite naturally skew the way the article states as more and more registered and voted.

    If you have read Robert Caro's set of LBJ biographies,he points out in great detail the key turning point was when Johnson made his national speech in 1965 condemning the murders of civil rights voter registration volunteers  and indicting the KKK for their role: LBJ speech. He was advised not to make the speech with the warning it would cost the Democratic party the south for at least a generation, Johnson said he was aware of the cost, but felt strongly it was the right thing to do. It also helped give the necessary momentum to pass the Voting Rights Act.

    The Klan in the early 60s operated out in the open, as a fraternal type organization. They would conduct Sunday cookouts and ice cream socials as day long social events, with brief speeches at the end calling for the continuation of white supremacy and the threats involved if African Americans were ever to gain political power, the specter of interracial marrying was often used to convince voters to continue suppression of African American voters.

 

 

 

Edited February 22, 2017 by No1TitansFan

[TitanDuckFan]

23 hours ago, No1TitansFan said:

    If you have read Robert Caro's set of LBJ biographies,he points out in great detail the key turning point was when Johnson made his national speech in 1965 condemning the murders of civil rights voter registration volunteers  and indicting the KKK for their role: LBJ speech. He was advised not to make the speech with the warning it would cost the Democratic party the south for at least a generation, Johnson said he was aware of the cost, but felt strongly it was the right thing to do. It also helped give the necessary momentum to pass the Voting Rights Act.

    The Klan in the early 60s operated out in the open, as a fraternal type organization. They would conduct Sunday cookouts and ice cream socials as day long social events, with brief speeches at the end calling for the continuation of white supremacy and the threats involved if African Americans were ever to gain political power, the specter of interracial marrying was often used to convince voters to continue suppression of African American voters.

Caro and Moyers have said a lot about LBJ and civil rights, but I don't think they've said enough of the right things.

Like how he really felt about blacks, which is very much the typical Texan expression of his era:

http://www.snopes.com/lbj-voting-democratic/

[No1TitansFan]

1 hour ago, TitanDuckFan said:

Caro and Moyers have said a lot about LBJ and civil rights, but I don't think they've said enough of the right things.

Like how he really felt about blacks, which is very much the typical Texan expression of his era:

http://www.snopes.com/lbj-voting-democratic/

His father lost his business and they were penniless and literally had to go live in the poor house for a while and he spent parts of his childhood relying on relatives' generosity, so he could relate to those less fortunate. It's also what drove him so much to succeed at any cost. Anybody who grew up in that environment in that segregated era would probably be considered racist by today's standards especially when it came to the way people spoke; but he also always championed the plight of those less fortunate which by definition included the vast majority of African Americans back then (he was a key player in the Rural Electrification Act which was considered blatant socialism by some). He also realized that the country was going to have to come to grips with the racial divide if it was ever going to rise to where it was capable, regardless of individuals'personal feelings on the subject. Politics was a hardball game back then, and he was by nature, the hardest of the hardest.

 

 

[No1TitansFan]

When it counted most, he did the right thing and said the right thing publicly. If Washington and Jefferson are given a pass for owning slaves, LBJ ought to be given one for using the N word and harboring some racist feelings, especially considering where and when he was raised and the circumstances therein and the political environment he worked in later on.

Edited February 23, 2017 by No1TitansFan