tinselwolverine said:

Another thing, every since t-smith stopped showing up, we don't really have a conservative who whines and cries about the typical shit that conservatives whine and cry about for me to mock.

I kind of miss him.

Click to expand...

I don't miss him. He dragged the discourse down. way down.

You could honestly replace him with a bot that reposted click-bait Fox News headlines with commentary like "how bout u libs tell us again how barry is better than george w. lol"

AI these days is more than sophisticated enough to replicate tLiar's posts.

michchamp said:

I don't miss him. He dragged the discourse down. way down.

You could honestly replace him with a bot that reposted click-bait Fox News headlines with commentary like "how bout u libs tell us again how barry is better than george w. lol"

AI these days is more than sophisticated enough to replicate tLiar's posts.

Click to expand...

I guess I just miss mocking him.

I went on the internet to look for the next thing for me to buy you that you don't need; but apparently it's only out in hardcover as more of a coffee table fashion statement for snooty Hollywood type liberal elitists rather than to serve as something of any actual value, and until it's out in paperback, it is WAAAAY too pricy...

Obtaining a SS# which adds a 4-symbols voter ID @ (or when over 18) s/b sufficient for registering once only for being granted lifetime full local/state/federal voting in primaries/elections. I believe that those who have felonies should still be permitted to vote, but for those with more than one, or perhaps committed violent crimes, then a judge could be given the authority to take away voting rights permanently or temporarily.

The 4 voting symbols is to add another layer of protection in this digital age, since SS #s were created in the mid-20th century. Then we could vote online.

turok said:

Obtaining a SS# which adds a 4-symbols voter ID @ (or when over 18) s/b sufficient for registering once only for being granted lifetime full local/state/federal voting in elections. I believe that those who have felonies should still be permitted to vote, but for those with more than one, or perhaps committed violent crimes, then a judge could be given the authority to take away voting rights permanently or temporarily.

Click to expand...

It sounds like in Alabama it's even easier than that - just do it when you go to get your driver's license or legal ID. That's how it is here in California.

I moved about four years ago and I didn't bother to register with my new address - you have to do that here; probably pretty much everywhere.

So anyway, I had to go to the DMV here to renew my driver's license, and because of my age, I had to also take a vision test and also a written exam, I guess to see if I was going either blind or senile.

So I just registered to vote for my new address - I registered with no party affiliation - right there on the spot.

Easy as pie.

Sbee said:

Bill Clinton was 20 years ago, you have to go pretty far back. You can say that Franken and Conyers stepping down had to do with the seat, you might have a point, but it's still the right thing to do. I don't think anyone considered Alabama contested seat, if they run a non statutory raping republican they win easily.

Blake Farenthold was sued by a former aid for harassment, paid her 84k financed by taxpayers, but no call to step down.

Donald Trump has 16 or more accusers, was recorded on tape bragging about the behavior that he's accused of doing, then proceeded to either call the women liars or insinuate that they weren't attractive enough for him to assault.


Republicans are simply better with politics as a bloodsport

Click to expand...

wasn't Conyers pretty close to 20 years ago too? and don't tell me it's just being discovered. it's been the worst kept secret nobody did anything about until now.

turok said:

M

My post was clearly regarding the KKK, not state government, or the Republicans. However, your attempts to absolve the last as being bigot-free, and the first remaining Democrats is simply not true.

Click to expand...

mine wasn't about state govts, it was about representation at he federal level of those states, but you'll get a similar result if you look at governorships and state legislatures, which is to say the data doesn't support your argument. also, it was a reply to your first post which made no mention of the KKK. I didn't respond to your KKK post because it proves nothing other than in the 90s at 6k-10k members nationally, the KKK is irrelevant to both parties. at it's height however, it was clearly solid Democrat.

it definitely is true that the Dixiecrats remained Dixiecrats to the end and that Republicans made the south less racist. those are just facts.

Sbee said:

Bill Clinton was 20 years ago, you have to go pretty far back. You can say that Franken and Conyers stepping down had to do with the seat, you might have a point, but it's still the right thing to do. I don't think anyone considered Alabama contested seat, if they run a non statutory raping republican they win easily.

Blake Farenthold was sued by a former aid for harassment, paid her 84k financed by taxpayers, but no call to step down.

Donald Trump has 16 or more accusers, was recorded on tape bragging about the behavior that he's accused of doing, then proceeded to either call the women liars or insinuate that they weren't attractive enough for him to assault.


Republicans are simply better with politics as a bloodsport

Click to expand...

Republicans are better at politics as a blood sport? the 2016 Democrat presidential primary would indicate that's not true. you know what happened there, right?

michchamp said:

not only that, but the intent to discriminate - mostly against African Americans, but also the poor generally - is open and obvious.

Click to expand...

Nah. I don't think they care. They just want to discriminate by political party and they don't care if the correlation is so high, they are in practice discriminating by race or class. If they could get a commanding share of the African American vote, they'd draw the maps to increase their influence.

I vaguely recall a story about the first big success in political data mining and targeted ads being Obama's primary campaign.

the wikipedia article on the Civil Rights Act has voting totals by party. geography is more of a factor than party affiliation. though there were few Southern Republicans, they ALL voted against it.

Northern Democrats voted for it in greater proportion than Northern Republicans.

regardless, it doesn't excuse all the racist pandering the GOP has done since then. starting with here. The Southern Strategy actually goes back to Nixon and Goldwater who realized that if they really wanted middle class Americans to give up their unions, pensions, public higher education, etc. so that money could be funnelled "upward," it would take a little something more.

something... racist. The details were helpfully explained by Reagan strategist Lee Atwater who was a real shit stain of a human being:

at least he was honest...

the fact that the current GOP line is that "racism isn't an issue anymore" is fucking laughable when you consider that the Civil Rights Act was only passed in 1964, and many of the assholes who's behavior necessitated it are still alive, and most of their kids and grandkids are as well, perpetuating the bigotry. and not only that, but by OPPOSING it, the GOP has not only managed to stay relevant in national, state, and local politics, but more or less dominated politically since 1980, despite pushing policies that have benefitted about 1% of the population at the expense of the many..

but, sure... that's not because of racism.

In related news, if the voting was broken down by congressional district, Moore would have won 6 and lost 1 even though the votes were close overall.

Here's how you achieve that (district lines drawn in 2010): LINK

Gulo Blue said:

In related news, if the voting was broken down by congressional district, Moore would have won 6 and lost 1 even though the votes were close overall.

Click to expand...

it's so great we live in a democracy and are free.

michchamp said:

it's so great we live in a democracy and are free.

Click to expand...

http://fortune.com/2017/01/25/us-democracy-downgrade/

Gulo Blue said:

In related news, if the voting was broken down by congressional district, Moore would have won 6 and lost 1 even though the votes were close overall.

Click to expand...

Gulo Blue said:

Here's how you achieve that (district lines drawn in 2010): LINK

Click to expand...

Need Tinsel to come tell us how it's the same in blue states too.

sggatecl said:

Need Tinsel to come tell us how it's the same in blue states too.

Click to expand...

it, but not for the reasons he might think. Michigan's congressional representation skews red because of gerrymandering. and this in a state with two Democratic senators.

Michigan's state legistlature is even worse.

sggatecl said:

Need Tinsel to come tell us how it's the same in blue states too.

Click to expand...

It's the same in blue states too.

michchamp said:

the wikipedia article on the Civil Rights Act has voting totals by party. geography is more of a factor than party affiliation. though there were few Southern Republicans, they ALL voted against it.

Northern Democrats voted for it in greater proportion than Northern Republicans.

regardless, it doesn't excuse all the racist pandering the GOP has done since then. starting with here. The Southern Strategy actually goes back to Nixon and Goldwater who realized that if they really wanted middle class Americans to give up their unions, pensions, public higher education, etc. so that money could be funnelled "upward," it would take a little something more.

something... racist. The details were helpfully explained by Reagan strategist Lee Atwater who was a real shit stain of a human being:

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, "N-----, n-----, n-----". By 1968 you can't say "n-----"?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 "N-----, n-----".[11][12]​

at least he was honest...

the fact that the current GOP line is that "racism isn't an issue anymore" is fucking laughable when you consider that the Civil Rights Act was only passed in 1964, and many of the assholes who's behavior necessitated it are still alive, and most of their kids and grandkids are as well, perpetuating the bigotry. and not only that, but by OPPOSING it, the GOP has not only managed to stay relevant in national, state, and local politics, but more or less dominated politically since 1980, despite pushing policies that have benefitted about 1% of the population at the expense of the many..

but, sure... that's not because of racism.

Click to expand...

your conclusion is complete nonsense. can you name one Republican who opposes the civil rights act, as you say they do? The fact is Republicans voted for the Civil Rights act at a higher rate than Dems and the Dixiecrats remained Dixiecrats until the end. They didn't join the Republican party as there wasn't room for them - that's a fact. Unlike the Dems, racism was never a strategy of the Republican party. As for their kids and grandkids, you act like you know something about them. What a ridiculous statement. But since you bring it up, the data would suggest if they are racists, there's a much greater probability they are Democrats. And it's not just Southern Democrats - don't forget you have FDR, LBJ, Truman, etc.

Also, the civil rights act isn't what turned the country around. Boycotts, sit-ins and strikes had way more to do with it. Activism and capitalism are far more responsible for the country as a whole becoming less racist than any politicians or laws.

can you link to this "data" you have referenced? I am curious to read it.

Spartanmack said:

mine wasn't about state govts, it was about representation at he federal level of those states, but you'll get a similar result if you look at governorships and state legislatures, which is to say the data doesn't support your argument. also, it was a reply to your first post wh ich made no mention of the KKK. I didn't respond to andyour KKK post because it proves nothing other than in the 90s at 6k-10k members nationally, the KKK is irrelevant to both parties. at it's height however, it was clearly solid Democrat.

it definitely is true that the Dixiecrats remained Dixiecrats to the end and that Republicans made the south less racist. those are just facts.

Click to expand...

I was old enough during the 60s 70s to have watched and heard and read about what happened during that time.

If anything made the South somewhat less racist, it was the boomer generation as it was back then, and their generally unified opposition to the establishment and Vietnam, not politicians. Dixiecrats in form and description ceased to exist over the second half of the 60s.