• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

Cont: The Trump Presidency IX: Nein, Nein!

Status
Not open for further replies.
Bob001 said:
Just heard a commentator say "There are McCain Republicans. And there are Banana Republicans."
Click to expand...


Okay. I know what a McCain Republican is. One who talks a good line about being a maverick, and then votes with the rest of the party when it comes time to show their true colors.

What's a Banana Republican? One who has obviously gone completely bananas?
 
Captain_Swoop said:
It’s probably a good time to remind you that Obama used the Espionage Act to go after whistleblowers who leaked to journalists more than all previous presidents combined."
Click to expand...

It's probably time to remind everyone of the difference between going after a whistleblower for leaking bad POTUS decisions (not good, not keeping the promise of transparency), and going after a whistleblower for personally insulting the POTUS.
 
acbytesla said:
:rolleyes:
Click to expand...

He's actually correct.

And this is why I discuss the Lily White Republican movement which started shortly after the end of Reconstruction, and is exactly what you think it is, feel free to Google it.

I'll note that quite a few prominent republicans, including Ronald Reagan, Richard Nixon, and GHWB (Read this) were at some point strongly against integration of any sort, and campaigned in favor of what was effectively white supremacism. GHWB, for what it's worth, softened somewhat when he was president. Nixon and Reagan, not so much.

The GOP's affinity with racism did not start when Johnson decided to get on board with basic civil rights - it was long before then.

But we're in 2018 now. The last democratic president was Barack Obama, their last nominee was Hillary Clinton. In this time, the GOP slid from the iffy but ultimately responsible McCain, to the snake Mitt Romney who simply decided to cater to such impulses, to the obvious white supremacist Agolf Twitler*. Their party is openly attempting to suppress black and Latinx voters, to the point of using bizarre reasoning to gut the Voting Rights Act. They are now moving away from any form of pursuing any sort of discrimination against minorities up to and including state violence and home, lending, and hiring discrimination.

This party has fully embraced white supremacism - using black and brown people as away to drive wealth to a certain group of whit people, while also convincing the white "have nots" that their problems are caused by Muslims, "Illegals", black people, and so forth.

(I'd discuss LGBT and womens' rights as well, but that's probably best left to others, and in another thread)

In short, Obama was absolutely correct in his assessment of the current GOP in his recent speech.

So yeah, it's not just one point 50 years ago. this is the end point of over a century of hard work. A round of applause for the group that managed to take the mantle from the violently pro-slavery, Native slaughtering folks. They really put a lot of work, and now it's paid off, in the form of young angry white guys marching around and screaming "Jews will not replace us!"

And an actual sincere round of applause for the democratic party, who are...well, still flawed, but who mostly shed that skin that the GOP is now wearing.
 
Last edited:
Mumbles said:
He's actually correct.

And this is why I discuss the Lily White Republican movement which started shortly after the end of Reconstruction, and is exactly what you think it is, feel free to Google it.

I'll note that quite a few prominent republicans, including Ronald Reagan, Richard Nixon, and GHWB (Read this) were at some point strongly against integration of any sort, and campaigned in favor of what was effectively white supremacism. GHWB, for what it's worth, softened somewhat when he was president. Nixon and Reagan, not so much.

The GOP's affinity with racism did not start when Johnson decided to get on board with basic civil rights - it was long before then.

But we're in 2018 now. The last democratic president was Barack Obama, their last nominee was Hillary Clinton. In this time, the GOP slid from the iffy but ultimately responsible McCain, to the snake Mitt Romney who simply decided to cater to such impulses, to the obvious white supremacist Agolf Twitler*. Their party is openly attempting to suppress black and Latinx voters, to the point of using bizarre reasoning to gut the Voting Rights Act. They are now moving away from any form of pursuing any sort of discrimination against minorities up to and including state violence and home, lending, and hiring discrimination.

This party has fully embraced white supremacism - using black and brown people as away to drive wealth to a certain group of whit people, while also convincing the white "have nots" that their problems are caused by Muslims, "Illegals", black people, and so forth.

(I'd discuss LGBT and womens' rights as well, but that's probably best left to others, and in another thread)

In short, Obama was absolutely correct in his assessment of the current GOP in his recent speech.

So yeah, it's not just one point 50 years ago. this is the end point of over a century of hard work. A round of applause for the group that managed to take the mantle from the violently pro-slavery, Native slaughtering folks. They really put a lot of work, and now it's paid off, in the form of young angry white guys marching around and screaming "Jews will not replace us!"

And an actual sincere round of applause for the democratic party, who are...well, still flawed, but who mostly shed that skin that the GOP is now wearing.
Click to expand...

I think you misunderstood mumbles. I'm not saying that there weren't lots of racist Democrats from right after Lincoln all the way to about the mid 60s. In fact, I would argue that the Democratic party was much more racist than the GOP during that time although it certainly wasn't a monolith. And it certainly isn't perfect now. Still, the use of Alabama's George Wallace is hardly a poster child for the Democratic party of the last 50 years.
 
acbytesla said:
Some of the ones I know are.
Click to expand...

The ones I know are either;

Ignorant (they sincerely believed that Hillary Clinton was a murderer, desiring a hot war with Russia, etc., or believed that Toupee Fiasco actually did care about "the little guy" and that he would "drain the swamp" - people who pay no attention to politics, and the like);

Conspiracy theorists (Qanon, Pizzagate, etc.) or;

Bigots (the guy who almost used "the N-word" at work to describe black people who took Obama's inauguration off, the guy that said he wished gay people had just "stayed in the closet", the people who think that women should by nature never be president, and so forth - all expressed before Dolt 45 started blathering about how Obama had a fake birth certificate, couldn't have possibly done well in school or have written "Dreams from my Father", and other plainly racist crap.)

I wouldn't say I had friends that voted for Dolt 45, but I knew quite a few people who voted for him.

I wouldn't call everyone in the first category stupid. Some of them simply have no energy to follow national politics, after working, taking care of family, and so forth. They may be ignorant, but they aren't necessarily stupid. Conspiracy theorists - the type that actually believe Qanon as an example, confuse me. I can't think of words aside from "stupid" or "dangerous" to describe it, but that's not quite it.

I wouldn't call the bigots "idiots" either, because that's going far too easy on them. I've dealt with enough to know that quite a few are very intelligent, and fully devoted to ensuring that I and my family can never prosper.

(And for reference, if you're here, you are not ignorant.)
 
Last edited:
acbytesla said:
I think you misunderstood mumbles. I'm not saying that there weren't lots of racist Democrats from right after Lincoln all the way to about the mid 60s. In fact, I would argue that the Democratic party was much more racist than the GOP during that time although it certainly wasn't a monolith. And it certainly isn't perfect now. Still, the use of Alabama's George Wallace is hardly a poster child for the Democratic party of the last 50 years.
Click to expand...

I understood that part. But I wanted to bring up a broader view of not just the democratic party, but also the republican party.

In other words, we good.
 
Mumbles said:
I understood that part. But I wanted to bring up a broader view of not just the democratic party, but also the republican party.

In other words, we good.
Click to expand...

I should apologize to you Mumbles. I really failed to read your post first. I went back and reread your post and now feel like an idiot for mine. Something in your post kicked me off...perhaps the first sentence. But I blew it.
 
I'm about to go 12 hours without eating. I guess eating food is in the distant past and I won't ever eat food again.
 
BobTheCoward said:
I'm about to go 12 hours without eating. I guess eating food is in the distant past and I won't ever eat food again.
Click to expand...

Try it for 50 years--Only then will you actually make your point.

PS "Long" and "Short" are obviously relative, but it's quite disingenuous to say 50 years isn't that long when in fact it is more than 20% of the entire existence of the US. You know very well plenty of changes take place in shorter time spans.
 
Last edited:
50 years ago my dad was a railroad man and lifted cross ties with one arm, while playing football.
These days he can't particularly do either.
Yes, at one point he could do that, but you can use that as the current benchmark.
 
LSSBB said:
Based on what rationality? Is that when the group warranty expires?
Click to expand...

The oldest person was 122+ years old. This means everyone who was at the age of 18 at the time is dead, severing the last living connection to that event.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom