EPTCome on a day only...
US Politics Mega-thread - Page 1556
| Forum Index > Closed |
Read the rules in the OP before posting, please. In order to ensure that this thread continues to meet TL standards and follows the proper guidelines, we will be enforcing the rules in the OP more strictly. Be sure to give them a re-read to refresh your memory! The vast majority of you are contributing in a healthy way, keep it up! NOTE: When providing a source, explain why you feel it is relevant and what purpose it adds to the discussion if it's not obvious. Also take note that unsubstantiated tweets/posts meant only to rekindle old arguments can result in a mod action. | ||
|
lastpuritan
United States540 Posts
Come on a day only... | ||
|
oneofthem
Cayman Islands24199 Posts
| ||
|
coverpunch
United States2093 Posts
On January 02 2015 15:36 IgnE wrote: Valentine's day is more of a sham than most holidays. Are you serious? You're arguing with handles named Chocolate and Livelovedie. I think they're pretty serious about Valentine's Day yo. | ||
Souma
2nd Worst City in CA8938 Posts
On January 02 2015 16:11 oneofthem wrote: railing against mlk day is one of those 'now i've seen everything' moments Lol I know right. What in the world am I reading... | ||
|
GreenHorizons
United States24143 Posts
On January 02 2015 16:17 Souma wrote: Lol I know right. What in the world am I reading... I really thought it was just me for a second. | ||
|
Livelovedie
United States492 Posts
| ||
|
coverpunch
United States2093 Posts
EDIT: Reading the Politico article, it makes me wonder something. I'm listening to Robert Caro's audiobook Master of the Senate about LBJ (which I can't recommend highly enough, btw), and he casts politics in the 40s and 50s almost entirely through the dimension of North vs South rather than Republican vs Democrat. I wonder if politics today could be thought in those terms, since Politico quotes that Southern Democrats are also supporting Scalise as not a racist. It might be worth pointing out the world-flipping influence LBJ had. In the century before he became president (i.e. the Civil War), the US did not elect a Southern president (Wilson was born in Virginia but ran as governor of New Jersey) and it was generally considered impossible to win for a candidate from the Confederacy. Since LBJ, 4 of 8 presidents come representing the South (Carter from Georgia, both Bushes from Texas, Clinton from Arkansas). But I don't know if you would call that healing the wound so viewing politics through the North-South lens is no longer relevant or if it means the realization of Southern dreams that they have only 11 states (with about 1/3 the population) yet wield half the power of the United States. | ||
|
GreenHorizons
United States24143 Posts
On January 02 2015 16:38 coverpunch wrote: What confuses me about this issue is why things that happened in 1999, 2002, and 2004 are coming up now. Nobody ever used this against him in a campaign or has CNN decided just now in 2015 to make it national news? He's a leader in the republican party now, as opposed to 'just another member' | ||
|
Paljas
Germany6926 Posts
| ||
|
Skilledblob
Germany3392 Posts
| ||
|
GreenHorizons
United States24143 Posts
On January 03 2015 00:57 Skilledblob wrote: why should it be MLK day anyway? He was certainly an important part of the civil rights movement, but would it not make more sense to use a national holiday for the movement in general not just for one person? To me it looks like a case of "great man history" when in fact one single man doesnt change much. I was thinking about it, and it should be about the movement in general. On the other hand, my former Editor in Chief (a very smart young woman) for my college paper wrote a story about how MLK "led hundreds of people in 1943 "achieving his goal of black people being able to sit where they wanted on the bus. So clearly some are learning more than others about what the civil rights movement and MLK Jr. were about. The best part is I couldn't get the paper to put out a correction or issue a statement at all, nor did it bother anyone in the administration. Of course it also didn't bother them that a students personal information (including DOB, home address, and SS#) was released in an email sent to the papers staff (a few of which were basically professional Facebook stalkers). So, I suppose I shouldn't take it personally if they don't want to correct some blatant ignorance about history, when they are so comfortable in covering their own criminality. I wish I could find a quote about why politicians said they were against MLK Jr. day. Because I have a hard time assuming it was any of the points brought up here. | ||
|
Danglars
United States12133 Posts
On January 03 2015 00:57 Skilledblob wrote: He was a Republican too, which has to count against his role in the civil rights movement. I mean, considering how much that party has purportedly worked against minority rights since time immemorial.why should it be MLK day anyway? He was certainly an important part of the civil rights movement, but would it not make more sense to use a national holiday for the movement in general not just for one person? To me it looks like a case of "great man history" when in fact one single man doesnt change much. | ||
|
GreenHorizons
United States24143 Posts
On January 03 2015 05:10 Danglars wrote: He was a Republican too, which has to count against his role in the civil rights movement. I mean, considering how much that party has purportedly worked against minority rights since time immemorial. We all know "Republicans" became something different after the "southern strategy" than they were in the past. Pretending otherwise is just silly. | ||
|
JonnyBNoHo
United States6277 Posts
On January 02 2015 16:38 coverpunch wrote: What confuses me about this issue is why things that happened in 1999, 2002, and 2004 are coming up now. Nobody ever used this against him in a campaign or has CNN decided just now in 2015 to make it national news? EDIT: Reading the Politico article, it makes me wonder something. I'm listening to Robert Caro's audiobook Master of the Senate about LBJ (which I can't recommend highly enough, btw), and he casts politics in the 40s and 50s almost entirely through the dimension of North vs South rather than Republican vs Democrat. I wonder if politics today could be thought in those terms, since Politico quotes that Southern Democrats are also supporting Scalise as not a racist. It might be worth pointing out the world-flipping influence LBJ had. In the century before he became president (i.e. the Civil War), the US did not elect a Southern president (Wilson was born in Virginia but ran as governor of New Jersey) and it was generally considered impossible to win for a candidate from the Confederacy. Since LBJ, 4 of 8 presidents come representing the South (Carter from Georgia, both Bushes from Texas, Clinton from Arkansas). But I don't know if you would call that healing the wound so viewing politics through the North-South lens is no longer relevant or if it means the realization of Southern dreams that they have only 11 states (with about 1/3 the population) yet wield half the power of the United States. Neat. Chopping up the US into different regional groups is usually interesting. There are other ways you can do it too. One guy recently did a book on chopping North America into 11 cultural regions link. Long live Yankeedom  Also, one thing about the first Bush - he was born and went to school in New England so he sort-of straddles the North / South divide. | ||
|
silynxer
Germany439 Posts
On January 03 2015 05:16 GreenHorizons wrote: We all know "Republicans" became something different after the "southern strategy" than they were in the past. Pretending otherwise is just silly. To be honest, I don't know a lot about Martin Luther King and all that but I am a bit confused. Isn't the Martin Luther King Day in honor of MLK Jr. who was not a republican? Are you confusing him with his father or am I missing something? [EDIT]: Wikipedia certainly doesn't mention it and additionally I found this: http://thinkprogress.org/politics/2013/08/28/2540251/martin-luther-king-republican/ It appears however that several republicans have made this claim before, which is as absurd as it is heinous. Must be a strange world you live in Danglars. | ||
|
Jormundr
United States1678 Posts
On January 03 2015 06:29 silynxer wrote: To be honest, I don't know a lot about Martin Luther King and all that but I am a bit confused. Isn't the Martin Luther King Day in honor of MLK Jr. who was not a republican? Are you confusing him with his father or am I missing something? Minor history lesson: The democrats used to be the party of extremely racist white people. They even spawned the dixiecrats post WWII. All of these nigger-hating white folk moved to the Republican party between 1960 and 1990. This has grown much more apparent in recent years, driving black republicans into near extinction. Edit: As an example, the KKK (when it was relevant) was generally associated with the Democratic party. Now they are almost exclusively Republican. | ||
|
silynxer
Germany439 Posts
On January 03 2015 06:47 Jormundr wrote: Minor history lesson: The democrats used to be the party of extremely racist white people. They even spawned the dixiecrats post WWII. All of these nigger-hating white folk moved to the Republican party between 1960 and 1990. This has grown much more apparent in recent years, driving black republicans into near extinction. Yeah I know but to my knowledge MLKs leanings were socialist so I would have been very surprised if he had been a republican (which it turns out he wasn't). | ||
|
GreenHorizons
United States24143 Posts
On January 03 2015 06:54 silynxer wrote: Yeah I know but to my knowledge MLKs leanings were socialist so I would have been very surprised if he had been a republican (which it turns out he wasn't). Yeah the whole comment was pretty ridiculous, albeit not surprising. | ||
|
aksfjh
United States4853 Posts
On January 03 2015 06:54 silynxer wrote: Yeah I know but to my knowledge MLKs leanings were socialist so I would have been very surprised if he had been a republican (which it turns out he wasn't). I find that claim highly suspect, since a great way to silence a lot of political opponents of that day was to slap a Communist/Socialist tag on them. | ||
|
Introvert
United States5001 Posts
The SS is more complicated than "all the racist people moved parties" and without going into too much detail, we can easily point to Robert Byrd, someone people loved the whole time up to his death. He did more than give a few speeches. | ||
| ||
