|
On October 14 2011 22:46 ZeaL. wrote:Show nested quote +On October 14 2011 14:31 Belial88 wrote:On October 14 2011 13:25 lizzard_warish wrote:
I really cant stand the news, or for that matter, the left. It boggles my mind that anyone votes for them. They consistently call republicans racist and then when we- without any fanfare unlike the democrats a couple years ago- seem to genuinely like a black candidate, they respond to it by shitting on him and calling him an uncle tom. I honestly do view the democrats as an extremely racist party. They're so god damn condescending. + Show Spoiler +
Did you know that the democrat party was created specifically to protect the institution of slavery (a break up of the Democrat Republicans) and one of the 'hallmarks' of the first and second democratic presidents was the trail of tears? (Jackson told all indians to leave south east US - georgia area, fillmore enacted policy to make it enforced by military). The republican party was created about 20 years later, and the first republican candidate, John C. Fremont, was a staunch abolitionist (as were all republicans, actually) ran under the motto "Free work, Free soil, Free men".
The republican party was actually an off-shoot of the Whig Party (just like the democrats were a break off in support of slavery) because they did not support slavery.
Antebellum north was 'republican', or very conservative as in supporting business and civil rights. Antebellum south was 'democrat' in that they supported government support for the large farms. This led to the north gaining a huge 'macro' advantage (hey its an SC forum) and winning the war, as we know it.
2 terms later, the first republican won election - Lincoln.
The KKK was founded also, as an anti-republican organization, not an anti-black organization. Back then, they were one and the same (this did not change until around the 1960's). They were ruled as a terrorist organization under I believe Grant, much like, say, the tamil tigers or alqaeda is listed as a terrorist organization today. 20 years later, further laws were put in place that to this day still makes the KKK actually an illegal organization (note that democrats david duke and robert byrd are KKK members).
For the next 80 or so years, black people were over 90% republican, and the republican party was seen as the big supporter of civil rights. Of course, they were also the party of economics/business as well (lincoln is known for creating a war-time income tax, that, as government goes, was never removed).
As referenced in above, the "southern strategy" along with a few 'oddball' democrats like Johnson and Kennedy who were pro-civil rights, despite what the majority of their party felt, swayed black people into becoming democrat. The extreme disillusionment of black people beginning with the harlem renaissance with the US and the support of 'extreme' politics with the rise of the black panthers and black celebrities like Louis Armstrong, whom were extremely anti-capitalist/US, or strongly marxist/communist (as Russia was seen as the 'opposite' of the US, which many blacks perceived not incorrectly as racist) also started the seeds within the black community that would drive them to the democrat party 30 years later. Republicans were, and still are, seen as 'nationalist', much more so than democrats, and democrats were more seen as 'communist' than the republican party, so many moderate blacks who were suspicious of the black panthers and pro-communist sympathies like what much of the Harlem Renaissance entailed, would go to the democrat party as well.
I am by no means saying the democrat party was communist, of course, everyone feared communists. But of the two parties, republicans embodied american nationalism/jingoism more thant he democrats did. Of course, it wouldn't be another 30 years until this translated into anything.
By catering to the religious conservatives of the south, the 'southern strategy' won the votes of the south and alienated the northern blacks, combined with pro-communist sentiments in the black community and the critical support of democrats lyndon johnson and JFK (who made policies much more republican in nature than democrat compared to his peers, personally i would say JFK is the best republican president we ever had) led to the black community shifting to democrats.
The dixiecrat party was a (popular) democrat offshoot in the 60s, remember, but this allowed civil rights supporting democrats take hold of their party and invite blacks in.
This didn't change the fact that republicans were still the party of civil rights, and a big thing to note
Of the 5 Civil Rights Acts (yes there was more than one boys and girls), Republicans voted in overwhelming support, over 90%, for all of them, and Democrats voted 90% against.
I've heard arguments that "oh, they magically switched parties" which makes no sense considering you have house members who stay in office for decades and wouldn't just switch en masse all of the sudden, but this supposed change must have happened after the 70's. Which is odd, blacks started switching before then, and the policies of Eisenhower and Calvin Coolidge are staunchly fiscally convserative and religiously conservative, and policies of FDR and Johnson were extremely liberal, so it makes no sense when people say such an asinine thing. Just in case anyone was going to say that...
People also seem to think amerca was 'based on slavery' or that the founding fathers supported slavery, which is outright wrong. It's sad when people fail to understand, for example, the 3/5'ths compromise, an integral part of the founding of this nation. The 3/5th's compromise, was not to say that black people had 3/5th a vote or were 3/5th a person as many (liberals) seem to believe, but it was to say that *slave holding states* would count the slave population as 3/5th a person, so when it comes to federal apportionment of funding and representation in the House, they would get less money and have less say in Congress. Slave holding states wanted slaves to count as a total person, so that way the people they systematically denied rights to, would count towards the census, and allow the states larger grants of money and more seats in the house. Free states wanted it so slaves counted not in the census, so to give incentive for states to turn free so that they would gain power through more funding and congressional representation.
It didn't work like that, and the slave holding states threatened secession and war even in 1787. Many, such as Franklin and Jefferson, knew that one day there would be civil war over this issue, but hoped that with the 3/5th's compromise, future states would decide to be free rather than slave states. It did work out this way, although not without a fight (ie bloody kansas, etc, and eventually the civil war).
In fact, the civil war was fought over slavery, and its ridiculous when anyone says otherwise. Southern states declared authority over themselves, and northern states said you must abide by the constitution. Indeed, even way before the civil war, we had black mayors and governors, and blacks had the right to vote (in many northern states, many blacks voted to ratify the constitution). Before the civil war, most of the northern states granted full rights to black people.
Anyways, it's just interesting that people think democrats are actually the support of civil rights, when it was Al Gore Sr who stood at the podium for over 24 hours in a filibuster, reading from a large text (i think it was the US code, could be the bible) to prevent one of many (republican) civil rights acts from being passed. Not some long ago politician, but al gore's father.
After the civil rights movement, blacks were largely enfranchised, even though there was a resurgence in the KKK in the south. However democrats won the image game, and are seen as the champions of civil rights, even though Abraham Lincol was a republican, the republican party was specifically founded by abolitionists, and the democrat party was founded solely to support slavery.
Also note, that the 14th and 15th amendments were stupid - in the sense that law already existed affirming rights to black people - the fucking US constitution. While northern states already honored such law, after the civil war Congress created these amendments to make crystal clear that black people have the same rights as anyone else. There would follow many repetitive civil rights acts afterwards to further make sure people didn't try to find legal loopholes.
Nowadays none of this really matters, racism is a non-issue in both parties. Things like affirmative action has nothing to do with giving rights to people that are denied them (even though it was put into place by a republican to get minorities representation in government contracting work when it really was necessary), but yet is spun as a civil rights issue.
So the more you know.
Why did you write such a long post about history lol. Here's why Republicans are considered racist in this CURRENT age: Show nested quote +
Votes for the 1964 Civil Rights Act by Region + Party
The original House version:
Southern Democrats: 7–87 (7%–93%)
Southern Republicans: 0–10 (0%–100%)
Northern Democrats: 145-9 (94%–6%)
Northern Republicans: 138-24 (85%–15%)
The Senate version:
Southern Democrats: 1–20 (5%–95%)
Southern Republicans: 0–1 (0%–100%)
Northern Democrats: 45-1 (98%–2%)
Northern Republicans: 27-5 (84%–16%)
Notice anything? Both Northern Democrats and Republicans voted overwhelmingly in favor of the civil rights act, northern republicans slightly less so. Southern congressmen of both parties voted overwhelmingly against it but the thing is the South was at the time quite full of Democratic congressmen (94-10 in the House and 21 to 1 in the Senate) Hey, doesn't it seem like the South is no longer a majority D? WHAT CHANGED? Southern Strategy! GOP was like hey, it seems like the really racist Democrats in the South are no longer aligned with their brethren in the North, how do we get them to change their votes? Act really fucking racist! We don't care if we lose some votes because what votes we lose are outweighed by taking an entire region of the US! And thats why African Americans overwhelmingly vote D, they're not fucking retarded. They're not like ohno, democrats in the 1800's wanted to preserve slavery I would rather vote for the party that circulates these: ![[image loading]](http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/photos/uncategorized/2008/10/17/jim_crow_is_alive_and_well.jpg) BTW, you can see that a TON of D's switched to R post CRA1964 link, mostly from the south. Look how many switched parties before 64 and look at how many after, to deny that they switched parties is kind of ridiculous.
=D to be honest I was half expecting him to talk about how jesus and reagan were riding dinosaurs to save us from the commies and spread the supply side gospel. There was an incredible amount of train wreck history telling going on there.
|
On October 14 2011 22:26 Zorkmid wrote:Show nested quote +On October 14 2011 13:07 Senorcuidado wrote:
Second, a 9% national sales tax on top of states' sales taxes hits a lot of people that are already living paycheck to paycheck pretty hard. Quick question for Yankee's. Do you pay taxes on the essentials? Just asking cause things like food, heat and electricity aren't often taxed.
Lots of variations on the state by state level. The federal government has pretty limited tax on goods most of those get taxed at the state level and are only applicable on transactions inside the state, as in if I live in arizona and buy something online from new mexico I dont pay sales tax on it, but if I lived in new mexico I would pay state sales tax on it.
The problem with us instituting a national sales tax is that the sticker adjustments, especially on cane's horrendous plan that all items be taxed at all levels of production, would send our cost of goods through the roof especially on the poor and the elderly.
For those who don't understand that the 9% sales tax doesnt mean goods get more expensive by 9%, heres a very basic run though, starting with a farmer, not counting his increased expenses because of sales tax.
Farmer bob grows wheat, he sells his wheat for $1. The distributor buys it with tax at1.09, we assume the distributor doesn't make a profit for the ease of numbers here, so they sell at 1.09. The bread maker pays 1.188. The bread maker again sells at cost to the grocery chain. The chain has bought with tax bread at 1.295, who in turn sells at cost again to a consumer for $1.411.
At no point was a profit made here this was just the transfer of $1 of base material through an honestly short supply line, however this demonstrates just how an indiscriminate national sales tax can dramatically increase the overall price of a good. The way companies fight this is by monopolizing vertically which is a tale for another history lesson, think back to the days of the steel barons.
|
BTW, you can see that a TON of D's switched to R post CRA1964 link, mostly from the south. Look how many switched parties before 64 and look at how many after, to deny that they switched parties is kind of ridiculous.
So with 635 seats in Congress, 18 people in the entire nation switched parties, of which only 8 were congressmen or became congressman (2 of them, including reagan, switched parties before entering any kind of office).
Does not look like a 'mass exodus' at all to me. I'm denying that 8 people switching parties means that the two parties switched. But if you want to include the comptroller of Georgia, or a few independents who picked a party for election reasons, that would bring the number to 18. Huge number. I think there is more than 18 house members a year who end up with criminal charges.
the party that circulates these:
I don't think you need to be told that the stupid action of a few doesn't change anything. Even with 'obamabucks', it doesn't change the fact that low taxes, national security, etc etc is right or wrong. Now I'm not trying to start an argument on those issues (since I'm sure you lean one way over another, as it always works out with these kinds of discussions), but I can assure you I can find a lot of 'stupid shit' that I could claim is the work of the democrat party, but is more likely just a few fucktards. Because we all know that 90% of democrats are idiots, just like 90% of republicans are idiots, just like 90% of people are idiots.
You can google "racist democrat" for yourself and see what racist things joe biden, hillary clinton, and many other democrats that were in all likelihood just dumb or insensitive jokes who's humor was in their crass. There's all sorts of statistics out there showing how democrats generally are more racist, less likely to give money to black people, etc as well. So before you bring up something some person did that was pretty stupid, you might want to ask if anything exists about the millions of democrats in this country. Chances are, one of them said something racist too.
As for the voting passages, I know a few republicans had a libertarian position against the 1964 civil rights act (private businesses should be allowed to dictate whom they can serve, even if they are 'wrong'), particularly southern republicans who were known to be pro-civil rights.
Also, hell of a lot more democrats voted against the civil rights act of 1964 than republicans. Most people voted in support of this last bill with Johnson being a civil rights supporter and leading the democrat party in a different direction, but it was democrats who filibustered the bill and fought it tooth and nail. The 'racist' repulicans mostly recused themselves.
Neither of the parties are classically liberal in any way, both are fairly conservative by any measurement (even if, due to the 2-party system, US political discourse names the democrats as the left since they're the closest you're gonna get) etc.
The republican party has always been extremely classically liberal. Just look up Calvin Coolidge, he's more 'right-wing' when it came to businesses and taxes than Reagan. Then I'm sure you are familiar with FDR. You could go back further as well, to Jackson creating the federal reserve, and Grant's veto of bills to bail-out the nation's credit after the Panic (of 1873 i think).
Second, affirmative action (even if you disagree with it) is absolutely a civil rights issue. The entire point of affirmative action is that simply giving someone equal legal rights after centuries of systematic oppression isn't sufficient to actually give them equal opportunities and potential for success (which seems like it's a big deal in the US, what with the american dream and everything) since the white majority had an enormous economic, political and educational advantage accumulated over the years.
Affirmative action was first created, by a Republican mind you, in the not-so-distant 70's (so apparently after this magical race switching time too), to protect minorities during government contracting work, a system where rights don't mean anything when it's someone in an office saying yay or nay to you doing work.
Affirmative action as we know it today, is completely different, and much broader in scope than that. It is no longer protection of minorities, and most associated with hiring of minorities or accepting minorities into schools on the basis of skin color.
It is no longer a civil rights issue. First off, black people have had equal rights with whites since the founding of this nation in many of the northern states. Secondly, the stance generally taken against affirmative action, is that my grandfather didn't own slaves, not every black person's grandfather was a slave, and that doesn't even matter because I didn't do anything to disenfranchise blacks, and my black peers suffered no disenfranchisement. We can go back even further in history, where 'black people' did much worse to whites many centuries before the founding of the US, but that would be ridiculous. Just like AA is ridiculous in it's current scope.
And not only that, but my great-great-grandfather gave his life fighting for black freedom. Is that not enough? Now I can't speak for every family, but this is the truth of mine. So dont tell me that blacks were systematically oppressed by 'my people' when 'my people' were the ones who did everything they could to help southern blacks, and showed no hostility towards the northern blacks whom they shared a community with.
Affirmative action doesn't give black citizens more rights or advantages than other people, but simply attempts to level the playing field so they can make use of said rights on more equal terms.
Actually, it does. universities have gone to court for, when looking at applications, picking minorities over whites with more qualifications. Now with government contracting on construction work, affirmative action is okay since it is not as competitive a contract and it was to break a racist tradition. But affirmative action to appeal to minorities is just ridiculous (gratz vs bollinger).
to be honest I was half expecting him to talk about how jesus and reagan were riding dinosaurs to save us from the commies and spread the supply side gospel. There was an incredible amount of train wreck history telling going on there.
I'm, to quote a favored author, 'fanatically atheist', and I dislike Reagan. I know it's easy to just insult anyone with a different point of view, it makes it easy if you just label people and box them into neat, clean categories.
|
For those who don't understand that the 9% sales tax doesnt mean goods get more expensive by 9%, heres a very basic run though, starting with a farmer, not counting his increased expenses because of sales tax.
Farmer bob grows wheat, he sells his wheat for $1. The distributor buys it with tax at1.09, we assume the distributor doesn't make a profit for the ease of numbers here, so they sell at 1.09. The bread maker pays 1.188. The bread maker again sells at cost to the grocery chain. The chain has bought with tax bread at 1.295, who in turn sells at cost again to a consumer for $1.411.
At no point was a profit made here this was just the transfer of $1 of base material through an honestly short supply line, however this demonstrates just how an indiscriminate national sales tax can dramatically increase the overall price of a good. The way companies fight this is by monopolizing vertically which is a tale for another history lesson, think back to the days of the steel barons.
For Texas sales tax, it is only applied at the resell consumer level. If a business is going to buy a product with the intention of reselling it, they don't pay sales tax.
|
On October 15 2011 04:47 Treemonkeys wrote:Show nested quote +For those who don't understand that the 9% sales tax doesnt mean goods get more expensive by 9%, heres a very basic run though, starting with a farmer, not counting his increased expenses because of sales tax.
Farmer bob grows wheat, he sells his wheat for $1. The distributor buys it with tax at1.09, we assume the distributor doesn't make a profit for the ease of numbers here, so they sell at 1.09. The bread maker pays 1.188. The bread maker again sells at cost to the grocery chain. The chain has bought with tax bread at 1.295, who in turn sells at cost again to a consumer for $1.411.
At no point was a profit made here this was just the transfer of $1 of base material through an honestly short supply line, however this demonstrates just how an indiscriminate national sales tax can dramatically increase the overall price of a good. The way companies fight this is by monopolizing vertically which is a tale for another history lesson, think back to the days of the steel barons. For Texas sales tax, it is only applied at the resell consumer level. If a business is going to buy a product with the intention of reselling it, they don't pay sales tax.
Correct, but Cain, unless I'm mistaken, has been advocating a flat sales tax on all goods.
|
On October 15 2011 05:00 abominare wrote:Show nested quote +On October 15 2011 04:47 Treemonkeys wrote:For those who don't understand that the 9% sales tax doesnt mean goods get more expensive by 9%, heres a very basic run though, starting with a farmer, not counting his increased expenses because of sales tax.
Farmer bob grows wheat, he sells his wheat for $1. The distributor buys it with tax at1.09, we assume the distributor doesn't make a profit for the ease of numbers here, so they sell at 1.09. The bread maker pays 1.188. The bread maker again sells at cost to the grocery chain. The chain has bought with tax bread at 1.295, who in turn sells at cost again to a consumer for $1.411.
At no point was a profit made here this was just the transfer of $1 of base material through an honestly short supply line, however this demonstrates just how an indiscriminate national sales tax can dramatically increase the overall price of a good. The way companies fight this is by monopolizing vertically which is a tale for another history lesson, think back to the days of the steel barons. For Texas sales tax, it is only applied at the resell consumer level. If a business is going to buy a product with the intention of reselling it, they don't pay sales tax. Correct, but Cain, unless I'm mistaken, has been advocating a flat sales tax on all goods.
I have no idea, I just brought it up because it's hard for me to believe he's that stupid. Don't know a whole lot about him though.
|
As far as I know, it's a "9% on all consumer purchases" tax, not a "9% every time something changes hands" tax.
|
On October 14 2011 14:31 Belial88 wrote:
Did you know that the democrat party was created specifically to protect the institution of slavery (a break up of the Democrat Republicans) and one of the 'hallmarks' of the first and second democratic presidents was the trail of tears? (Jackson told all indians to leave south east US - georgia area, fillmore enacted policy to make it enforced by military). The republican party was created about 20 years later, and the first republican candidate, John C. Fremont, was a staunch abolitionist (as were all republicans, actually) ran under the motto "Free work, Free soil, Free men".
The republican party was actually an off-shoot of the Whig Party (just like the democrats were a break off in support of slavery) because they did not support slavery.
Good so far.
Antebellum north was 'republican', or very conservative as in supporting business and civil rights. Antebellum south was 'democrat' in that they supported government support for the large farms. This led to the north gaining a huge 'macro' advantage (hey its an SC forum) and winning the war, as we know it.
The Republican party also supported industrial protectionism (high tariffs) to protect new industry while the Democratic party supported low tariffs to help Southern farmers be able to more easily purchase textiles/etc by driving down prices through foreign competition. There wasn't really the whole big government vs small government thing in the way we think of it today. Tariffs were both pro-industrial and anti-free market.
But yes, higher population and greater industrial production made the North's victory inevitable despite most of the talented military leadership siding with their home states in the South.
2 terms later, the first republican won election - Lincoln.
The KKK was founded also, as an anti-republican organization, not an anti-black organization. Back then, they were one and the same (this did not change until around the 1960's). They were ruled as a terrorist organization under I believe Grant, much like, say, the tamil tigers or alqaeda is listed as a terrorist organization today. 20 years later, further laws were put in place that to this day still makes the KKK actually an illegal organization (note that democrats david duke and robert byrd are KKK members).
This part's half-right.
David Duke is a Republican. Has been since 1989; he was a Democrat before that. He's run in the presidential primaries of both parties at some point. His only years in congress, from 1990-1992, were served as a Republican representative to the state of Louisiana. His branch of the Klan was founded in 1974.
Robert Byrd was a former Klan member (joined during the 40s) who later described his membership as "the greatest mistake I ever made." Calling him a Klan member in the present tense is like calling the Pope a Nazi today for his youth associations. (Byrd also died in June 2010 fyi, but even in the final years of his life he was not the same person who joined the Klan some 60 years prior) In 1957 and 1960 he voted in favor of Civil Rights legislation. However, a few years later he filibustered the 1964 Civil Rights Act and voted against the 1965 Voting Rights Act. Upon becoming a Democratic Party leader in the late 70s, he began more consistently supporting civil rights legislation. By the end of his career, he was receiving 90+ ratings from the NAACP. This is a story of personal growth. In 1964, the socially progressive Americans for Democratic Action rated him a 16; in 2005 he was rated a 95 by the same group.
As you mention, the Klan is really three of four separate movements throughout American history operating under the same name and general form. Your summary about the first Klan (1865 through mid 1870s) is correct. The Klan that people think of in regard to the Civil Rights movement and modern-day white supremacists is a network of different organizations than the original Reconstruction era KKK, or for that matter the pre-WWII Jim Crow era Klan. However I don't think the KKK is illegal (and the Klan Act that allowed the federal government to crush the organization in the 1870s was ruled partially unconstitutional in United States v Harris a decade later); previous Klans died out due to a combination of a) members being prosecuted for their terrorist activities and b) decline in popular support/sympathy in times when populism waned.
The second Klan faded away during the Depression/WWII and a third Klan was formed following WWII, reached prominence during the 70s, declined in the years afterwards, and is having a small resurgence today (arguably as a fourth Klan). By "small" I mean only a few thousand members nationwide. In comparison, the first Klan had half a million members and the second Klan had a few million in the 1920s.
Sometime between the Civil Rights movement and early 90s, the old Dixiecrats either a) renounced the Klan/racism like Byrd eventually did (many of whom lost their seats as the South realigned) or b) switched parties like Strom Thurmond and David Duke did. Dixiecrats became Blue Dog Democrats which became Republicans.
For the next 80 or so years, black people were over 90% republican, and the republican party was seen as the big supporter of civil rights. Of course, they were also the party of economics/business as well (lincoln is known for creating a war-time income tax, that, as government goes, was never removed).
This brings up an interesting point. If you use the word "liberal" to describe a policy to a group of international economists, they'll think of deregulation/privatization, free trade, open borders, and disinflation. Everything that Milton Friedman said is well and good. It used to be that liberals were socially tolerant and supportive of free enterprise, while their opponents (you could call them conservatives, but populists is a more accurate term) supported traditional social values/heirarchies and economic populism - tariffs, farm subsidies, and some level of inflation to help farmers/the poor ease the burden of their debt.
For a large part of our history, Republicans were the liberal party and Democrats the populist party.
In America at least, the advent of progressivism changed this dynamic as liberals saw government as necessary to keep the dark underbelly of industrial capitalism in check and as a means through which 'socioeconomic justice' could be pursued.
As referenced in above, the "southern strategy" along with a few 'oddball' democrats like Johnson and Kennedy who were pro-civil rights, despite what the majority of their party felt, swayed black people into becoming democrat. The extreme disillusionment of black people beginning with the harlem renaissance with the US and the support of 'extreme' politics with the rise of the black panthers and black celebrities like Louis Armstrong, whom were extremely anti-capitalist/US, or strongly marxist/communist (as Russia was seen as the 'opposite' of the US, which many blacks perceived not incorrectly as racist) also started the seeds within the black community that would drive them to the democrat party 30 years later. Republicans were, and still are, seen as 'nationalist', much more so than democrats, and democrats were more seen as 'communist' than the republican party, so many moderate blacks who were suspicious of the black panthers and pro-communist sympathies like what much of the Harlem Renaissance entailed, would go to the democrat party as well.
I am by no means saying the democrat party was communist, of course, everyone feared communists. But of the two parties, republicans embodied american nationalism/jingoism more thant he democrats did. Of course, it wouldn't be another 30 years until this translated into anything.
By catering to the religious conservatives of the south, the 'southern strategy' won the votes of the south and alienated the northern blacks, combined with pro-communist sentiments in the black community and the critical support of democrats lyndon johnson and JFK (who made policies much more republican in nature than democrat compared to his peers, personally i would say JFK is the best republican president we ever had) led to the black community shifting to democrats.
The dixiecrat party was a (popular) democrat offshoot in the 60s, remember, but this allowed civil rights supporting democrats take hold of their party and invite blacks in.
This didn't change the fact that republicans were still the party of civil rights, and a big thing to note
Of the 5 Civil Rights Acts (yes there was more than one boys and girls), Republicans voted in overwhelming support, over 90%, for all of them, and Democrats voted 90% against.
As another poster has pointed out the majority of Democrats actually voted in favor of the 1964 Civil Rights Act.
Additionally, FDR was probably as responsible as anyone for creating the strong preference for Democrats among black voters. His economic policies helped a lot of poor black families, and the executive order that created the Fair Employment Practices Committee was one of the most important actions in terms of civil rights up until the CRA in 1964. Indeed by 1940, the majority of black votes were going to Democrats. There's a reason why "Roosevelt" used to be a popular first name for black children in this country.
FDR in fact created such a broad coalition that things became very difficult for Republicans in congress. Democrats were popular among both Southern populists and Northern progressives. Republicans could only count on the support of established business/industrial interests (who didn't want to be regulated) and the wealthy (who didn't want to be taxed), and obviously those are smaller groups with huge overlap. 1950s nationalism (prior to WWII, it was the Democrats who were more nationalist while Republicans favored isolationism) and the Red Scare helped their cause, but only so much and moreso for the presidency than for congress. The Southern Strategy's main purpose was to end the Democrats' ability to create strong congressional majorities through Northern progressives and Southern populists and unite the two to promote an economically progressive agenda. Scaring Southern voters away from Democrats by exploiting racism (some policies, but also campaign/ tactics) allowed the GOP to be the party of both wealthy industrialists and poor Southern populists. Populists in the Great Plains/Midwest were brought into the coalition through religious issues ranging from abortion to the teaching of evolution, which helped further solidify the South as well. (continues with the next section...)
I've heard arguments that "oh, they magically switched parties" which makes no sense considering you have house members who stay in office for decades and wouldn't just switch en masse all of the sudden, but this supposed change must have happened after the 70's. Which is odd, blacks started switching before then, and the policies of Eisenhower and Calvin Coolidge are staunchly fiscally convserative and religiously conservative, and policies of FDR and Johnson were extremely liberal, so it makes no sense when people say such an asinine thing. Just in case anyone was going to say that...
You actually explain the 'switch' yourself in parts of the preceding and following sections. Racism has been unusually strong in the Deep South relative to the rest of the country. This was an issue when the Constitution was being written, during the 1830s when the South nearly seceded (and might have been able to win at that point in history), during the Civil War itself which you correctly identify as being almost entirely about slavery (wrapped in the guise of states' rights - a concept which the South certainly didn't support in regard to fugitive slave laws), during the Civil Rights movement/desegregation, and is still true today. Of course the baselines have changed - some towns in Mississippi having segregated proms or nearly half of their state's (MS) Republicans opposing interracial marriage isn't the same as slavery or lynching - but in terms of comparative levels of racism this has remained true.
Political parties reflect the people who compose them. The Democratic Party of the past, be that 1860 or 1960, drew much of their reliable base support from the South. So during that time period you will find that most racists supported Democrats and sizeable minorities of the party opposed anti-racist or pro-black legislation. The Republican Party today reflects the values and culture of the South because that is where they draw most of their support. In the last five presidential elections, Republicans have won 602 of the possible 747 electoral votes (81%) from the 11 states of the Confederacy during the Civil War (I'm counting Missouri and Kentucky as non-Confederate, although they did pass ordinances of secession). In contrast, they have won just 455 of the 1943 electoral votes (23%) of the other 39 states plus DC. It's more of a religion thing than a race thing, but racial politics does still play a role and in recent decades the GOP has been very good at playing to Southern white conservatives' perception that they have been the victims of black advancement.
As you also kinda mention, parties were also less ideologically aligned in the past. Theodore Roosevelt is responsible for a lot of the early 1900s progressive movement. JFK promoted a liberal vision of culture and in some ways of government (such as space exploration) but also gave us one of the biggest tax cuts to the top bracket in history, and the space race itself was largely done for military/nationalist purposes using all the progressive rhetoric as a cover. Whereas, on the issues where our parties actually differ in practice today, ideological purity is the norm. Alignment is much tighter both in terms of our representatives and in terms of voters' preferences than it was during, say, the 1960s when the majority of both parties' Southern representatives were voting against civil rights legislation and majorities of both parties' Northern representatives voted in favor of them.
People also seem to think amerca was 'based on slavery' or that the founding fathers supported slavery, which is outright wrong. It's sad when people fail to understand, for example, the 3/5'ths compromise, an integral part of the founding of this nation. The 3/5th's compromise, was not to say that black people had 3/5th a vote or were 3/5th a person as many (liberals) seem to believe, but it was to say that *slave holding states* would count the slave population as 3/5th a person, so when it comes to federal apportionment of funding and representation in the House, they would get less money and have less say in Congress. Slave holding states wanted slaves to count as a total person, so that way the people they systematically denied rights to, would count towards the census, and allow the states larger grants of money and more seats in the house. Free states wanted it so slaves counted not in the census, so to give incentive for states to turn free so that they would gain power through more funding and congressional representation.
It didn't work like that, and the slave holding states threatened secession and war even in 1787. Many, such as Franklin and Jefferson, knew that one day there would be civil war over this issue, but hoped that with the 3/5th's compromise, future states would decide to be free rather than slave states. It did work out this way, although not without a fight (ie bloody kansas, etc, and eventually the civil war).
In fact, the civil war was fought over slavery, and its ridiculous when anyone says otherwise. Southern states declared authority over themselves, and northern states said you must abide by the constitution. Indeed, even way before the civil war, we had black mayors and governors, and blacks had the right to vote (in many northern states, many blacks voted to ratify the constitution). Before the civil war, most of the northern states granted full rights to black people.
Good summary, I have nothing to add here.
Anyways, it's just interesting that people think democrats are actually the support of civil rights, when it was Al Gore Sr who stood at the podium for over 24 hours in a filibuster, reading from a large text (i think it was the US code, could be the bible) to prevent one of many (republican) civil rights acts from being passed. Not some long ago politician, but al gore's father.
After the civil rights movement, blacks were largely enfranchised, even though there was a resurgence in the KKK in the south. However democrats won the image game, and are seen as the champions of civil rights, even though Abraham Lincol was a republican, the republican party was specifically founded by abolitionists, and the democrat party was founded solely to support slavery.
Also note, that the 14th and 15th amendments were stupid - in the sense that law already existed affirming rights to black people - the fucking US constitution. While northern states already honored such law, after the civil war Congress created these amendments to make crystal clear that black people have the same rights as anyone else. There would follow many repetitive civil rights acts afterwards to further make sure people didn't try to find legal loopholes.
Nowadays none of this really matters, racism is a non-issue in both parties. Things like affirmative action has nothing to do with giving rights to people that are denied them (even though it was put into place by a republican to get minorities representation in government contracting work when it really was necessary), but yet is spun as a civil rights issue.
Affirmative Action was and is an attempt to address inequality and bring minorities to the status of de facto equals in our society (which they are not) rather than only de jure (which they have been since the Civil Rights era, or in some places longer). The debate is over whether or not that is actually a necessary action to undertake through government activism anymore, since while equality has not yet been achieved the barriers have been lowered considerably in recent decades.
It's also reflective of the internally conservative (in the sense of resistant to change) nature of the Democratic Party with regard to its platform and past legislation. Whoever said that both of our parties embody conservatism was absolutely correct, particularly in the psychological sense (aversion to change / system justification).
I do find it funny, though, that Republicans view Affirmative Action as something that allows unqualified women/minorities to displace more deserving white males... and they gave Sarah Palin the VP nomination then made Michael Steele their party chairman (people even staunch conservatives seem to view as incompetent). Just funny, that's all 
Ultimately, I agree with your conclusion that racism is not really a part of politics today the way it was 50 or 150 years ago. And that if you look at the last 200 years of history in aggregate, the Republican party has been far more progressive on racial equality than the Democratic party. However, since this hasn't been the case for the last 30-70 years (and to some degree has been reversed) I feel like it's disingenuous for lizzard_warrish to make the claims that he did, which is why I responded. Perhaps it would have been better for me to ignore the troll?
Aaanyway, unless something grossly inaccurate is said, I'm ending my participation in the conversation about racism and political parties. I largely agree that it isn't relevant anymore (and where it is, it's dwindling), it's distracting from the real topic at hand which is the Republican presidential primary candidates.
|
I don't think you should be looking at history to explain the positions of current candidates. Its great to know it and being able to draw knowledge from it, but you should see the candidates and what they represent, how they voted in the past.
What gets me is that all these "top" candidates the media is promoting are all part of the establishment that's been electing these presidents.
JP Morgan, Goldman Sachs, Bank of America, City Group they all elect the presidents. I have yet to see a candidate from 1988 since I can find records of the money, who got elected without some of these banks and the big corporations they lie they want to fight.
Mitt Romney would just continue the bailouts, wars, TSA, patriot act, reduce freedoms. Same with Perry and Cain and Nevt and Bachman.
The problem is there are only 3 real candidates and one is democrat and doesn't run right now. All the rest are corrupt.
This is why I think what is best for the USA and the world right now is Ron Paul to wipe the slates clean and sort of start over without all the corruption and secret stuff going on in the background.
|
The Republican party also supported industrial protectionism (high tariffs) to protect new industry while the Democratic party supported low tariffs to help Southern farmers be able to more easily purchase textiles/etc by driving down prices through foreign competition. There wasn't really the whole big government vs small government thing in the way we think of it today. Tariffs were both pro-industrial and anti-free market.
True. I'd say the biggest historic stain on the republican party was their isolationist stance, which had a bearing on the world wars as well.
David Duke is a Republican. Has been since 1989; he was a Democrat before that. He's run in the presidential primaries of both parties at some point. His only years in congress, from 1990-1992, were served as a Republican representative to the state of Louisiana. His branch of the Klan was founded in 1974.
He failed to be a republican because he thought it'd win him an election. The republicans refused him in the national convention, and after the political failure he suffered he returned to the democrat party, and ran under the democrat banner, with a bit more support. This bid didn't go well either, so obviously no, the democrats weren't racist particularly either (despite their roots 100 years ago).
You can go on his site or read anything he's written in the last 20 years about neocons and the evils of the republican party. Civil rights and race aside, he is definitely not conservative considering his viewpoints on the republican party's foreign policy or economic policy.
I'd argue he's a democrat, not a republican, but pretty much everyone hates him in America so if you aren't going to listen to me saying that he's a democrat, we can at least say no one likes him, democrat or republican.
But definitely not conservative. No way. He really hates the 'neocons' and all other such names he gives the the 'jew-loving' republicans.
Robert Byrd was a former Klan member (joined during the 40s) who later described his membership as "the greatest mistake I ever made." Calling him a Klan member in the present tense is like calling the Pope a Nazi today for his youth associations. (Byrd also died in June 2010 fyi, but even in the final years of his life he was not the same person who joined the Klan some 60 years prior) In 1957 and 1960 he voted in favor of Civil Rights legislation. However, a few years later he filibustered the 1964 Civil Rights Act and voted against the 1965 Voting Rights Act. Upon becoming a Democratic Party leader in the late 70s, he began more consistently supporting civil rights legislation. By the end of his career, he was receiving 90+ ratings from the NAACP. This is a story of personal growth. In 1964, the socially progressive Americans for Democratic Action rated him a 16; in 2005 he was rated a 95 by the same group.
He's made many racist statements after leaving the klan, including what Democrats at the time called the spirit of their party, or something along those lines. You know, the whole blacks are a vestige of dark animals from the jungle quote.
And I don't think it'd be wrong to critisize the pope for his nazi ties. Obviously, people make mistakes (in my home county someone who was caught dealing cocaine in his youth won election, and had a very solid platform, but that's not really a political issue, and he did express apology). Byrd, on the other hand, has maintained his KKK ties much after he left, and he was in office as part of the KKK, and he wasn't some misguided youth then either.
the Klan Act that allowed the federal government to crush the organization in the 1870s was ruled partially unconstitutional in United States v Harris a decade later
More acts followed later on, re-criminalizing the organization, I believe.
Additionally, FDR was probably as responsible as anyone for creating the strong preference for Democrats among black voters. His economic policies helped a lot of poor black families, and the executive order that created the Fair Employment Practices Committee was one of the most important actions in terms of civil rights up until the CRA in 1964. Indeed by 1940, the majority of black votes were going to Democrats. There's a reason why "Roosevelt" used to be a popular first name for black children in this country.
True, or true in the sense that FDR gained a lot of popularity with black people. He was responsible for the internment of the japanese, although you could argue that was a national security policy, not a racist one (even as a japanese person, I actually somewhat agree with it), and a few other civil rights stains such as refusing to integrate the military. But, yes, FDR was a big reason why blacks went to the democrat party. The harlem renaissance and pro-socialist/communist movement in the black community as a rebuke of what they perceived as a country racist because of capitalism, along with a strongly socialist president like FDR had a lot to do with it as well.
It's more of a religion thing than a race thing, but racial politics does still play a role and in recent decades the GOP has been very good at playing to Southern white conservatives' perception that they have been the victims of black advancement.
Sure. I can agree with that. I think after the civil rights movement, the republican party did not find it an issue anymore and so when the democrat party picked up issues like reparations or affirmative action in it's current incarnation, they were seen as the pro-civil rights group, even though, as you say, it's not really an issue anymore.
I do find it funny, though, that Republicans view Affirmative Action as something that allows unqualified women/minorities to displace more deserving white males... and they gave Sarah Palin the VP nomination then made Michael Steele their party chairman (people even staunch conservatives seem to view as incompetent). Just funny, that's all
It's not about unqualified women/minorities displacing 'deserving' white people, it's about using race or creed or sex as a means of qualification when such discrimination, as it is, should not be allowed. School enrollment and jobs should be rewarded solely on merit, and maybe economic situation, not what your skin color is. This has been what the republican party has largely said on the issue.
As for the Sarah Palin issue, that was McCain being McCain. Michael Steele is a great guy, with a great track record, I don't any conservatives viewed him as incompetent... at least, not before his chairmanship. I think conservatives by and large loved Steele, and were happy to appoint him. If skin color was an issue, maybe, but I don't think anyone appointed Steele solely because he was black. He was appointed because he was a great conservative, and I think some republicans may have found him being black only a positive.
However, there is not denying he really fucked up a great opportunity. I think afterwards, most conservatives would say he's incompetent, but before, most conservatives thought he would be a great choice. It's really quite sad and disappointing that he failed to capitalize on such an amazing opportunity that he had. He made some really stupid mistakes, and it seems most the mistakes were more just being... stupid, or trying to hard, rather than not being conservative enough, or actually being an incompetent person.
As for Sarah Palin, I can't say I know much about her, but from what limited I know of her, she seems fine. I know it's extremely popular to hop on the "she's an idiot" bandwagon, but I don't think the republican party, historically, has ever said you need to be very smart to be a part of them. I think the approach of the republican party is that it's kind of common sense, and what's good for all people will be good for minorities, and that all rational people have the same interests, regardless what you're job or financial position or skin color is. I know she rubs people the wrong way, but I do know she worked very well as governor of Alaska for the people, fighting the oil companies for corrupt practices, while at the same time being a big proponent of the oil industry and lowering energy costs, and helping big business while at the same time keeping it in check. I know she's not the smartest person, but it doesn't take the smartest person to realize you need to help them, help this, this policy, that policy, etc. But yes, her VP nomination was questionable, and I understand that's what we're talking about, not if Palin is good or not.
Ultimately, I agree with your conclusion that racism is not really a part of politics today the way it was 50 or 150 years ago. And that if you look at the last 200 years of history in aggregate, the Republican party has been far more progressive on racial equality than the Democratic party. However, since this hasn't been the case for the last 30-70 years (and to some degree has been reversed) I feel like it's disingenuous for lizzard_warrish to make the claims that he did, which is why I responded. Perhaps it would have been better for me to ignore the troll?
A lot of people like the democrat party because they perceive it to be the party of civil rights. Anytime I hear of a black person who likes the Democrat party, it blows my mind. For most people, it shouldn't really matter, yes, but when someone says they support the Democrat party because of their stance on civil rights, or because 'they are black', I just have to call them out.
I don't think it's right to say that it 'hasnt been the case for the last 30-70 years' either. Nothing the Republican party has done in the last 70 years has been anti-civil rights, although I don't think anything the Democrat party has done in the last 70 years has been pro-civil rights. It's like saying someone who is against the death penalty is pro-criminals. No, there's a difference between allowing blacks to vote, and giving blacks some kind of welfare beyond what anyone else gets.
Take civil war reparations. You can argue about it all you want, but just because you are for or against them doesn't mean you are against civil rights. Civil rights are about protecting an individual's freedom from the government - not about help from the government, not about paying for what a government has done in the past, and not about helping individuals from businesses or private entities.
I do like your response though. I think it's a very valid and rational response from the opposing point of view. It's annoying how many democrats/liberals will just flat out deny this history. Now I don't go around saying I'm republican because I like black people, but when someone says they are democrat because of civil rights, it just makes me balk. On the other hand, I just couldn't stand to be part of a party that has such a history, but it really doesn't matter when I support low taxes/economics/etc anyways.
Mitt Romney would just continue the bailouts, wars, TSA, patriot act, reduce freedoms. Same with Perry and Cain and Nevt and Bachman.
The problem is there are only 3 real candidates and one is democrat and doesn't run right now. All the rest are corrupt.
You are aware that Obama, and the Democrat party, fully supported the bail-outs? Not to mention that Obama started yet another war exactly like Iraq (let me guess, because he didn't say "WMDs might be there", you fully support this mindless war too? Even though evidence shows that WMDs could have been there, we know very well that WMDs were used after the first Gulf War, Bush campaigned to the UN for more than half a year, unlike Obama, and gave more than 15 other reasons and cited multiple UN violations by Hussein), Obama still has us in Iraq and Afghanistan, there still exists the Patriot Act (and it was renewed by Obama and Democrats, too), and that Obama took a lot more campaign donations from big business and banks than Republicans?
Now personally, i support these wars, even the one in Libya (which, mind you, is really a championship of Bush, since it was him that intimidated Qaddafi through the iraq war to give up WMDs), and the patriot act, the TSA, and big business (not the bail outs though), so I really don't care that Obama is JUST like Bush (in fact, I'm actually quite pleased with Obama as president because of how similar he is to Bush, although his economic policy is quite the disaster, as expected unfortunately).
But it's just mindblowing to me that so many Democrats just talk about how bad big business is, or that presidential campaigns get funding from the big banks, or complain about the wars, but only when it's done by a Republican. As long as Obama/Democrats do these exact same things, even in larger scale, it's okay. Like how blind can you be.
Like really. You are aware that Obama invaded Libya with much less authorization and support and reasoning and in less TIME to stop it than Bush did right? You are aware he got much more in campaign support than republicans did that election right?
At least be goddamn consistent, and talk about how shitty both parties are (really, you should hate the Democrats more for not changing it, and for taking larger amounts of corporate/big bank support and going to war much quicker and with less diplomacy and time to stop it) instead of just saying it's only Republicans, and then going to the booth and blindly pulling the lever for another Democrat.
|
You are aware that Obama, and the Democrat party, fully supported the bail-outs? Not to mention that Obama started yet another war exactly like Iraq (let me guess, because he didn't say "WMDs might be there", you fully support this mindless war too? Even though evidence shows that WMDs could have been there, we know very well that WMDs were used after the first Gulf War, Bush campaigned to the UN for more than half a year, unlike Obama, and gave more than 15 other reasons and cited multiple UN violations by Hussein), Obama still has us in Iraq and Afghanistan, there still exists the Patriot Act (and it was renewed by Obama and Democrats, too), and that Obama took a lot more campaign donations from big business and banks than Republicans?
Now personally, i support these wars, even the one in Libya (which, mind you, is really a championship of Bush, since it was him that intimidated Qaddafi through the iraq war to give up WMDs), and the patriot act, the TSA, and big business (not the bail outs though), so I really don't care that Obama is JUST like Bush (in fact, I'm actually quite pleased with Obama as president because of how similar he is to Bush, although his economic policy is quite the disaster, as expected unfortunately).
But it's just mindblowing to me that so many Democrats just talk about how bad big business is, or that presidential campaigns get funding from the big banks, or complain about the wars, but only when it's done by a Republican. As long as Obama/Democrats do these exact same things, even in larger scale, it's okay. Like how blind can you be.
Like really. You are aware that Obama invaded Libya with much less authorization and support and reasoning and in less TIME to stop it than Bush did right? You are aware he got much more in campaign support than republicans did that election right?
At least be goddamn consistent, and talk about how shitty both parties are (really, you should hate the Democrats more for not changing it, and for taking larger amounts of corporate/big bank support and going to war much quicker and with less diplomacy and time to stop it) instead of just saying it's only Republicans, and then going to the booth and blindly pulling the lever for another Democrat.
I am aware. That is my point. Republicans or democrats it doesn't matter, people need to look at the candidates individually and what they supported and how they voted. If you look at their current position they will just lie of course, so you need to look at their records.
|
Ron Paul is going to propose $1 trillion in new cuts to federal spending. I'm not positive about the time horizon for the cuts, but it looks like he's wants to reduce federal spending by $1 trillion annually. Good for him. To my knowledge, no other candidate has had the balls to come out and propose cuts that are this deep. We'll just have to see what he's cutting.
http://www.politico.com/news/stories/1011/66114.html#ixzz1b2aMmbbo
|
Belial88, how can you possibly mention arguing about consistency in your post and than claim Libya is exactly like Iraq?
|
On October 18 2011 01:29 xDaunt wrote:Ron Paul is going to propose $1 trillion in new cuts to federal spending. I'm not positive about the time horizon for the cuts, but it looks like he's wants to reduce federal spending by $1 trillion annually. Good for him. To my knowledge, no other candidate has had the balls to come out and propose cuts that are this deep. We'll just have to see what he's cutting.http://www.politico.com/news/stories/1011/66114.html#ixzz1b2aMmbbo
He'd be cutting military spending if you listen to his "hands-off" approach to foreign policy over the last few years.
|
Belial88, how can you possibly mention arguing about consistency in your post and than claim Libya is exactly like Iraq?
It's a war. Can you be a little more specific?
|
On October 18 2011 02:58 Belial88 wrote:Show nested quote +Belial88, how can you possibly mention arguing about consistency in your post and than claim Libya is exactly like Iraq? It's a war. Can you be a little more specific?
There are pretty staggering differences in the level of commitment between
A) putting your own troops on the ground and peacekeeping in the midst of fighting an opponent that hides among civilians
B) giving supplies to freedom fighters and launching long-range weaponry
|
On October 18 2011 02:41 Zorkmid wrote:Show nested quote +On October 18 2011 01:29 xDaunt wrote:Ron Paul is going to propose $1 trillion in new cuts to federal spending. I'm not positive about the time horizon for the cuts, but it looks like he's wants to reduce federal spending by $1 trillion annually. Good for him. To my knowledge, no other candidate has had the balls to come out and propose cuts that are this deep. We'll just have to see what he's cutting.http://www.politico.com/news/stories/1011/66114.html#ixzz1b2aMmbbo He'd be cutting military spending if you listen to his "hands-off" approach to foreign policy over the last few years.
Cuts would hit everywhere, primarily the 'big beasts' (military spending, social security and medicare). And in the long run he'd completely remove other, smaller budget government agencies.
If you take a look at this
http://throb.typepad.com/special/2004 US Budget.jpg
Ron Paul's eye is on all of those little satellite agencies.
Edit: that's actually from 2004. Here's a more recent one:
http://www.wallstats.com/blog/wp-content/uploads/WallStatsDATlarge.jpg
The scary thing is, over the 5 years from 2004 to 2009, you can see the expenditures have gone from
$399B Military / $383B non-Military
to
$799B Military / $383B non-Military
GWB went full retard with the military spending and Obama hasn't had the cajones to cut it.
|
I'll give Romney credit when he sees that Navies are the real Chips when it comes to International Poker and not armies but his plan is still insane:
On the surface, Mitt Romney’s proposal to inflate the Navy is seaworthy. The ex-Massachusetts governor and GOP presidential frontrunner wants to build six more ships every year to meet the increased demands that the U.S. military will likely face in the big, blue Pacific Ocean.
Naval analysts generally like the idea, which they say is needed to fill a whopping hole in the U.S. fleet, come 2030 or so. Just a few problems, the seapower wonks say: Romney has given no indication of what kinds of ships he wants built; he doesn’t explain what they should do; and his proposal might give a deficit-obsessed D.C. sticker shock.
Shipbuilding is a major national-security priority for Romney. In an Oct. 7 speech at the Citadel and his campaign’s big national security white paper, he pledged, “I will reverse the hollowing of our Navy and announce an initiative to increase the shipbuilding rate from 9 per year to 15.” It’s the most specific, declarative statement on defense Romney’s made in the campaign thus far.
Independent naval analysts don’t know how much Romney’s proposal will cost, since nowhere in the white paper does Romney specify what ships make up his expanded fleet. (The Romney campaign didn’t respond to Danger Room’s requests for clarification on what ships the candidate wants built.) That complicates any analysis, since ships aren’t interchangeable. “Fifteen ships a year sounds good,” says Frank Hoffman, who recently left the policy shop at the Navy Department, “but what kind of ships? For what strategy?”
As one of the commentators says wouldn't it be wiser to follow the examples of Sweden, Japan etc. and invest in Education, Infrastructure etc. But the plan just shows how Romney wants to let the right now how right he is. At least on this subject.
Source
|
United States7483 Posts
On October 15 2011 06:42 Belial88 wrote:Show nested quote +The Republican party also supported industrial protectionism (high tariffs) to protect new industry while the Democratic party supported low tariffs to help Southern farmers be able to more easily purchase textiles/etc by driving down prices through foreign competition. There wasn't really the whole big government vs small government thing in the way we think of it today. Tariffs were both pro-industrial and anti-free market. True. I'd say the biggest historic stain on the republican party was their isolationist stance, which had a bearing on the world wars as well. Show nested quote +David Duke is a Republican. Has been since 1989; he was a Democrat before that. He's run in the presidential primaries of both parties at some point. His only years in congress, from 1990-1992, were served as a Republican representative to the state of Louisiana. His branch of the Klan was founded in 1974. He failed to be a republican because he thought it'd win him an election. The republicans refused him in the national convention, and after the political failure he suffered he returned to the democrat party, and ran under the democrat banner, with a bit more support. This bid didn't go well either, so obviously no, the democrats weren't racist particularly either (despite their roots 100 years ago). You can go on his site or read anything he's written in the last 20 years about neocons and the evils of the republican party. Civil rights and race aside, he is definitely not conservative considering his viewpoints on the republican party's foreign policy or economic policy. I'd argue he's a democrat, not a republican, but pretty much everyone hates him in America so if you aren't going to listen to me saying that he's a democrat, we can at least say no one likes him, democrat or republican. But definitely not conservative. No way. He really hates the 'neocons' and all other such names he gives the the 'jew-loving' republicans. Show nested quote +Robert Byrd was a former Klan member (joined during the 40s) who later described his membership as "the greatest mistake I ever made." Calling him a Klan member in the present tense is like calling the Pope a Nazi today for his youth associations. (Byrd also died in June 2010 fyi, but even in the final years of his life he was not the same person who joined the Klan some 60 years prior) In 1957 and 1960 he voted in favor of Civil Rights legislation. However, a few years later he filibustered the 1964 Civil Rights Act and voted against the 1965 Voting Rights Act. Upon becoming a Democratic Party leader in the late 70s, he began more consistently supporting civil rights legislation. By the end of his career, he was receiving 90+ ratings from the NAACP. This is a story of personal growth. In 1964, the socially progressive Americans for Democratic Action rated him a 16; in 2005 he was rated a 95 by the same group. He's made many racist statements after leaving the klan, including what Democrats at the time called the spirit of their party, or something along those lines. You know, the whole blacks are a vestige of dark animals from the jungle quote. And I don't think it'd be wrong to critisize the pope for his nazi ties. Obviously, people make mistakes (in my home county someone who was caught dealing cocaine in his youth won election, and had a very solid platform, but that's not really a political issue, and he did express apology). Byrd, on the other hand, has maintained his KKK ties much after he left, and he was in office as part of the KKK, and he wasn't some misguided youth then either. Show nested quote + the Klan Act that allowed the federal government to crush the organization in the 1870s was ruled partially unconstitutional in United States v Harris a decade later More acts followed later on, re-criminalizing the organization, I believe. Show nested quote +Additionally, FDR was probably as responsible as anyone for creating the strong preference for Democrats among black voters. His economic policies helped a lot of poor black families, and the executive order that created the Fair Employment Practices Committee was one of the most important actions in terms of civil rights up until the CRA in 1964. Indeed by 1940, the majority of black votes were going to Democrats. There's a reason why "Roosevelt" used to be a popular first name for black children in this country. True, or true in the sense that FDR gained a lot of popularity with black people. He was responsible for the internment of the japanese, although you could argue that was a national security policy, not a racist one (even as a japanese person, I actually somewhat agree with it), and a few other civil rights stains such as refusing to integrate the military. But, yes, FDR was a big reason why blacks went to the democrat party. The harlem renaissance and pro-socialist/communist movement in the black community as a rebuke of what they perceived as a country racist because of capitalism, along with a strongly socialist president like FDR had a lot to do with it as well. Show nested quote +It's more of a religion thing than a race thing, but racial politics does still play a role and in recent decades the GOP has been very good at playing to Southern white conservatives' perception that they have been the victims of black advancement. Sure. I can agree with that. I think after the civil rights movement, the republican party did not find it an issue anymore and so when the democrat party picked up issues like reparations or affirmative action in it's current incarnation, they were seen as the pro-civil rights group, even though, as you say, it's not really an issue anymore. Show nested quote +I do find it funny, though, that Republicans view Affirmative Action as something that allows unqualified women/minorities to displace more deserving white males... and they gave Sarah Palin the VP nomination then made Michael Steele their party chairman (people even staunch conservatives seem to view as incompetent). Just funny, that's all It's not about unqualified women/minorities displacing 'deserving' white people, it's about using race or creed or sex as a means of qualification when such discrimination, as it is, should not be allowed. School enrollment and jobs should be rewarded solely on merit, and maybe economic situation, not what your skin color is. This has been what the republican party has largely said on the issue. As for the Sarah Palin issue, that was McCain being McCain. Michael Steele is a great guy, with a great track record, I don't any conservatives viewed him as incompetent... at least, not before his chairmanship. I think conservatives by and large loved Steele, and were happy to appoint him. If skin color was an issue, maybe, but I don't think anyone appointed Steele solely because he was black. He was appointed because he was a great conservative, and I think some republicans may have found him being black only a positive. However, there is not denying he really fucked up a great opportunity. I think afterwards, most conservatives would say he's incompetent, but before, most conservatives thought he would be a great choice. It's really quite sad and disappointing that he failed to capitalize on such an amazing opportunity that he had. He made some really stupid mistakes, and it seems most the mistakes were more just being... stupid, or trying to hard, rather than not being conservative enough, or actually being an incompetent person. As for Sarah Palin, I can't say I know much about her, but from what limited I know of her, she seems fine. I know it's extremely popular to hop on the "she's an idiot" bandwagon, but I don't think the republican party, historically, has ever said you need to be very smart to be a part of them. I think the approach of the republican party is that it's kind of common sense, and what's good for all people will be good for minorities, and that all rational people have the same interests, regardless what you're job or financial position or skin color is. I know she rubs people the wrong way, but I do know she worked very well as governor of Alaska for the people, fighting the oil companies for corrupt practices, while at the same time being a big proponent of the oil industry and lowering energy costs, and helping big business while at the same time keeping it in check. I know she's not the smartest person, but it doesn't take the smartest person to realize you need to help them, help this, this policy, that policy, etc. But yes, her VP nomination was questionable, and I understand that's what we're talking about, not if Palin is good or not. Show nested quote +Ultimately, I agree with your conclusion that racism is not really a part of politics today the way it was 50 or 150 years ago. And that if you look at the last 200 years of history in aggregate, the Republican party has been far more progressive on racial equality than the Democratic party. However, since this hasn't been the case for the last 30-70 years (and to some degree has been reversed) I feel like it's disingenuous for lizzard_warrish to make the claims that he did, which is why I responded. Perhaps it would have been better for me to ignore the troll? A lot of people like the democrat party because they perceive it to be the party of civil rights. Anytime I hear of a black person who likes the Democrat party, it blows my mind. For most people, it shouldn't really matter, yes, but when someone says they support the Democrat party because of their stance on civil rights, or because 'they are black', I just have to call them out. I don't think it's right to say that it 'hasnt been the case for the last 30-70 years' either. Nothing the Republican party has done in the last 70 years has been anti-civil rights, although I don't think anything the Democrat party has done in the last 70 years has been pro-civil rights. It's like saying someone who is against the death penalty is pro-criminals. No, there's a difference between allowing blacks to vote, and giving blacks some kind of welfare beyond what anyone else gets. Take civil war reparations. You can argue about it all you want, but just because you are for or against them doesn't mean you are against civil rights. Civil rights are about protecting an individual's freedom from the government - not about help from the government, not about paying for what a government has done in the past, and not about helping individuals from businesses or private entities. I do like your response though. I think it's a very valid and rational response from the opposing point of view. It's annoying how many democrats/liberals will just flat out deny this history. Now I don't go around saying I'm republican because I like black people, but when someone says they are democrat because of civil rights, it just makes me balk. On the other hand, I just couldn't stand to be part of a party that has such a history, but it really doesn't matter when I support low taxes/economics/etc anyways. Show nested quote +Mitt Romney would just continue the bailouts, wars, TSA, patriot act, reduce freedoms. Same with Perry and Cain and Nevt and Bachman.
The problem is there are only 3 real candidates and one is democrat and doesn't run right now. All the rest are corrupt. You are aware that Obama, and the Democrat party, fully supported the bail-outs? Not to mention that Obama started yet another war exactly like Iraq (let me guess, because he didn't say "WMDs might be there", you fully support this mindless war too? Even though evidence shows that WMDs could have been there, we know very well that WMDs were used after the first Gulf War, Bush campaigned to the UN for more than half a year, unlike Obama, and gave more than 15 other reasons and cited multiple UN violations by Hussein), Obama still has us in Iraq and Afghanistan, there still exists the Patriot Act (and it was renewed by Obama and Democrats, too), and that Obama took a lot more campaign donations from big business and banks than Republicans? Now personally, i support these wars, even the one in Libya (which, mind you, is really a championship of Bush, since it was him that intimidated Qaddafi through the iraq war to give up WMDs), and the patriot act, the TSA, and big business (not the bail outs though), so I really don't care that Obama is JUST like Bush (in fact, I'm actually quite pleased with Obama as president because of how similar he is to Bush, although his economic policy is quite the disaster, as expected unfortunately). But it's just mindblowing to me that so many Democrats just talk about how bad big business is, or that presidential campaigns get funding from the big banks, or complain about the wars, but only when it's done by a Republican. As long as Obama/Democrats do these exact same things, even in larger scale, it's okay. Like how blind can you be. Like really. You are aware that Obama invaded Libya with much less authorization and support and reasoning and in less TIME to stop it than Bush did right? You are aware he got much more in campaign support than republicans did that election right? At least be goddamn consistent, and talk about how shitty both parties are (really, you should hate the Democrats more for not changing it, and for taking larger amounts of corporate/big bank support and going to war much quicker and with less diplomacy and time to stop it) instead of just saying it's only Republicans, and then going to the booth and blindly pulling the lever for another Democrat.
Sarah Palin is not fine, not by any margin. I'm not sure if she's worse than Bachman or if Bachman is worse, but Palin is absolutely TERRIBLE. I'm sure you heard about Trooper-Gate, but in case you haven't, she used her authority in office to fire a police officer for divorcing her sister. She also fired the town librarian when she was mayor for not removing certain books from the library like she wanted (she didn't want people reading those books). While she was campaigning for McCain, she would regularly give hate speeches and attempt to get the crowd to erupt in violence and anger. She was also once part of an organization in Alaska that was attempting to secede from the union, and then had the nerve to call people unamerican in speeches. She's a moron, and frankly a hateful bigot, and downright dangerous when she has power. She was anything but qualified to hold office, and she's been caught more times than I can count outright lying BLATANTLY (at least most politicians are somewhat good at hiding it when they lie). Remember the bridge to nowhere? Yeah.
|
It's pretty absurd to argue for or against and particular candidate or party. As far as I can tell, every single potential candidate for political office is, generally speaking, a lying scumbag who is either doing everything possible to benefit his/her party, or, in the case of people like Bachman/Palin, flat out fucking insane.
I feel like the American political system has more in common with a trashy reality show than anything. And the role of religion in this whole thing... that part is downright frightening. I think it's all garbage to begin with, but Mormonism takes the nuttiness of religion to a whole new level. And people actually seem to LIKE THE GUY. Dudewhat.jpg
It's been said that people who don't vote should not complain about the state of the country or the government. Unfortunately, when all the candidates are shit, that's about the only option you have. This applies to any and all parties. I don't know if I'm just a Negative Nancy or what. I just really feel like politics has become a circus of sorts.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
