The Anti-Targ Posted August 17, 2016 Share Posted August 17, 2016 Pretty sure Trump can put Texas in the win column no problem. The last time Texas went democrat was with Carter, and they probably came to regret that quite quickly. It was a pretty solid Democrat state until Reagan. Though you could say the Republican take over started with Nixon, tripped up out of the blocks with the whole Watergate thing but righted itself immediately afterwards. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ThinkerX Posted August 17, 2016 Share Posted August 17, 2016 In reluctant support of Nestor, I would point out that had his suggestions been law for a while, we probably would have avoided a certain ugly massacre at a Florida Gay nightclub...and probably other deadly incidents as well. Still, his suggestions would not have prevented Roof from shooting up a black church. So, legit question: Does letting unscreened immigrants into the country result in 'assimilation'...or 'balkanization?' Xenophobic, homophobic, murderous 'little Afghanistan's' dotting the country. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ThinkerX Posted August 17, 2016 Share Posted August 17, 2016 Something I noted a while back, originally with isolated conservative posters to racially charged articles: A sort of skewed 'capsule history,' where they'd point out it was republicans who freed the slaves, and the KKK members were mostly democrats, which they'd cite as 'proof' that the democratic party, not the republicans, were the true racist institution (ignoring the tumult of the civil rights era, and realignment.) Now, though, I am seeing this false argument being promoted in a much more sophisticated manner - photo's and 'adds' I guess they could be termed appearing on my Facebook. And the conservatives are accepting this as literal truth. Anybody else notice this? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SkynJay Posted August 17, 2016 Share Posted August 17, 2016 2 minutes ago, ThinkerX said: Something I noted a while back, originally with isolated conservative posters to racially charged articles: A sort of skewed 'capsule history,' where they'd point out it was republicans who freed the slaves, and the KKK members were mostly democrats, which they'd cite as 'proof' that the democratic party, not the republicans, were the true racist institution (ignoring the tumult of the civil rights era, and realignment.) Now, though, I am seeing this false argument being promoted in a much more sophisticated manner - photo's and 'adds' I guess they could be termed appearing on my Facebook. And the conservatives are accepting this as literal truth. Anybody else notice this? Yes. Conservative talk radio has latched on to this meme pretty hard lately. Local guy around here has a black preacher he brings on weekly to give support to the line. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
OldGimletEye Posted August 17, 2016 Share Posted August 17, 2016 30 minutes ago, ThinkerX said: Something I noted a while back, originally with isolated conservative posters to racially charged articles: A sort of skewed 'capsule history,' where they'd point out it was republicans who freed the slaves, and the KKK members were mostly democrats, which they'd cite as 'proof' that the democratic party, not the republicans, were the true racist institution (ignoring the tumult of the civil rights era, and realignment.) Now, though, I am seeing this false argument being promoted in a much more sophisticated manner - photo's and 'adds' I guess they could be termed appearing on my Facebook. And the conservatives are accepting this as literal truth. Anybody else notice this? Well, yes, I've noticed it. And it's been around for awhile. It's seems like it's something that 45 year old Republican guys hear about for the first time by watching Glenn Beck. Or maybe that's what they learned for their $9.99 monthly subscription to Glenn Beck U. Too bad for them, most reasonably educated people know about since they were probably teenagers. We all know, that the Democratic party was the party of the Confederacy. We all know the Democratic party was the party of Jim Crow. This is not news to anyone, except 45 year old Republican guys learning about it for the first time. The problem with this argument is basically that it fails to acknowledge the concept of realigning elections. Basically parties change, particularly in the US because of our winner takes all system. Various groups come into and out of the parties. It's like saying the Democratic Party today supports getting back on the Gold Standard because Grover Cleveland a Democratic president was an ardent supporter of the Gold Standard. It also fails to acknowledge things like that once the Republican Party had a progressive wing that slowly died. And it of course fails to acknowledge regional differences within the parties. ETA: And by the way, their seems to be a group of liberartarians, who certainly aren't Democrats, that think Lincoln was a marxist bum. See Thomas Dilorenzo. The guy has spent a good deal of his career making Lincoln look like Pol Pot. But, somehow Ron Paul saw fit to to bring the guy to congress to give testimony about monetary policy, even though the guy isn't well known for writing much about monetary policy, spending most of his time, evidently, trashing Lincoln. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TrackerNeil Posted August 17, 2016 Share Posted August 17, 2016 45 minutes ago, ThinkerX said: In reluctant support of Nestor, I would point out that had his suggestions been law for a while, we probably would have avoided a certain ugly massacre at a Florida Gay nightclub...and probably other deadly incidents as well. Omar Mateen was born in the United States and thus would have never been subject to these absurd questions even if asking them of immigrants were official policy. Also, if we're to implement a policy that undermines everything this nation is supposed to stand for, let's not try to lay the blame on some asshole with easy access to guns and a hatred for gay people. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Marquis de Leech Posted August 17, 2016 Share Posted August 17, 2016 53 minutes ago, The Anti-Targ said: Pretty sure Trump can put Texas in the win column no problem. The last time Texas went democrat was with Carter, and they probably came to regret that quite quickly. It was a pretty solid Democrat state until Reagan. Though you could say the Republican take over started with Nixon, tripped up out of the blocks with the whole Watergate thing but righted itself immediately afterwards. The point is that Trump should be leading by rather more than 6 (Romney won it by 16, even while losing nationwide by 4). Texas actually started to shift Republican earlier than other Southern states, largely because of Republican Northerners moving to the growing suburbs (my, the irony). It voted for Eisenhower in 1952 and 1956 (and 1928, but that was just anti-Catholicism). It went Democratic in 1960 and 1968 pretty much because of Lyndon Johnson's machine politics (and 1964, because it wasn't yet batshit crazy). Carter in 1976 was the last hurrah of the Solid South generally, and while 1980 was the last election where the Democrats did better in the South than the North (Carter came close in several Southern states), Carter got clobbered in Texas. But anyway... demographic trends mean Texas is likely to start shifting back Democratic at some point in the next quarter-century (see Clinton's lead on the under 65s), but Trump is making it far more competitive than it should be. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
James Arryn Posted August 17, 2016 Share Posted August 17, 2016 13 hours ago, NestorMakhnosLovechild said: We shouldn't be letting people in to the United States that believe... There is no way any sentence that starts like this can be used to discuss actual policy. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Fallen Posted August 17, 2016 Share Posted August 17, 2016 12 hours ago, TerraPrime said: In other news, Clinton campaign is slowing down operation in PA, meaning they think they got it in the bag. That's OH, VA, and PA now in Clinton's column. That should free up some resources for states like Kansas and even Texas. It'll be interesting to see where Clinton turns her attention to with this new resource. Heard a segment NPR where the Trump campaign is targeting the Amish, to the tune of 70,000 potential Trump votes. Could that tilt the state towards Trump? Also, listening to them talk, and knowing their lifestyles, I can't see Hillary making any inroads with that segment of Penns. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Boris the Blade Posted August 17, 2016 Share Posted August 17, 2016 3 hours ago, James Arryn said: There is no way any sentence that starts like this can be used to discuss actual policy. It's on par with the whole I'm not racist, but, I'm not sexist, but, I'm not homophobic, but, etc. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Marquis de Leech Posted August 17, 2016 Share Posted August 17, 2016 1 hour ago, The Fallen said: Heard a segment NPR where the Trump campaign is targeting the Amish, to the tune of 70,000 potential Trump votes. Could that tilt the state towards Trump? Also, listening to them talk, and knowing their lifestyles, I can't see Hillary making any inroads with that segment of Penns. Amish generally don't vote, on the basis that involving themselves in earthly politics goes against their values. The minority who do vote tend to go Republican (Lancaster County, which is famous for its Amish population, barely voted Democratic in 1964, while Bush tried very hard to go after them in 2004). I can't see it making much difference to Pennsylvania generally, which is heavily Republican in its interior counties - there are four counties there that voted for Barry Goldwater - but heavily Democratic in Philadelphia and Pittsburgh. As long as the latter cities turn out, Hillary will be fine. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mormont Posted August 17, 2016 Share Posted August 17, 2016 Trump reshuffles his campaign team (again): http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/election-us-2016-37104688 'Well, maybe if we put this deckchair over here...' Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Horza Posted August 17, 2016 Share Posted August 17, 2016 Specifically, move the old party hand/dictator lobbyist loofah back a-ways and push forward the far right muckracker Lay-Z-Boy. Conway seems like a sensible piece of furniture by comparison. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TrackerNeil Posted August 17, 2016 Share Posted August 17, 2016 3 hours ago, Roose Boltons Pet Leech said: Amish generally don't vote, on the basis that involving themselves in earthly politics goes against their values. The minority who do vote tend to go Republican (Lancaster County, which is famous for its Amish population, barely voted Democratic in 1964, while Bush tried very hard to go after them in 2004). I can't see it making much difference to Pennsylvania generally, which is heavily Republican in its interior counties - there are four counties there that voted for Barry Goldwater - but heavily Democratic in Philadelphia and Pittsburgh. As long as the latter cities turn out, Hillary will be fine. To carry Pennsylvania, a Republican must typically do very well in the Philadelphia suburbs to offset the tremendous Democratic turnout in the city itself, plus Pittsburgh, Scranton, and their satellite areas. With Clinton polling 40 points ahead of Trump in those 'burbs, The Donald will have to rely upon an alternate strategy. Just what that strategy might be is anyone's guess, and I doubt that Trump has even asked the question. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sologdin Posted August 17, 2016 Share Posted August 17, 2016 voter suppression via armed paramilitary groups in democratic areas? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ser Scot A Ellison Posted August 17, 2016 Share Posted August 17, 2016 1 minute ago, sologdin said: voter suppression via armed paramilitary groups in democratic areas? The Rolling Stones "Hell's Angels" strategem? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
OldGimletEye Posted August 17, 2016 Share Posted August 17, 2016 Well, the polls are looking bad for Trump. I guess he should have been more conservative. That would have fixed his problems. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LongRider Posted August 17, 2016 Share Posted August 17, 2016 3 hours ago, mormont said: Trump reshuffles his campaign team (again): http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/election-us-2016-37104688 'Well, maybe if we put this deckchair over here...' Quote Pollster Kellyanne Conway becomes campaign manager and Stephen Bannon of Breitbart News the CEO. Paul Manafort remains campaign chairman, but analysts say he has effectively been demoted. The article says Conway could accurately predict polls and won awards doing it! Bannon is an executive chairman of the website Briebiert, a site of RW sleaze and so seems perfect for Trump. I wonder what Manafort is doing, plus Roger Ailes is rumored to be prepping Trump for the upcoming debates, tho' Trump denies this. After the last shakeup I was wondering when the next one would come and it took two months. Arranging the deck chairs indeed. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
OldGimletEye Posted August 17, 2016 Share Posted August 17, 2016 http://www.nytimes.com/2016/08/05/opinion/no-right-turn.html?partner=rss&emc=rss&_r=1 Interesting article from Krugman about Republican supporters of Clinton or at least those that can't stand Trump. Agree that Clinton shouldn’t give these Republican supporters much in the way of policy concessions. Particularly given the nonsense they’ve spewed over the last 8 years or so and more likely the last 16 years. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LongRider Posted August 17, 2016 Share Posted August 17, 2016 13 minutes ago, OldGimletEye said: Agree that Clinton shouldn’t give these Republican supporters much in the way of policy concessions. Particularly given the nonsense they’ve spewed over the last 8 years or so and more likely the last 16 years. No way should she give these Repugs anything, not with all the shit they have given the Clintons, and her specifically for YEARS! No center left/right coalition, no no no! Hil, listen to Paul and Bernie, they are there to help you. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.