Who do you think is primarily to blame for the Trump administration?

[UncleBuck]

Bernie: Few if any skeletons in his closet

what about his wife defrauding and bankrupting a college, and then giving herself a golden parachute on the way out?

 

[SneekyNinja]

what about his wife defrauding and bankrupting a college, and then giving herself a golden parachute on the way out?

He also said he'd take it to the Convention when requesting donations and then he quit and skipped off to his new 600k condo.

 

[UncleBuck]

He also said he'd take it to the Convention when requesting donations and then he quit and skipped off to his new 600k condo.

voted to dump toxic waste in poor minority neighborhoods too.

 

[SneekyNinja]

voted to dump toxic waste in poor minority neighborhoods too.

Lost the primary by 4 million votes...

Totally the most popular politician in 'Murica today, especially those hard red states.

 

[UncleBuck]

Lost the primary by 4 million votes...

Totally the most popular politician in 'Murica today, especially those hard red states.

bernie would be so great if not for so many of his annoying followers.

 

[SneekyNinja]

bernie would be so great if not for so many of his annoying followers.

Just like Jesus...

 

[Fogdog]

Hillary, for stealing the nomination from the far more likeable candidate who polled better against Trump. Let's see here.

Hillary: Loads of skeletons in her closet, hated by around 70% of the public, poor public speaker and not very inspirational.
Bernie: Few if any skeletons in his closet, one of the most popular politicians in America, and a great inspirational public speaker who packed all of his rallies.

I know! Let's run the candidate who is hated by over 2/3 of the country. What could go wrong?

The truth isn't important when it comes to skeletons in closets. Few if any of those skeletons in Clinton's closet were real. Most if not all were only scandals because the people making them up and those who believed the propaganda said so. The fake news mill would have ginned up hundreds of scandals for Bernie to deal with. You know what they say, where there is smoke, there is fire. Never mind who is creating the smoke or who claims there is a fire.

The asshole in the white house is Trump. Clinton is so yesterday. Clinton's irrelevant now. But the right wing need a smokescreen to cover for Trump. And so, they just play you recordings of scandals past. And you eat them up. Face it, you love Clinton. Who would you hate without her?

Those chants to "lock her up" are eerily familiar.

 

[srh88]

Just like Jesus...

lol +rep

 

[DiogenesTheWiser]

The Black brothers argue the gop appealed to racism not directly but through "coded" appeals. The authors failed the analytic challenge. It's tautological.

Example: anyone can disagree with the Israeli government without being anti semetic......applying this same distinction to Politics and Society in the South renders the points in the book useless.

I don't think you've fully considered the Blacks' argument. Dog whistle politics is certainly a thing. Perhaps the best example involves the ads featuring Willie Horton, developed by Lee Atwater, H.W. Bush's advertising mastermind. There were no overt racial words like the n-word or other epithets used. But that doesn't take away from the fact that this was a decidedly racist commercial produced by the Bush I's campaign team.

"Law and order" used by segregationist governors could not be confused by their segregationist constituents. They complained most loudly that civil rights protesters of the 1960s were breaking the law. So seg governors fed that by promoting "law and order" in their campaign speeches and as governor. Paul B. Johnson of Mississippi was among the first to use this slogan in 1964. Later Nixon took it as part of his southern strategy, but it was applied more broadly to Black Panthers and SDS.

Reagan's "welfare queen" speech (actually based on a white welfare recipient) was a crafty slogan created to appeal to people's dislike of blacks and the federal government that protected them by 1980 when Reagan uttered those words at a Philadelphia, Mississippi political show (he announced his candidacy that day). Philadelphia, Mississippi was the site of one of the most famous triple murders of the civil rights era. The Navy and FBI hunted for the bodies for several months in 1964.

Reagan also said that government wasn't the solution to problems--just 10 years after the federal government required mandatory integration of all of the state's school districts through the Alexander v. Holmes (1969) decision. He said "government is the problem." This was a direct statement demonstrating Reagan's disapproval with government backing civil rights reform and the dismantling of institutionalized discrimination. The audience -- almost all white except for a few blacks who were there working the event -- knew what Reagan was saying. He was saying that if elected president, he wouldn't betray segregation as Jimmy Carter a Democrat from Georgia had done with his support of civil rights reform (and appointing black cabinet members and black judges).

Caveat: Reagan defied his constituents by also appointing black judges and cabinet members, and despite his reluctance, signed the MLK Day holiday into law. And members of Reagan's only party filibustered Congressional debates regarding the MLK Day holiday--mostly Republicans from the South.

The backlash to the civil rights struggle of the 1960s was widespread and very pronounced, and very real. The Israel counterexample doesn't take into account all of the code words politicians have used over the past five decades, and it doesn't take into account how segregationists vehemently opposed the civil rights struggle.

Don't just take the Blacks' word for it. Read Matthew Lassiter's book on Nixon, The Silent Majority. Read Kevin Kruse's book on white flight out of Atlanta, White Flight. See Dan T. Carter's The Politics of Rage, and Joe Crespino's In Search of Another Country. There is so much evidence that politicians strategically used racial code words that it's not really a point of debate any more. And the code words are now used by ordinary folks who usually don't even vote.

For example, "thug" is the new n-word. "Big government" means somebody opposes welfare, HUD, "obama phones," and food stamps--programs that most whites believe only go to blacks (but there are slightly more white folks who actually benefit from these social welfare programs, but that's not the avg white person's perspective). Usually the person decrying "big government" loves cops and the military, so go figure.

Racism is more than words. Just because there's an absence of n-word, absence of the Klan, and other racial epithets, doesn't mean that racism is not at play. Most Americans can't even recognize racism, as evidenced by the commonly stated phrase "I'm not racist, but ___________ [enter racist statement]." For example, policies that intentionally target black people and other non-whites without saying so are indeed racist policies. The best example are southern municipalities that in recent years outlawed "sagging pants." On its face, "sagging pants" is not a racist appeal. But we all know that these local laws indeed target racial minorities.

 

[twostrokenut]

I don't think you've fully considered the Blacks' argument. Dog whistle politics is certainly a thing. Perhaps the best example involves the ads featuring Willie Horton, developed by Lee Atwater, H.W. Bush's advertising mastermind. There were no overt racial words like the n-word or other epithets used. But that doesn't take away from the fact that this was a decidedly racist commercial produced by the Bush I's campaign team.

"Law and order" used by segregationist governors could not be confused by their segregationist constituents. They complained most loudly that civil rights protesters of the 1960s were breaking the law. So seg governors fed that by promoting "law and order" in their campaign speeches and as governor. Paul B. Johnson of Mississippi was among the first to use this slogan in 1964. Later Nixon took it as part of his southern strategy, but it was applied more broadly to Black Panthers and SDS.

Reagan's "welfare queen" speech (actually based on a white welfare recipient) was a crafty slogan created to appeal to people's dislike of blacks and the federal government that protected them by 1980 when Reagan uttered those words at a Philadelphia, Mississippi political show (he announced his candidacy that day). Philadelphia, Mississippi was the site of one of the most famous triple murders of the civil rights era. The Navy and FBI hunted for the bodies for several months in 1964.

Reagan also said that government wasn't the solution to problems--just 10 years after the federal government required mandatory integration of all of the state's school districts through the Alexander v. Holmes (1969) decision. He said "government is the problem." This was a direct statement demonstrating Reagan's disapproval with government backing civil rights reform and the dismantling of institutionalized discrimination. The audience -- almost all white except for a few blacks who were there working the event -- knew what Reagan was saying. He was saying that if elected president, he wouldn't betray segregation as Jimmy Carter a Democrat from Georgia had done with his support of civil rights reform (and appointing black cabinet members and black judges).

Caveat: Reagan defied his constituents by also appointing black judges and cabinet members, and despite his reluctance, signed the MLK Day holiday into law. And members of Reagan's only party filibustered Congressional debates regarding the MLK Day holiday--mostly Republicans from the South.

The backlash to the civil rights struggle of the 1960s was widespread and very pronounced, and very real. The Israel counterexample doesn't take into account all of the code words politicians have used over the past five decades, and it doesn't take into account how segregationists vehemently opposed the civil rights struggle.

Don't just take the Blacks' word for it. Read Matthew Lassiter's book on Nixon, The Silent Majority. Read Kevin Kruse's book on white flight out of Atlanta, White Flight. See Dan T. Carter's The Politics of Rage, and Joe Crespino's In Search of Another Country. There is so much evidence that politicians strategically used racial code words that it's not really a point of debate any more. And the code words are now used by ordinary folks who usually don't even vote.

For example, "thug" is the new n-word. "Big government" means somebody opposes welfare, HUD, "obama phones," and food stamps--programs that most whites believe only go to blacks (but there are slightly more white folks who actually benefit from these social welfare programs, but that's not the avg white person's perspective). Usually the person decrying "big government" loves cops and the military, so go figure.

Racism is more than words. Just because there's an absence of n-word, absence of the Klan, and other racial epithets, doesn't mean that racism is not at play. Most Americans can't even recognize racism, as evidenced by the commonly stated phrase "I'm not racist, but ___________ [enter racist statement]." For example, policies that intentionally target black people and other non-whites without saying so are indeed racist policies. The best example are southern municipalities that in recent years outlawed "sagging pants." On its face, "sagging pants" is not a racist appeal. But we all know that these local laws indeed target racial minorities.

Do you see why the word tautological applies?

1)A big government thug knocked on the door and asked me a question.
2) There must be a 6ft wall dividing the white and black sections of restaurants

Both equally racist according to you and your book. Clearly not though.

Someone can clearly call someone a big government thug and not be racist, not so much for the Democrat that wrote the legislation for the 6ft wall at the restaurant.

Again, exactly the same as criticizing Israel without being anti semetic.

So far the only big switch you guys have id'd is Lyndon Johnston signing civil rights while clearly opposing them and being generally racist his whole career.

Sagging pant is a cultural phenomenon, not racial. Beginning with prison culture I think.

 

[DiogenesTheWiser]

Do you see why the word tautological applies?

1)A big government thug knocked on the door and asked me a question.
2) There must be a 6ft wall dividing the white and black sections of restaurants

Both equally racist according to you and your book. Clearly not though.

Someone can clearly call someone a big government thug and not be racist, not so much for the Democrat that wrote the legislation for the 6ft wall at the restaurant.

Again, exactly the same as criticizing Israel without being anti semetic.

So far the only big switch you guys have id'd is Lyndon Johnston signing civil rights while clearly opposing them and being generally racist his whole career.

Sagging pant is a cultural phenomenon, not racial. Beginning with prison culture I think.

Segregation was more about social distance and humiliating blacks, and using state power to do that.

I guess it goes back to what kind of society you want to live in. One that uses state power to humiliate large groups of people, or a society that doesn't do that.

 

[twostrokenut]

Segregation was more about social distance and humiliating blacks, and using state power to do that.

I guess it goes back to what kind of society you want to live in. One that uses state power to humiliate large groups of people, or a society that doesn't do that.

The fact is segregation was imposed by democrats after a 150 year history of such.
I like a fact based society, you?

 

[DiogenesTheWiser]

The fact is segregation was imposed by democrats after a 150 year history of such.
I like a fact based society, you?

Yes, America was a white supremacist nation. Even when the Republican Party was founded in 1852 in Ripon, WI, Lyman Trumbull--one of the founding members--made sure that everyone understood that the Republican Party, "is a white man's party."

Surely you don't believe that political parties remain the same for all time and eternal, do you? The agendas of all American political parties change with the changing times. We're seeing a rapid expression of it in the current era as the Democrats' pendulum swings back to the Right, and the Republican Party goes full extremist. Really, there is no liberal party in America, and it died with Henry Wallace and the progressive agenda right after World War II. It died again with Robert F. Kennedy and Eugene McCarthy's defeat in the 1970s.

Parties alter their stances, but fact is, the Republican Party was the liberal party in the 1870s. The Democrats were the conservative party at that time period--wanting a status quo antebellum. By the 1950s and 1960s, the liberal tendencies of the Democratic Party began to take hold over the nation--right around the same time that African Americans began voting Democratic where they could vote. Truman, Stevenson, Kennedy, Johnson--all represented a cold-warrior class committed to righting America's wrongs to help win the Cold War.

The GOP swung toward the conservative pendulum from the 1920s, and again in the 1970s when the Moral Majority hijacked it. But form the 20s onward, Republicans' out and out support for business and corporate power meant that they developed the most conservative expression of Cold War politics--leave the South and the states alone when it comes to race--but dominate them when it comes to the military industrial complex.

And this discussion discounts racial violence during the twentieth century, where Democrats and Republicans alike joined in with mobs to assert white supremacy.

I could go on and on, but I can tell that you're not very well read, and that you're intentions on political history lie more with the present than understanding that political past for what it really was. In other words, nothing I or anybody else says on the topic can sway you from your "gotcha" history.

 

[DiogenesTheWiser]

Here's my friend Keith. He explains political realignment very well. And I know people don't want to read.

 

[twostrokenut]

Yes, America was a white supremacist nation. Even when the Republican Party was founded in 1852 in Ripon, WI, Lyman Trumbull--one of the founding members--made sure that everyone understood that the Republican Party, "is a white man's party."

Surely you don't believe that political parties remain the same for all time and eternal, do you? The agendas of all American political parties change with the changing times. We're seeing a rapid expression of it in the current era as the Democrats' pendulum swings back to the Right, and the Republican Party goes full extremist. Really, there is no liberal party in America, and it died with Henry Wallace and the progressive agenda right after World War II. It died again with Robert F. Kennedy and Eugene McCarthy's defeat in the 1970s.

Parties alter their stances, but fact is, the Republican Party was the liberal party in the 1870s. The Democrats were the conservative party at that time period--wanting a status quo antebellum. By the 1950s and 1960s, the liberal tendencies of the Democratic Party began to take hold over the nation--right around the same time that African Americans began voting Democratic where they could vote. Truman, Stevenson, Kennedy, Johnson--all represented a cold-warrior class committed to righting America's wrongs to help win the Cold War.

The GOP swung toward the conservative pendulum from the 1920s, and again in the 1970s when the Moral Majority hijacked it. But form the 20s onward, Republicans' out and out support for business and corporate power meant that they developed the most conservative expression of Cold War politics--leave the South and the states alone when it comes to race--but dominate them when it comes to the military industrial complex.

And this discussion discounts racial violence during the twentieth century, where Democrats and Republicans alike joined in with mobs to assert white supremacy.

I could go on and on, but I can tell that you're not very well read, and that you're intentions on political history lie more with the present than understanding that political past for what it really was. In other words, nothing I or anybody else says on the topic can sway you from your "gotcha" history.

If you would follow this discussion from the beginning, the "gotcha" part of history is that the parties somehow switched sides. The "gotcha" part is substantiated by nothing but Strom Thurmond when viewing the legislation. Then lets move on to the Executive votes which are even less evidential.

Now into the depths of the individual voters mind with "dog whistles" and so this is quickly becoming a paranormal discussion, its that silly.

Speaking of Dog Whistles that was about the time the New Left infiltrated the Democrats and everyone knows it. Your views on the supremacy clause kind of put you there as well, your supporting the interpretation of a clause that gives federal government unlimited power in a document intended to limit federal government and all.

So I'm a pro pot, pro choice southerner. The argument is that I don't realize where my interest lie, as is the same argument I hear time and time again against Black Republicans today bandied about with "uncle toms" and "coons". It's just business as usual but your civility in discussion is appreciated.

 

[Rizlared]

A very interesting debate chaps

I'm the wrong side of the pond to offer an opinion of the nuances of your political parties, and I'm still non the wiser, but (on the whole)well debated and informative.

I have strong opinions on equality...and how the lack of equality within society can't be redressed by focusing on the formally oppressed, therefore creating inequality...but perhaps that's for another thread

*formally oppressed* in a utopian sense, deciding that everyone is to be treated equal so oppression becomes historical

 

[potroastV2]

Yes, America was a white supremacist nation. Even when the Republican Party was founded in 1852 in Ripon, WI, Lyman Trumbull--one of the founding members--made sure that everyone understood that the Republican Party, "is a white man's party."

...

Hey! I've been to Ripon.

The home of Rippin Good Cookies.

 

[UncleBuck]

So I'm a pro pot, pro choice southerner.

don't forget to mention that you oppose civil rights because you'd just "hate 'em more now".

 

[UncleBuck]

I like a fact based society, you?

HA!

i laughed.

were you aware that nazis were far right authoritarians and those "democrats" of old you speak about are conservative southerners who now vote for the KKK-endorsed candidate?

 

[twostrokenut]

The New Left says "the collectivist German national socialists workers party were right wing by contemporary definitions of American left and right."

Lolz.