Terrorist who attacked New Zealand mosque said China is closest to his political and social values

jdog21 · Mar 18, 2019

haymarket said:
The Kennedy election and era that ushered in.

Kennedy may not have been racist but he was only president for 2 years, His successor LBJ was a racist and refused to call African American anything other then N-word. The next dem was Carter, is no coincident that the states he won in the election were all the same racist southern states that were part of the confederacy during the civil war.

Tanngrisnir · Mar 18, 2019

jdog21 said:
Kennedy may not have been racist but he was only president for 2 years, His successor LBJ was a racist and refused to call African American anything other then N-word. The next dem was Carter, is no coincident that the states he won in the election were all the same racist southern states that were part of the confederacy during the civil war.

LOL! The only problem being that's simply not true, nor can you demonstrate that it is.

And by your 'reasoning', Reagan must have been a racist as well, winning those very same states.

What's the point in being so laughably dishonest?

haymarket · Mar 18, 2019

jdog21 said:
Kennedy may not have been racist but he was only president for 2 years, His successor LBJ was a racist and refused to call African American anything other then N-word. The next dem was Carter, is no coincident that the states he won in the election were all the same racist southern states that were part of the confederacy during the civil war.

Democrats are far more than the President of the time.

What year does your calendar says it is?

roguenuke · Mar 18, 2019

jdog21 said:
What magical moment in history changed the democratic party from its racist past?

There wasn't a "moment". It took 20-30 years of policy shifts and an entire generation who wanted different things that the one before them to change the positions held by either Party.

roguenuke · Mar 18, 2019

jdog21 said:
Kennedy may not have been racist but he was only president for 2 years, His successor LBJ was a racist and refused to call African American anything other then N-word. The next dem was Carter, is no coincident that the states he won in the election were all the same racist southern states that were part of the confederacy during the civil war.

Carter won those states for many reasons, but those were not because he was conservative (although fear of him being a conservative, due to his upbringing did cause him issues with some otherwise liberal states). Everyone hated Ford. The Republicans at that time basically considered him a moderate and wanted someone far more conservative, Reagan. While the opposite happened for Carter, where the Democrats feared he was going to be lean too far right.

1976 United States presidential election - Wikipedia

Notice the makeup of those who voted for Carter vs Ford, their ideology.

Carter also happened to be a Navy Nuclear Officer, under Rickover himself in fact.

jdog21 · Mar 18, 2019

roguenuke said:
Carter won those states for many reasons, but those were not because he was conservative (although fear of him being a conservative, due to his upbringing did cause him issues with some otherwise liberal states). Everyone hated Ford. The Republicans at that time basically considered him a moderate and wanted someone far more conservative, Reagan. While the opposite happened for Carter, where the Democrats feared he was going to be lean too far right.

1976 United States presidential election - Wikipedia

Notice the makeup of those who voted for Carter vs Ford, their ideology.

Carter also happened to be a Navy Nuclear Officer, under Rickover himself in fact.

Arkansas, Tennessee, Georgia are southern states that participated in the civil war for the south, they passed jim crow laws, kkk ran rampit there and they were segregated. Would should be able to agree that they are some of the hot beds for racism in the country and most notably from our countries past. These 3 states didn't all vote for a Republican president until Reagans 2nd term re-election.

roguenuke · Mar 18, 2019

jdog21 said:
Arkansas, Tennessee, Georgia are southern states that participated in the civil war for the south, they passed jim crow laws, kkk ran rampit there and they were segregated. Would should be able to agree that they are some of the hot beds for racism in the country and most notably from our countries past. These 3 states didn't all vote for a Republican president until Reagans 2nd term re-election.

And different people live there, with different ideologies amongst them. The majority of southerners are certainly seen as racist (warranted to a degree due to their past) but during that transition time, many were figuring out what was most important to them, especially since the parties were switching what they supported which left them having to decide for themselves who they really wanted in office.

What do you think a conservative would do if they had to choose between someone who was against open borders (pushing for a wall) but for expanding access to abortion vice someone who was against a wall and only mildly interested in border security at all but who was for restricting abortion? Who would they vote for? Who would the liberal vote for in that situation? Which is the point. People were used to Democrats being a certain way and Republicans holding a different stance, and then there was a period of several moderates (Eisenhower, Ford, and Carter were all moderates) who suddenly have positions that are supported and opposed by both sides, positions and actions that range across the political spectrum. Now people basically start searching for someone to support that is more like them because both parties appear to be not choices they prefer. That is why we see some weird data pop up during that time frame relating to voting patterns that don't particularly mesh with "these places are conservative, and these places are liberal".

Who exactly in those states though was voting for the Dems vice the Republicans during the 70s? Do you know who any of those voters actually voted for? If 10 people voted for the liberal candidate and 9 for the conservative candidate, does that mean that those same people can always be relied upon to vote for the same types of candidates, regardless of what each candidate's position is on various political issues? That is why it can easily be in transition and still end up the way it did, still be the 80s when that transition is obvious, despite starting over a decade prior.

uptower · Mar 18, 2019

holbritter said:
When the difference in meaning can be substantial, yes, I’ll quibble all day. Words matter. Leave that kind of bloated word spin to the media.

Well the difference is not substantial here. There is none at all.

Or maybe...what little there is actually makes what the gunman said worse. Isn't supporting someone is stronger than merely praising them? Doesn't it suggest it requires action whereas praise is merely words?

So the mad gunman supports the ideas espoused by Trump - believes they share a 'common purpose' - and expressed this support in part by going on a killing spree.

So well done, there is a difference after all. The mad gunman did not merely praise Trump as a 'renewed symbol of white identity,' but actually supported him by committing mass murder. It's worse than we thought.

uptower · Mar 18, 2019

jdog21 said:
What magical moment in history changed the democratic party from its racist past?

When it began supporting civil rights and integration. Next.

jdog21 · Mar 18, 2019

uptower said:
When it began supporting civil rights and integration. Next.

Those civil rights act ya they were voted in by Republicans, who ended segregation, oh ya that was republicans too. hmmm

uptower · Mar 18, 2019

jdog21 said:
Those civil rights act ya they were voted in by Republicans, who ended segregation, oh ya that was republicans too. hmmm

Under a Democratic president who led the charge. There is no denying both parties supported the act, except for the Dixiecrat dissenters (who mostly went on to become Republicans.)

You asked when the magical moment was, that was it. The Dems switched to supporting civil rights. Undeniable fact. Otherwise there wouldn't be CRA today. There's no comparison with Republicans built into the question, only the Dems 'before and after'.

Fast forward to the current crop of Republicans doing everything they can to repeal it. Was it Lindsey Graham or Mitch McConnell who suggested the Civil Rights Act was no longer needed?

Because there's a gunman in a holding cell in NZ who'd probably agree with them. And the old pre-civil rights Dixiecrats.

jdog21 · Mar 18, 2019

uptower said:
Under a Democratic president who led the charge. There is no denying both parties supported the act, except for the Dixiecrat dissenters (who mostly went on to become Republicans.)

You asked when the magical moment was, that was it. The Dems switched to supporting civil rights. Undeniable fact. Otherwise there wouldn't be CRA today. There's no comparison with Republicans built into the question, only the Dems 'before and after'.

Fast forward to the current crop of Republicans doing everything they can to repeal it. Was it Lindsey Graham or Mitch McConnell who suggested the Civil Rights Act was no longer needed?

Because there's a gunman in a holding cell in NZ who'd probably agree with them. And the old pre-civil rights Dixiecrats.

But that's only the CRA of 1964, a republican president also did the CRA of 1960 and 1957

uptower · Mar 18, 2019

jdog21 said:
But that's only the CRA of 1964, a republican president also did the CRA of 1960 and 1957

It's not a p***ing contest over who did what first. You asked when the Dems changed, that was when they changed. That's the date right there in bold.

The real problem is there are forces in the modern Republican party and so-called 'conservative movement' who would like to undo Civil rights and voting rights and are looking for ways to circumvent it. In the context of this thread, I'm sure the crazed racist gunman who killed 50 people of color would support them as much as he supports Trump as a 'symbol of renewed white identity and common purpose'. That's a no-brainer given his mindset.