re: OT: Just a reminder to vote in the most important midterms since who knows when

quote:

---

The Democratic Party’s claim to be the party of the good guys, while the Republicans are the party of the bad guys, hinges on the tale of Richard Nixon’s so-called Southern Strategy. According to this narrative, advanced by progressive historians, Nixon orchestrated a party switch on civil rights by converting the racists in the Democratic Party—the infamous Dixiecrats—into Republicans. And now, according to a recent article in The New Republic, President Trump is the “true heir, the beneficiary of the policies the party has pursued for more than half a century.” Yes, this story is in the textbooks and on the history channel and regularly repeated in the media, but is it true? First, no one has ever given a single example of an explicitly racist pitch by Nixon during his long career. One might expect that a racist appeal to the Deep South actually would have to be made, and to be understood as such. Yet, quite evidently none was. So progressives insist that Nixon made a racist “dog whistle” appeal to Deep South voters. Evidently he spoke to them in a kind of code. Really? Is it plausible that Nixon figured out how to communicate with Deep South racists in a secret language? Do Deep South bigots, like dogs, have some kind of heightened awareness of racial messages—messages that are somehow indecipherable to the media and the rest of the country? This seems unlikely, but let’s consider the possibility. Progressives insist that Nixon’s appeals to drugs and law and order were coded racist messaging. Yet when Nixon ran for president in 1968 the main issue was the Vietnam War. One popular Republican slogan of the period described the Democrats as the party of “acid, amnesty, and abortion.” Clearly there is no suggestion here of race. Nixon’s references to drugs and law and order in 1968 were quite obviously directed at the antiwar protesters who had just disrupted the Democratic Convention in Chicago. His target was radical activists such as Abbie Hoffman and Bill Ayers. Nixon scorned the hippies, champions of the drug culture such as Timothy Leary, and draft-dodgers who fled to Canada. The vast majority of these people were white. Nixon had an excellent record on civil rights. He supported the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and the Voting Rights Act of 1965. He was an avid champion of the desegregation of public schools. The progressive columnist Tom Wicker wrote in the New York Times, “There’s no doubt about it—the Nixon administration accomplished more in 1970 to desegregate Southern school systems than had been done in the 16 previous years or probably since. There’s no doubt either that it was Richard Nixon personally who conceived and led the administration’s desegregation effort.” Upon his taking office in 1969, Nixon also put into effect America’s first affirmative action program. Dubbed the Philadelphia Plan, it imposed racial goals and timetables on the building trade unions, first in Philadelphia and then elsewhere. Now, would a man seeking to build an electoral base of Deep South white supremacists actually promote the first program to legally discriminate in favor of blacks? This is absurd. Nixon barely campaigned in the Deep South. His strategy, as outlined by Kevin Phillips in his classic work, The Emerging Republican Majority, was to target the Sunbelt, the vast swath of territory stretching from Florida to Nixon’s native California. This included what Phillips terms the Outer or Peripheral South. Nixon recognized the South was changing. It was becoming more industrialized, with many northerners moving to the Sunbelt. Nixon’s focus, Phillips writes, was on the non-racist, upwardly-mobile, largely urban voters of the Outer or Peripheral South. Nixon won these voters, and he lost the Deep South, which went to Democratic segregationist George Wallace. And how many racist Dixiecrats did Nixon win for the GOP? Turns out, virtually none. Among the racist Dixiecrats, Strom Thurmond of South Carolina was the sole senator to defect to the Republicans—and he did this long before Nixon’s time. Only one Dixiecrat congressman, Albert Watson of South Carolina, switched to the GOP. The rest, more than 200 Dixiecrat senators, congressmen, governors and high elected officials, all stayed in the Democratic Party. The progressive notion of a Dixiecrat switch is a myth. Yet it is myth that continues to be promoted, using dubious case examples. Though the late Sens. Jesse Helms of North Carolina and John Tower of Texas and former Mississippi Sen. Trent Lott all switched from the Democratic Party to the GOP, none of these men was a Dixiecrat. The South, as a whole, became Republican during the 1980s and 1990s. This had nothing to do with Nixon; it was because of Ronald Reagan and former House Speaker Newt Gingrich’s Contract with America. The conservative appeal to patriotism, anti-communism, free markets, pro-life and Christianity had far more to do with the South’s movement into the GOP camp than anything related to race. Yet the myth of Nixon’s Southern Strategy endures—not because it’s true, but because it conveniently serves to exculpate the crimes of the Democratic Party. Somehow the party that promoted slavery, segregation, Jim Crow and racial terrorism gets to wipe its slate clean by pretending that, with Nixon’s connivance, the Republicans stole all their racists. It’s time we recognize this excuse for what it is: one more Democratic big lie.

---

LINK

quote:

---

Please find the section of the ruling that states "if someone disagrees with someone else's politics, the offending party does not deserve the right to vote". I'll hang up and listen.

---

It's not as simple as saying that someone of an opposing view's vote can be thrown out on principle. That argument is just punting to reductio ad absurdum.

The Constitution tasks the state legislatures to assign electors to the EC. It does not dictate how that assignment is determined. The GA General Assembly is well within its constitutional rights to vote among themselves to appoint Electors without holding a popular vote for President. We don't, of course, but the crux of Bush v. Gore in 2000 reaffirmed that there is no Constitutional "right to vote" in presidential elections.

You can gin up all the snark you'd like about how that's not the case, but it doesn't change the fact that it's settled law.

Anyone who listened to Neal Boortz during that time and the many years after is well-acquainted with this fact.

quote:

---

The flag thing is a no go for me. Sorry.

---

No need to apologize at all. I respect everyone's opinion. I don't anticipate that anyone is going to change their views based on my comments on an internet board, nor should they.

quote:

---

What is funny is the so called educated members of the oppsotion fail to realize that just about every flag we have had since the War of Northern Aggression has been in some way replicative of some type of flag associated with the Confederacy, even now.

---

Personally, I've never been big on flag "meanings", but I also recognize that I've not felt directly insulted by what a flag might stand for. To be fair to those who are opposed to the stars/bars, it's not so much the flag, but *why* that flag has such rampant prevalence... It doesn't mean that everyone who likes the flag or flies it *IS* racist, but racist people have certainly flocked to it and elected it as a symbol of their cause. On the other hand, it is just a symbol and to your point, the alternatives aren't any less tied to our past as a state. Whitewashing over it doesn't change that past.

quote:

---

You asked for things that I didn't agree with Abrams about and I listed them.

---

Not to be a dick, but technically I asked for what people like about Kemp. You weren't originally responding to me, nor are you required to answer my questions, was just funny. I explicitly was trying to get reasons for Kemp, not vice versa.

quote:

---

I don't think she would make a good Governor. I think she would simply try to do in this state what Obama did to the country for eight years...and that is to try and change the fundamental culture of our state through executive actions and reversal of years and years of SOP.

---

SOP? Not following that one. Maybe a brain fart or advanced age though...

I appreciate that there are a lot of people who think that Obama more or less shite on the country for 8 years... I don't agree entirely, but can understand that if you do, Abrams is not the candidate for you.

quote:

---

I don't want that. I would rather have a good ole boy UGA grad that puts on display his chainsaws, trucks and guns....because guess what? I RELATE TO THAT...not some democrat woman from Atlanta who has Obamas blessing.

It is what it is.

---

And that's entirely fair. My personal belief has always been "vote the way you feel"... it's supposed to be representative government and if that's what you feel you need to "represent" you, you're right to do so. For me, I'm a plan guy... if you can't outlay an actual plan, I'm pretty confident that you don't know how to get where you're going. You can wing dinner plans, or even a summer vacation. You really can't wing economic policy. Every decision has cascading reactions... As of today, I'm not convinced that Kemp has any concept of cause/effect. I may not agree with all of Abrams positions, but I believe she understands the downstream impacts of her decisions. So that's the bind I find myself in. To me, the vote is more about what do I believe will allow the state to continue to grow economically... ideally outside of the Metro Atlanta area. It would be nice to see growth in other areas. I'm not sure Abrams can do it, but am less confident in Kemp... so turd sandwich it shall be... just gotta figure out which one is worse.

quote:

---

Obama had the lowest interest rates in US history and still had the slowest recovery in US history while creating more debt than every President before him. This shows that his policies actually hurt the recovery, which would have happened faster if he did nothing. Interest rates for Trump were increased more in his first year than Obama's 8 and he is beating Obama's economic numbers easily.

---

Try to keep up... Every president since Carter has spent more than the president before him. If this is one of your measures for success, then Trump is no better.

In fact, if we average out the raw debt increases by Obama during his 8 years including this incredible amount of money he "overspent" to help us bounce back from a recession, we get: $1.074 trillion added annually

In Trump's current 4 year projected budget, we get: $1.194 trillion added annually

So... in a generally positive economy, we should give a president credit for creating 11.2% MORE debt annually than a president who you believe to have been a gross overspender? I'm fine with handing him credit, but help me square these two things. If Obama deserves criticism for increasing the debt because it was so astronomical, why does Trump get a pass when objectively we shouldn't have needed to spend anywhere near that much due to general economic conditions?

What "economic numbers" are you citing here that he's beating specifically? GDP growth? Something else? I'm not disagreeing even, you just have to isolate what it is that you are stating is categorically better to have a reasonable conversation about it.

quote:

---

Paris agreement was unenforceable promises in exchange for US money. US has improved it's environmental numbers while all those other countries have worsened since it was rejected.

---

At least in part, I agree, it needs continued work...

Our 3B pledged made no sense without seeing funds from other sizable "developed nations" added as well. With that said, we have only contributed 1B of that money and it was an "if funds are available" commitment, which is more or less like an IOU that you may or may not pay. Our funding was no more enforceable than any other aspect of the agreement. IE... if it's not "fair" to us, we don't have to keep funding it...

Additionally, here is what reputable individuals had to say about the deal altogether:

quote:

---

Geoffrey Heal, a resource and environmental economist at Columbia University, told us the cost of doing nothing would be “very expensive.”

“The Paris agreement will cost little or nothing and allowing climate change to proceed would be very expensive indeed,” Heal said, adding that “staying in Paris does not fully prevent climate change but it’s a good start.”

---

quote:

---

Manufacturing jobs are higher than any point during Obama's presidency.

---

Technically, this would seem to be counter to what the BLS gives us... the Manufacturing job die off was seemingly a laggard to the economic crash, so when Obama took office, the total was higher than currently... not to say he should get credit for it, but you may want to reframe your argument.

Additionally, you have a 2 year sample size for Trump while inheriting a generally "good" economic situation. You have an 8 year sample size for Obama while inheriting an awful economic situation... through no fault of their own, you play the hand you've been dealt.

Trumps 1.8 years he's had ~189k and 169k(through sept18) in manufacturing job growth thus far. Obama's best two years were 209k and 181k... I would be surprised for Trump to not outperform Obama on manufacturing job growth over his full term, but there is a bit of sample size bias... Obama if you accept that the bottom was happening regardless did at least show consistent positive growth on that front. Whether it could have been faster, or better, that's subjective. But mathematically, he grew manufacturing jobs at a reasonably similar rate once the economic tides were turned.

The other thing to keep in mind is that around election cycles, these things tend to flatten due to uncertainty...

quote:

---

Obama did indeed turn the falling Stock market around, but how? Investors hated the policies he made to make it undesirable to invest anywhere else but the stock market. He basically forced investment money into the stock market which helped keep it afloat. But without the choices of previous years it became all eggs in one basket strategy. So when the policies change under a new administration the previous one can not claim continuing credit for the positive results.if that were true then the original stock market admin. and no other, is to be credited for all subsequent positive numbers. Balderdash.

---

Subjective gibberish... does not really necessitate discussion. If you don't ascribe to the concept of economic momentum, I don't know what to tell you...

The point is that the American system of government was actually crystal-fricking-clear on who does and does not get to vote, and it wasn't "every citizen". Thus, by definition, the current system isn't "American".

quote:

---

almost all of which constructed state constitutions and voting laws that only allowed white men who owned land to vote.

---

Oh noes! TEH EVUL WHITE MEN! Quick, to the fainting couch!

quote:

---

The Constitution has amendments for a reason

---

Many of which have contributed in no small part to the current state of cluster-frickedness.

Income Tax
Direct Election of Senators

Those were horrid ideas in and of themselves, as was Prohibition, but at least that one eventually got fixed.

The post-Civil War Amendments have all had some pretty nasty unintended (or intended, depending on how much or little you like the government) consequences that are still plaguing us, since they served as the springboard for all sorts of judicial activism and intervention in state/individual matters.

All expansions of the franchise have resulted in increased socialism - which is fine if you like that sort of thing, I guess (having lived in the Soviet Union for a time, I'm not a fan) - so those all have to be considered a very mixed bag, at best.

you're an idiot

quote:

---

Republicounts gonna see a blue wave soon bitch.

---

The only blue waves you’ll be seeing anytime soon are the waves of the Atlantic caressing the shoreline of Tybee Island.