[P]Federal Court may have just handed 2020 over to Trump already with Electoral College decision.

[tstorm823]

Because conservatives want to live under a theocracy, not sharia law, but biblical law. Its why your type tent to be against gay marriage, gay people, interracial marriage, abortion, etc etc.

I've derailed enough threads getting into this nonsense, so I'll keep this brief. Conservatives aren't theocrats, your list of accusations is offensive nonsense, except for being against abortion, which should offend non-Christians because you don't have to be a Christian to recognize a heinous moral failure in society. Being against abortion stopped being a religious question with the advent of medical science.

 

[Worgen]

Because conservatives want to live under a theocracy, not sharia law, but biblical law. Its why your type tent to be against gay marriage, gay people, interracial marriage, abortion, etc etc.

I've derailed enough threads getting into this nonsense, so I'll keep this brief. Conservatives aren't theocrats, your list of accusations is offensive nonsense, except for being against abortion, which should offend non-Christians because you don't have to be a Christian to recognize a heinous moral failure in society. Being against abortion stopped being a religious question with the advent of medical science.

If conservatives didn't want to live under a theocracy then why do they keep pushing for there to be one? You see them push bill under bill to give religious organizations as much power and influence as possible while they push back against anyone that the church is suspicious of or that seeks to limit church power. If you are a republican, you are tied to the church and if you are a conservative in this country, you are almost certainly a republican.

 

[tstorm823]

If conservatives didn't want to live under a theocracy then why do they keep pushing for there to be one? You see them push bill under bill to give religious organizations as much power and influence as possible while they push back against anyone that the church is suspicious of or that seeks to limit church power. If you are a republican, you are tied to the church and if you are a conservative in this country, you are almost certainly a republican.

I'm a Catholic. There are more Catholic Democrats than there are Catholic Republicans. "The church" you are imagining is evangelical Christians, and even then mostly just the most offputting of those. I promise, I have serious disagreements with those types, their offensive treatment of marriage actually being a big one. But those people aren't conservative. The types that want to teach young-earth creationism in schools aren't being conservative, they're being theocrats. Conservatives are big fans of the bill of rights, and the very first thing listed is "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof". You'll find conservatives and religious zealots interests align in defending the "free exercise thereof" part, but anyone attempting to impose Christianity through federal law has left conservatism behind.

 

[Worgen]

If conservatives didn't want to live under a theocracy then why do they keep pushing for there to be one? You see them push bill under bill to give religious organizations as much power and influence as possible while they push back against anyone that the church is suspicious of or that seeks to limit church power. If you are a republican, you are tied to the church and if you are a conservative in this country, you are almost certainly a republican.

I'm a Catholic. There are more Catholic Democrats than there are Catholic Republicans. "The church" you are imagining is evangelical Christians, and even then mostly just the most offputting of those. I promise, I have serious disagreements with those types, their offensive treatment of marriage actually being a big one. But those people aren't conservative. The types that want to teach young-earth creationism in schools aren't being conservative, they're being theocrats. Conservatives are big fans of the bill of rights, and the very first thing listed is "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof". You'll find conservatives and religious zealots interests align in defending the "free exercise thereof" part, but anyone attempting to impose Christianity through federal law has left conservatism behind.

Actually based on presidential voting it looks like most of the catholics vote republican.

But, its no wonder that hispanic Catholics favored democrats. Weirdly enough, if republicans would stop being racist they would never lose since hispanics and african americans tend to be more conservative.

Even if we go by the 2018 midterm its roughly even between both parties for catholics.

I wouldn't even go as far as young earth creationism, I would consider pushing abstinence only education as being too far but we see a lot of republican states try and push that.

 

[tstorm823]

Actually based on presidential voting it looks like most of the catholics vote republican.

Why base on presidential voting, there are stats on this [https://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2016/02/23/u-s-religious-groups-and-their-political-leanings/]. 44% D to 37% R.

But, its no wonder that hispanic Catholics favored democrats. Weirdly enough, if republicans would stop being racist they would never lose since hispanics and african americans tend to be more conservative.

Republicans being the party of racism is a despicable lie Democrats have been telling for the last 50+ years. Unfortunately, a lie can still have consequences. If people like you would stop claiming republicans are racist, we'd have those votes. That's not a coincidence. Democrats call Republicans racist because it takes votes away.

But if you want to watch major party shifts based on a non-lie, get the Democrats to stop endorsing abortion and see how that chart swings. There is a massive chunk of Catholics who would vote blue if it wasn't for abortion.

 

[Worgen]

Actually based on presidential voting it looks like most of the catholics vote republican.

Why base on presidential voting, there are stats on this [https://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2016/02/23/u-s-religious-groups-and-their-political-leanings/]. 44% D to 37% R.

But, its no wonder that hispanic Catholics favored democrats. Weirdly enough, if republicans would stop being racist they would never lose since hispanics and african americans tend to be more conservative.

Republicans being the party of racism is a despicable lie Democrats have been telling for the last 50+ years. Unfortunately, a lie can still have consequences. If people like you would stop claiming republicans are racist, we'd have those votes. That's not a coincidence. Democrats call Republicans racist because it takes votes away.

But if you want to watch major party shifts based on a non-lie, get the Democrats to stop endorsing abortion and see how that chart swings. There is a massive chunk of Catholics who would vote blue if it wasn't for abortion.

I think judging based on voting is better in this case, partially since the poll you linked was taken in early 2016, if those numbers were as valid as you claim then we wouldn't have seen the numbers for the election be so different.

How are republicans not racist? They regularly scapegoat minorities, they tend to favor harsh on crime things which tend to also target minorities (yeah yeah the 3 strike thing, it was dumb), they also tend to target illegals but in such a way as to blur the line between illegal and immigrant, and they love to ***** about social programs which help minorities.

There is a difference between endorsing abortion and being pro-choice. Pretty much everyone is in favor of reducing abortions, but republicans want to just ban it, democrats favor sex education as a means to reduce it.

 

[tstorm823]

I think judging based on voting is better in this case, partially since the poll you linked was taken in early 2016, if those numbers were as valid as you claim then we wouldn't have seen the numbers for the election be so different.

You can't judge people's positions based on 2016. 2016 wasn't about positions.

How are republicans not racist? They regularly scapegoat minorities, they tend to favor harsh on crime things which tend to also target minorities (yeah yeah the 3 strike thing, it was dumb), they also tend to target illegals but in such a way as to blur the line between illegal and immigrant, and they love to ***** about social programs which help minorities.

Republicans aren't blurring those lines. Commentators talking about Republicans are the ones blurring those lines. Look at it this way. If a Republican were the one describing racial disparities in crime and welfare dependence, that would be called racist. If a Republican tries to address these programs without consideration to race, that gets called racist. If a Republican does nothing to acknowledge the problems because any action would be called racist as described above, that would be ignoring minorities, yet again racist. There's very little point at this moment in Republican politicians worrying about Democrats calling them racist, it's entirely unavoidable. As always, all they can do is tune out the peanut gallery and try to do their jobs.

Like, I've got a friend who lived in Baltimore. She posted an article a few months ago about how all the investment into Baltimore is focused on a central corridor, "the white L", and white people are only moving into that space, while the rest of the city, populated by almost all black people, is left to rot. It was an insightful piece about de facto segregation, and it was written from the perspective of a runner who knows where the safe neighborhoods are and where not to go running. And my friend in her repost of it brought up the corruption of the government officials that neglect whole areas of the city. Fast forward a bit and Donald Trump badmouths on Twitter a US Representative responsible for at least some of the area that's been racially segregated and neglected, and she makes another post about how Donald Trump is badmouthing her city because he hates black people. I really don't know what you say when someone's got that little sense of perspective when it comes to politicians they disagree with.

There is a difference between endorsing abortion and being pro-choice. Pretty much everyone is in favor of reducing abortions, but republicans want to just ban it, democrats favor sex education as a means to reduce it.

I think as far as the general populace, you're right. But activists, and consequently Democratic politicians, have absolutely lost that ground. Like, the standard set by Roe v Wade was allowing abortions up until viability. Democratic politicians don't stick to that anymore, they want access for any reason until birth. Any attempts by Republicans to adjust the legal period of voluntary abortion forward because the point of viability advances with medical technology is treated as old white guys who hate women. And then you get weird things like Bernie Sanders saying the US effort against climate change should involve funding more abortions abroad, especially in poor countries [https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2019/09/05/bernie-sanders-abortion-population-control/?noredirect=on]. I'm aware the right-wing media ran away with that one and acting like Bernie wants to enact eugenics is an unfair characterization, but that's not the statement someone trying to reduce abortions makes.

 

[Agema]

Like, I've got a friend who lived in Baltimore. She posted an article a few months ago about how all the investment into Baltimore is focused on a central corridor, "the white L", and white people are only moving into that space, while the rest of the city, populated by almost all black people, is left to rot. It was an insightful piece about de facto segregation, and it was written from the perspective of a runner who knows where the safe neighborhoods are and where not to go running. And my friend in her repost of it brought up the corruption of the government officials that neglect whole areas of the city. Fast forward a bit and Donald Trump badmouths on Twitter a US Representative responsible for at least some of the area that's been racially segregated and neglected, and she makes another post about how Donald Trump is badmouthing her city because he hates black people. I really don't know what you say when someone's got that little sense of perspective when it comes to politicians they disagree with.

Yes, but the congressional representatives for Baltimore are federal representatives, they don't run Baltimore itself; it's absurd to attack someone for happening to represent a low socioeconomic status district at a national level. Your friend is essentially offering an insight into the struggles of the city in the spirit of improvement. Trump is unconstructively insulting the city as a cheap shot to abuse a critic.

Never mind that, but context and tone say a great deal. A person can say two things that have the same factual substance (which isn't even true of Trump versus your friend), but how they express it can have radically different meanings.

 

[tstorm823]

Yes, but the congressional representatives for Baltimore are federal representatives, they don't run Baltimore itself; it's absurd to attack someone for happening to represent a low socioeconomic status district at a national level. Your friend is essentially offering an insight into the struggles of the city in the spirit of improvement. Trump is unconstructively insulting the city as a cheap shot to abuse a critic.

Never mind that, but context and tone say a great deal. A person can say two things that have the same factual substance (which isn't even true of Trump versus your friend), but how they express it can have radically different meanings.

It's not that Trump and the article were the same message, I know Trump was just taking cheap shots at someone he was already in an argument with. It's that one person's reaction to two different things were completely self-contradictory. The article was insight into the struggles of the city in the spirit of improvement. She took it upon herself to blame politicians for letting the city go to hell. Then we Trump says a politician let Baltimore go to hell, she describes that as "Trump spouting racist nonsense." Nothing of what Trump said was inherently racist, so she's interpreting the criticism of the city as racist, criticism she's proven to otherwise praise. But she's a Democrat and Trump said it.

Like, if a Democratic politician made the statement: "Cumming's District is a disgusting, rat and rodent infested mess. If he spent more time in Baltimore, maybe he could help clean up this very dangerous & filthy place. Why is so much money sent to the Elijah Cummings district when it is considered the worst run and most dangerous anywhere in the United States. No human being would want to live there. Where is all this money going? How much is stolen? Investigate this corrupt mess immediately!" My friend would be praising it. Not only would it not be treated as racist (because there wouldn't be an R next to the author's name), it would be treated as fighting racism by attacking the corruption that allows a majority black area to fall apart.

 

[Worgen]

I think judging based on voting is better in this case, partially since the poll you linked was taken in early 2016, if those numbers were as valid as you claim then we wouldn't have seen the numbers for the election be so different.

You can't judge people's positions based on 2016. 2016 wasn't about positions.

How are republicans not racist? They regularly scapegoat minorities, they tend to favor harsh on crime things which tend to also target minorities (yeah yeah the 3 strike thing, it was dumb), they also tend to target illegals but in such a way as to blur the line between illegal and immigrant, and they love to ***** about social programs which help minorities.

Republicans aren't blurring those lines. Commentators talking about Republicans are the ones blurring those lines. Look at it this way. If a Republican were the one describing racial disparities in crime and welfare dependence, that would be called racist. If a Republican tries to address these programs without consideration to race, that gets called racist. If a Republican does nothing to acknowledge the problems because any action would be called racist as described above, that would be ignoring minorities, yet again racist. There's very little point at this moment in Republican politicians worrying about Democrats calling them racist, it's entirely unavoidable. As always, all they can do is tune out the peanut gallery and try to do their jobs.

Like, I've got a friend who lived in Baltimore. She posted an article a few months ago about how all the investment into Baltimore is focused on a central corridor, "the white L", and white people are only moving into that space, while the rest of the city, populated by almost all black people, is left to rot. It was an insightful piece about de facto segregation, and it was written from the perspective of a runner who knows where the safe neighborhoods are and where not to go running. And my friend in her repost of it brought up the corruption of the government officials that neglect whole areas of the city. Fast forward a bit and Donald Trump badmouths on Twitter a US Representative responsible for at least some of the area that's been racially segregated and neglected, and she makes another post about how Donald Trump is badmouthing her city because he hates black people. I really don't know what you say when someone's got that little sense of perspective when it comes to politicians they disagree with.

There is a difference between endorsing abortion and being pro-choice. Pretty much everyone is in favor of reducing abortions, but republicans want to just ban it, democrats favor sex education as a means to reduce it.

I think as far as the general populace, you're right. But activists, and consequently Democratic politicians, have absolutely lost that ground. Like, the standard set by Roe v Wade was allowing abortions up until viability. Democratic politicians don't stick to that anymore, they want access for any reason until birth. Any attempts by Republicans to adjust the legal period of voluntary abortion forward because the point of viability advances with medical technology is treated as old white guys who hate women. And then you get weird things like Bernie Sanders saying the US effort against climate change should involve funding more abortions abroad, especially in poor countries [https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2019/09/05/bernie-sanders-abortion-population-control/?noredirect=on]. I'm aware the right-wing media ran away with that one and acting like Bernie wants to enact eugenics is an unfair characterization, but that's not the statement someone trying to reduce abortions makes.

Sure you can if you also look at the voting trends from the 2018 election and catholics were about 50/50 there. I mean this will probably change again in the 2020 election but we shall see.

As for republican racism towards black people, I'm just going to link an article from politifact that has to do with the southern strategy since everytime I start finding examples for you I get distracted by other things. I'll let ObsidianJones take care of this or come back to it later.
https://www.politifact.com/punditfact/statements/2019/apr/10/candace-owens/candace-owens-pants-fire-statement-southern-strate/

You do realize that late term, meaning 21 weeks from conception are exceedingly rare, like 1.4% rare and are generally only done in the case of anomalies that are incompatible with life. Such as a baby without a brain or with organs outside the body, or in the case where it endangers the life of the mother.
https://www.acog.org/About-ACOG/ACOG-Departments/Government-Relations-and-Outreach/Facts-are-Important-Abortion-Care-Later-in-Pregnancy-is-Important-to-Womens-Health?IsMobileSet=false

 

[CM156_v1legacy]

Oh, its extremely dismissive, but also extremely true. We love to view guns as a sacred rite but also we treat them like toys to dress up and parade around. We want our shooty shooty bang bang time but we don't really care about responsibility.

"We don't really care." Who is this collective "we?" Is it all the United States. Because if so, I would charge that you're making an extreme generalization about hundreds of millions of people.

And what would those ideological levels be?

For the record, those judges are Neil Gorsuch and Brett Kavanaugh.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neil_Gorsuch
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brett_Kavanaugh

And as for your response to Worgen, you advocate for violence against the government? Because I keep hearing that 'all violence is bad' and 'going against the government is bad'.

Yes I am happy with Gorsuch and Kavanaugh. As for violence against the government: It is unnecessary, unless the government attempts to infringe upon rights. If it does, I cannot commit to how I will answer that question in a hypothetical future. Whether or not violence is good or not, or justified or not, well, that can be a question for historians.

 

[tstorm823]

Sure you can if you also look at the voting trends from the 2018 election and catholics were about 50/50 there. I mean this will probably change again in the 2020 election but we shall see.

I said something factually true. I don't know why you're disagreeing with it. More Catholics are Democrats. It's a factual statement with piles of evidence, and by picking an outlier from the data to try and prove me wrong, you're doing exactly the same dishonest nonsense that Snopes did by picking one day that Fox News was disproportionately popular. Stop doing that.

As for republican racism towards black people, I'm just going to link an article from politifact that has to do with the southern strategy since everytime I start finding examples for you I get distracted by other things. I'll let ObsidianJones take care of this or come back to it later.
https://www.politifact.com/punditfact/statements/2019/apr/10/candace-owens/candace-owens-pants-fire-statement-southern-strate/

The southern strategy is a myth that never happened. To be specific, Republicans never courted the south with racism. There was never racism or segregation in the Republican platform. Republican politics didn't change in the 60s. Republicans aren't racists now. It's all a lie. I've done this rant on this website like a dozen times, and that politifact article is utterly historically ignorant, to the point of not even being able to do basic math. You don't have to read the entire interview with Lee Atwater and understand his overall point was that racism was political poison, even in the south, to recognize that the a man born in 1951 is not a good primary source for understanding 1960s presidential campaigns.

You do realize that late term, meaning 21 weeks from conception are exceedingly rare, like 1.4% rare and are generally only done in the case of anomalies that are incompatible with life. Such as a baby without a brain or with organs outside the body, or in the case where it endangers the life of the mother.
https://www.acog.org/About-ACOG/ACOG-Departments/Government-Relations-and-Outreach/Facts-are-Important-Abortion-Care-Later-in-Pregnancy-is-Important-to-Womens-Health?IsMobileSet=false

Pointing out rarity among abortions is a bad argument, there being millions of not late-term abortions doesn't make much difference to the significance of the thousands of late-term abortions. But that's beside the point, exemptions for fetuses that are effectively dead before birth or who seriously risk the life of the mother are pretty much universal. That's not what Democrats are supporting, they're not allowing abortions for the sake of exceptions, they consider the free choice to abort a inalienable right. You're bringing up exceptions that most Republicans unhesitatingly agree to, and missing that on the Democratic side, there's no reason to even consider those things as exceptions.

 

[Worgen]

Oh, its extremely dismissive, but also extremely true. We love to view guns as a sacred rite but also we treat them like toys to dress up and parade around. We want our shooty shooty bang bang time but we don't really care about responsibility.

"We don't really care." Who is this collective "we?" Is it all the United States. Because if so, I would charge that you're making an extreme generalization about hundreds of millions of people.

And what would those ideological levels be?

For the record, those judges are Neil Gorsuch and Brett Kavanaugh.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neil_Gorsuch
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brett_Kavanaugh

And as for your response to Worgen, you advocate for violence against the government? Because I keep hearing that 'all violence is bad' and 'going against the government is bad'.

Yes I am happy with Gorsuch and Kavanaugh. As for violence against the government: It is unnecessary, unless the government attempts to infringe upon rights. If it does, I cannot commit to how I will answer that question in a hypothetical future. Whether or not violence is good or not, or justified or not, well, that can be a question for historians.

Oh yes, I am making an extreme generalization and it stands. Because in this exact post you have threatened violence against the government if they DARE to touch your shooty shooty bang bang toys. You are already treating the weight of a firearm as something to be waggled around at someone who dares to do something you might not like. If you actually felt the weight of a weapon then you would be in favor of some regulations, such as decent background checks and weapons training for a purchased game. but instead you say you will rise up and kill for your right to have a toy. And considering how few federal regulations we have for guns and how powerful the nra is, a lot of people agree. So I will generalize.

 

[Worgen]

Sure you can if you also look at the voting trends from the 2018 election and catholics were about 50/50 there. I mean this will probably change again in the 2020 election but we shall see.

I said something factually true. I don't know why you're disagreeing with it. More Catholics are Democrats. It's a factual statement with piles of evidence, and by picking an outlier from the data to try and prove me wrong, you're doing exactly the same dishonest nonsense that Snopes did by picking one day that Fox News was disproportionately popular. Stop doing that.

As for republican racism towards black people, I'm just going to link an article from politifact that has to do with the southern strategy since everytime I start finding examples for you I get distracted by other things. I'll let ObsidianJones take care of this or come back to it later.
https://www.politifact.com/punditfact/statements/2019/apr/10/candace-owens/candace-owens-pants-fire-statement-southern-strate/

The southern strategy is a myth that never happened. To be specific, Republicans never courted the south with racism. There was never racism or segregation in the Republican platform. Republican politics didn't change in the 60s. Republicans aren't racists now. It's all a lie. I've done this rant on this website like a dozen times, and that politifact article is utterly historically ignorant, to the point of not even being able to do basic math. You don't have to read the entire interview with Lee Atwater and understand his overall point was that racism was political poison, even in the south, to recognize that the a man born in 1951 is not a good primary source for understanding 1960s presidential campaigns.

You do realize that late term, meaning 21 weeks from conception are exceedingly rare, like 1.4% rare and are generally only done in the case of anomalies that are incompatible with life. Such as a baby without a brain or with organs outside the body, or in the case where it endangers the life of the mother.
https://www.acog.org/About-ACOG/ACOG-Departments/Government-Relations-and-Outreach/Facts-are-Important-Abortion-Care-Later-in-Pregnancy-is-Important-to-Womens-Health?IsMobileSet=false

Pointing out rarity among abortions is a bad argument, there being millions of not late-term abortions doesn't make much difference to the significance of the thousands of late-term abortions. But that's beside the point, exemptions for fetuses that are effectively dead before birth or who seriously risk the life of the mother are pretty much universal. That's not what Democrats are supporting, they're not allowing abortions for the sake of exceptions, they consider the free choice to abort a inalienable right. You're bringing up exceptions that most Republicans unhesitatingly agree to, and missing that on the Democratic side, there's no reason to even consider those things as exceptions.

No, you said something you think is true, but poll numbers mean more than even what they profess to be since voting is action. Because also that poll you linked is from febuary of 2016. Maybe their views changed since more of them voted for trump then didn't and they were split in the 2018 mid terms.

Ok, you're just delusional about this and I don't know how to argue against conspiracy theorists. If someone else does then they can have a go.

Then point to examples, because right now you seem like your just full of it. I know that your leader trump says "The baby is born.
The mother meets with the doctor. They take care of the baby, they wrap the baby beautifully. And then the doctor and the mother determine whether or not they will execute the baby."
But hes a well known liar and full of shit.

 

[Saelune]

Oh, its extremely dismissive, but also extremely true. We love to view guns as a sacred rite but also we treat them like toys to dress up and parade around. We want our shooty shooty bang bang time but we don't really care about responsibility.

"We don't really care." Who is this collective "we?" Is it all the United States. Because if so, I would charge that you're making an extreme generalization about hundreds of millions of people.

And what would those ideological levels be?

For the record, those judges are Neil Gorsuch and Brett Kavanaugh.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neil_Gorsuch
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brett_Kavanaugh

And as for your response to Worgen, you advocate for violence against the government? Because I keep hearing that 'all violence is bad' and 'going against the government is bad'.

Yes I am happy with Gorsuch and Kavanaugh. As for violence against the government: It is unnecessary, unless the government attempts to infringe upon rights. If it does, I cannot commit to how I will answer that question in a hypothetical future. Whether or not violence is good or not, or justified or not, well, that can be a question for historians.

The Government constantly infringes upon rights, including creating literal concentration camps where they torture and kill people, including children.

Gorsuch and Kavanaugh are terrible people.

 

[Seanchaidh]

The southern strategy is a myth that never happened.

Voting Rights Act passes and Democrats get a bunch of new (black) voters, especially in the south. Southern states flip from Democrat to solid Republican in Presidential elections. Weird!

Whether or not you want to admit that the Southern Strategy was consciously employed by the Republican Party, Johnson signing the Civil Rights Act caused a political realignment that put the more overt racists in the Republican basket.

The way that you are correct is that the Republican Party is not "the" party of racism because the Democratic Party stepped up their racism in response with the Third Way/DLC triangulation strategy. For example, Joe Biden's crime bill(s).

Hiding it behind coded language like 'tough on crime' may be enough to fool people who want to be fooled, though.

 

[tstorm823]

No, you said something you think is true, but poll numbers mean more than even what they profess to be since voting is action. Because also that poll you linked is from febuary of 2016. Maybe their views changed since more of them voted for trump then didn't and they were split in the 2018 mid terms.

Here's Pew in 2019 [https://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2019/01/24/like-americans-overall-u-s-catholics-are-sharply-divided-by-party/]. I'm still right. You're just denying data for no reason other than to pretend I'm wrong. You're only going to hurt yourself but putting yourself against me on purpose. If you can't agree with an opponent on things that are true, don't touch politics, you'll hurt yourself.

Ok, you're just delusional about this and I don't know how to argue against conspiracy theorists. If someone else does then they can have a go.

You don't know how to argue against me because you don't know history. The Republican Party didn't suddenly get more racist in the 60's. Barry Goldwater condemned the KKK and repudiated their support [https://www.nytimes.com/1964/08/07/archives/goldwater-bars-klan-aid-confers-with-eisenhower.html], that didn't stop Lyndon Johnson from running ads pointing out the KKK supported Goldwater [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4hcpedQmOyo&bpctr=1568080857]. Racism was political poison even before the "southern strategy" supposedly was employed, and that's exactly why the Democrats accuse Republicans of racism.

Then point to examples, because right now you seem like your just full of it. I know that your leader trump says "The baby is born.
The mother meets with the doctor. They take care of the baby, they wrap the baby beautifully. And then the doctor and the mother determine whether or not they will execute the baby."
But hes a well known liar and full of shit.

Trump was referring to this comment [https://youtu.be/E6WD_3H0wKU?t=2404], though I suspect you already know that. That man isn't talking about abortion, but he's covering for it. If a pregnancy ends in labor, it's not an abortion. I know the man was talking about tragedies, like a baby born that will never be able to survive outside of intensive care and then they have to make the hard decision to pull that plug. But whats terrifying is that was his response to a bill that would allow abortions at any time if a physician agreed that the continuation of the pregnancy would impair the physical or mental health of the woman [https://www.msn.com/en-us/video/news/kathy-tran-presents-virginia-third-trimester-abortion-bill-in-committee/vi-BBT2odv]. I'm fairly confident that labor impairs someone's physical and mental health, and that bill had no requirement that it be an exceptional circumstance. He went on about the tragic circumstance of a born child that wouldn't survive to offer cover to legislation that would de facto permit abortion at any time for any reason a doctor agrees to. That he brings up pulling the plug on newborns in a question about abortions is his own stupid fault.

And then legislation gets proposed that would make abortion providers care for any fetus that survives the attempted abortion, a standard interestingly included in the controversial first bills rules on late-term abortions [https://www.billtrack50.com/BillDetail/1006819], and Democrats voted against it!

 

[Worgen]

No, you said something you think is true, but poll numbers mean more than even what they profess to be since voting is action. Because also that poll you linked is from febuary of 2016. Maybe their views changed since more of them voted for trump then didn't and they were split in the 2018 mid terms.

Here's Pew in 2019 [https://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2019/01/24/like-americans-overall-u-s-catholics-are-sharply-divided-by-party/]. I'm still right. You're just denying data for no reason other than to pretend I'm wrong. You're only going to hurt yourself but putting yourself against me on purpose. If you can't agree with an opponent on things that are true, don't touch politics, you'll hurt yourself.

Ok, you're just delusional about this and I don't know how to argue against conspiracy theorists. If someone else does then they can have a go.

You don't know how to argue against me because you don't know history. The Republican Party didn't suddenly get more racist in the 60's. Barry Goldwater condemned the KKK and repudiated their support [https://www.nytimes.com/1964/08/07/archives/goldwater-bars-klan-aid-confers-with-eisenhower.html], that didn't stop Lyndon Johnson from running ads pointing out the KKK supported Goldwater [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4hcpedQmOyo&bpctr=1568080857]. Racism was political poison even before the "southern strategy" supposedly was employed, and that's exactly why the Democrats accuse Republicans of racism.

Then point to examples, because right now you seem like your just full of it. I know that your leader trump says "The baby is born.
The mother meets with the doctor. They take care of the baby, they wrap the baby beautifully. And then the doctor and the mother determine whether or not they will execute the baby."
But hes a well known liar and full of shit.

Trump was referring to this comment [https://youtu.be/E6WD_3H0wKU?t=2404], though I suspect you already know that. That man isn't talking about abortion, but he's covering for it. If a pregnancy ends in labor, it's not an abortion. I know the man was talking about tragedies, like a baby born that will never be able to survive outside of intensive care and then they have to make the hard decision to pull that plug. But whats terrifying is that was his response to a bill that would allow abortions at any time if a physician agreed that the continuation of the pregnancy would impair the physical or mental health of the woman [https://www.msn.com/en-us/video/news/kathy-tran-presents-virginia-third-trimester-abortion-bill-in-committee/vi-BBT2odv]. I'm fairly confident that labor impairs someone's physical and mental health, and that bill had no requirement that it be an exceptional circumstance. He went on about the tragic circumstance of a born child that wouldn't survive to offer cover to legislation that would de facto permit abortion at any time for any reason a doctor agrees to. That he brings up pulling the plug on newborns in a question about abortions is his own stupid fault.

And then legislation gets proposed that would make abortion providers care for any fetus that survives the attempted abortion, a standard interestingly included in the controversial first bills rules on late-term abortions [https://www.billtrack50.com/BillDetail/1006819], and Democrats voted against it!

Did... did you just not read your link at all? It says what I've been saying. "Today, Catholics are evenly split between the two major parties and are sharply polarized, much like the broader U.S. public."

"Roughly equal shares of Catholic registered voters have identified with or leaned toward the Democratic and Republican parties in recent years (47% vs. 46%, respectively). And according to exit polls, nearly identical shares of Catholics voted for Democrats (50%) and Republicans (49%) in 2018 elections for the U.S. House of Representatives. White Catholics are more likely to vote Republican, while Hispanic Catholics overwhelmingly back Democrats. (Most American Catholics are either white or Hispanic. Black and Asian Americans each make up roughly 3% of the U.S. Catholic population, according to the Pew Research Center?s 2014 Religious Landscape Study.) Collectively, however, Catholics essentially balance themselves out at the polls on the national level."

That is what I've been saying, catholics are pretty much split.

Just because racism was bad optics doesn't mean the republicans weren't down with courting them, our longest filibusterer was to prevent civil rights under the guise of states rights, and yes it was dont by strom thurmond back when he was a democrat before he switched to being a republican in 1964. He also opposed the civil rights legisation of 1964 and the voting rights act of 1965 which prohibits racial discrimination in voting.

Yeaaaah, I've heard that before and its still bullshit, kinda like all those arrests for missgendering people that your side was crying about with bill c16 or something. I'm still waiting for the anti-sjw gulags to show up. You do realize that babies don't survive an abortion, thats something that happens in this country. Plus there are laws that say if a baby takes its first breath then killing it is murder, so your already covered there.

 

[tstorm823]

Voting Rights Act passes and Democrats get a bunch of new (black) voters, especially in the south. Southern states flip from Democrat to solid Republican in Presidential elections. Weird!

Whether or not you want to admit that the Southern Strategy was consciously employed by the Republican Party, Johnson signing the Civil Rights Act caused a political realignment that put the more overt racists in the Republican basket.

The Voting Rights Act passing is a good thing, in case you're questioning that. Republicans, between the house and senate, were in favor of it 142-26. Remember, this is one year after LBJ ran ads saying the KKK supported the Republican candidate, and you certainly can't call Republicans segregationists while voting overwhelming for all of the major civil rights legislation.

Johnson signing the Civil Rights Act did cause a political realignment that put some more overt racists in the Republican basket, I agree. Johnson pretending Republicans were the racists all along probably sent a few more in the Republican direction as well. But Johnson signing the Civil Rights Act wasn't a Republican electoral strategy. The Republican Strategy that took the south was the same positions as the first half of the 20th century: business, economy, and a fiscally efficient government. Those are things the voters in the south would get behind, the only thing stopping them from voting for Republicans was that many Democrats in the South were single-issue voters so long as segregation was on the ballot. The Republicans didn't run on racism, there was never any benefit to running on racism, because getting racism out of politics would capture all those voters anyway.

Pulling back up that politifact article so nobody needs to scroll up [https://www.politifact.com/punditfact/statements/2019/apr/10/candace-owens/candace-owens-pants-fire-statement-southern-strate/], they quote a couple "Republican strategists". The first is Kevin Philips, who they have this to say about:

Phillips told the New York Times in 1970 that the Republicans were never going to get more than 10 to 20 percent of the "Negro vote and they don't need any more than that."

"The more Negroes who register as Democrats in the South, the sooner the Negrophobe whites will quit the Democrats and become Republicans," he wrote. "That's where the votes are. Without that prodding from the blacks, the whites will backslide into their old comfortable arrangement with the local Democrats."

Now let's look at the unabridged quote [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kevin_Phillips_(political_commentator)]:

All the talk about Republicans making inroads into the Negro vote is persiflage. Even 'Jake the Snake' [Senator Jacob Javits of New York] only gets 20 percent. From now on, Republicans are never going to get more than 10 to 20 percent of the Negro vote, and they don't need any more than that... but Republicans would be shortsighted if they weakened the Voting Rights Act. The more Negroes who register as Democrats in the South, the sooner the Negrophobe whites will quit the Democrats and become Republicans. That's where the votes are. Without that prodding from the blacks, the whites will backslide into their old comfortable arrangement with the local Democrats.[1]

Do you see that sneaky part where PolitiFact cuts out that Phillips' strategy is supporting the Voting Rights Act. This is a person described as an architect of the Southern Strategy, describing exactly the phenomenon of black America voting blue and racists moving red, and even in that context says [paraphrase] "no, it'd be really stupid to move against Civil Rights to court these people, if racism and segregation are allowed to stand, they'll just go back to the Democrats for that."

It's not that the South didn't switch parties over time, I'd be delusional to suggest that. Nor is it that Republicans didn't want the votes from the south, politicians want all of the votes. The part of the Southern Strategy that makes the whole thing a lie is the suggestion that appealing to racism was a Republican strategy. To quote wikipedia [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Southern_strategy]: "In American politics, the Southern strategy was a Republican Party electoral strategy to increase political support among white voters in the South by appealing to racism against African Americans." That's the lie. Republicans never strategically appealed to racism. Republicans gained in the south only as the Jim Crow era was left behind.

 

[tstorm823]

That is what I've been saying, catholics are pretty much split.

No, that's not what you've been saying, that's what you backslid to when "most of the Catholics vote Republican" didn't hold up through any amount of scrutiny. If you can't acknowledge when I'm right and you know it, you are being wrong on purpose. You'll only hurt yourself that way.

Yeaaaah, I've heard that before and its still bullshit, kinda like all those arrests for missgendering people that your side was crying about with bill c16 or something. I'm still waiting for the anti-sjw gulags to show up. You do realize that babies don't survive an abortion, thats something that happens in this country. Plus there are laws that say if a baby takes its first breath then killing it is murder, so your already covered there.

Here again, you're ignoring facts because all you care about is feeling superior to people who disagree with you. You have nothing to come back at me with, so you're trying to deflect to whatever nonsense you think makes Republicans look bad. That's not an argument, and it isn't good for you.