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

[Seanchaidh]

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

Their presidential candidate against Johnson in 1964 voted against the Civil Rights Act of 1964.

 

[CM156_v1legacy]

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.

You'll note my statement did not threaten violence against the government. I said, and I quote " If it does, I cannot commit to how I will answer that question in a hypothetical future."

It is because I value my rights so strongly, and treat the object of that right with such gravitas, that I am willing to go to such hypothetical lengths. Hypothetically. Depending on government action.

Thankfully, this will likely never have to come to pass. Because I highly doubt the government would be willing/able to go that far.

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

So the government that creates concentration camps is the government I should trust enough to comply with any and all weapons control laws. Gotcha. I'm gonna give that a hard pass if it's all the same to you. And even if it's not all the same to you.

Gorsuch and Kavanaugh are terrible people.

Strong disagree. I'm very pleased with their rulings so far. I look forward to them sitting on the court for decades and decades to come.

 

[Worgen]

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.

That is so what I said. I said "Actually based on presidential voting it looks like most of the catholics vote republican." then I clarified by saying "Even if we go by the 2018 midterm its roughly even between both parties for catholics." which is what it shows here. Plus your initial poll link was from febuary of 2016 which means that if it was still true by the end of the year then they should have mostly voted for clinton, not trump. So your just wrong on all counts.

Because you're full of it. You are making these wild claims and spreading misinformation without anything to back yourself up.

 

[Worgen]

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.

You'll note my statement did not threaten violence against the government. I said, and I quote " If it does, I cannot commit to how I will answer that question in a hypothetical future."

It is because I value my rights so strongly, and treat the object of that right with such gravitas, that I am willing to go to such hypothetical lengths. Hypothetically. Depending on government action.

Thankfully, this will likely never have to come to pass. Because I highly doubt the government would be willing/able to go that far.

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

So the government that creates concentration camps is the government I should trust enough to comply with any and all weapons control laws. Gotcha. I'm gonna give that a hard pass if it's all the same to you. And even if it's not all the same to you.

Gorsuch and Kavanaugh are terrible people.

Strong disagree. I'm very pleased with their rulings so far. I look forward to them sitting on the court for decades and decades to come.

Yeah, you kinda did, just with a wink and a nod. The only right you seem to value is your gun rights, you are perfectly fine voting for someone who will deprive people of their other rights as long as they say they won't touch your stupid toys. So you've already shown that you are willing to give up your freedom of speech for a toy that won't save you if it comes down to it. You know it isn't true that a dictator will take away the guns first, first they always go for the intellectuals and thinkers.

 

[Saelune]

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.

You'll note my statement did not threaten violence against the government. I said, and I quote " If it does, I cannot commit to how I will answer that question in a hypothetical future."

It is because I value my rights so strongly, and treat the object of that right with such gravitas, that I am willing to go to such hypothetical lengths. Hypothetically. Depending on government action.

Thankfully, this will likely never have to come to pass. Because I highly doubt the government would be willing/able to go that far.

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

So the government that creates concentration camps is the government I should trust enough to comply with any and all weapons control laws. Gotcha. I'm gonna give that a hard pass if it's all the same to you. And even if it's not all the same to you.

Gorsuch and Kavanaugh are terrible people.

Strong disagree. I'm very pleased with their rulings so far. I look forward to them sitting on the court for decades and decades to come.

So you agree that Trump's government is running concentration camps? You continue to support Trump, so what is the issue?

Ofcourse you like them. That is part of my point, to make it clear that you like them.

 

[CM156_v1legacy]

So you agree that Trump's government is running concentration camps? You continue to support Trump, so what is the issue?

I admit to nothing. Only that under your premise, if I were to accept it as true, I would be a fool to relinquish any of my firearms.

Ofcourse you like them. That is part of my point, to make it clear that you like them.

If that's what you wanted to know, you could have just asked me.

So you've already shown that you are willing to give up your freedom of speech for a toy that won't save you if it comes down to it.

Don't really see how Trump has been disastrous to freedom of speech. He's talked about libel laws, which are state-by-state, and flag burning, which is settled precedent, but not much else.

 

[Saelune]

So you agree that Trump's government is running concentration camps? You continue to support Trump, so what is the issue?

I admit to nothing. Only that under your premise, if I were to accept it as true, I would be a fool to relinquish any of my firearms.

Ofcourse you like them. That is part of my point, to make it clear that you like them.

If that's what you wanted to know, you could have just asked me.

So you've already shown that you are willing to give up your freedom of speech for a toy that won't save you if it comes down to it.

Don't really see how Trump has been disastrous to freedom of speech. He's talked about libel laws, which are state-by-state, and flag burning, which is settled precedent, but not much else.

See, but you have admitted to alot. You admit alot by saying you support Trump. That means you are pro-Trump, that means you ultimately think what Trump is doing is good enough to not lose your support.

I did ask you. I did not literally use the words 'Do you like Gorsich and Kavanaugh', but I think it was clear I was inquiring your opinion on them.

I dont want anyone to doubt where your support lies.

 

[CM156_v1legacy]

See, but you have admitted to alot. You admit alot by saying you support Trump. That means you are pro-Trump, that means you ultimately think what Trump is doing is good enough to not lose your support.

I would rather have Trump than any of the current or past Democratic choices for president. Doesn't mean I approve of everything he does.

I dont want anyone to doubt where your support lies.

My avatar for over a year was Donald and it's now Pence. I think people know.

 

[Seanchaidh]

I admit to nothing. Only that under your premise, if I were to accept it as true, I would be a fool to relinquish any of my firearms.

Why? Aren't you a white Republican?

 

[tstorm823]

Their presidential candidate against Johnson in 1964 voted against the Civil Rights Act of 1964.

Barry Goldwater had far and away a better civil rights record than Lyndon Johnson before 1964, continued to put himself against discrimination in all forms after 1964, and as a matter of policy agreed with the principles of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. He voted against it because he felt it exceeded the enumerated powers of the federal government within the constitution. That's it.

And like, there are plenty of reasonable people who still question aspects of the that bill to this day, as its the civil rights legislation tainted with Democratic arrogance. Democrats just can't stop shoving their decisions down people's throats. When they were for segregation, they passed Jim Crow so that people had to segregate. Then they changed their mind and made laws that people had to desegregate. When they were against gay marriage, they made sure it was super banned everywhere. Now that they're for it, they want laws forcing people to bake cakes for it. There's no point where someone like Lyndon Johnson even considers leaving people the hell alone.

 

[Saelune]

See, but you have admitted to alot. You admit alot by saying you support Trump. That means you are pro-Trump, that means you ultimately think what Trump is doing is good enough to not lose your support.

I would rather have Trump than any of the current or past Democratic choices for president. Doesn't mean I approve of everything he does.

I dont want anyone to doubt where your support lies.

My avatar for over a year was Donald and it's now Pence. I think people know.

Trump's racism doesnt deter you, Trump's hypocrisy doesnt deter you, Trump's abuse of children doesnt deter you, Trump's treasonous support of Putin and Russia doesnt deter you.

Why?

 

[CM156_v1legacy]

I admit to nothing. Only that under your premise, if I were to accept it as true, I would be a fool to relinquish any of my firearms.

Why? Aren't you a white Republican?

I am.

See, but you have admitted to alot. You admit alot by saying you support Trump. That means you are pro-Trump, that means you ultimately think what Trump is doing is good enough to not lose your support.

I would rather have Trump than any of the current or past Democratic choices for president. Doesn't mean I approve of everything he does.

I dont want anyone to doubt where your support lies.

My avatar for over a year was Donald and it's now Pence. I think people know.

Trump's racism doesnt deter you, Trump's hypocrisy doesnt deter you, Trump's abuse of children doesnt deter you, Trump's treasonous support of Putin and Russia doesnt deter you.

Why?

I've already explained why: I want conservative justices on the Supreme Court to fill out the inevitable vacancies. Thus, I vote with that in mind.

 

[Saelune]

I admit to nothing. Only that under your premise, if I were to accept it as true, I would be a fool to relinquish any of my firearms.

Why? Aren't you a white Republican?

I am.

See, but you have admitted to alot. You admit alot by saying you support Trump. That means you are pro-Trump, that means you ultimately think what Trump is doing is good enough to not lose your support.

I would rather have Trump than any of the current or past Democratic choices for president. Doesn't mean I approve of everything he does.

I dont want anyone to doubt where your support lies.

My avatar for over a year was Donald and it's now Pence. I think people know.

Trump's racism doesnt deter you, Trump's hypocrisy doesnt deter you, Trump's abuse of children doesnt deter you, Trump's treasonous support of Putin and Russia doesnt deter you.

Why?

I've already explained why: I want conservative justices on the Supreme Court to fill out the inevitable vacancies. Thus, I vote with that in mind.

Because those justices are ok with and support Trump's, racism, torture and treason.

The purpose of the Supreme Court is to uphold the Constitution, Trump's purpose is to undermine it. You want someone who opposes the Constitution to 'enforce' it.

 

[ObsidianJones_v1legacy]

*snips*

I've been dealing with RL stuff lately. I've ducked my head into the forums for a bit, and I came back to a... lot of stuff here.

I was reading through the stuff before I was going to respond, and then I've seen some of the things you said. Like calling the Southern Strategy a myth. And ignoring or discounting everyone's data and information but your own. Then it hit me. Why am I going to bother to pull out exhaustively researched bits of information for you to go "Nah, democratic nonsense, believe this Republican stamped truth here"?

I mean, the sheer bias of it all makes me feel this isn't a worthwhile effort. Because anyone of us can go "Republican fibs" for anything you show. Does it help actual communication? Is anyone listened to? What is the point of actually trying to have a conversation if everything is just discounted unless it comes from your pre-approved 'factual' list if I and others see it as the propaganda you proclaim most media to be?

Excuse me. Most Democratic Media?

 

[Saelune]

*snips*

I've been dealing with RL stuff lately. I've ducked my head into the forums for a bit, and I came back to a... lot of stuff here.

I was reading through the stuff before I was going to respond, and then I've seen some of the things you said. Like calling the Southern Strategy a myth. And ignoring or discounting everyone's data and information but your own. Then it hit me. Why am I going to bother to pull out exhaustively researched bits of information for you to go "Nah, democratic nonsense, believe this Republican stamped truth here"?

I mean, the sheer bias of it all makes me feel this isn't a worthwhile effort. Because anyone of us can go "Republican fibs" for anything you show. Does it help actual communication? Is anyone listened to? What is the point of actually trying to have a conversation if everything is just discounted unless it comes from your pre-approved 'factual' list if I and others see it as the propaganda you proclaim most media to be?

Excuse me. Most Democratic Media?

There is a reason I have responded less and less to tstorm.

 

[Seanchaidh]

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: "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.

If your point is that the strategy requires not completely disempowering black people so that race remains a salient issue for Southern racists, then you really haven't gone anywhere near having a point. Even leave aside that Republicans manifestly are trying to stop black people from voting nowadays-- you're just describing how the strategy to increase political support among white voters in the South by appealing to racism against black people is ever so slightly more sophisticated in its execution, not different in kind. Yes, it often benefits politicians for their political strategies to inflame resentment more than accomplish something substantial. Why do you think pro-life Republicans kept appointing judges who would vote to keep Roe v. Wade? It's not from some noble spirit of compromise or whatever patriotic bullshit a simpleton might be led to believe; they want the votes from that battle to continue, not to win that battle and those votes potentially go elsewhere. A balance of power in which race remains polarizing indeed benefits those who wish race to remain the most salient issue (whose political strategy depends on race remaining the most salient issue).

As long as race remains a salient issue for both racist whites and any who might oppose that racism, attention is (correctly) directed at battles over race (as well as wider battles over economics becoming racialized). Obviously this works to the advantage of those who benefit from all other aspects of the status quo. The less attention paid to the various other ways in which the mass of people are abused and exploited, the better. One thing has remained true about racism since its invention: it functions to divide the working class against itself.

 

[Marik2]

See, but you have admitted to alot. You admit alot by saying you support Trump. That means you are pro-Trump, that means you ultimately think what Trump is doing is good enough to not lose your support.

I would rather have Trump than any of the current or past Democratic choices for president. Doesn't mean I approve of everything he does.

I dont want anyone to doubt where your support lies.

My avatar for over a year was Donald and it's now Pence. I think people know.

Trump's racism doesnt deter you, Trump's hypocrisy doesnt deter you, Trump's abuse of children doesnt deter you, Trump's treasonous support of Putin and Russia doesnt deter you.

Why?

In the end of the day, he doesn't care who is in office, just as long as they don't do anything about guns.

 

[Worgen]

*snips*

I've been dealing with RL stuff lately. I've ducked my head into the forums for a bit, and I came back to a... lot of stuff here.

I was reading through the stuff before I was going to respond, and then I've seen some of the things you said. Like calling the Southern Strategy a myth. And ignoring or discounting everyone's data and information but your own. Then it hit me. Why am I going to bother to pull out exhaustively researched bits of information for you to go "Nah, democratic nonsense, believe this Republican stamped truth here"?

I mean, the sheer bias of it all makes me feel this isn't a worthwhile effort. Because anyone of us can go "Republican fibs" for anything you show. Does it help actual communication? Is anyone listened to? What is the point of actually trying to have a conversation if everything is just discounted unless it comes from your pre-approved 'factual' list if I and others see it as the propaganda you proclaim most media to be?

Excuse me. Most Democratic Media?

Yeah, that was kinda the thought I came up with, he was lying about what I said and is into conspiracy theories. No idea how to argue against that kinda thing.

 

[tstorm823]

Yeah, that was kinda the thought I came up with, he was lying about what I said and is into conspiracy theories. No idea how to argue against that kinda thing.

I have not lied to you once. You just seem to have trouble dealing with me because I shatter things like snopes to pieces. You want to prove me wrong, learn primary sources and don't just rely on an outside authority to silence disagreement.

If your point is that the strategy requires not completely disempowering black people so that race remains a salient issue for Southern racists, then you really haven't gone anywhere near having a point.

Sorry seanchaidh, I'm on a phone and messed up the quote bbcode so you aren't quoted right.

That's not my point. That quote being used as evidence of the southern strategy without cutting out the sentence in the middle says to actively empower black people. It says the black vote isn't going to Republicans, but it would be shortsighted not to represent their interests. I've been inspired by this exchange to find the book that passage is from just to see how offensively out of context it is.

For all I know, they could be cutting it right before the author says "and then we convert the racists to supporting racial equality."

 

[Worgen]

Yeah, that was kinda the thought I came up with, he was lying about what I said and is into conspiracy theories. No idea how to argue against that kinda thing.

I have not lied to you once. You just seem to have trouble dealing with me because I shatter things like snopes to pieces. You want to prove me wrong, learn primary sources and don't just rely on an outside authority to silence disagreement.

If your point is that the strategy requires not completely disempowering black people so that race remains a salient issue for Southern racists, then you really haven't gone anywhere near having a point.

Sorry seanchaidh, I'm on a phone and messed up the quote bbcode so you aren't quoted right.

That's not my point. That quote being used as evidence of the southern strategy without cutting out the sentence in the middle says to actively empower black people. It says the black vote isn't going to Republicans, but it would be shortsighted not to represent their interests. I've been inspired by this exchange to find the book that passage is from just to see how offensively out of context it is.

For all I know, they could be cutting it right before the author says "and then we convert the racists to supporting racial equality."

Dude, you've lied multiple times about things.