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

Hades

Elite Member
Mar 8, 2013
2,409
1,832
118
Country
The Netherlands
tstorm823 said:
Worgen said:
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 wouldn't say the reputation of the Republicans as the racist party is undeserved. That they put a lot of energy into proving Obama wasn't American because he was black speaks volumes. I also suspect their opposition to Obama wouldn't have nearly been as fanatical if he had been white.
 

tstorm823

Elite Member
Legacy
Aug 4, 2011
7,376
973
118
Country
USA
Hades said:
I wouldn't say the reputation of the Republicans as the racist party is undeserved. That they put a lot of energy into proving Obama wasn't American because he was black speaks volumes. I also suspect their opposition to Obama wouldn't have nearly been as fanatical if he had been white.
Republicans didn't put a lot of energy into proving Obama wasn't American, conspiracy theorists did that, some were Republican. Most Republicans didn't care, John McCain wasn't born in America himself.

You think opposition to Obama was based on racism that made it fanatical. I think he was a bad president, and the accusation of racism was used to ignore justified criticism.
 

Worgen

Follower of the Glorious Sun Butt.
Legacy
Apr 1, 2009
15,197
4,050
118
Gender
Whatever, just wash your hands.
tstorm823 said:
Worgen said:
Dude, you've lied multiple times about things.
Name one.
You lied about what I said regarding catholics, you've lied about catholics (sure they might have mostly been democrat in early 2016 but mostly voting for someone like trump and being pretty split in the mid terms), you might not be wrong about engineers but all your data is outdated. Not to mention your conspiracy stuff about republicans not being the party that racists go to. Even ignoring their actually racist members like steve king, you would have to have your fingers in your ears not to hear all their dog whistles.
 
Apr 17, 2009
1,751
0
0
Saelune said:
ObsidianJones said:
tstorm823 said:
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.
Yeah I tried having a reasonable argument and all I learned was that he is unable or unwilling to actually comprehend data. He just reminds me of this Peanuts comic
 

CM156_v1legacy

Revelation 9:6
Mar 23, 2011
3,997
0
0
Saelune said:
Because those justices are ok with and support Trump's, racism, torture and treason.
I have yet to see evidence of that about the two justices in question. I heard hyperbole like this about Alito and Roberts, so I highly doubt it.
 

Saelune

Trump put kids in cages!
Legacy
Mar 8, 2011
8,411
16
23
CM156 said:
Saelune said:
Because those justices are ok with and support Trump's, racism, torture and treason.
I have yet to see evidence of that about the two justices in question. I heard hyperbole like this about Alito and Roberts, so I highly doubt it.
https://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-court-asylum/supreme-court-allows-full-enforcement-of-asylum-crackdown-idUSKCN1VW2U4
 

CM156_v1legacy

Revelation 9:6
Mar 23, 2011
3,997
0
0
Saelune said:
CM156 said:
Saelune said:
Because those justices are ok with and support Trump's, racism, torture and treason.
I have yet to see evidence of that about the two justices in question. I heard hyperbole like this about Alito and Roberts, so I highly doubt it.
https://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-court-asylum/supreme-court-allows-full-enforcement-of-asylum-crackdown-idUSKCN1VW2U4
The "Safe Third Country" rule is not a racist rule. Nor is it torture or treason.
 

Saelune

Trump put kids in cages!
Legacy
Mar 8, 2011
8,411
16
23
CM156 said:
Saelune said:
CM156 said:
Saelune said:
Because those justices are ok with and support Trump's, racism, torture and treason.
I have yet to see evidence of that about the two justices in question. I heard hyperbole like this about Alito and Roberts, so I highly doubt it.
https://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-court-asylum/supreme-court-allows-full-enforcement-of-asylum-crackdown-idUSKCN1VW2U4
The "Safe Third Country" rule is not a racist rule. Nor is it torture or treason.
If you vote for Trump, you are supporting Trump.
 

tstorm823

Elite Member
Legacy
Aug 4, 2011
7,376
973
118
Country
USA
Worgen said:
You lied about what I said regarding catholics, you've lied about catholics (sure they might have mostly been democrat in early 2016 but mostly voting for someone like trump and being pretty split in the mid terms)
I did not lie about what you said, I quoted you directly.

I did not lie about Catholics being Democrats. What I said was "There are more Catholic Democrats than there are Catholic Republicans." You're trying to dispute this by pointing to election results, suggesting Democrats can't vote for Trump, and totally ignoring independents altogether. It's not a good proxy variable for what party people are. If you want to argue that voting trends are more important than just stated party affiliation (which, due respect, you were doing for a while), you can do that. What you can't do is call me a liar for saying something true.

, you might not be wrong about engineers but all your data is outdated.
You care way too much about things being dated.

At any rate, I'm disappointed that you still haven't googled "engineers political affiliation" or anything remotely similar, or you would have found this source [http://verdantlabs.com/politics_of_professions/] that seems to prove me wrong, but does so by weighing engineering down with "software engineers," and we could have had a fun conversation about statistics and what actually counts as an "engineer". But we never got that far. (For the record, software engineering, if included, counts for at least a 3rd of all engineers, and because people like to talk up their jobs and software engineering lacks the licensing path of something like civil engineering, the number of people who identify themselves as "software engineers" could eclipse the entirety of traditional engineering in scope. And the way their overall data on engineers skews toward the extreme, it implies that their poll responses reflect that reality)

At any rate, still not a lie. My personal experience with the civil and mechanical engineering fields tells me those lean right, I'm honestly surprised that electrical engineers are more Democrat, but otherwise every piece of data I can find on the topic confirmed my personal understanding of engineers' politics.

And like, you didn't even have a single data-point to disagree with me, but you listed that as a lie. Sheesh!

Not to mention your conspiracy stuff about republicans not being the party that racists go to. Even ignoring their actually racist members like steve king, you would have to have your fingers in your ears not to hear all their dog whistles.
A) I have never said that racists don't go to the Republican Party. I've said they're not the party of racism, I've said Republican policies aren't racist, I've said Democrats lie about Republicans being racist to get more votes. I've never said the Republican Party doesn't have racist members. Unfortunately, that accusation is true. But it's still the Democrats fault.

Before the 60s, the Democrats were indisputably the party of racism. They defended slavery, they defended segregation, they stuck their toes into eugenics, they founded the KKK 3 times, that was the party of racism. In the 60s, they got their act together. They deserve credit for that, Kennedy likely deserves a lot of credit for that, Democrats changing their ways was a fantastic thing, don't get me wrong. But what wasn't the fantastic thing, and I blame Lyndon Johnson almost entirely for this, was the immediate turn to say "Republicans are the racists now, get 'em!" The moral thing to do would have been to say "now, there is no party for racists in America anymore", and gosh the Democrats didn't do that. They started a campaign to smear the Republican party as racists that continues to this day.

I hate the dogwhistle argument. It amazes me endlessly that Republicans can invent so many dogwhistles that only the left wing media can hear. Anyways, just taking for granted that racists lean Republican, ask yourself: what do you think is more likely to be driving racists toward the Republican party? A series of cryptic messages delivered by a variety of Republican politicians over the last 60 years designed to wink at racists and tell them that century old Republican economic policies are actually an elaborate cover for covert segregation, or Democratic politicians standing on street corners with bullhorns shouting "Democrats are the party of all minorities and Republicans are omni-bigots!"
 

Seanchaidh

Elite Member
Legacy
Mar 21, 2009
5,908
3,587
118
Country
United States of America
CM156 said:
Saelune said:
Because those justices are ok with and support Trump's, racism, torture and treason.
I have yet to see evidence of that about the two justices in question. I heard hyperbole like this about Alito and Roberts, so I highly doubt it.
Alito and Roberts were part of the majority in the Shelby County v. Holder decision. Hundreds of polling places are now being shut down in counties which previously were subject to increased scrutiny [https://thehill.com/blogs/blog-briefing-room/news/460644-southern-states-have-closed-hundred-of-polling-places-since] due to the Voting Rights Act of 1965. So how hyperbolic is that, really?
 

tstorm823

Elite Member
Legacy
Aug 4, 2011
7,376
973
118
Country
USA
Seanchaidh said:
Alito and Roberts were part of the majority in the Shelby County v. Holder decision. Hundreds of polling places are now being shut down in counties which previously were subject to increased scrutiny [https://thehill.com/blogs/blog-briefing-room/news/460644-southern-states-have-closed-hundred-of-polling-places-since] due to the Voting Rights Act of 1965. So how hyperbolic is that, really?
Oh man, Georgia really is shutting down a ton of polling places, that must have a chilling effect on racial minorities!

Oh nevermind, Georgia has the second highest voter turnout among black Americans in the country, next to Mississippi. [https://www.kff.org/other/state-indicator/voting-and-voter-registration-as-a-share-of-the-voter-population-by-raceethnicity/?currentTimeframe=0&sortModel=%7B%22colId%22:%22Location%22,%22sort%22:%22asc%22%7D]

Polling places aren't closing to cut off black voters, they're closing because many rural areas have depopulated [https://tradingeconomics.com/georgia/rural-population-percent-of-total-population-wb-data.html], while simultaneously the ability to vote remotely or at a more convenient time has greatly expanded [http://www.ncsl.org/research/elections-and-campaigns/absentee-and-early-voting.aspx].
 

Silvanus

Elite Member
Legacy
Jan 15, 2013
12,454
6,524
118
Country
United Kingdom
tstorm823 said:
Oh man, Georgia really is shutting down a ton of polling places, that must have a chilling effect on racial minorities!

Oh nevermind, Georgia has the second highest voter turnout among black Americans in the country, next to Mississippi. [https://www.kff.org/other/state-indicator/voting-and-voter-registration-as-a-share-of-the-voter-population-by-raceethnicity/?currentTimeframe=0&sortModel=%7B%22colId%22:%22Location%22,%22sort%22:%22asc%22%7D]
Hmmm... note that other states which have closed more stations than Georgia (Texas and Arizona) fared worse.

Note also that Georgia fared a great deal worse in 2014, the first data available for the period after the Court's decision.

None of that proves anything about the situation on the ground, but suffice it to say that pulling out the Georgia number for one particular year is very selective use of data.
 
Sep 24, 2008
2,461
0
0
Silvanus said:
Hmmm... note that other states which have closed more stations than Georgia (Texas and Arizona) fared worse.

Note also that Georgia fared a great deal worse in 2014, the first data available for the period after the Court's decision.

None of that proves anything about the situation on the ground, but suffice it to say that pulling out the Georgia number for one particular year is very selective use of data.
Going along with that point, one should remember that Georgia is now seeing another vast voting irregularity [https://www.salon.com/2019/08/30/probe-of-missing-georgia-votes-finds-extreme-irregularities-in-black-districts-and/] very similar to Abrams vs Kemp last year.

We all remember Kemp, right? Current Georgian Governor who won by 54,723 votes [https://www.nytimes.com/elections/results/georgia-governor]? Yeah, he's the guy who felt justified in purging 300,000 voters [https://www.salon.com/2018/10/19/analysis-brian-kemp-has-purged-over-300000-voters-from-georgia-rolls/], and in turn blocked 53,000 new registirations of voters (most black voters) [https://www.salon.com/2018/10/11/georgia-republican-candidate-blocks-53000-voter-registrations-mostly-of-black-people/].

Anyway, moving away from Kemp, we should focus on what happened this year.

More than 15,500 pages of documents turned over the to Oversight Committee and obtained by the Journal-Constitution shows that the election was plagued by widespread irregularities.

In one case, a voting machine in Kemp's home precinct recorded that Republicans won every race, while the other six machines in that same precinct showed that Democrats won every race. The machine showed Republicans winning by roughly the same margin by which Democrats won on the other machines. A statistician's analysis cited in court documents said "odds of an anomaly that large are less than 1 in 1 million," the Journal-Constitution reported.

But the problems were far more widespread. The documents show a decline in votes on electronic voting machines in 101 of the state's 159 counties, even though paper absentee ballots in the same districts did not show a significant decline.

An analysis by the Democratic data-tracking firm TargetSmart found that the drop-off "grew even more extreme in precincts with large African American populations," according to the report.

"I've never seen a drop-off pattern like this, ever," TargetSmart data analyst Chris Brill told the Journal-Constitution.
It's so odd that these things keep happening, taking away one group's rights for another group's benefit. Almost seems... manufactured somehow...
 

tstorm823

Elite Member
Legacy
Aug 4, 2011
7,376
973
118
Country
USA
Silvanus said:
Hmmm... note that other states which have closed more stations than Georgia (Texas and Arizona) fared worse.

Note also that Georgia fared a great deal worse in 2014, the first data available for the period after the Court's decision.

None of that proves anything about the situation on the ground, but suffice it to say that pulling out the Georgia number for one particular year is very selective use of data.
I mean, if you'd like much more generalized data, black voter turnout goes up over time [http://www.electproject.org/home/voter-turnout/demographics].

I just find it silly. If Republicans say literally anything about the structure of elections, it's reported as racism. A bunch of repcincts get closed down, it must be Republicans trying to get rid of black voters. Nevermind if the precincts being closed are in overwhlemingly white areas [https://www.ajc.com/news/state--regional-govt--politics/precinct-closures-make-comeback-rural-georgia-after-brief-defeat/efuDMWGhOY7R4h5FAQsABL/].

I think the heavy hand of the Voting Rights Act was more than justified at the time. Stopping people from restricting voter access was very necessary following Jim Crow voter suppression. But populations shift geographically and people vote in different ways now, a lot of precincts become unjustified cost. And the places in the south most heavily scrutinized are going to have the hardest time closing precincts, it's no surprise they were having trouble keeping them all running by the time the rule changed.

ObsidianJones said:
Going along with that point, one should remember that Georgia is now seeing another vast voting irregularity [https://www.salon.com/2019/08/30/probe-of-missing-georgia-votes-finds-extreme-irregularities-in-black-districts-and/] very similar to Abrams vs Kemp last year.

We all remember Kemp, right? Current Georgian Governor who won by 54,723 votes [https://www.nytimes.com/elections/results/georgia-governor]? Yeah, he's the guy who felt justified in purging 300,000 voters [https://www.salon.com/2018/10/19/analysis-brian-kemp-has-purged-over-300000-voters-from-georgia-rolls/], and in turn blocked 53,000 new registirations of voters (most black voters) [https://www.salon.com/2018/10/11/georgia-republican-candidate-blocks-53000-voter-registrations-mostly-of-black-people/].

Anyway, moving away from Kemp, we should focus on what happened this year.

More than 15,500 pages of documents turned over the to Oversight Committee and obtained by the Journal-Constitution shows that the election was plagued by widespread irregularities.

In one case, a voting machine in Kemp's home precinct recorded that Republicans won every race, while the other six machines in that same precinct showed that Democrats won every race. The machine showed Republicans winning by roughly the same margin by which Democrats won on the other machines. A statistician's analysis cited in court documents said "odds of an anomaly that large are less than 1 in 1 million," the Journal-Constitution reported.

But the problems were far more widespread. The documents show a decline in votes on electronic voting machines in 101 of the state's 159 counties, even though paper absentee ballots in the same districts did not show a significant decline.

An analysis by the Democratic data-tracking firm TargetSmart found that the drop-off "grew even more extreme in precincts with large African American populations," according to the report.

"I've never seen a drop-off pattern like this, ever," TargetSmart data analyst Chris Brill told the Journal-Constitution.
It's so odd that these things keep happening, taking away one group's rights for another group's benefit. Almost seems... manufactured somehow...
The first issue there is probably insignificant, one machine didn't match the others in the same room. Could be a faulty machine, could be something as simple as different lines to vote and a large group of Republicans all went as a group into one line. Hell, it could be that they set up a machine in an old folks home to let them vote easier but it still counts as the same precinct.

The second issue is more statistically interesting. Excluding election tampering for a moment, which hopefully will be identified if it in fact happened, the trend they are identifying is that far fewer votes were cast in the Lt. Governor race than the other races on the same ballot, and it was more pronounced in majority black areas. There could be a few reasons for this to happen organically. A poorly designed ballot or voting machine screen could cause people to overlook a race and move on, but that wouldn't have different results in racially different precincts. At a certain point, it's worth asking. Did black voters actually decide to abstain from voting in that particular race? If we assume for a moment, they'd likely not be voting for the Republican anyway, is there a reason they might decide they can't vote for the Democrat either? Lets look up the candidate and see if there's anything there. Hmmm, looks like there might be. [https://www.ajc.com/news/state--regional-govt--politics/georgia-lieutenant-governor-candidate-company-sued-for-discrimination/qooHRP0nrPM9Kyxr6Ny1sI/]
 

Worgen

Follower of the Glorious Sun Butt.
Legacy
Apr 1, 2009
15,197
4,050
118
Gender
Whatever, just wash your hands.
tstorm823 said:
Worgen said:
You lied about what I said regarding catholics, you've lied about catholics (sure they might have mostly been democrat in early 2016 but mostly voting for someone like trump and being pretty split in the mid terms)
I did not lie about what you said, I quoted you directly.

I did not lie about Catholics being Democrats. What I said was "There are more Catholic Democrats than there are Catholic Republicans." You're trying to dispute this by pointing to election results, suggesting Democrats can't vote for Trump, and totally ignoring independents altogether. It's not a good proxy variable for what party people are. If you want to argue that voting trends are more important than just stated party affiliation (which, due respect, you were doing for a while), you can do that. What you can't do is call me a liar for saying something true.

, you might not be wrong about engineers but all your data is outdated.
You care way too much about things being dated.

At any rate, I'm disappointed that you still haven't googled "engineers political affiliation" or anything remotely similar, or you would have found this source [http://verdantlabs.com/politics_of_professions/] that seems to prove me wrong, but does so by weighing engineering down with "software engineers," and we could have had a fun conversation about statistics and what actually counts as an "engineer". But we never got that far. (For the record, software engineering, if included, counts for at least a 3rd of all engineers, and because people like to talk up their jobs and software engineering lacks the licensing path of something like civil engineering, the number of people who identify themselves as "software engineers" could eclipse the entirety of traditional engineering in scope. And the way their overall data on engineers skews toward the extreme, it implies that their poll responses reflect that reality)

At any rate, still not a lie. My personal experience with the civil and mechanical engineering fields tells me those lean right, I'm honestly surprised that electrical engineers are more Democrat, but otherwise every piece of data I can find on the topic confirmed my personal understanding of engineers' politics.

And like, you didn't even have a single data-point to disagree with me, but you listed that as a lie. Sheesh!

Not to mention your conspiracy stuff about republicans not being the party that racists go to. Even ignoring their actually racist members like steve king, you would have to have your fingers in your ears not to hear all their dog whistles.
A) I have never said that racists don't go to the Republican Party. I've said they're not the party of racism, I've said Republican policies aren't racist, I've said Democrats lie about Republicans being racist to get more votes. I've never said the Republican Party doesn't have racist members. Unfortunately, that accusation is true. But it's still the Democrats fault.

Before the 60s, the Democrats were indisputably the party of racism. They defended slavery, they defended segregation, they stuck their toes into eugenics, they founded the KKK 3 times, that was the party of racism. In the 60s, they got their act together. They deserve credit for that, Kennedy likely deserves a lot of credit for that, Democrats changing their ways was a fantastic thing, don't get me wrong. But what wasn't the fantastic thing, and I blame Lyndon Johnson almost entirely for this, was the immediate turn to say "Republicans are the racists now, get 'em!" The moral thing to do would have been to say "now, there is no party for racists in America anymore", and gosh the Democrats didn't do that. They started a campaign to smear the Republican party as racists that continues to this day.

I hate the dogwhistle argument. It amazes me endlessly that Republicans can invent so many dogwhistles that only the left wing media can hear. Anyways, just taking for granted that racists lean Republican, ask yourself: what do you think is more likely to be driving racists toward the Republican party? A series of cryptic messages delivered by a variety of Republican politicians over the last 60 years designed to wink at racists and tell them that century old Republican economic policies are actually an elaborate cover for covert segregation, or Democratic politicians standing on street corners with bullhorns shouting "Democrats are the party of all minorities and Republicans are omni-bigots!"
Democrats in any numbers wouldn't vote for trump unless they were legit stupid as hell. I'm actually surprised any religious people would vote for him considering how he seems to be more willing to use religion as a tool, guess getting trans people out of the military wets your god panties more then I thought it would.

You have to care about the date of a study or else I could just call you an anti-semite because of what the catholic church did to jews long ago. Time matters.

I hate to say it but I wouldn't really consider that a good source, while the data might be good. It looks like its compiled from campaign contributions, its interesting but it doesn't give us good numbers, it doesn't even really tell us how the data is collected, like is it self reported, is it based on the number of people contributing, is it based on the amount of the contributions? Its just an interesting thing, actually it kinda enforces my point about catholics earlier too since it looks like most catholic priests are republican. But it doesn't give any indication of why, like why are most locksmiths republicans? That's so weird. I don't recall ever saying that most engineers couldn't be republican, my point was that you haven't shown data that convinces me of it and I haven't been able to find anything that solidly lists it. And you are right, there are a ton of different type of engineers, I can totally see petroleum and mining engineers being republican since democrats tend to look for alternative fuel sources.

Both parties were kinda the party of racism but your right, democrats were pretty damn racist back in the day, but after they started with the civil rights stuff, despite the southern democrats resistance, that pretty much solidified them as being better then republicans on it, especially since most of the southern democrats ended up changing to the republican party. I actually remember when this state switched colors in the 90s, before then it was unheard of for republicans to control it, now its solidly gerrymander red.

Oh we don't even need to look deep, we can just look at shit trump says. Lets start with one of the greats "When Mexico sends its people, they're not sending their best. They're not sending you. They're not sending you. They're sending people that have lots of problems, and they're bringing those problems with us. They're bringing drugs. They're bringing crime. They're rapists. And some, I assume, are good people." or when he was asked to provide evidence that latino immigrants were rapists he just said, "Well, somebody's doing the raping, Don! I mean somebody's doing it! Who's doing the raping? Who's doing the raping?" You also have the time when he just said that his followers were very passionate and want to make this country great again after two of them were arrested after they targeted a hispanic homeless man because of his ethnicity and beat and pissed on him. And that's not even going into him saying a judge hispanic judge shouldn't be allowed to rule on a case he was involved in because he's building a wall.
 

tstorm823

Elite Member
Legacy
Aug 4, 2011
7,376
973
118
Country
USA
Worgen said:
Democrats in any numbers wouldn't vote for trump unless they were legit stupid as hell. I'm actually surprised any religious people would vote for him considering how he seems to be more willing to use religion as a tool, guess getting trans people out of the military wets your god panties more then I thought it would.
Then apparently a bunch of people were stupid as hell. I personally know a solid dozen politically active, registered Democrats who voted for Trump. I, the Republican, do not vote for Trump. They did. (Hint, they aren't stupid.) And I'm not inclined to consider your opinion of what my opinion should be based on Religion, you clearly don't even care to understand and are taking utterly unrelated cheap shots.

You have to care about the date of a study or else I could just call you an anti-semite because of what the catholic church did to jews long ago. Time matters.
You mean protected them for thousands of years [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Catholic_Church_and_Judaism#Antisemitism]? Why do you think the Jewish people were in the Holy Roman Empire to begin with?

I don't recall ever saying that most engineers couldn't be republican, my point was that you haven't shown data that convinces me of it and I haven't been able to find anything that solidly lists it.
You suggested I was getting my information from Stormfront. You said "I don't feel like this should be that hard to find if its that true." And you ultimately listed as an example of my "multiple lies". You didn't say that most engineers couldn't be republican, but you sure as hell are attacking me for suggesting it.

Both parties were kinda the party of racism but your right, democrats were pretty damn racist back in the day, but after they started with the civil rights stuff, despite the southern democrats resistance, that pretty much solidified them as being better then republicans on it, especially since most of the southern democrats ended up changing to the republican party. I actually remember when this state switched colors in the 90s, before then it was unheard of for republicans to control it, now its solidly gerrymander red.
No, both parties were kinda the party of racism. There's no comparison, not even close. Saying pre-Civil Rights movement parties were both kinda the party of racism would be like saying now that both parties are the party of gun control. There's no equivalence, not even a little. It wasn't a Republican leading the chant of "Segregation now, segregation tomorrow, segregation forever!"

No, most of the southern democrats didn't end up changing to the republican party. I'm aware of 2 Democratic politicians that flipped, and I can't even remember the name of the one that wasn't Strom Thurmond. Al Gore senior was a southern Democrat, that family never changed. Robert Byrd never changed. As far as the voters, the south didn't flip until 30-40 years later, as you witnessed firsthand. That's not people flipping parties because of changes in racial politics from the 60s. That's not a flip caused by people rejecting the Civil Rights Act of 1965, that's a flip cause by an entire generation of old racists literally dying and being replaced by... well... being replaced by you. I presume you're not a racist. The south flipped as it got less racist.

You remember when Republicans flipped the state red. Do you really think that happened because they were more racist? Do you really think the Republicans in the 90s and 00s were flipping southern states because they were more racist than they were in the 60s? That just seems like a weird theory to me.

Oh we don't even need to look deep, we can just look at shit trump says.
I've said it before, and I'll say it again, Trump is a Democrat.
 

Seanchaidh

Elite Member
Legacy
Mar 21, 2009
5,908
3,587
118
Country
United States of America
tstorm823 said:
I've said it before, and I'll say it again, Trump is a Democrat.
You were wrong before and you're wrong now! Most of the Democrats are Republicans and Trump is a white nationalist.