Banning groups with confederate affiliations

[Cheerful Charlie]

Can we include Nixon and the Republicans who adopted the " 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.[1][2][3] As the civil rights movement and dismantling of Jim Crow laws in the 1950s and 1960s visibly deepened existing racial tensions in much of the Southern United States, Republican politicians such as presidential candidate Richard Nixon and Senator Barry Goldwater developed strategies that successfully contributed to the political realignment of many white, conservative voters in the South who had traditionally supported the Democratic Party rather than the Republican Party. It also helped to push the Republican Party much more to the right.

Apparently the Southern Strategy is a myth. The guy who proclaims to be in support of dialogue summarily dismissed it out of hand. Which naturally is how good faith arguments work.

A decade or so ago, Kevin Phillips was a commentator on NPR radio. I used to listen to NPR radio in the morning. Phillips was the main architect of Nixon's Southern Strategy. On one of his commentaries, Phillips admitted that and explained it briefly and apologized for his creation of that policy. He said it had not been meant to be overtly racist, but that it quickly became a racist policy. Again, he apologized to America for it all. So yes, the Southern Strategy was real, and yes it was racist. I heard with my own ears Phillips admit that and apologize to America at large for his creation of that ugly policy, and what it became.

Anybody who thinks all of that was some sort of false political claim has no knowledge of anything about the Nixon Southern Strategy.

 

[Politesse]

I support renaming the party, even its dissolution if possible. I'd rather not be forced to respect that legacy every time I cast what is usually the only conscionable vote in an election.

 

[laughing dog]

I support renaming the party, even its dissolution if possible. I'd rather not be forced to respect that legacy every time I cast what is usually the only conscionable vote in an election.

If it is the same party with a different name, you would still be "respecting that legacy every time" you cast a vote for them. IMO, however, voting for a candidate from a party in 2020 has no relation to respecting whatever it did over 50 + years ago.

 

[laughing dog]

Since we are cleansing our history of statues and et cetera that have ties to the old south, the confederacy, and slavery, it seems time to do something about groups that have that connection.

GOP Rep Introduced Bill to Ban Democratic Party for Past Support of Slavery

On Thursday, Republican Texas Representative Louie Gohmert introduced a House resolution that would ban the Democratic Party and any other groups that have historically supported the Confederacy or slavery in the United States.

"Since people are demanding we rid ourselves of the entities, symbols, and reminders of the repugnant aspects of our past, then the time has come for Democrats to acknowledge their party's loathsome and bigoted past, and consider changing their party name to something that isn't so blatantly and offensively tied to slavery, Jim Crow, discrimination, and the Ku Klux Klan," Gohmert said in a statement.

Some people say there was some mythical big switch that took place sometime around the 1960s. I don't see it. After all, have to get behind someone in order to stab them in the back.

Leave it to a Republican and a "libertarian" to back an authoritarian proposal to ban a political party. Just forget about freedom of assembly or speech.

 

[Mumbles]

Louie Gohmert is a fucking dumb cunt.

You would probably say that for anything that he's peripherally involved in. Wouldn't phrase it quite the same myself, but tI know there are regional differences.

 

[Jason Harvestdancer]

Leave it to a Republican and a "libertarian" to back an authoritarian proposal to ban a political party. Just forget about freedom of assembly or speech.

My willingness to defend freedom of speech and freedom of assembly, [removed], doesn't touch my ability to say "this is funny" about this proposal. [removed]

 

[laughing dog]

Leave it to a Republican and a "libertarian" to back an authoritarian proposal to ban a political party. Just forget about freedom of assembly or speech.

My willingness to defend freedom of speech and freedom of assembly, [removed], doesn't touch my ability to say "this is funny" about this proposal. [removed].

[removed for consistency]
I realize that libertarians live in a different reality than many others, but your OP does not say there is anything funny about Mr. Gohmert’s proposal. The actual words in the OP given the impression you favor Mr. Gohmert’s proposal.

 

[J842P]

I support renaming the party, even its dissolution if possible. I'd rather not be forced to respect that legacy every time I cast what is usually the only conscionable vote in an election.

Agreed. But it's one of those situations where you've reached a local minimum that is hard to climb out of. I think in the short term, it would hurt overall prospects. Most people are not political junkies, and the hit on name recognition alone would hurt the party for a while, I can only assume.

 

[zorq]

Leave it to a Republican and a "libertarian" to back an authoritarian proposal to ban a political party. Just forget about freedom of assembly or speech.

My willingness to defend freedom of speech and freedom of assembly, [removed], doesn't touch my ability to say "this is funny" about this proposal. [removed]

Ah, I recall when you were complaining that people in the thread weren't taking the thread seriously. Maybe now you understand that we can't take your threads seriously because YOU don't take them seriously. You admit that the bill in question is a troll, but you chose to present it to us as a serious issue. When you did so you were trolling us. Then you got upset because we could see through your trolling.

At this point Jason, you have no credibility left.

 

[Jason Harvestdancer]

[removed]

[removed]

Ah, I recall when you were complaining that people in the thread weren't taking the thread seriously. Maybe now you understand that we can't take your threads seriously because YOU don't take them seriously. You admit that the bill in question is a troll, but you chose to present it to us as a serious issue. When you did so you were trolling us. Then you got upset because we could see through your trolling.

At this point Jason, you have no credibility left.

I find it funny. That doesn't mean it isn't serious. Even though I'm laughing at it, I'm also the only one who is taking it seriously. The point you are missing is that I can take it seriously and also find humor in it without agreeing with it. The moment I posted about this rather epic troll, everyone tried to accuse me of supporting him. I think that such accusations show who actually has no credibility.
[removed]

 

[zorq]

[removed]

[removed]

Ah, I recall when you were complaining that people in the thread weren't taking the thread seriously. Maybe now you understand that we can't take your threads seriously because YOU don't take them seriously. You admit that the bill in question is a troll, but you chose to present it to us as a serious issue. When you did so you were trolling us. Then you got upset because we could see through your trolling.

At this point Jason, you have no credibility left.

I find it funny. That doesn't mean it isn't serious. Even though I'm laughing at it, I'm also the only one who is taking it seriously. The point you are missing is that I can take it seriously and also find humor in it without agreeing with it. The moment I posted about this rather epic troll, everyone tried to accuse me of supporting him. I think that such accusations show who actually has no credibility.
[removed]

LOL. You take it seriously but you know it was a troll. You don't support it, but you want us to take it seriously. You are so serious about it you think it is funny.

No credibility.

 

[laughing dog]

[removed]

Please point to the actual wording in your OP that indicates you find Mr. Gohmert's proposal funny. Otherwise, it is not surprising that no reader picked up on your alleged amusement. Failure to point out the wording simply buttresses the observation of your lack of credibility.

 

[bilby]

Germany started two European wars in the twentieth century.

Therefore the nation of Germany needs to be banned from existing, and Angela Merkel needs to be jailed for her support of the 1914 invasion of Belgium, and the 1939 invasion of Poland.

Or that's a fucking stupid idea, and doesn't follow AT ALL from the fact that monuments to the Kaiser and the Führer are no longer a prominent feature of German public spaces, having been removed despite their historicity.

 

[Jason Harvestdancer]

[removed]
Please point to the actual wording in my OP that indicates I support Mr. Gohmert's proposal. Otherwise, it is not surprising that many readers picked up on something that isn't there given what forum we are on. Failure to point out the wording simply buttresses the observation of your lack of credibility.

[removed]

 

[laughing dog]

Please point to the actual wording in your OP that indicates you find Mr. Gohmert's proposal funny. Otherwise, it is not surprising that no reader picked up on your alleged amusement. Failure to point out the wording simply buttresses the observation of your lack of credibility.

Please point to the actual wording in my OP that indicates I support Mr. Gohmert's proposal. Otherwise, it is not surprising that many readers picked up on something that isn't there given what forum we are on. Failure to point out the wording simply buttresses the observation of your lack of credibility.

Ah, your usual deflection tactic. Instead of answering a question, you turn it around. Apparently you are unable to point to the words in your OP that indicate you think Mr. Gohmert's proposal is funny.

Here are the words in your OP that makes it appear you support Mr. Gohmert’s moronic and authoritarian proposal (the italicized portion is the part which makes it appear you support it) :

Since we are cleansing our history of statues and et cetera that have ties to the old south, the confederacy, and slavery, it seems time to do something about groups that have that connection.


GOP Rep Introduced Bill to Ban Democratic Party for Past Support of Slavery

I look forward to your next attempt at evasion instead of pointing out where you said Mr. Gohmert's proposal is funny.

BTW, since the proposal is illogical and incredibly stupid (as bilby showed), the fact you think it should be taken seriously is unsurprising.

[removed]

 

[Jason Harvestdancer]

[removed]

 

[Rhea]

Back on topic, it is a stupid bill intended only to waste time and rile those who don’t think.

The statues being removed are chosen because those people NEVER DID change their outlook and move to equality.
The Democratic Party, of course, did see the horror of its past and make a significant change. The fact that you personally don’t see it is not relevant to the truth of it happening.

 

[laughing dog]

Everyone who cares to look can see the post where you did it.

The people in this thread who are the most reluctant to discuss this bill .[removed] Another uses fascist dog-whistles and I helped out as a racist. The rest tried, without support, to accuse me of supporting the measure instead of finding humor in it while taking it seriously.

[removed]

You have responded to posters in this thread [removed], accusations of racist dog-whistles and delusional claims about people ignoring the content of the OP.

In post 11 you wrote “I'm not saying his motives are good, but he does make a point about how if we are going to be consistent, we should restrict pro-slavery groups as much as removing statues of pro-slavery individuals.” which also suggests you think it is a good or valid idea.

According to Word, your OP has 82 original words. And you have yet to show after two requests where in those 82 words you indicated you thought the proposal was funny. If you stick to your MO, you will continue to evade with your delusional derails.

Gohmert's proposal makes as much sense as banning the Libertarian party because Ron Paul employed anti-semites and wanted to enable racists to discriminate based on race.

 

[Elixir]

[removed]

My willingness to defend freedom of speech and freedom of assembly, [removed] doesn't touch my ability to say "this is funny" about this proposal. [removed]

Ah, I recall when you were complaining that people in the thread weren't taking the thread seriously. Maybe now you understand that we can't take your threads seriously because YOU don't take them seriously. You admit that the bill in question is a troll, but you chose to present it to us as a serious issue. When you did so you were trolling us. Then you got upset because we could see through your trolling.

At this point Jason, you have no credibility left.

I find it funny. That doesn't mean it isn't serious. Even though I'm laughing at it, I'm also the only one who is taking it seriously. The point you are missing is that I can take it seriously and also find humor in it without agreeing with it. The moment I posted about this rather epic troll, everyone tried to accuse me of supporting him. I think that such accusations show who actually has no credibility.

[removed]

LOL. You take it seriously but you know it was a troll. You don't support it, but you want us to take it seriously. You are so serious about it you think it is funny.

The libbertard superiority complex is unbounded by reason. It's a surprisingly common affliction.

No credibility.

Trying to falsely invoke Godwin is one of the last resorts of a mental midget.

 

[Jason Harvestdancer]

So everyone has found their excuse to not discuss the bill. Congratulations, I guess that means the Democratic Party has no historical ties to slavery.