The Hofoid House of Absurd & Ignorant Posts VII

[YE]

Forget voting Republicans out, we need to ban the Republican Party.

[HisGrace]

Thomas from NJ on a roll with the Jew conspiracy dogwhistling this week:

Once again, how would the Democrats get passed something that:

1-would guarantee a Republican landslide and
2-would have zero chance of surviving in court?

Do you seriously believe dozens of Democratic Congressmen and Senators would be willing to seal their defeats by voting for this?

The key word in the thread title is ''future''.

The left understands that politics is downstream from culture. They obviously wouldn't pass a policy like this right now. What they are doing instead is, through their control of most of academia and the media, planting these ideas in the minds of young people and creating the conditions that will eventually lead to them being mainstream and something that could become the basis for policy.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_long_march_through_the_institutions

Just because anti Semites like to talk about "cultural Marxism" doesn't make the concept itself anti Semitic. The connotation between Jews and revolutionary Marxism some people have doesn't even make sense. The Eastern Bloc persecuted Jews a lot of the time.   

[I spent the winter writing songs about getting better]

Pretty high, since he's a wife beater and the Democrats love progressive men with woman issues in the closet (Spitzer, Weiner, Franken, Edwards, Clinton, Grayson, Schneiderman, etc.)

[Politician]

Sen. Debbie Stabenow (D-Michigan), elected to the U.S. Senate since 2000, will win reelection, but by 18 points. Her Republican opponent, John James, a military veteran and businessman, is a black Republican. He is seen as a rising star in the MI GOP and nationally. However, he will be branded as a "Uncle Tom", "Coon", "Sunken Place", "Get out", by the professional agitators and leftists who feel that Black people must belong in line in the Democratic Party.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_James_(Michigan_politician)

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aDHxxGwJzss

Who wins?

Sen. Debbie Stabenow (Inc.) 59%
John James (R) 41%

Stabenow wins by 18 points, but watch for MI GOP to ask James to run for MI GOV in 2022 or 2026 or a House seat.

Stabenow, Whitmer and the female Democratic intensity and mobilization will be too much for James.

Solid D, but watch for interesting October debates.

[YE]

Frankly I'm sure there are some in the Democratic base who would like further and amend the constitution to prohibit whites from voting...just as many Republicans would like to go back to time when minorities weren't allowed to vote.

[NewYorkExpress]

Frankly I'm sure there are some in the Democratic base who would like further and amend the constitution to prohibit whites from voting...just as many Republicans would like to go back to time when minorities weren't allowed to vote.

I stand by that quote. Both parties bases have groups that want to deny voting rights to various racial/ethnic/religious groups. It's just that one is more open about it, and that party doesn't ostracize members for saying such things.

[Coolface Sock #42069]

Forget voting Republicans out, we need to ban the Republican Party.

#WOKE

[Coastal Elitist]

As we are all well aware, Democrats are the party of very rich and very high-IQ urban and suburban voters with college degrees from elite schools while Republicans are the party of poor white working class blue-collar hicks without even high school diplomas who live out in the sticks of Flyover Country and vote entirely on racism and silly Bible Belt fundamentalism and nothing else rational or remotely intelligent. This much is obvious to all educated observers.

My question is, when, if ever, will the Democrats max out their votes with their super-IQ rich urban/suburban voters and when will Republicans likewise max out their votes with the dumb-as-rocks racist, bigoted, and completely uneducated and ignorant rural white plebs of the Deliverance type countryside who vote against their own interests? Will it be in 80 years, 100 years (or longer) or never?

[FEMA Camp Administrator]

As we are all well aware, Democrats are the party of very rich and very high-IQ urban and suburban voters with college degrees from elite schools while Republicans are the party of poor white working class blue-collar hicks without even high school diplomas who live out in the sticks of Flyover Country and vote entirely on racism and silly Bible Belt fundamentalism and nothing else rational or remotely intelligent. This much is obvious to all educated observers.

My question is, when, if ever, will the Democrats max out their votes with their super-IQ rich urban/suburban voters and when will Republicans likewise max out their votes with the dumb-as-rocks racist, bigoted, and completely uneducated and ignorant rural white plebs of the Deliverance type countryside who vote against their own interests? Will it be in 80 years, 100 years (or longer) or never?

Sarcasm.

[I spent the winter writing songs about getting better]

The whole big picture hurt Hoover.

The Okies and Arkies that moved to California did, however, become the base of Reagan Democrats in central California.  The GOP lean in places like Bakersfield is the result of the descendents of the Okies and Arkies who brought their Southern heritage with them to California. 

TIL "Reagan Democrats" existed almost five decades before Reagan's Presidency.

[Fuzzy Bear]

The whole big picture hurt Hoover.

The Okies and Arkies that moved to California did, however, become the base of Reagan Democrats in central California.  The GOP lean in places like Bakersfield is the result of the descendents of the Okies and Arkies who brought their Southern heritage with them to California. 

TIL "Reagan Democrats" existed almost five decades before Reagan's Presidency.

Yes, there were some conservative Democrats in CA that either became Republicans, or remained Democrats, but supported Ronald Reagan.

Ronald Reagan first ran for Governor in 1966 and some of those Okies and Arkies were still alive and they supported him.  Their kids were alive and voting by then, and they were in their prime voting years during Reagan's campaigns.

[scutosaurus]

Satisfying to see Ing doing so badly. Not that I like anyone else running, but at least they don't use campaign donations to pay off their credit cards.

Hooray for Iraq War boosters!

Pardon me for caring about ethics even slightly.

Iraq War is definitely more ethical than like $15,000 in money screw-ups

Not being able to afford a good campaign treasurer in your first couple of campaigns really doesn't compare to much the average center left/right politician gets up to morally.

But obviously ethics are a different cat - a sedated, desanguinated, legalized version of morality designed to protect evil as long as its i's are dotted and its t's are crossed.

jesus christ this post

Arguing in favor of crime because centrists are criminals is apparently the progressive way now.

[I spent the winter writing songs about getting better]

This is why that stupid #MeToo movement needs to end. Ellison was one of our best gets for this cycle. This is what I was talking about when I said that if Franken resigned, the Republicans will find pay bimbo who’s never even met the politician to accuse him of sexual harassment any time we have an up-and-coming rising star.

[IceSpear]

This is why that stupid #MeToo movement needs to end. Ellison was one of our best gets for this cycle. This is what I was talking about when I said that if Franken resigned, the Republicans will find pay bimbo who’s never even met the politician to accuse him of sexual harassment any time we have an up-and-coming rising star.

Because it deserves to go in twice, lol.

[America Needs a 13-6 Progressive SCOTUS]

As you have indicated, the vast majority of Confederate monuments were erected in the 1910's & 20's when Southern states were enacting Jim Crow laws.
There was also a significant, yet smaller spike in the 1950's & 60's during the Civil Rights movement.

See this graphic on this website (link below), showing the numbers and distribution of monuments over time. The article also points out that:
The chart illustrates upticks in the construction of Confederate monuments on courthouse grounds after the landmark Plessy v. Ferguson case in 1896 upheld state segregation laws. The construction of monuments outside of schools jumped after the 1954 Brown vs. Board of Education ruling, in which the Supreme Court deemed state laws segregating public schools to be unconstitutional.

So you can drop your "leftists want to abolish place and history" shtick.
All the evidence above shows that Southerners weren't really concerned about "history" when erecting these monuments. But instead, it was about using them as symbols of hate and intimidation.

http://theweek.com/speedreads/718507/striking-graphic-reveals-construction-confederate-monuments-peaked-during-jim-crow-civil-rights-eras

Southern states started enacting Jim Crow laws in the late 19th century, though. Plus, as your graph indicates, the largest spike in public Confederate commemoration was already on the decline when the Klan was reformed in the 1910s. If anything, the strongest correlation is with the aging of Civil War veterans and the passage of the Civil War from people's living memory. Which makes perfect sense.

It "makes perfect sense" to Neo-Nazis, Klansmen and white supremacists.

It makes sense to the people whose forefathers bore the brunt of the most destructive war in the history of the United States.

It makes sense to the people whose forefathers' main purpose of fighting was to preserve the act of enslaving other human beings (for money). The fact that they (the South) "bore the brunt" of the American Civil War (versus the North) was both justified and a grace to all humanity.

The vast majority of monuments are depicting their leaders, and not the sheep the leaders employed (and fooled) to fight for them. Their leaders were intelligent (and rich) and knew exactly what their true cause was (and not "State's rights" bulls**t).

Muhhh the South is nothing but evil scum, HP!

[Atlas Has Shrugged]

As you have indicated, the vast majority of Confederate monuments were erected in the 1910's & 20's when Southern states were enacting Jim Crow laws.
There was also a significant, yet smaller spike in the 1950's & 60's during the Civil Rights movement.

See this graphic on this website (link below), showing the numbers and distribution of monuments over time. The article also points out that:
The chart illustrates upticks in the construction of Confederate monuments on courthouse grounds after the landmark Plessy v. Ferguson case in 1896 upheld state segregation laws. The construction of monuments outside of schools jumped after the 1954 Brown vs. Board of Education ruling, in which the Supreme Court deemed state laws segregating public schools to be unconstitutional.

So you can drop your "leftists want to abolish place and history" shtick.
All the evidence above shows that Southerners weren't really concerned about "history" when erecting these monuments. But instead, it was about using them as symbols of hate and intimidation.

http://theweek.com/speedreads/718507/striking-graphic-reveals-construction-confederate-monuments-peaked-during-jim-crow-civil-rights-eras

Southern states started enacting Jim Crow laws in the late 19th century, though. Plus, as your graph indicates, the largest spike in public Confederate commemoration was already on the decline when the Klan was reformed in the 1910s. If anything, the strongest correlation is with the aging of Civil War veterans and the passage of the Civil War from people's living memory. Which makes perfect sense.

It "makes perfect sense" to Neo-Nazis, Klansmen and white supremacists.

It makes sense to the people whose forefathers bore the brunt of the most destructive war in the history of the United States.

It makes sense to the people whose forefathers' main purpose of fighting was to preserve the act of enslaving other human beings (for money). The fact that they (the South) "bore the brunt" of the American Civil War (versus the North) was both justified and a grace to all humanity.

The vast majority of monuments are depicting their leaders, and not the sheep the leaders employed (and fooled) to fight for them. Their leaders were intelligent (and rich) and knew exactly what their true cause was (and not "State's rights" bulls**t).

Muhhh the South is nothing but evil scum, HP!

How can something that is fundamentally true be ignorant or absurd? Lincoln being a garden variety Victorian age white supremacist doesn't mean he's not a FF still, nor does Lee fighting for the south dent his status as a FF. Let's face it, you're just butthurt that your alcoholic, stroke ravaged nominee was beat by a rookie and you're taking it out on the south.

[FEMA Camp Administrator]

Sanchez, the alcoholic nominee won in 1868.

[America Needs a 13-6 Progressive SCOTUS]

Sanchez, the alcoholic nominee won in 1868.

Democrats tried to nominate a pro-slavery candidate one last time in 1868. Thankfully, it failed.

[IceSpear]

One of two things will happen. One is that Donald Trump will be disgraced and discredited, and he will have largely discredited and disgraced the Republican party to the extent that it becomes as it was in the 1930s, a default alternative to opponents of machine politics and to people who can't get ahead in the Democratic Party. 

The other is that Donald Trump succeeds in making America an authoritarian society that has either marginalized or outlawed the Democratic Party  in an America in which Donald Trump is seen as the transformative figure of American politics. This is the sort of country in which all means of personal success, such as college admission or getting a government-sponsored loan, or advancing in the Armed Forces, depends upon an early start in politicized  youth organizations instead of Scouting, FFA, 4-H, religious youth leagues, Boys' or Girls' clubs, the Y, or Masonic groups.

Or emigrating. Think of all the Russian, Spanish, and Portuguese surnames among the French today. If you wonder how the French made up for the losses of World War I -- that's how. 

This is the sort of America in which Washington, Jefferson, Lincoln, and perhaps even FDR are transmuted into advocates of despotism. One becomes a victim, a rebel, or a perpetrator in such an America until that America does something really stupid that brings the whole system down.

[Sestak]

As you have indicated, the vast majority of Confederate monuments were erected in the 1910's & 20's when Southern states were enacting Jim Crow laws.
There was also a significant, yet smaller spike in the 1950's & 60's during the Civil Rights movement.

See this graphic on this website (link below), showing the numbers and distribution of monuments over time. The article also points out that:
The chart illustrates upticks in the construction of Confederate monuments on courthouse grounds after the landmark Plessy v. Ferguson case in 1896 upheld state segregation laws. The construction of monuments outside of schools jumped after the 1954 Brown vs. Board of Education ruling, in which the Supreme Court deemed state laws segregating public schools to be unconstitutional.

So you can drop your "leftists want to abolish place and history" shtick.
All the evidence above shows that Southerners weren't really concerned about "history" when erecting these monuments. But instead, it was about using them as symbols of hate and intimidation.

http://theweek.com/speedreads/718507/striking-graphic-reveals-construction-confederate-monuments-peaked-during-jim-crow-civil-rights-eras

Southern states started enacting Jim Crow laws in the late 19th century, though. Plus, as your graph indicates, the largest spike in public Confederate commemoration was already on the decline when the Klan was reformed in the 1910s. If anything, the strongest correlation is with the aging of Civil War veterans and the passage of the Civil War from people's living memory. Which makes perfect sense.

It "makes perfect sense" to Neo-Nazis, Klansmen and white supremacists.

It makes sense to the people whose forefathers bore the brunt of the most destructive war in the history of the United States.

It makes sense to the people whose forefathers' main purpose of fighting was to preserve the act of enslaving other human beings (for money). The fact that they (the South) "bore the brunt" of the American Civil War (versus the North) was both justified and a grace to all humanity.

The vast majority of monuments are depicting their leaders, and not the sheep the leaders employed (and fooled) to fight for them. Their leaders were intelligent (and rich) and knew exactly what their true cause was (and not "State's rights" bulls**t).

Muhhh the South is nothing but evil scum, HP!

How can something that is fundamentally true be ignorant or absurd? Lincoln being a garden variety Victorian age white supremacist doesn't mean he's not a FF still, nor does Lee fighting for the south dent his status as a FF. Let's face it, you're just butthurt that your alcoholic, stroke ravaged nominee was beat by a rookie and you're taking it out on the south.

Lmao. Lee as an FF? You do realize that FF stands for the exact opposite of what Lee was doing, right?

[AtorBoltox]

As you have indicated, the vast majority of Confederate monuments were erected in the 1910's & 20's when Southern states were enacting Jim Crow laws.
There was also a significant, yet smaller spike in the 1950's & 60's during the Civil Rights movement.

See this graphic on this website (link below), showing the numbers and distribution of monuments over time. The article also points out that:
The chart illustrates upticks in the construction of Confederate monuments on courthouse grounds after the landmark Plessy v. Ferguson case in 1896 upheld state segregation laws. The construction of monuments outside of schools jumped after the 1954 Brown vs. Board of Education ruling, in which the Supreme Court deemed state laws segregating public schools to be unconstitutional.

So you can drop your "leftists want to abolish place and history" shtick.
All the evidence above shows that Southerners weren't really concerned about "history" when erecting these monuments. But instead, it was about using them as symbols of hate and intimidation.

http://theweek.com/speedreads/718507/striking-graphic-reveals-construction-confederate-monuments-peaked-during-jim-crow-civil-rights-eras

Southern states started enacting Jim Crow laws in the late 19th century, though. Plus, as your graph indicates, the largest spike in public Confederate commemoration was already on the decline when the Klan was reformed in the 1910s. If anything, the strongest correlation is with the aging of Civil War veterans and the passage of the Civil War from people's living memory. Which makes perfect sense.

It "makes perfect sense" to Neo-Nazis, Klansmen and white supremacists.

It makes sense to the people whose forefathers bore the brunt of the most destructive war in the history of the United States.

It makes sense to the people whose forefathers' main purpose of fighting was to preserve the act of enslaving other human beings (for money). The fact that they (the South) "bore the brunt" of the American Civil War (versus the North) was both justified and a grace to all humanity.

The vast majority of monuments are depicting their leaders, and not the sheep the leaders employed (and fooled) to fight for them. Their leaders were intelligent (and rich) and knew exactly what their true cause was (and not "State's rights" bulls**t).

Do you call the kidnapping and/or raping by soldiers of thousands of girls and women a "grace to all humanity?" Do you call decapitating teenage boys and mounting their heads on pikes a "grace to all humanity?" Would you also call the burnings of thousands of homes and farmsteads occupied by innocent women, children, and elderly a "grace to humanity?" Do you call the starvation of civilians to the point of death a "grace to humanity?" These are just a small selection of things that Southerners, seeking nothing more than self-determination, suffered. Think twice before you celebrate and cheer the slaughter and suffering of millions of innocent people. There was nothing graceful about the Civil War.

While some good things did come out of it in the end, the acts of sheer evil that psychopaths such as Sherman and Lincoln carried out to empower themselves can never be forgotten nor forgiven.

My ancestors fought to secure freedom and independence for their homeland, and to defend their homes and their families against hostile, pillaging invaders. They went through hell to do it.
They hardly had as much as two coins to rub together, asserting that they were fighting and sacrificing their lives "for money" or to defend some rich peoples' wealth is not so much laughable as it is a horrible distortion of the truth.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

[Badger]

Domestic Policy: F

Economy: D+ (Can we please stop acting like it's normal to have a "jobless recovery" spanning most of a decade and admit that the Obama economy sucked?)
Trade: F (Really helped move swing voters by focusing on TPP though!)
Crime: C- (The homicide rate isn't any lower than it was 15 years ago, and increased during his second term.)
Immigration: F (One of those issues that most people stopped caring about because they had a president who made them feel good about themselves. Exposed DREAMers to Trump-era deportation because of executive overreach. Did nothing to resolve legal status of most migrants living in the United States.)
Race Relations: F (For the rank stupidity of the beer summit alone. Remember when he threw his pastor under the bus over an out-of-context quote, but liberals liked it because he also implied that his grandmother was a bit racist? Telling character moment.)
Environment: F (Spare us the prattling about "benchmarks." We're facing down a global catastrophe and he did virtually nothing to prepare us for it.)
Healthcare: F--

• "If you like your plan, you can keep it!"
• "Hillary Clinton's attacking, but what's she not telling you about her health care plan? It forces everyone to buy insurance, even if you can't afford it, and you pay a penalty if you don't."
• "I will sign a universal health care bill into law by the end of my first term as president that will cover every American and cut the cost of a typical family's premium by up to $2,500 a year."
• Great to leave office with the phrase "mid-life mortality crisis" in the headlines, isn't it?

Foreign Policy: F

Cuba: A- (A rare bright spot that Trump hasn't reversed - yet, at least.)
China: F ("The pivot!")
Iran: C+ (The nuclear deal was good, but died when he left office. Increased sanctions, not so much.)
North Korea: D- (Gradual deterioration?)
Russia: B (This one is on a curve. He wasn't trying to start a war with them or falling for obvious manipulation.)
Iraq: F- (Imagine telling yourself 10 years ago that we'd have 5,000 troops in that country today.)
Afghanistan: F (Imagine telling yourself 10 years ago that we'd have over 15,000 troops in that country today.)
Syria: F- (Oh God...)
Libya: F- (Oh God...)
Yemen: F- (Oh God...)

Overall: F

CC: The Good Post Gallery.

And yet this joker thinks Trump is somehow better than an F- dumpster fire because he "triggerz libs!"

[Badger]

As you have indicated, the vast majority of Confederate monuments were erected in the 1910's & 20's when Southern states were enacting Jim Crow laws.
There was also a significant, yet smaller spike in the 1950's & 60's during the Civil Rights movement.

See this graphic on this website (link below), showing the numbers and distribution of monuments over time. The article also points out that:
The chart illustrates upticks in the construction of Confederate monuments on courthouse grounds after the landmark Plessy v. Ferguson case in 1896 upheld state segregation laws. The construction of monuments outside of schools jumped after the 1954 Brown vs. Board of Education ruling, in which the Supreme Court deemed state laws segregating public schools to be unconstitutional.

So you can drop your "leftists want to abolish place and history" shtick.
All the evidence above shows that Southerners weren't really concerned about "history" when erecting these monuments. But instead, it was about using them as symbols of hate and intimidation.

http://theweek.com/speedreads/718507/striking-graphic-reveals-construction-confederate-monuments-peaked-during-jim-crow-civil-rights-eras

Southern states started enacting Jim Crow laws in the late 19th century, though. Plus, as your graph indicates, the largest spike in public Confederate commemoration was already on the decline when the Klan was reformed in the 1910s. If anything, the strongest correlation is with the aging of Civil War veterans and the passage of the Civil War from people's living memory. Which makes perfect sense.

It "makes perfect sense" to Neo-Nazis, Klansmen and white supremacists.

It makes sense to the people whose forefathers bore the brunt of the most destructive war in the history of the United States.

It makes sense to the people whose forefathers' main purpose of fighting was to preserve the act of enslaving other human beings (for money). The fact that they (the South) "bore the brunt" of the American Civil War (versus the North) was both justified and a grace to all humanity.

The vast majority of monuments are depicting their leaders, and not the sheep the leaders employed (and fooled) to fight for them. Their leaders were intelligent (and rich) and knew exactly what their true cause was (and not "State's rights" bulls**t).

Muhhh the South is nothing but evil scum, HP!

How can something that is fundamentally true be ignorant or absurd? Lincoln being a garden variety Victorian age white supremacist doesn't mean he's not a FF still, nor does Lee fighting for the south dent his status as a FF. Let's face it, you're just butthurt that your alcoholic, stroke ravaged nominee was beat by a rookie and you're taking it out on the south.

Because it is GROSSLY misleading. As the best response to the post simply noted, actions spoke louder than words.

[Shameless Lefty Hack]

The whole big picture hurt Hoover.

The Okies and Arkies that moved to California did, however, become the base of Reagan Democrats in central California.  The GOP lean in places like Bakersfield is the result of the descendents of the Okies and Arkies who brought their Southern heritage with them to California.  

TIL "Reagan Democrats" existed almost five decades before Reagan's Presidency.

this is real - here's a foundational academic history on the okies who went to Orange County.

Suburban Warriors, by Lisa McGirr

[FEMA Camp Administrator]

Edited the above for you so the link worked. “=“, not “-“.