The Hofoid House of Absurd & Ignorant Posts VII

[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.

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

Suburban Warriors, by Lisa McGirr

It's the "Reagan Democrats" part that's absurd.

[OSR stands with Israel]

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.

Lee also led an army which waged war against the United States

[OSR stands with Israel]

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

It's the "Reagan Democrats" part that's absurd.

plus the idea of Reagan Democrats including the voters of Orange County is absurd as Goldwater won that county as well.

[Landslide Lyndon]

Domestic Policy: F

Economy: F. Bill Clinton's speculative bubble was unsustainable and expanded Wall Street's already vast power.
Trade: F. Bill Clinton was the outsourcing President.
Crime: I suppose it depends if one things a massive prison industry is worth artificially cutting crime rates. I don't. F.
Immigration: F. Passed several proto-Drumpfian policies.
Race Relations: F. The racial climate was calmer than today or under his predecessors, but that was despite his policies.
Healthcare: D. His terrible 1993 plan was austerity and rationing with a dose of insurance company monopolization, though he boosted immunization funding a bit and was strong-armed into launching S-CHIP.
Banking: F-. Bill Clinton deregulated finance far more radically than any his Republican predecessors did and made an already likely crash an absolute certainty.
AmeriCorps: B. A rare bright spot on his otherwise dismal record.
Environment: D. Gutted numerous environmental laws and made backroom deals with fossil fuel and lumber companies, though he was pushed by Gore into backing a small number of green measures.
Telecommunications: F. His telecom deregulation monopolized the media.

Foreign Policy: F
Ireland: A. His saving grace.
Mexico: D. NAFTA was terrible for Mexico's agricultural sector and helped boost drug trade.
Somalia: F. Senseless intervention.
Rwanda: F-.
Iraq: F. Killed civilians in air strikes and maintained support of the vicious UN sanctions that caused mass starvation without making Hussein budge an inch.
China: D. He needlessly antagonized several times late in his second term while doing nothing to compete with them.
Serbia: F-. He allowed the arms blockade on Bosnia to stay even though it could have countered Serbian genocide without requiring a intervention.
North Korea: C. Good thing Jimmy Carter forced him into seeking diplomatic solutions.
Russia: F. While his personal relationship with Yeltsin was positive, his support of NATO expansion maintained the Cold War mindset and "shock therapy" devastated the Russian living standard.
Afghanistan: F-. Clinton initially supported the Taliban takeover of the country.

Other: F
Character: F-. Doubt much need be said.
Ethics: F-. Blatant obstruction of justice over the Lewinsky scandal and that's just the start...
Vision: F-. His "New Economy" was a house of cards built on swindles.

[Politician]

No, healthcare is not a right. No one is entitled to anyone else's service.

[🐒Gods of Prosperity🔱🐲💸]

https://uselectionatlas.org/POLLS/SENATE/2018/polls.php?action=indpoll&id=18120180807248

rename this thread in honor of Trafalgar Group crosstabs imo

[DavidB.]

When was the last genocide of Israelis? Must've missed that one. Sorry for caring.

o-kaaaay

[Sestak]

https://uselectionatlas.org/POLLS/SENATE/2018/polls.php?action=indpoll&id=18120180807248

rename this thread in honor of Trafalgar Group crosstabs imo

I concur.

[GM Team Member and Senator WB]

https://uselectionatlas.org/POLLS/SENATE/2018/polls.php?action=indpoll&id=18120180807248

rename this thread in honor of Trafalgar Group crosstabs imo

I concur.

boom I did it

[Yellowhammer]

https://uselectionatlas.org/POLLS/SENATE/2018/polls.php?action=indpoll&id=18120180807248

rename this thread in honor of Trafalgar Group crosstabs imo

I concur.

boom I did it

I propose "Trafalgar Trash Heap"

[PragmaticPopulist]

Omar straight-up said she opposes BDS, which basically destroyed Carlos Ramirez-Rosa's career.

Probably because Omar dislikes how BDS advocates for nonviolent solutions. She wants violent "solutions".

[Citation extremely needed]

https://twitter.com/IlhanMN/status/269488770066313216?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw%7Ctwca...
My interpretation of this tweet is that she advocates for a military invasion of Israel through Gaza.

[Politician]

Kasich is massively overrated by this forum. The amount of 20/20 hindsight/revisionist history that people evoke when talking about him is ridiculous. He tries to pass off as a moderate when his views on abortion are some of the most conservative I've ever seen, so I don't believe that everyone would "rally around good ol' moderate John" as he wins over 50% of the vote and clears 320+ electoral votes. He may have won in 2016, but he wouldn't have performed better than Trump IMO.

People were making fun of him in 2016 for staying in the primary too long before dropping out. He has been propped up to be far superior of a candidate than he actually was, and if you were paying attention in the GOP primary you'd see that. Cruz got almost double the votes and Rubio won more delegates than he did.

And I don't have anything against Kasich personally. He's far more respectable than most Republicans, in that he's not a religious nut like Cruz or a d-bag like Trump. The people who prop him up to be more than he actually is bothers me.

As for this result, that's basically what I would have expected.

The narrative that Trump was the "only candidate who could break through the blue wall" seems to rely on us ignoring the fact that Pat Toomey, Ron Johnson, and the vast majority of House Republicans did better than he did.

[RINO Tom]

Kasich is massively overrated by this forum. The amount of 20/20 hindsight/revisionist history that people evoke when talking about him is ridiculous. He tries to pass off as a moderate when his views on abortion are some of the most conservative I've ever seen, so I don't believe that everyone would "rally around good ol' moderate John" as he wins over 50% of the vote and clears 320+ electoral votes. He may have won in 2016, but he wouldn't have performed better than Trump IMO.

People were making fun of him in 2016 for staying in the primary too long before dropping out. He has been propped up to be far superior of a candidate than he actually was, and if you were paying attention in the GOP primary you'd see that. Cruz got almost double the votes and Rubio won more delegates than he did.

And I don't have anything against Kasich personally. He's far more respectable than most Republicans, in that he's not a religious nut like Cruz or a d-bag like Trump. The people who prop him up to be more than he actually is bothers me.

As for this result, that's basically what I would have expected.

The narrative that Trump was the "only candidate who could break through the blue wall" seems to rely on us ignoring the fact that Pat Toomey, Ron Johnson, and the vast majority of House Republicans did better than he did.

Absurd.  Ignorant.

How is his post either one?

[Politician]

Kasich is massively overrated by this forum. The amount of 20/20 hindsight/revisionist history that people evoke when talking about him is ridiculous. He tries to pass off as a moderate when his views on abortion are some of the most conservative I've ever seen, so I don't believe that everyone would "rally around good ol' moderate John" as he wins over 50% of the vote and clears 320+ electoral votes. He may have won in 2016, but he wouldn't have performed better than Trump IMO.

People were making fun of him in 2016 for staying in the primary too long before dropping out. He has been propped up to be far superior of a candidate than he actually was, and if you were paying attention in the GOP primary you'd see that. Cruz got almost double the votes and Rubio won more delegates than he did.

And I don't have anything against Kasich personally. He's far more respectable than most Republicans, in that he's not a religious nut like Cruz or a d-bag like Trump. The people who prop him up to be more than he actually is bothers me.

As for this result, that's basically what I would have expected.

The narrative that Trump was the "only candidate who could break through the blue wall" seems to rely on us ignoring the fact that Pat Toomey, Ron Johnson, and the vast majority of House Republicans did better than he did.

Absurd.  Ignorant.

How is his post either one?

The problem is, it's a red herring. Had Trump done worse in the rust belt, it would have certainly impacted rust-belt Reps.

[Kyle Rittenhouse is a Political Prisoner]

Kasich is massively overrated by this forum. The amount of 20/20 hindsight/revisionist history that people evoke when talking about him is ridiculous. He tries to pass off as a moderate when his views on abortion are some of the most conservative I've ever seen, so I don't believe that everyone would "rally around good ol' moderate John" as he wins over 50% of the vote and clears 320+ electoral votes. He may have won in 2016, but he wouldn't have performed better than Trump IMO.

People were making fun of him in 2016 for staying in the primary too long before dropping out. He has been propped up to be far superior of a candidate than he actually was, and if you were paying attention in the GOP primary you'd see that. Cruz got almost double the votes and Rubio won more delegates than he did.

And I don't have anything against Kasich personally. He's far more respectable than most Republicans, in that he's not a religious nut like Cruz or a d-bag like Trump. The people who prop him up to be more than he actually is bothers me.

As for this result, that's basically what I would have expected.

The narrative that Trump was the "only candidate who could break through the blue wall" seems to rely on us ignoring the fact that Pat Toomey, Ron Johnson, and the vast majority of House Republicans did better than he did.

Absurd.  Ignorant.

How is his post either one?

The problem is, it's a red herring. Had Trump done worse in the rust belt, it would have certainly impacted rust-belt Reps.

That's like saying Bill Nelson won on Obama's coattails. There was a path to victory for Republicans in every state that Trump won before Trump.

[Since I'm the mad scientist proclaimed by myself]

The parents were out of line, but the girls' restroom is for girls only, period. I don't want anyone to just identify themselves as girls. I mean, we condemn people pretending to be ethnic minorities just to get scholarship perks.

[I spent the winter writing songs about getting better]

IL is an Obama state, Safe D

[Chancellor Tanterterg]

Context:

Beginning to like her... might be able to forgive her for working for the orange troll.

[AtorBoltox]

Eisenhower of course.
He was smart enough not get involved in Vietnam back in the 50s

[America Needs a 13-6 Progressive SCOTUS]

Fun fact: I’ve only spent about a week and a half out of the country my entire life. That how patriotic I am.

[America Needs a 13-6 Progressive SCOTUS]

Fun fact: I’ve only spent about a week and a half out of the country my entire life. That how patriotic I am.

I don’t see anything wrong with this.

You implied that international travel is un-patriotic.

[FEMA Camp Administrator]

Fun fact: I’ve only spent about a week and a half out of the country my entire life. That how patriotic I am.

I don’t see anything wrong with this.

You implied that international travel is un-patriotic.

How often was George Washington outside of North America? 

[I spent the winter writing songs about getting better]

As the nation becomes more diverse, ie as people have less and less in common ethnically, culturally, and politically, unity building exercises like the pledge become even more important. It's disappointing but not surprising to see so many on the left (and even the "right") oppose such things. They oppose nationalism in any form, even race blind civic nationalism based on shared ideas. They want no nationalism, no nation, no communities except communities built around racial resentment. Of course I can see the responses coming in now "lol it's just the pledge don't be so dramatic" but it's just the pledge now, it will be the founding fathers tomorrow, the flag the next day. How in the world will this country be governed in the future if there are no shared values except "we need to let in more immigrants who want more money"? This is another step towards the collapse of the whole country, maybe the left will like what comes after, maybe they won't. They think it's worth the risk apparently.

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

Fun fact: I’ve only spent about a week and a half out of the country my entire life. That how patriotic I am.

I don’t see anything wrong with this.

You implied that international travel is un-patriotic.

How often was George Washington outside of North America? 

So John Adams, Benjamin Franklin, Thomas Jefferson, and Robert Livingston, each of whom spent years outside North America, and were four of the Committee of Five that drafted the Declaration of Independence were unpatriotic?

[FEMA Camp Administrator]

Fun fact: I’ve only spent about a week and a half out of the country my entire life. That how patriotic I am.

I don’t see anything wrong with this.

You implied that international travel is un-patriotic.

How often was George Washington outside of North America? 

So John Adams, Benjamin Franklin, Thomas Jefferson, and Robert Livingston, each of whom spent years outside North America, and were four of the Committee of Five that drafted the Declaration of Independence were unpatriotic?

Look who hath pierced the veil of thinly disguised sarcasm! Who could have guessed that I did not actually doubt the patriotism of our soldiers at Normandy! (Though Jefferson’s patriotism is perhaps worth questioning)