Final Army Base Naming Commission Report

[DKW 86 7,440]

10 hours ago, homersapien said:

And your point is.....?

Above your paygrade...

[homersapien 11,445]

6 hours ago, DKW 86 said:

Above your paygrade...

Yeah, just like I figured - pointless.

[Son of A Tiger 561]

This thread has gone from renaming army bases to health care so I decided to start a new thread about renaming buildings.

[AUDub 11,184]

On 1/13/2023 at 9:21 PM, DKW 86 said:

What part of:

Now? All is almost completely flipped. The Republicans have turned almost suicidal in their trumpism. The Democrats? They are now the old Republicans, fending for Big Business and Wall Street. If ever there was a need for a third party, it is right now. 

Do you not get?  I am 100% Correct on Facts. No one is arguing that the Dems didnt give us Jim Crowe, Lynchings, and the KKK. 

https://www.wsj.com/articles/SB1041302509432817073

 

With a little research, the actual voting record for both Houses of Congress shows that the Civil Rights Act of 1964 passed the Senate on a 73-to-27 vote. The Democratic supermajority in the Senate split their vote 46 (69%) for and 21 (31%) against. The Republicans, on the other hand, split their vote 27 for (82%) and 6 against (18%). Thus, the no vote consisted of 78% Democrats. Further, the infamous 74-day filibuster was led by the Southern Democrats, who overwhelmingly voted against the act.

An examination of the House vote shows a similar pattern. The House voted 290 to 130 in favor. Democrats split their vote 152 (61%) to 96 (39%) while Republicans split theirs 138 (80%) to 34 (20%). The no vote consisted of 74% Democrats. Clearly, the 1964 Civil Rights Act could not have been passed without the leadership of Republicans such as Everett Dirksen and the votes of Republicans. As the online Wall Street Journal so aptly subtitled Mr. Steele's article, "Trent Lott jeopardizes the very productive ideas his party stands for."

You need to break it down by geography rather than party affiliation. The Republicans in the former slaveholding states generally voted against it as well, and the Democrats' greater numbers are explained because they dominated the legislature. 

One that sort of bucked that trend was Barry Goldwater, senator from Arizona. He was one of few Republicans from outside the former slave states that voted against the CRA. 

When he ran for president against LBJ, he got whipped. One of the more consequential things about that campaign though was that he carried the deep south, the first Republican to do so. This didn't go unnoticed, and it was this observation that led to Nixon's1 southern strategy.

It wasn't Democrat versus Republican so much as it was union state vs former confederate state. When it became clear the more socially progressive wing of the democratic party was going to dominate, the southern conservative wing revolted, forming the AIP (the Dixiecrats) before eventually settling on voting Republican. 

You mentioned the record breaking filibuster. One of the people that set that record was Strom Thurmond, who was a Democrat at the time. He switched party affiliation to Republican, following the will of his voters. This happened quite a bit. 

Edited January 15, 2023 by AUDub

[homersapien 11,445]

17 minutes ago, AUDub said:

You need to break it down by geography rather than party affiliation. The Republicans in the former slaveholding states generally voted against it as well, and the Democrats' greater numbers are explained because they dominated the legislature. 

One that sort of bucked that trend was Barry Goldwater, senator from Arizona. He was one of few Republicans from outside the former slave states that voted against the CRA. 

When he ran for president against LBJ, he got whipped. One of the more consequential things about that campaign though was that he carried the deep south, the first Republican to do so. This didn't go unnoticed, and it was this observation that led to Nixon's1 southern strategy.

It wasn't Democrat versus Republican so much as it was union state vs former confederate state. When it became clear the more socially progressive wing of the democratic party was going to dominate, the southern conservative wing revolted, forming the AIP (the Dixiecrats) before eventually settling on voting Republican. 

You mentioned the record breaking filibuster. One of the people that set that record was Strom Thurmond, who was a Democrat at the time. He switched party affiliation to Republican, following the will of his voters. This happened quite a bit. 

Thanks!

David's (miss) application of statistics was a perfect illustration of "Lies, Damned Lies and Statistics.

Of course the greater fallacy is comparing the reality of today's political parties to yesterday's.  Any fool can see which party currently represents social and racial justice and which does not. The history is interesting, but it can only explain how the modern day reality came to be, it certainly doesn't refute it. 

[DKW 86 7,440]

3 hours ago, homersapien said:

Thanks!

David's (miss) application of statistics was a perfect illustration of "Lies, Damned Lies and Statistics.

I never applied staistics to anything. I showed factually that card carrying Democrats gave us Jim Crowe, lynchings, and the KKK. No one has so far repudiated those facts even one time. I made a CLEAR break in the timeline, but that still doesnt change the FACTS.

Of course the greater fallacy is comparing the reality of today's political parties to yesterday's.  Any fool can see which party currently represents social and racial justice and which does not. The history is interesting, but it can only explain how the modern day reality came to be, it certainly doesn't refute it. 

Again with the strawmen. I never said otherwise and in fact the exact opposite of what you say. Typical for the party ass kissers. 

[Son of A Tiger 561]

[homersapien 11,445]

On 1/15/2023 at 4:54 PM, DKW 86 said:

Again with the strawmen. I never said otherwise and in fact the exact opposite of what you say. Typical for the party ass kissers. 

David, I refuse to believe you are so stupid to think Southern Democratic votes against civil rights has anything to do with the current Democratic party.

So kiss your own ass.

[DKW 86 7,440]

15 hours ago, homersapien said:

David, I refuse to believe you are so stupid to think Southern Democratic votes against civil rights has anything to do with the current Democratic party.

So kiss your own ass.

And again, I clearly made the break in the timeline. You are such  partisan you argue with the voices in your head. 

[icanthearyou 4,463]

3 hours ago, DKW 86 said:

And again, I clearly made the break in the timeline. You are such  partisan you argue with the voices in your head. 

Please do not be so disingenuous.