Can Conservatives ever quit the Southern Strategy?

[satimy]

You mean Sinclair Broadcasting, Or Clear Channel, anywhere on Talk Radio, or do you mean Fox News, BreitBart, TheBlaze, Really you still trying to sell that bullshit about the American fucking media.

No I mean like he NYt, wapo, NBC, CBS, CNN. All borderline communist

[Felya]

No I mean like he NYt, wapo, NBC, CBS, CNN. All borderline communist

All 5 are the antithesis of communism. Look up communism, then tell me how 5 private businesses are communist. Trump saying that media is fake and to only listen to him, is far closer to communism's state ran media. In fact, while Bannon was in the White House, BrietBart inherently became far closer to communist media, then 5 private companies without being part of government.

In USSR, we didn't have that many news sources. We had only one and all American/foreign news was treated as lies attacking USSR's sovereignty. Much like Trump's fake news, supposedly attacking the sovereignty of his administration.

[satimy]

All 5 are the antithesis of communism. Look up communism, then tell me how 5 private businesses are communist. Trump saying that media is fake and to only listen to him, is far closer to communism's state ran media. In fact, while Bannon was in the White House, BrietBart inherently became far closer to communist media, then 5 private companies without being part of government.

In USSR, we didn't have that many news sources. We had only one and all American/foreign news was treated as lies attacking USSR's sovereignty. Much like Trump's fake news, supposedly attacking the sovereignty of his administration.

Communism is tricking poor people into attacking your rich rivals, it's truly the manifesto of the elite

[quras]

SNIP....

What would Hillary have done that would be as bad as what Trump's done?


-Would she and her affiliates be under constant and developing investigation for ties to Russia?
-Would she have bald-faced lied about her inauguration attendance numbers and being wire-tapped by a former president?
-Would she be cyclically firing staff members?
-Would she be launching on daily disjointed tirades over Twitter like a 14 year old?
-Would she be calling any and everything she disagrees with "fake news?"
-Would she be threatening the positions of elected congressmen if they didn't vote her way?
-Would she have bragged about her sex life to boy scouts?
-Would she be claiming there are "good people on both sides" when it comes to nazis?
-Would she have lost the trust of her party so much that she'd be unable to push through any legislation? (and Trump has a supermajority on his side to boot)

Because frankly I don't think she would have done ANY of that.

So please, PLEASE tell me:

What would Hillary have been messing up if she were president?
SNIP....

I'll be happy to tell you.

She's a liar and a politically corrupt individual that would do anything to prolong her political career and stay in the limelight.

Just to name a few things she has under her belt:
• Was removed from her House Judiciary Committee staffer job because of incompetence and lying.
• The Whitewater scandal.
• Married a serial liar and cheater, who occasionally had sexual encounters with nonconsenting partners and still supported his political career.
• Lied about “sniper fire” in an attempt to simulate exposure to danger in a war zone.
• The subject of a “vast right-wing conspiracy” that led to the impeachment and disbarment of her husband
• Took crockery, furniture, artwork and other items from the White House — had to return and/or pay for them.
• Said “what difference, at this point, does it make” about four brave people killed in Libya as a direct result of her failure to protect them on the anniversary of 9/11.
• Totally ignored the structure and rules for the handling of sensitive national security information.
• Amassed a personal fortune with “speaking fees” and payments from private sector political donors and foreign governments into transparent “foundations” in obvious exchange for future political favor.

Now back to your specific questions. Frankly, I think she would have done all that but what I do know is she is a political player and would have done the exact same things but in a much more political manner. What would play out best to the general ignorant masses?

• She most definitely would have colluded with foreign entities for money and favors (just like Russia)
• Would she have bald-faced lair and was disbarred for it and will lie about anything to farther her political train and whoever she can couple it too.
• Would she fire staff? "F" yea she would if not outright have them killed depending on how far you want to believe those stories.
• She would most definitely used twitter but I will admit she is a much smoother politician than Trump and to me thats more scary than Trump tirades.
• Given there is so much fake news and given she does pretty much that in her new book. Yes she would. Things that go against her she more than says they are fake and just used to motivate others against her.
• She most definitely would have threatened other politicians if something did't go her way.
• She would have claimed there are good people on both sides because that is the political thing to do and just like trump, she would have had to come back and claim specifics in a later speech because the first one wouldn't have been good enough.
• She plays a better political game but don't think she wouldn't have lost the interest of the Democrat given how she currently has.

The only thing you got is the boy scout speech and the anecdote about Trump seeing the real estate developer and what they might have done on a yacht. Sex wasn't even mentioned. So you're generalizing a bit to much when you look at what was actually said. Still not needed I'll grant you that but not nearly is bad as you claim when presented to teens and pre-teens who are far more knowledgeable than most seem to think.

So as long as we're wondering what MIGHT Hillary have done and not done.

Yea, she would have been just as bad if not worse. Her political power and corruption goes far deeper. She is far more dangerous as President and far more secretive and her political connections far worse..

Neither and I mean both of them is or was the best options for the U.S. but Hillary is a far worse and secretive political figure. Trump you can read like a book. Hillary not so much and that is a situation I don't want in the top position.

[Cthulhu 2020]

They're still both shit, so neither were optional to me. Doesn't matter if one is less shit or not.

Yes, to you shit is shit no matter how big the pile is.

To the rest of us we'd rather drive over a speed bump of shit (Hillary) than a mountain of shit (Trump).

[Kujako]

They're just mad that their farm equipment walked off and started voting. /runaway

[Felya]

Communism is tricking poor people into attacking your rich rivals, it's truly the manifesto of the elite

Even if that's your definition, Trump fits the bill better than any president in history... or the media...

[Dextroden]

Yes, to you shit is shit no matter how big the pile is.

To the rest of us we'd rather drive over a speed bump of shit (Hillary) than a mountain of shit (Trump).

I'd rather drive over neither. But people really wanted to drive over shit instead.

[Elegiac]

Communism is tricking poor people into attacking your rich rivals, it's truly the manifesto of the elite

Which is why class hatred and class warfare have been things since civilization was a thing, and not a phenomenon that emerged after Marx' lifetime.

- - - Updated - - -

And it's not a south vs north thing. It's rural vs urban.

The South vs. North thing is a manifestation of the Rural vs. Urban thing.

[Felya]

Communism is tricking poor people into attacking your rich rivals, it's truly the manifesto of the elite

Sorry to reply twice... can you tell me a term that describes tricking poor people into attacking your rich rivals, more than 'blue collar billionaire'? It's not communism...

[satimy]

Even if that's your definition, Trump fits the bill better than any president in history... or the media...

The majority of poor people are either apolitical or left wing. Even in red states the left wing is composed of the ultra elite and the super poor. Trump has fuck you money but not Soros money

[Jaylock]

Is that right?

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

In particular,

"In 2005, Republican National Committee chairman Ken Mehlman formally apologized to the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People (NAACP), a national civil rights organization, for exploiting racial polarization to win elections and ignoring the black vote."

If a racist old white guy (like my father) never votes for any party other than the GOP (and I heard him say often " Gddmn Democrat n-word lovers") ... that tells me all I need to know.

hahaha so wikipedia is your source? You mean a "source" that anyone can edit and change in the world? Yeah, nice one. And just because some apologizes doesn't mean the "southern strategy" was actually a thing. Get with the facts, you might be a little more enlightened if you do.

I'll leave you with another video so hopefully you can figure it out:

[Daelak]

Ill just leave this here:



The "southern strategy" is a fucking lie perpetuated by liberals and leftists.

Lol even the conservative internet hero god king conveniently skips over the modern conservative watershed moment when Goldwater won all Deep Southern states in his presidential election, dog whistling states' rights (neo-confederate) language to lock in segregationists and racists.

[Elegiac]

hahaha so wikipedia is your source? You mean a "source" that anyone can edit and change in the world?

You mean that source which has vastly more stringent citation requirements than "raw video" youtube documentaries? Lol.

Yeah, nice one. And just because some apologizes doesn't mean the "southern strategy" was actually a thing. Get with the facts, you might be a little more enlightened if you do.

No, the myriad of sources at the bottom of that wikipedia article you waved off demonstrates it was in fact and continues to be a thing.

[Jaylock]

You mean that source which has vastly more stringent citation requirements than "raw video" youtube documentaries? Lol.



No, the myriad of sources at the bottom of that wikipedia article you waved off demonstrates it was in fact and continues to be a thing.

Watch the video of the Vanderbilt University professor explaining how the southern strategy is a complete and utter lie. I won't even get into a discussion with you because I know you are a leftist and biased in everything you spew on these forums.

[Elegiac]

Watch the video of the Vanderbilt University professor explaining how the southern strategy is a complete and utter lie. I won't even get into a discussion with you because I know you are a leftist and biased in everything you spew on these forums.

Again, considering you seem to take more stock in some asshat on youtube versus an article with a ream of scholarly citations, 'bias' really doesn't come into it.

[Jaylock]

Again, considering you seem to take more stock in some asshat on youtube versus an article with a ream of scholarly citations, 'bias' really doesn't come into it.

Oh so professors from accredited universities are asshats now? lol.

Serious question, why is it that you can not even consider the arguments from the other side of your ideologies? Why keep living in your echo chamber when all it does is reinforce the false narratives that you believe?

[Elegiac]

Oh so professors from accredited universities are asshats now? lol.

Yep, if they express views which are manifestly incorrect to justify political biases or to be edgy. Which is not uncommon with revisionists regarding the history of the South.

Serious question, why is it that you can not even consider the arguments from the other side of your ideologies? Why keep living in your echo chamber when all it does is reinforce the false narratives that you believe?

I have; they've been judged and found wanting.

[Endus]

Oh so professors from accredited universities are asshats now? lol.

Serious question, why is it that you can not even consider the arguments from the other side of your ideologies? Why keep living in your echo chamber when all it does is reinforce the false narratives that you believe?

The problem is we have considered the argument you're presenting, and it is flawed and pretty blatantly historically revisionist. There's one person here who's flagrantly ignoring all evidence that doesn't fit within their echo chamber, and it isn't Didactic, buddy.

How about we listen to Lee Atwater, part of the Reagan administration?

Atwater: As to the whole Southern strategy that Harry S. Dent, Sr. and others put together in 1968, opposition to the Voting Rights Act would have been a central part of keeping the South. Now you don't have to do that. All that you need to do to keep the South is for Reagan to run in place on the issues that he's campaigned on since 1964, and that's fiscal conservatism, balancing the budget, cut taxes, you know, the whole cluster.

Questioner: But the fact is, isn't it, that Reagan does get to the Wallace voter and to the racist side of the Wallace voter by doing away with legal services, by cutting down on food stamps?


Atwater: You start out in 1954 by saying, "Nigger, nigger, nigger". By 1968 you can't say "nigger"—that hurts you. Backfires. So you say stuff like forced busing, states' rights and all that stuff. You're getting so abstract now [that] you're talking about cutting taxes, and all these things you're talking about are totally economic things and a byproduct of them is [that] blacks get hurt worse than whites. And subconsciously maybe that is part of it. I'm not saying that. But I'm saying that if it is getting that abstract, and that coded, that we are doing away with the racial problem one way or the other. You follow me—because obviously sitting around saying, "We want to cut this", is much more abstract than even the busing thing, and a hell of a lot more abstract than "Nigger, nigger".]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lee_At...rn_Strategy.22

Or how about Kevin Philips, who worked in the Nixon campaign?

"All the talk about Republicans making inroads into the Negro vote is persiflage. Even 'Jake the Snake' [Senator Jacob Javits of New York] only gets 20 percent. From now on, Republicans are never going to get more than 10 to 20 percent of the Negro vote, and they don't need any more than that... but Republicans would be shortsighted if they weakened the Voting Rights Act. The more Negroes who register as Democrats in the South, the sooner the Negrophobe whites will quit the Democrats and become Republicans. That's where the votes are. Without that prodding from the blacks, the whites will backslide into their old comfortable arrangement with the local Democrats."

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kevin_...thern_strategy

Just because you don't want to admit to the historical facts, that doesn't change them. It just means you're retreating into your echo chamber and refusing to accept anything that doesn't support your baseless assumptions.

[Cthulhu 2020]

I'd rather drive over neither. But people really wanted to drive over shit instead.

I'd rather drive over neither as well, but that's not the world we live in. No collective will of the people is going to change how our elections occur and how there's realistically only ever two choices. The entire process must be altered if you want to see anything more than a pile of shit and a mountain of shit as candidates. Winner take all and the electoral college are just a couple of systems in place that ensure the US will only ever have two major viable political parties - and why neither party in power necessarily wants to get rid of them.