A Nation Divided

[GePap]

Originally posted by Ogie Oglethorpe
Run through the dethickenating translator - GePap has no real basis for his argument other than to say the Democratic party abandoned southern dems leaving them no place to go. Repubs being the party of inclusion took them in.

Course most of that happened in Rayguns time.

People always have a place to go, as Ned's map of 68 Shows (with a third party candidate actually getting electoral votes)- the Republicans made a conscious decision once the rightwing came into power to court the social conservative southerners.

There is a reason why Southern whites turned from solidly democratic to solidly republican while african Americans went from solidly republican to solidly democrat (thought that occured a bit earlier)

[Ned]

GePap, I think Nixon took the South in '72 because of the antiwar McGovern, not because of race politics. The Southerner is a patriot.

[chequita guevara]

A patriot who praises treason.

[Dinner]

Originally posted by The Emperor Fabulous
You kid yourself when you think that growth is a partisan issue. You also kid yourself if you think that Republicans are for the middle class, and especially for the minority middle class. Why do you think that Bush's economic policies have been deemed the "War on the Middle Class", much like Reagan's were deemed the "War on the Poor".

[chequita guevara]

Re: 1968

Originally posted by Ned
Here's what happened in '68. It illustrates that the South's switch to the Republican Party occurred in '72 and later.

What it also shows is the South breaking from the Democrats and uniting behind an overt white supremicist. Once they realized that was futile, they joined the Repugs.

[chequita guevara]

Originally posted by Ned
TEF, I see. An please explain why being pro-business and pro-growth is antithetical to the minority middle class?

Well, because these policies have resulted in 84 of the last 94 economic downturns happening in Repug administrations. The poor and middle classes are always hurt worse than the ruling class, therefore, the Repugs are anti-middle class.

[Ned]

Re: Re: 1968

Originally posted by chegitz guevara


What it also shows is the South breaking from the Democrats and uniting behind an overt white supremicist. Once they realized that was futile, they joined the Repugs.

Yeah, but that does not make the Republican Party rascist.

[chequita guevara]

Originally posted by Ned
It is the Demonization of Republicans by Democrats as being rascists which is the problem.

And I guess Black people and Hispanics are just stupid rubes to fall for that. The reason minorities see the Repugs as racists is because they are racists. Even minority members of rhe Repugs admit it. They just identify more strongly with the economics and let themselves be used by the Repugs.

[Dinner]

Originally posted by Ned
Middle classers really are squeezed by high taxes and high cost of living. They certainly resent the welfare state that pays people for not working.

Ned: Welfare was reformed a decade ago. Why keep fighting yesterday's battles when they no longer apply today?

In immediate terms the middle class is hit far harder by anti union legislation and free trade ageements because this causes them to lose their jobs and/or benifets. I support free trade and "fair" union bills which don't put labor or management at an extreme disadvantage but if we are going to export jobs in the name of efficiency then we must invest in 1) making new jobs; and 2) training workers for those new jobs.

To train people we need to send them to college but Bush Jr and Sr both cut aid to students and upped college tuition costs. I don't see how we can create a deeper high tech economy without workers who are trained in the necisary skills. Further, to create new jobs we need to create new companies but Republicans always seem to blow up the budget which later requires tax increases to pay for (which is bad for business) and they also cut small business administration funding. The SBA loans help numerous small businesses start up thus providing new jobs without this there is only 1) personal savings (most people can't afford hundreds of thousands of upfront costs) 2) Commercial loans (high interest but good if you can get them) 3) Venture Capital (good but hard to get and they usually want most of you business in exchange for the money.

It would make sanse to increase the net worth of individuals by helping citizens aquire property through subsidized home loans (a la fanny mai and freddy mac) but Republicans cut those programs too plus their deficits raise the interest rates on everyone and price still more people out of the market (for both home and small business loans).

[Ned]

Originally posted by chegitz guevara


Well, because these policies have resulted in 84 of the last 94 economic downturns happening in Repug administrations. The poor and middle classes are always hurt worse than the ruling class, therefore, the Repugs are anti-middle class.

There is some truth here, Che. In the past, Republicans have supported balancing the budget even in times of recession. That is crazy.

Now it is Kerry and the Dems who called for raising taxes and balancing the bugdet during the current recession. They are crazy.

[chequita guevara]

Re: Re: Re: 1968

Originally posted by Ned
Yeah, but that does not make the Republican Party rascist.

Not necessarily, no. But the Repugs used race codes to reach out to the Dixiecrats, and once the Dixiecrats joined the Repugs, you had a very large racist cancer in your party. The strength of your party is in the South now. They shape your party's policy and politics. When you deal with the devil, expect to get dirty. The days of Eisenhower and Rockerfeller Republicans are over.

[Ned]

Originally posted by Oerdin


Ned: Welfare was reformed a decade ago. Why keep fighting yesterday's battles when they no longer apply today?

Because the Dems promised to undo that fix?

[Ned]

Re: Re: Re: Re: 1968

Originally posted by chegitz guevara


Not necessarily, no. But the Repugs used race codes to reach out to the Dixiecrats, and once the Dixiecrats joined the Repugs, you had a very large racist cancer in your party. The strength of your party is in the South now. They shape your party's policy and politics. When you deal with the devil, expect to get dirty.

Agreed, there is a risk. But look at what Bush did to Trott when he implicitly supported segregation.

[MrFun]

Originally posted by Ned
GePap, I think Nixon took the South in '72 because of the antiwar McGovern, not because of race politics. The Southerner is a patriot.

neo-Confederates are not patriots

[Ned]

Originally posted by MrFun



neo-Confederates are not patriots

Take that message to the South and see how long you last.