Why is Trump President Anyway?????

[Milly23]

Originally Posted by gfejunkie

How soon they forget...

"Here are a few surprising facts about how the Civil Rights Act of 1964 became law:
1. More Republicans voted in favor of the Civil Rights Act than Democrats"

http://www.cnn.com/2014/04/10/politi...resting-facts/

I haven't seen the democrats this unhinged since the Republicans freed the slaves.

How soon you omit, that in 1964 the president was LBJ who as I said in a post above wanted to bring in the African American voters. So he pushed for things like the Civil Rights Act. That angered the Solid South. So they left the party, voted for Goldwater; more and more of them becoming Republicans. So as I said before, those Republicans mentioned aren't the Republicans of today. It's history man. No one is free of the issues of racism. It's bipartisan. But it's misleading to keep with the Democrats were for African Americans. We aren't dumb, if Republicans were that party that freed the slaves, passed the Civil Rights Act, etc; more African Americans would vote for Republicans. I mean unless you think we are dumb and just vote that way because we aren't smart enough to know what's best for us. It's because the Democratic Party today was the party of those who were pushing our rights and the Republican Party gave shelter to those who opposed it.

[Yssup Rider]

gfe(forbiddentopic) lives in the past. The ancient past.

Makes sense... he's from there.

LMAO!

[pussycat]

Originally Posted by Milly23

How soon you omit, that in 1964 the president was LBJ who as I said in a post above wanted to bring in the African American voters. So he pushed for things like the Civil Rights Act. That angered the Solid South. So they left the party, voted for Goldwater; more and more of them becoming Republicans. So as I said before, those Republicans mentioned aren't the Republicans of today. It's history man. No one is free of the issues of racism. It's bipartisan. But it's misleading to keep with the Democrats were for African Americans. We aren't dumb, if Republicans were that party that freed the slaves, passed the Civil Rights Act, etc; more African Americans would vote for Republicans. I mean unless you think we are dumb and just vote that way because we aren't smart enough to know what's best for us. It's because the Democratic Party today was the party of those who were pushing our rights and the Republican Party gave shelter to those who opposed it.

I think LBJ held back the Voting Rights Act and Civil Rights Act until after the election. I don't think Goldwater benefited. The candidate who did benefit was Nixon in '68, and every other Republican thereafter. Nixon's people referred to it as the "Southern strategy," and it's been working for them.

A few years earlier when Eisenhower was President LBJ led to effort to kill the Civil Rights Act, and then when he became President he supported it.

[pussycat]

Voting is a right but it requires some administrative procedures. You have to register, and you have to register only in the Precinct of your residence. That requires paperwork and documents. Adding one additional document to verify identity, and presumably citizenship, is not unreasonable.

If it is inhibiting, or intended to inhibit, some people from voting, that would involve the poor of all races. And there are legions of poor white people.

I agree with you that non-blacks of all ideological stripes often have false ideas of what most blacks are like, or live like. This is presumably because they don't know any blacks. Their views are based on "stereotypes" or folklore or whatever. But it is interesting that in the past the whites who had to most familiarity with blacks were the most prejudiced and those with the least were the least prejudiced. I'm referring to the 19th Century and the conflict over slavery and it's merits, or lack thereof. The people who lived among Africans every day, all day, all the time, were the slave owners. Abolishonists on the other hand usually had never even met or seen an African. When Frederick Douglass addressed his first audience of abolishonists in Boston he reports that none of them had ever seen anyone before who had been a slave.

So familiarity might sometimes "breed contempt" as the old saw says. I know when I was married my wife knew me less and less the more we lived together.

So there you have it.

It's hopeless with some people.

[Milly23]

Originally Posted by pussycat

I think LBJ held back the Voting Rights Act and Civil Rights Act until after the election. I don't think Goldwater benefited. The candidate who did benefit was Nixon in '68, and every other Republican thereafter. Nixon's people referred to it as the "Southern strategy," and it's been working for them.

A few years earlier when Eisenhower was President LBJ led to effort to kill the Civil Rights Act, and then when he became President he supported it.

Umm the Civil Rights Act of 1964 wasn't held back until after the election. It was signed in July of the election year and Goldwater opposed it. And that's why he got the support of those South Democrats. Nixon was able to benefit, yes. But Goldwater did also. And it still doesn't change the point that Democrats who had a racist view left the party and started voting Republican. And so Republicans should stop skipping over that part when they say things.

And maybe LBJ didn't support it at the beginning, hell the guy used the n-word. I'm sure I stated that he wanted to get the African American vote. Nowhere did I say he was the defender of civil rights. But he took what JFK started and he finished it. And no matter why he did it, he did the right thing.

[Milly23]

Originally Posted by pussycat

Voting is a right but it requires some administrative procedures. You have to register, and you have to register only in the Precinct of your residence. That requires paperwork and documents. Adding one additional document to verify identity, and presumably citizenship, is not unreasonable.

If it is inhibiting, or intended to inhibit, some people from voting, that would involve the poor of all races. And there are legions of poor white people.

I agree with you that non-blacks of all ideological stripes often have false ideas of what most blacks are like, or live like. This is presumably because they don't know any blacks. Their views are based on "stereotypes" or folklore or whatever. But it is interesting that in the past the whites who had to most familiarity with blacks were the most prejudiced and those with the least were the least prejudiced. I'm referring to the 19th Century and the conflict over slavery and it's merits, or lack thereof. The people who lived among Africans every day, all day, all the time, were the slave owners. Abolishonists on the other hand usually had never even met or seen an African. When Frederick Douglass addressed his first audience of abolishonists in Boston he reports that none of them had ever seen anyone before who had been a slave.

So familiarity might sometimes "breed contempt" as the old saw says. I know when I was married my wife knew me less and less the more we lived together.

So there you have it.

It's hopeless with some people.

Voting is a right. And sure you should have some administrative things like registering and that's about it. The additional documentation of an ID isn't necessary. Especially if you are restricting the kind of ID. Now if the standard was just a photo ID, then maybe I would say ok. But that's not what they are doing. Like I pointed out, saying that you can vote with a conceal-carry card and not a student ID seems imbalanced to me. When I was in school, we had a polling station on campus. That school has all my info, know that I'm citizen based off tuition costs. Yet I can't use the ID they've issued to vote.

[pussycat]

Originally Posted by Milly23

Umm the Civil Rights Act of 1964 wasn't held back until after the election. It was signed in July of the election year and Goldwater opposed it. And that's why he got the support of those South Democrats. Nixon was able to benefit, yes. But Goldwater did also. And it still doesn't change the point that Democrats who had a racist view left the party and started voting Republican. And so Republicans should stop skipping over that part when they say things.

And maybe LBJ didn't support it at the beginning, hell the guy used the n-word. I'm sure I stated that he wanted to get the African American vote. Nowhere did I say he was the defender of civil rights. But he took what JFK started and he finished it. And no matter why he did it, he did the right thing.

I stand corrected.

[pussycat]

Originally Posted by Milly23

Voting is a right. And sure you should have some administrative things like registering and that's about it. The additional documentation of an ID isn't necessary. Especially if you are restricting the kind of ID. Now if the standard was just a photo ID, then maybe I would say ok. But that's not what they are doing. Like I pointed out, saying that you can vote with a conceal-carry card and not a student ID seems imbalanced to me. When I was in school, we had a polling station on campus. That school has all my info, know that I'm citizen based off tuition costs. Yet I can't use the ID they've issued to vote.

I agree you have a point in that the choice of ID is unwise. However how does this effect one race more than others since the lack of these particular IDs effects poor people of all races? Didn't the poll tax effect poor whites as well?

[pussycat]

Originally Posted by SpeedRacerXXX

I don't remember that being a campaign promise but assuming it was, I really could not care less. Not a big deal at all. Anything else?

Two promises he made to us is that he would get us a sizeable tax reduction and set up term limits for congress. Looking forward to those 2.

"Change You Can Believe In" turned out to be no change at all.

Obama took huge donations from banks in 2008 and refused to take public funding because it would have restricted those donations.

Obama just wanted to be rich, make a lot of rich friends, and never have to spend another day in the ghettos or slums where he previously plied his trade as a phony "community organizer" or hero of the disenfranchised.

Yes the "audacity of hope" was really a limosine liberal who showed up in the slums of South Chicago for a couple of hours a day to play his game, and then went home to Hyde Park where he lived in a million dollar home gifted to him by a Lebanese criminal who Obama helped with political favors, a la Chicago style.

His promise to not allow lobbying by members of his Administration was not a "no big deal" promise. It was emblematic of his entire promise to clean up the corruption of Washington.

And of course he never kept any of those promises because he himself was just another Chicago politician steeped in corruption.

He merely brought that corruption to a new level, such as when he let the insurance companies write his "Affordable Care Act," and then sold it to the people as universal health care.

And furthermore his wife has a big ass and is heavier than he is. Nasty shit.