Liberal basket of deplorable apparently

Hey, it's the game they always try to play with republicans. If they can dish it, they had better be able to take it as well. Bunch of hypocrites.

Meanwhile the Republican President and the GOP senate are mostly old rich white men. Trump's cabinet? Same thing too.

And as I said, you people seem to have a problem with that. Seems racist to me.

So you're admitting that Republicans are racist?

It's not racist to have the best qualified candidates representing you. It is racist, or at the least bigoted, to bitch about having all white people. The fact you complain about it, shows you're the racist/bigoted one.

This is beyond argument.

Scratch a liberal and you will find a racist EACH. AND. EVERY. TIME.

I mean, that's an overgeneralization. Not every single liberal is racist. Though I agree that the Oscars and Golden Globes are pretty much rigged.

OK...

So how many liberals are marching on Hollywood right now - right f**king now - demanding the firing of the racists responsible for the nearly all white nominations?

That would be none.

Therefore, EVERY. F**KING. LIBERAL. agrees with the racism.

Compare with the protesters in Iran that hunger for true freedom, and are risking their lives protesting and speaking out against their government BECAUSE THEY DON'T LIKE WHAT THEIR GOVERNMENT IS DOING.

EVERY. F**KING. LIBERAL. IS. A. RACIST.

Maybe they don't know? Heck, not everyone is concerned with those awards. I didn't say you didn't have a point. People need to be more active about it. I agree. At the same time, inaction does not equal protest of action.

WAIT A F**KING MINUTE....

So the same liberals that use guilt by association as a cudgel to bludgeon their political enemies now don't believe in guilt by association?

STOP THE F**KING PRESSES! New headline :

RACIST F**KING LIBERALS ARE ALSO HUGE F**KING HYPOCRITES.

What have I been saying? Hypocrisy is the defining characteristic of every liberal. Thanks for proving me right.

I'm not saying that there aren't hypocritical and/or racist liberals out there, I'm just saying that calling all of them such is an overgeneralization. Additionally, I never said anything about guilt by association on either side, merely that there's lack thereof. Do I support action against racism in Hollywood? Yes. If someone is unable to act on a specific issue, does that make them against action upon said issue? Not in my book.

"overgeneralization"

When there is not a single ripple ANYWHERE from ANY liberal over open and overt racism?

Bullshit.

Scratch a liberal and find a racist EACH AND EVERY TIME.

That's stupid. You're holding up Iranians protesting their tyrannical government to people protesting racism in Hollywood. These are two completely different things with varied degrees of importance. F*ck Hollywood if they want to be racist we can just not buy tickets to their movies. Or people can make their own movies. There are options. But getting away from a douchebag president? Protesting and voting is all we have and thanks to Russia, we might not have voting

Who ever said the people of Iran were protesting the government because it was tyrannical? Jesus, you are f**king stupid. The people of Iran, moron, were protesting the fact the government LIED about shooting down a passenger aircraft. They were outraged at the actions to the point they would risk their lives to hold the people responsible to account.

You know - exactly like the racist liberals did not do over Hollywood being incredibly racist.

Oh so you think it's just about lying, do uou? Are you that narrow-minded? What am I saying- of course you are. You don't think Iranians were also protesting a despot regime that oppressed its people?

Again, WTF does any of this have to do with Hollywood? You really expect people to rise up en masse against Hollywood's racism? Like what, Black Shows Matter? You're effing stupid.

You really need to stop relying solely on the American MSM. What am I saying? You are too f**king lazy to actually do the real work of reading foreign news sources.

What does it have to do with Hollywood? It's called "contrast" dumbass. The simple reality is liberals can't even be bothered to get off the couch to protest open and overt racism even when there is absolutely no threat to their lives. They can't even be bothered to draft e-mails.

With so very little on the line the only possible conclusion is liberals AGREE with that open and overt racism. If they didn't, we would have seen the protests already.

Idiot, I got my information from an article written by someone who defected from Iran. Is that "international" enough for you?

And no, because liberals aren't marching on Hollywood to change the narrative it doesn't mean they haven't been tackling the racism in other ways like producing their own shows and hiring POC. You're so narrow minded and angry it's almost sad.

So let me get this straight -

You got your information from someone WHO ISN'T THERE any you believe what they have to say is accurate information?

Sorry... you just pegged the HOLY F**K YOU ARE STUPID needle. No wonder you can't comprehend simple logic.

It wasn't some blog, this is a relatively famous person from Iran. And even if they defected a year or two ago, they would still know more than you about what's going on so STFU. You're a jackass.

In other words, moron, you admit THEY AREN'T THERE.

Once again - you just pegged the HOLY F**K YOU ARE STUPID needle. No wonder you can't comprehend simple logic.

i looked at the diversity of the repuggie party, looks as diverse as it did 200 years ago.

The republican party didn't even exist 200 years ago, dipshit. It was literally formed in Lincoln's day. I'm sure you've heard of him, right? The president that freed the slaves? The republican party had a black senator in 1870, the democrats didn't elect a black person to senate until 1993.

I'm fairly sure the parties switched ideologies back in the 60s, didn't they?

FDR's platform in the 30s and 40s was expansion of social programs, his opponents' was small government. FDR was a democrat, his opponent was a republican. Sound familiar? Republicans also didn't win the southern vote until the 90s. There was no switch that's back up by historical evidence.

Huh. Either way, people need to be less polarized. Understanding and compassion are the best way to have a civil discussion, and yet mostly people just yell at each other.

Really?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_United_States_presidential_election_results_by_state#South

From the end of the Civil War to the 1950s, the South was super blue. By 1968, it had turned super red. Either
1) the majority of historians and political scientists are correct in observing that the Republican party changed in their ideologies between 1912 (the beginning of a shift toward the right, on economic issues in response to TR's progressivism) and 1964 (the completion of the shift toward the right, on states' rights and social issues in response to the Civil Rights Act), or
2) the majority of historians and political scientists are wrong, and the Southern people as a whole changed their ideologies within the span of less than two decades.

Do please make a case for the latter. I'm listening.

"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."

Most notable among those 6 Republican no’s was Goldwater, who was the Republican presidential nominee that year. Strom Thurmond left the Democratic Party to support him.

So...you’re saying that Southern voters, as a whole, pulled an ideological 180 in the span of less than 20 years? SOMETHING happened. If the parties didn’t change, then who did?

I am saying there was no 180. The only thing that happened was people buying into a lie.

That lie being?

Between 1950 and 1970? I think you might want to double check your dates. But at any rate what part of american society DIDN'T radically transform between '50 and '70? We were transitioning from our pre-war isolationist american power status to a global superpower alongside radical changes in tech and social norms. You want to talk about radical changes in ideology in one region of the country.. how about the radical change in ideology across the entire nation from the super-isolationism of the 30s and the ultra interventionist mindset of the 50s, 60s, and 70s?

imgflip.com/i/3ml64t

In 1948, there was a splinter group from the Democratic Party that called itself the "States' Rights Democrats" (those first two words should sound familiar to current Republicans). This group wasn't *just* about protecting segregation, but it was the main policy split from Truman (the D incumbent). They ran Strom Thurmond as their presidential candidate, and won the electoral votes from South Carolina, Alabama, Mississippi, and Louisiana (plus one single electoral vote from Tennessee). From then on, every time a Democratic president won, the South voted more and more Republican (with the exception of 1976, of course...Carter was Southern, albeit a supporter of civil rights, and Nixon kind of killed Republicans' chances by being Nixon) in large part because the Democratic Party was a group that no longer tolerated opponents to civil rights.

The Republican Party, on the other hand, has never been *openly* racist. The switch for Republicans hasn't been in their platform, but rather in how they interpret their stances. Rs have embraced "states' rights" as their own, in opposition to a large centralized Federal government; in and of itself, this is not racist, but racists all strongly support the right of states to make their own choices (see: "the War of Northern Aggression" is so termed because the Federal government had the audacity to dictate that people in Southern states couldn't own other people, regardless of what the state's law was). By attaching conservatism to states' rights, Goldwater secured the four states above for Republicans in 1964. George Wallace, with his third party run in 1968 that stole the final Solid South stronghold of Arkansas, cemented the departure of segregationists from the Democratic Party in favor of the Republicans.

Add to this the curious switch that happened surrounding what conservatism in defense spending is (from Harding's pared-down spending intended to be limited to protecting US borders, to Reagan's hyper-inflated spending to combat Communism literally everywhere), and you've got an ideological shift in the Republican Party.

The republican party has been pro-states rights and against larger government since the 30s at LEAST. Trying to say it's because of Thurmond's splinter group is dishonest at best though a clever way to try to spin the narrative, I'll grant you.

I'm not saying Rs weren't pro-states' rights before; I'm saying that Southern segregationists had become increasingly alienated by northern Ds. Thurmond's success running on states' rights was 100% about segregation, something Rs opposed. By the time Wallace ran on states' rights in 1968, state-approved segregation was a thing of the past.

The segregationists didn't stop supporting segregation; they switched their loyalties to the party most likely to allow it under the banner of states' rights. The R Party was more than happy to take the votes, but now had to temper their support of civil rights legislation in order to keep them (see: R support of meaningful affirmative action policies, so strong under Nixon, basically stopped with Reagan and has since turned into outright opposition). THAT's the change.

Sidebar: I'm very much enjoying this exchange, and am learning quite a bit. Thanks.

That republicans' platform changed. It's the same as it's been for the last hundred years.

So you're saying that:

the majority of Southern voters, within the span of less than 20 years, decided to stop voting for Democratic presidential candidates and start voting for Republican ones (that part is an undeniable fact), BECAUSE

(this is where we seem to disagree) there was a shift in the Southern *voter base*, NOT in the national parties' platforms.

A 180 had to have happened somewhere, otherwise the South would still be true blue right now. So what changed?

You nailed it. Platforms have been the same for both parties at LEAST since the 30s. This leaves a change in the base as the only plausible explanation. Unless somehow I missed when studying history how FDR was a proponent of small government and Alf Landon was a big believer in expanding government social programs.

Do tell what happened in the South between 1950 and 1970 that would create that shift. That’s a really short turnaround for a full change in ideology for an entire region of the country. There had to have been a significant catalyst.

Why are Republicans trying so hard to pretend like you give a sh*t about POC? How many of you were so outraged at the Black Lives Matter movement you started saying All Lives Matter? Or White Lives Matter? What about Kaepernick? Who was protesting the number of blacks getting killed by police? For the longest time

all people did here was ridicule him or discredit him by turning his protest into some anti-military farce? You are the party of the KKK and Neo-Nazis yet you keep trying to bring up the civil war like it has any bearing on your party today. Republicans started defecting soon after Lincoln got shot. Why? Because ex-slaves and immigrants were "taking over." You know your party are a bunch of racists. It's time you quit being cowards started owning it.

Lol coward....

That was about the same time Republicans started freeing Democrat slaves.

As opposed to the nearly 100% white Obama campaign staff for both elections, right?

You are a f**king idiot.

Rich white people still run this country like they have for the last 200 years. But look what happens when people try to change or speak out about that. How many of the progressive candidates or congress people of color get trashed here on a regular basis? Your propaganda doesn't match your behavior. It's easy to see how racist Republicans are. You can't help but expose how you really feel about POC.