Not much time for Mexican-Americans.

There is clear differences in what Hitler said about the Jews in his rise to power and what Trump has said if you can't see the difference no point me arguaring with you

What I can't understand oak is why you hate people who don't think the same way you dont even consider the other side to be right thats dangerous thinking i always conider you points even if i disagree with you i can understand why and respect your decision but don't judge people for voting Trump they have there reasons.

Trump you think will be a bad president maybe in your eyes he will others would disagree peoples belief on what a good president differs it is the whole point of democracy we have to wait and see we are allowed our own opinions be grateful you have it a lot of places in the world don't

Maybe the country has not lost, only the Republicans have. I say give Trump two years in office and we will see.

Oak, if I was a lawyer, I would have been disbarred many times over.

Oak comparing Hitler and Trump? That is as low as Republicans comparing Obama to Hitler. Now that is a fact.

The first thing any dictator does before or right after he comes into power is take away their peoples guns. Who wanted to do that Hillary or trump?

I knew Obama was bad for the country as soon as he took office. He never bought people together before or after.

How long was he a US senator before he ran for President? How did he vote on bills when he became a senator. See what his voting record was in the senate.

My wife even voted for him. but not this time.

@footreads

hate crimes towards minorities have soared around the country as soon as trump was declared president elect

that's not bringing people together, everything he says about race or ethnic groups are terrible

a coked out racist thats baiting muslim terrorist to attack us is now our president elect

I'm most curious as to who the last president that 'brought the country together' was. Certainly not Bush (I or II), definitely not Clinton, not Reagan, not Carter, not Ford, not Nixon, not Johnson, not JFK...maybe Eisenhower?

Sometimes the people bring themselves together.

Right after 9/11 the country was brought together yes or no?

Before Obama became president no one was jealous about how much money other people made. You want more more do what it took to make more. Some did some didn't.

There was a time no one wanted to be on welfair so they found work. No one was happy to be on relief.

Eisenhower wanted to give more rights to black people. It was voted down from the southern democrates. Yes or no

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-38003747

the press in the US are crazy lol he cant go out for a meal without telling them crazy cant believe what i am seeing you dont get that over here. Everyone deserves privacy even presidents and the medias argument is beyond ridiclous why do they have to be everywhere he goes? next they will be saying he needs to tell them when he wants to take a shit.

Yep. Eisenhower. And the last time two presidential candidates agreed with most of each other's positions was during the Nixon-Kennedy debates. But even after that in the mid-to-late 1960s Robert Kennedy and Ronald Reagan had a debate and not only were they civil and respectful toward each other, but they mostly agreed with the other's positions.

You know what's funny Glen Beck hated Clinton, then he hated Obama and now he hates trump.

Do you know what is selling like crazy now Knives with President Trump on it. The trump company sold their name to people making knives.

They will probably make a collectors piece I mean gun called the trump.

He went to the 21 club to a standing ovation from the people eating there. He probably went to the secret room their it was originally dug out during proahibition to serve illegal booze. It hold a lot of people for private parties.

And later on, post Eisenhower, the famous 'southern strategy' changed the demographics and the position of the political parties on civil rights. Yes or no.

Obama is so dumb he thinks everything was great during his administration. Then why did he lose if everything was great Hillary would have won she out spent him big time and she lost.

Stupid democrates voted it down not republicans yes or no

There is no 'e' at the end of democrats, speaking of stupid.

My daughter who graduated Columbia university with honors made fun of my spelling. Yet she did not complain when I paid for her Ivy League education.

I was thrown out of HS in my senior year. For beating up a fellow student who I thought stole a text book from me.

Curious what Ivy League university did you graduate from?

Why does it matter where I went to uni? How about where I went to high school? Neither has any relevance to the discussion.


The discussion is that democrats used to be opposed to civil rights. I think most reasonably well educated people know this. It's not a secret.

The Democratic story about the GOP "Southern strategy" has been debunked. For those who don't know, it's that Nixon used "code words" to reach out to racist Southern Democrats to win the presidency in 1968. That's not what it was. Both parties had "Southern strategies" going back for decades before Nixon's. In 1968 Nixon was going to let the racist vote go to George Wallace while he made an economic appeal to non-racist Southerners. Most Democrats didn't change parties when Nixon was president and were still Democrats when they voted for Jimmy Carter in 1976.

It was after Carter's election that some of them switched, and that was for economic reasons. More switching occurred for Reagan in the 1980 election. Moreover, out of the racist Democrats who voted against the 1964 Civil Rights Act, only one switched.

"non-racist southerners"

lol.

"Before Obama became president no one was jealous about how much money other people made."

This is indeed fascinating.

Obama invented envy.

So everyone from the south is a racist?

That the southern strategy has been debunked is revisionism. On an academic level against it a case was put forward by Johnston & Shaffer who make the argument that class played more of a role than race. And right wing apologists in the blogosphere have been trying to run with that ever since. The other main revisionist argument is that it took a while to work down to the state level. Neither discounts the general acceptance of the SS.


In 1970, Nixon strategist Kevin Phillips said:

From now on, the 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 enforcement of 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.

The famous Atwater quote and the above Phillips quote, along with the statements of modern Republicans like Michael Steele, offers some solid evidence.

Its been accepted by scholars for 40 years. You may disagree with these opinions of course.

But theres nothing surprising or even controversial about a political party doing what politcal parties do.

I just think "non racist southerners" is a funny term. You don't see people saying non-racist Northerners. Or non-racist west coast people. It sucks that the label of racist is automatically attached to the south, to the point to where people who aren't racists have to identify themselves as non-racists. Reputations are tough to get rid of.

Doesn't bother me to get branded as a racist. So be it if I am. I would rather live in the South as to any place on this earth

In the interest of national unity, and because the south has to take so much shit I'm going to start using the descriptive phrase 'Non asshole Bostonians'. There must be at least be 2 or 3 of them somewhere in that city...

Despite the obvious history of racism in the northeast cities, this region still is not associated with racism. It's probably because the region has offered so much more, making the racism is the working class neighborhoods a side story. The south has certainly offered things besides racism, too, but the racism has historically been so rampant and so profound, both in politics and among the culture in general, that it's just the first thing a lot people think when the subject of the south comes up. That's why I laughed when Faithful said "non-racist southerners". It's sad that it still has to be distinguished. Southern politics, from the southern strategy to even modern day Trumpism, hasn't helped. Trump used this racist history of the south to secure southern swing states like NC and FLA.

When you put it that way I can see the humor in non racist southerner.

No community is immune to racism/bigotry, Bay area to Alabama to NY ignorant people exist.

I was talking to this plumber originally from Tennessee told me "In my younger days I almost joined the Klan" so sometimes the label fits