Willing to burn the country to the ground, as long as they can rule over the ashes - Politics Forum.org | PoFo

Wandering the information superhighway, he came upon the last refuge of civilization, PoFo, the only forum on the internet ...

Political issues and parties in the USA and Canada.

Moderator: PoFo North America Mods

Forum rules: No one line posts please.
#15182138
"Even still, the vote overshadowed two Republican outrages that likely would have drawn more attention had the failed cloture motion not been the headline story. The first is that Senate Republicans are irresponsibly and hypocritically refusing to raise the debt ceiling, which threatens money Congress has already voted to spend. They raised the limit routinely during the last administration — when Republicans approved budgets that ballooned the debt. Once more, we see that their partisan self-interest rises above even their most basic obligations (i.e., preventing a default on our debt). The takeaway for voters: There is only one responsible party of grown-ups these days."
https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/2021/07/22/schumers-cloture-vote-obscured-two-gop-outrages/

Oh, the other one? Republicans won't give the IRS enough money to go after rich tax cheats. Just one bunch of crooks covering another, for a modest fee, of course.
#15182140
@Rancid

That's basically what the republicans are trying to do is burn the country down. Republican party is the party of white supremacy. They feel that white supremacy should be maintained and if that can't be maintained, burn the country to the ground so that nobody else can have the country. They feel that the U.S. belongs to whites only. Especially rich whites. See, they have a sense of entitlement to ruling over the country and when they feel that sense of entitlement being violated this is the way they react. And this sort of reaction to a sense of entitlement being violated is common. So, republicans have a strong sense of entitlement in that they feel that whites have a birthright to holding all the power in the country and if they can't have that then burn the country down as far as the republicans are concerned. They aren't willing to share power with non-whites. That's totally unacceptable and the reason why I won't be voting republican for a very long time if ever again.
#15182141
Politics_Observer wrote:@Rancid

That's basically what the republicans are trying to do is burn the country down. Republican party is the party of white supremacy. They feel that white supremacy should be maintained and if that can't be maintained, burn the country to the ground so that nobody else can have the country. They feel that the U.S. belongs to whites only. Especially rich whites. See, they have a sense of entitlement to ruling over the country and when they feel that sense of entitlement being violated this is the way they react. And this sort of reaction to a sense of entitlement being violated is common. So, republicans have a strong sense of entitlement in that they feel that whites have a birthright to holding all the power in the country and if they can't have that then burn the country down as far as the republicans are concerned. They aren't willing to share power with non-whites. That's totally unacceptable and the reason why I won't be voting republican for a very long time if ever again.

And to think that the Republican Party was founded precisely to combat slavery. This was once the party of Lincoln, whose mere election triggered the pro-slavery South to secede from the Union. Even the name of the Republican Party was chosen to symbolise its advocacy of the cause of liberty. The Republican Party name was christened in an editorial written by New York newspaper magnate Horace Greeley. Greeley printed in June 1854: "We should not care much whether those thus united (against slavery) were designated 'Whig,' 'Free Democrat' or something else; though we think some simple name like 'Republican' would more fitly designate those who had united to restore the Union to its true mission of champion and promulgator of Liberty rather than propagandist of slavery."
#15182148
@Potemkin

Well, once Lyndon Johnson signed the Voting Rights Act that assured the voting rights of minorities, a lot of southern whites were angry about that and unhappy. They didn't like the idea of equal treatment under the law in regards to voting rights for minorities and having to share power with others who were not white. Many of these southern whites were segregationists and had elected segregationist politicians to Congress that advocated for the continuing of segregation during that time. So, once Lyndon Johnson, a democrat signed the Voting Rights Act into law this was when a lot of these southern white segregationists and racist whites left the democrat party. Desegregation also played a role in many of these pro segregation southern whites leaving the democrat party.

So, to get into power and get these southern white segregationists to vote for them, the republicans went from being the party of abolishing slavery to the party of white supremacy by using dog whistle racism to appeal to racist whites and southern whites who had advocated for segregation who had left the democrat party after the signing of the Voting Rights Act. This is commonly referred to as the "Southern Strategy" of the republican party and marked the beginning of the republican party becoming the party of white supremacy.

They didn't come out and say they were but that was exactly what they were was the party of white supremacy when they courted the votes of white southern segregationists and racists whites by appealing to their racism to get elected. See, that's the republican party's base that they depend on to get elected. That and the selective use of voter suppression to prevent free and fair elections. Donald Trump further demonstrated this fundamental truth about today's current republican party.
#15182151
Sandzak wrote:There is always a possibility for a compromise: tougher stand on undocumented immigrants to appease the republicans


Maybe, but historically, when there is a tiny split between who has the majority, both parties are much less willing to compromise. It sounds counter intuitive, but apparently that's what happens in the US.

In otherword, doing that would likely not appease the republicans.
#15182154
Sandzak wrote:
There is always a possibility for a compromise: tougher stand on undocumented immigrants to appease the republicans



Sorry, no.

They will keep up the sabotage and destruction until they win, or the government decides it wants to survive.

https://acoup.blog/2021/01/15/miscellanea-insurrections-ancient-and-modern-and-also-meet-the-academicats/
#15182156
Politics_Observer wrote:@Rancid

That's basically what the republicans are trying to do is burn the country down. Republican party is the party of white supremacy. They feel that white supremacy should be maintained and if that can't be maintained, burn the country to the ground so that nobody else can have the country. They feel that the U.S. belongs to whites only. Especially rich whites. See, they have a sense of entitlement to ruling over the country and when they feel that sense of entitlement being violated this is the way they react. And this sort of reaction to a sense of entitlement being violated is common. So, republicans have a strong sense of entitlement in that they feel that whites have a birthright to holding all the power in the country and if they can't have that then burn the country down as far as the republicans are concerned. They aren't willing to share power with non-whites. That's totally unacceptable and the reason why I won't be voting republican for a very long time if ever again.




Politics_Observer, whites are human beings like any other. My impression is you simplify far too much a complicated situation. Every society has a progressive/conservative divide. Even if you were to remove all whites from the United States- and everything remaining the same- there will still be a conservative segment, which conservative segment will still resort to same tactics. Same if the United States were to be all white, the same progressive/conservative breakdown will still be there; with both halves doing same thing.
#15182157
Politics_Observer wrote:@Potemkin

Well, once Lyndon Johnson signed the Voting Rights Act that assured the voting rights of minorities, a lot of southern whites were angry about that and unhappy. They didn't like the idea of equal treatment under the law in regards to voting rights for minorities and having to share power with others who were not white. Many of these southern whites were segregationists and had elected segregationist politicians to Congress that advocated for the continuing of segregation during that time. So, once Lyndon Johnson, a democrat signed the Voting Rights Act into law this was when a lot of these southern white segregationists and racist whites left the democrat party. Desegregation also played a role in many of these pro segregation southern whites leaving the democrat party.

So, to get into power and get these southern white segregationists to vote for them, the republicans went from being the party of abolishing slavery to the party of white supremacy by using dog whistle racism to appeal to racist whites and southern whites who had advocated for segregation who had left the democrat party after the signing of the Voting Rights Act. This is commonly referred to as the "Southern Strategy" of the republican party and marked the beginning of the republican party becoming the party of white supremacy.

They didn't come out and say they were but that was exactly what they were was the party of white supremacy when they courted the votes of white southern segregationists and racists whites by appealing to their racism to get elected. See, that's the republican party's base that they depend on to get elected. That and the selective use of voter suppression to prevent free and fair elections. Donald Trump further demonstrated this fundamental truth about today's current republican party.




I still say it is not as simple as that. The Democratic Party was already a progressive, advocate for worker and lower class Party decades before the Republicans muscled them out of the South. Woodrow Wilson, a real sob when it came to blacks, if you ask me, headed a Democratic Party which was already the arm of the lower class, even as it championed all the Jim Crow business. Racism was a complicated beast. I dont think it was ever a beast that could be blamed soley on conservative whites, or soley on liberal whites.
#15182158
@Juin

I am not so sure if trying to establish a "superior race" is the exactly the same thing as conservatism. After all many of the segregationists in the south had this belief that whites were the "superior race" and thus blacks should be segregated. It was also stated by several Confederate politicians at the time of the American Civil War that they were essientially fighting to preserve slavery and to maintain the institutions of white supremacy (like slavery for example). The whole premise of the Confederacy that is the legacy of the southern white segregationists later on was that the white race was the "superior race." For example, some would say Stalin was conservative and he certainly wasn't trying to establish a "superior race" though he was total nutbag.

Edit:

Here is an article that describes this climate of white supremacy as slavery under another name.

Georgia PBS wrote:White supremacy is the belief that white people are superior to others because of their race. Prior to the Civil War, racism and white supremacy had been common attitudes in both the North and the South. After the Emancipation Proclamation, when Union troops began to fight for the abolishment of slavery, Northern attitudes shifted slightly, and many felt that blacks deserved equal legal rights and equal protection, even if they were not considered socially equal.

In the South, however, white supremacists did not believe blacks should have any such rights. During Reconstruction, white supremacists formed political and social groups to promote whites and oppress blacks, and to enact laws that codified inequality. The Ku Klux Klan (founded in 1865) and the Knights of the White Camellia (1867) were secret groups, while members of the White League (1874) and the Red Shirts (1875) were publically known. All four groups used violence to intimidate blacks and Republican voters. Their efforts succeeded, and with the end of Reconstruction in 1877, white supremacy became the reality of the South.


Here is a video discussing some parts of this issue.

https://ga.video.cdn.pbs.org/videos/slavery-another-name/6fa7e21a-f83a-4436-bf7d-c0d628ebc200/58264/hd-mezzanine-16x9/WhiteSupremicistsandTerrorismSharonWeb.mp4
#15182162
Politics_Observer wrote:@Juin

I am not so sure if trying to establish a "superior race" is the exactly the same thing as conservatism. After all many of the segregationists in the south had this belief that whites were the "superior race" and thus blacks should be segregated. It was also stated by several Confederate politicians at the time of the American Civil War that they were essentially fighting to preserve slavery and to maintain the institutions of white supremacy (like slavery for example). The whole premise of the Confederacy that is the legacy of the southern white segregationists later on was that the white race was the "superior race." For example, some would say Stalin was conservative and he certainly wasn't trying to establish a "superior race" though he was total nutbag.




The above does not quite make the case for the Republican Party as Party of white supremacy, which is what I objected to. The South is a region of the US, not all of the US. And I do not see that white supremacy is necessarily an instrument that only white conservatives can wield. In theory one can see a contradiction in being a progressive and white supremacist at same time; but the facts speak differently: for all the decades of last century that Democrats dominated the South, we have a case of advocacy of progressive policies alongside promotion of white supremacy. Nothing really new in that: the Homo sapiens species is a masterpiece of contradictions. Of course there was a white impoverished underclass in the south, post and ante bellum. That impoverished white underclass can be expected to align with political forces that advocate for uplifting the poor, even, and here is the kicker, as they also resent any uplifting of blacks who they see as competitors for a small pie. Wasnt that also the case in northern cities where white workers rioted at the introduction of black workers?

I use "progressive" and "conservative" without prejudice. I see both as essential halves of any successful society. Nothing new. The one defends the interests of the established well off class, and the other the underclass and the periphery. Glimpses of that divide throughout history. You recall the Patricians vs the Plebeians of the Roman city state. Or the Populares vs the Optimates of the later much larger Roman Republic.

Even if the US were somehow to be all black, and the system is still same, you will still have the well off blacks pitted off against the blacks of the lower class. The well off blacks will still resort to same gerrymandeering and other tactics to discourage the under class from flocking to the polls.

It is not a white thing
#15182164
@Juin

There is a solid case for the republican party being the party of white supremacy based on it's actions and it also shows with their attempts at voter suppression which targets African American voters. Republican party needs to understand that black folks and other minorities have just as much right as white folks to vote and stop passing un-necessary laws that target African Americans and other minorities which prevent them from exercising their legitimate right to vote.

Republicans are just going to have to learn they truly and genuinely must share power with others, allow others to have a voice too and that political office is not their birthright. Political office is for Americans who are elected in by the people in genuinely fair and honest elections that are not manufactured in such way to get a result republicans want. Republican just going to have to learn that power is not their birth right and not to interfere with stopping and preventing genuinely fair elections and let the people be heard. The democratic process must be allowed to take it's course and for the will of the people to be heard.
#15182170
Politics_Observer wrote:@Juin

There is a solid case for the republican party being the party of white supremacy based on it's actions and it also shows with their attempts at voter suppression which targets African American voters. Republican party needs to understand that black folks and other minorities have just as much right as white folks to vote and stop passing un-necessary laws that target African Americans and other minorities which prevent them from exercising their legitimate right to vote.

Republicans are just going to have to learn they truly and genuinely must share power with others, allow others to have a voice too and that political office is not their birthright. Political office is for Americans who are elected in by the people in genuinely fair and honest elections that are not manufactured in such way to get a result republicans want. Republican just going to have to learn that power is not their birth right and not to interfere with stopping and preventing genuinely fair elections and let the people be heard. The democratic process must be allowed to take it's course and for the will of the people to be heard.




Republicans did not evict the Democrats from the South until close to the end of the 20th Century. From the beginning of the 20th Century till just about the close of that century the Democratic Party dominated the South. And I am not talking about just the label "Democrat". I dont know whether the Democratic Party- ante or post bellum- was ever the Party of big business; but by Woodrow Wilson, and definitely by FDR the Democratic Party was ideologically to the left and a champion of the under class.

That is where the contradiction comes in. I dont blame the Democratic Party for the contradictions; the contradictions go straight to human imperfections. Yet, and undeniably, it is mind boggling that the same progressive party, the party of new deal, the party of worker rights, the party of social safety nets was also the Party of the Ku Klux Klan, the Party that enacted Jim Crow Laws. This was the case from the beginning of the 20th Century to close to the end of the century, at which point the Democrats were evicted from the South by Republicans.

Granted, the Republicans evicted the Democrats by championing the prejudices of the white southerners. I am not blaming the Democrats or Republicans for that; it is just the ugly truth that that is, or was the prize to be paid for the votes of the Southern whites.

You have to get out of the Logic of colour. Much of what you rail against are not really colour dependent at all. It is more class than colour.

The upper and propertied class of any society is always gonna be smaller in numbers than the lower and poor class. What that means is that the poor have the numbers, the rich dont. But the problem for progressive parties that champion the poor is that it is hard to get the scum, the Joe Sixpacks, the trailer trash types to go out to vote; wherein lies the advantage of the upper, educated and propertied class whose ranks can turn up to vote with much less persuasion.

Given all that, it is immediately clear what each Party has to do. And this is true for all societies.

The Popular Parties- in your case, your Democrats- must relax the rules of voting, expand access, open up the graves for the ghosts to step out and head to the polling boothes, allow absentee votings, maybe even allow proxy votings, dispense with identifications.... just about anything that can facilitate the dregs of humanity whose votes they rely upon. Nothing wrong with that. The poor are the bread and butter of the Popular Parties; facilitating their access to the polls is a key to success.

The Patricians, or Optimates if you will- the dreaded Republicans you despise so much, of which I am one- also have their work cut out for them: they must tighten the rules; if the poor dont like snow and rain, then select stormy days for voting; demand identifications, since the constituents of the Popular Parties are more likely to not inconvenience themselves with silly things like ID cards; advocate for property qualifications, which if successful will disenfranchise chunks of the Popular class; advocate for educational qualifications, which if successful will also disenfranchise whole chunks of the Popular class whose ranks are thick with illiterates and high school dropouts.

That, my good Political_Observer, are the facts of life. I can bet you, if by some magic we can make of the United States of America a black republic- everything remaining the same, except all faces are black- the rich, educated and propertied blacks will resort to the same methods and tactics to overcome the numbers advantage of the lower and poorer class of blacks.

If you believe it is a white defect can you point me out a black republic in the world where the propertied blacks are not resorting to same tactics and methods to keep the poorer blacks down?
#15182209
@Juin

See here is what gets me. Most of the vaccine deniers down south here are mostly (and I have yet to meet an African American who is a vaccine denier) white republicans. Which tells me that this vaccine denial is political motivated. However, many of the people who are ending up in the hospital are those that refuse to take the vaccine. The republicans are literally shrinking their own base due to this politically motivated vaccine denial and the unwillingness of white republicans to accept and come to terms with reality.

They need to shake out of it or this new variant of COVID is going to kill them or severely damage their health in the long term and shorten their life span significantly because they can't come to terms with reality and take an anti-COVID vaccine. And Biden nailed it when he said this is a pandemic of the unvaccinated. And I think this denial on some level is much deeper than that.

Republicans are simply going to have to come to terms with the reality that non-white people have the right to live in freedom, democracy, have political and voting rights and to have prosperity too. They have to come to terms with reality that things change and you have to adapt change. Resisting change or refusing to accept reality and adapt to reality never ends very well.
#15182265
Politics_Observer wrote:@Juin

See here is what gets me. Most of the vaccine deniers down south here are mostly (and I have yet to meet an African American who is a vaccine denier) white republicans. Which tells me that this vaccine denial is political motivated. However, many of the people who are ending up in the hospital are those that refuse to take the vaccine. The republicans are literally shrinking their own base due to this politically motivated vaccine denial and the unwillingness of white republicans to accept and come to terms with reality.

They need to shake out of it or this new variant of COVID is going to kill them or severely damage their health in the long term and shorten their life span significantly because they can't come to terms with reality and take an anti-COVID vaccine. And Biden nailed it when he said this is a pandemic of the unvaccinated. And I think this denial on some level is much deeper than that.





Politics_Observer, I dont think it is advisable for you to guage anti-vaxxer attitude among African Americans from your personal contacts with African Americans. fortunately there is data out there. African Americans are not hot on vaccination at all. Added to that is a healthy suspicion in certain black sectors of possible mischief by doctors of the great white chief.:) If I recall right, back in 1932 doctors of the great white chief recruited hundreds of blacks as guinea pigs in the study of syphilis. The so called Tuskegee experiment. Many an African American habours a suspicion of whitemen offering vaccines.:)

1932? Was that not when that great white Democrat Franklin Delano Roosevelt won elections to be President? And was President all the way to 1945, followed by Truman? That makes it years and years of Democrats overseeing the use of blacks as guinea pigs in the study of syphilis. I bring this up because of your penchant for making white supremacy a uniquely white Republican disease.:)

Personally, I am not sure how much of a anti vaxxer I am. I really am not. My younger sister as well. Kid you not, our problem is not the vaccine, but the needle. We dont like getting jabbed at all. Like my junior sister said, "it is not the content of the syringe". Me too. I could care less what is inside the syringe- J&J, Moderna, Pfizer- it is the needle that I detest.

But I did make my way some weeks back to the walmart near me for a session with some white robed fellow administering vaccines. I actually went there because some acquaintance told me they had J&J. That suited me fine. J&J requires only one jab, so I dont have to go a second time. I was disappointed. When I got there I was informed they only had Moderna. So I had to settle for Moderna. I still have to go back for the second shot. I hate to say it is weeks past the schedule. But I will visit that white robed dracula at walmart for the second shot shortly.

I am impressed by your passion for the good health of white republicans. Its most gracious of you, given that they are the engine of white supremacy. A less kinder heart than yours will observe that what eradicates white supremacy should be applauded; and if covid takes a toll on white supremacy, how can that not be divine weapon unleashed on what has been a plague on the black race? lol Forgive me, I could not help that.:)
Last edited by Juin on 24 Jul 2021 02:11, edited 1 time in total.
#15182266
@Juin

Your right about that insofar as African Americans can be vaccine hesitant too. However, it seems the reason for African Americans being vaccine hesitant are very different for the reason white southern republicans being vaccine hesitant.
#15182279
Politics_Observer wrote:@Juin

Your right about that insofar as African Americans can be vaccine hesitant too. However, it seems the reason for African Americans being vaccine hesitant are very different for the reason white southern republicans being vaccine hesitant.

You think so? It seems to me that they both have exactly the same reason - a deep-seated mistrust of their own government.

The reasons why both of these rather different demographic groups mistrust the government are, of course, quite different.
#15182281
Politics_Observer wrote:@Juin

I am not so sure if trying to establish a "superior race" is the exactly the same thing as conservatism. After all many of the segregationists in the south had this belief that whites were the "superior race" and thus blacks should be segregated. It was also stated by several Confederate politicians at the time of the American Civil War that they were essientially fighting to preserve slavery and to maintain the institutions of white supremacy (like slavery for example). The whole premise of the Confederacy that is the legacy of the southern white segregationists later on was that the white race was the "superior race."

The Confederacy was trying to conserve (and to spread) the institution of slavery; they could therefore be described as "conservatives".

For example, some would say Stalin was conservative and he certainly wasn't trying to establish a "superior race" though he was total nutbag.

The Tsarist authorities would have been surprised to learn that Stalin was a conservative, given the fact that he was actively trying to overthrow the Tsarist regime, which had ruled Russia for more than four centuries. And even while he was leader of the Soviet Union, Stalin was far from being conservative - his rapid industrialisation of the Soviet Union under centrally-planned Five Year Plans and his collectivisation of agriculture turned Soviet society upside-down. Under Stalin, Russia was in a state of permanent revolution.

His successors, on the other hand, can be described as "conservatives", at least until Gorbachev, since they were trying to conserve the legacy of Lenin and Stalin.

Murdoch newspapers are coming under attack from th[…]

Texas Six Week Abortion Law

Abbortion pro or contra is one part, but the other[…]

The Hill: Ryan Grim: New Political Movement Coul[…]

https://blog.libertasbella.com/wp-con[…]