RED PILL BLACK

Discussion in 'Politics' started by Praetorian, Jun 1, 2018.

  1. Candace Owens. Get this woman into the White House :)



    She nails several points and seems to have the spirit to fight for what she believes in.
    Glad to see her gaining fame for what cannot be an easy thing to stand up for as a black woman in modern US.
     
    • Agree Agree x 3
  2. 39:40

    Reporter did not even listen to a single word she said.


    "Yeah"
     
  3. Hear hear, as someone on the left (as we both are), I think seeing someone like Candace on the right, and with such a steel spine, is great to see.



    She was on Rogan yesterday, I've yet to listen to it
     
    • Like Like x 2
  4. who the fook is she?
     
  5. Was brought to the light via a comment by Kanye West saying she had a lot of good things to say. She has been all around sharing those good things ever since. Works for TurningPoint USA. Blacks in this country are starting to figure out who wants to keep them on the plantation...The same party that fought to keep them slaves, fought for Jim Crow laws, fought against their right to vote, and started the KKK.
    They lose the black vote and they are done.
     
    • Like Like x 4
    • Agree Agree x 2
  6. Being in favor of social welfare programs like Medicaid, social security, etc is fighting to keep them on the plantation. How many times do we have to discuss the idea of political realignment before it sticks. In the 1970’s many of the states which were core democratic constuencies became Republican dominated states. This was directly related to LBJ passing the civil rights act and the GOP embracing the southern strategy where they actively campaigned against civil rights as well as various other factors. This quote from harry enten sums up pretty well the vote for the civil rights act and its implications. At the end of the day these were political parties 40-50 years ago and are not directly relevant to today’s political landscape but I’m sick of people spreading ahistorical garbage with no context.

    “You can see that geography was far more predictive of voting coalitions on the Civil Rights than party affiliation. What linked Dirksen and Mansfield was the fact that they weren't from the south. In fact, 90% of members of Congress from states (or territories) that were part of the Union voted in favor of the act, while less than 10% of members of Congress from the old Confederate states voted for it. This 80pt difference between regions is far greater than the 15pt difference between parties.

    But what happens when we control for both party affiliation and region? As Sean Trende noted earlier this year, "sometimes relationships become apparent only after you control for other factors".

    [​IMG]
    In this case, it becomes clear that Democrats in the north and the south were more likely to vote for the bill than Republicans in the north and south respectively. This difference in both housesis statistically significant with over 95% confidence. It just so happened southerners made up a larger percentage of the Democratic than Republican caucus, which created the initial impression than Republicans were more in favor of the act.


    Nearly 100% of Union state Democrats supported the 1964 Civil Rights Act compared to 85% of Republicans. None of the southern Republicans voted for the bill, while a small percentage of southern Democrats did.

    The same pattern holds true when looking at ideology instead of party affiliation. The folks over at Voteview.com, who created DW-nominate scores to measure the ideology of congressmen and senators, found that the more liberal a congressman or senator was the more likely he would vote for the Civil Rights Act of 1964, once one controlled for a factor closely linked to geography.

    That's why Strom Thurmond left the Democratic party soon after the Civil Right Act passed. He recognized that of the two parties, it was the Republican party that was more hospitable to his message. The Republican candidate for president in 1964, Barry Goldwater, was one of the few non-Confederate state senators to vote against the bill. He carried his home state of Arizona and swept the deep southern states – a first for a Republican ever.

    Now, it wasn't that the Civil Rights Act was what turned the South against the Democrats or minorities against Republicans. Those patterns,as Trende showed, had been developing for a while. It was, however, a manifestation of these growing coalitions. The South gradually became home to the conservative party, while the north became home to the liberal party.

    Were Republicans really the party of civil rights in the 1960s? | Harry J Enten
     
    • Like Like x 2
  7. She's a woman she can't be president read the constitution
     
    • Funny Funny x 1
  8. #9 Bravedave, Jun 1, 2018
    Last edited: Jun 1, 2018
    It is sad that they keep feeding your delusions and you personally can stop inventing my meanings at any time. I guess I left too big an opening for you. I guess if I was going to be less general, I would point to the Johnson administration starting to allow women with children to marry the government while disabusing fathers of the responsibility, to be the most problematic.

    Iin any case speaking of Democrat Lyndon...I understand he referred to the 1957 Civil Rights Legislation as "The N***ga Bill".
    Also purported as saying "I'll have those N***gas voting Democrat for 200 years"
    and
    "Son, when I appoint a n***ga to the court, I want everyone to know he's a n**ga"
    In any case, even now you and yours feed a victim mentality that does not lend itself to raising anybody up.
    Give this a listen...
    Why Did the Democratic South Become Republican?
     
    • Like Like x 2
    • Winner Winner x 1
  9. #10 nativetongues, Jun 1, 2018
    Last edited: Jun 1, 2018
    As the video you provided and article I provided notes the south was already trending more republican over the time even before the CRA. The political realignment was already in the process and was not something that just happened over night. The first point of the Prager u video not only doesn’t disprove my argument, I acknowledged in my argument this was already an existing trend. The second point of the prager u video is that of the twenty southern democrats who voted against the CRA only one ever switched to be a republican. But this is a strawman of the political realignment argument historians make. They don’t argue that all southern democrats instantly switched over to be republicans. It argues that areas which previously voted democratic over time started to vote more for republicans who often explicitly ran on anti civil rights platforms and especially as their attitudes about welfare changed. As any serious historian would note there were several factors beyond just civil rights that lead to southern states supporting the Republican Party and north supporting the Democratic Party in larger numbers.

    As the article I provided points out geography was a far bigger factor in predicting votes on the CRA than party identification because southern voters were far more opposed to civil rights than northern voters in both the democratic and republican pasty. Its not surprising that many of these southern democratic politicians continued to get elected because they were against civil rights and in favor of welfare programs which their voters liked a lot at the time. As time went on though the south became more conservative on economic issues and a lot of these fiscally liberal social conservative democrats started losing to all around conservative Republicans.

    Making generalizations is tough because I can find you specific local instances that buck this national trend. That’s what the Prager U video is doing. Instead of looking at the fact that over time in the aggregate the southern states became overwhelmingly republican controlled and vice versa they are looking at specific instances where democrats won southern states. This is the third point of the video. Carter and Bill Clinton won southern states so that means political realignment is not a valid historical description. The issue with this is that political polarization was not so widespread st the time. It was much more common in the 60’s for voters to switch between political parties. Look at the dramatic swings between for example 1964 and 1968. You wouldn’t see such dramatic shifts in states flipping today because political polarization is significantly higher. It wasn’t uncommon for a Republican voter to vote democrat or vice versa especially on a presidentialz level. What people who argue for the idea of a political realignment argue is that many of the congressional district which were reliable democratic voting blocks started voting republican in the 70’s and 80’s. You can argue this was the function of both economic and social issues which I think is true but there is no denying that the areas appealed to by each group shifted dramatically around the 60’s.

    Historical U.S. Presidential Elections 1789-2016
     
  10. So when you bring up Strom Thurmond, its not a straw man?? Next you will be trying to explain why ex-KKK Grand Wiz Robert Byrd was really a Republican.

    More Candace:
    Playing the Black Card
     
    • Like Like x 2
  11. What does that matter? Since when does the government give a shit about the constitution?
     
    • Funny Funny x 1
  12. Another great lecture/speech by Ms. Owens.



    Key point @ 27:40, guy states he posted her speech on Twitter, and his account was instantly blocked.

    So much for that famed leftist tolerance and inclusivity.
    Keep it up Twitter. Can't wait til you come crashing down. :smoke:
     
    • Like Like x 3
  13. A big hell yeah to that! I've never gotten twatter from the start and would be pleased to see it go the way of the Dodo.

    "Let it be written, let it be done. Slowly I walk toward the fractured light."
     
    • Like Like x 1
  14. Okay this women keeps saying "like" a billion times. Why do people keep using that filler word so much? Anyways that aside.

    This women has no clue when it comes to climate change. The interview was as bad as Eddie Bravo's flat earth arguments.



    Joe Rogan: "The vast majority of scientists believe humans are negatively affecting climate change. The VAST majority.."

    Candice Owen: "errr yeah like...No I don't think so"

    lmao
     
    • Like Like x 1
  15. Haven't heard it yet, will have to check out.
     
  16. This interview was a real train wreck to watch. At least someone like Shapiro has some basic factual information to refer back to. She was just straight up repeating the same old talking points and flailing anytime joe offered up some extremely mild pushback. Love when young Jamie calls out people for bullshitting. This and the recent Eddie bravo podcast were great. I love Eddie but the dudes off his rocker and doesn’t want to actually learn.
     
  17. I hope to understand the history of that time period more but does it seem like the direction of the country took a sharp turn when LBJ became president?
    were those programs all JFK's ideas while he was alive?
    or was it johnsons?
    wasn't Johnson from texas where jfk got shot?
     
  18. Lol. Candace was right on JRE she would make an excellent comedian. This segment had me in stitches

     
  19. She's a dunce.
     
    • Disagree Disagree x 1

Share This Page