Traps women in, so they can't get out.
Binders of Women: Another Shade of Grey
The "binders full of women" thing is distracting from the bigger point here: his response to the question of "what will you do to stop inequality" is, as best I can tell, and being as fair as I can to him, "I hired a lot of women, and I will make employers need to hire women."
This. I don't really like either response to this question (or lots of others from the debates), but at least Obama's had some semblance of a logical plan to it. Romney not only made the 'binders full of women' gaffe, but essentially reduced the issue down to giving women flexible hours so they can get home and do their duties around the house as well as work full time. That reason has also been historically used as justification for giving women less pay.
Truth be told, I don't live in America, but I'll still be pissed if Romney somehow pulls off a win.
He meant to say he has binders made of women.
Seeing Romney supporters and the right in general trying to spin his response here is easily one of the most entertaining things so far this election season.
My favorite thing about this election is that the right is already in full-swing Victim Mode.
When AREN'T they in victim mode? They cried persecution when they held the house, senate, and oval office for six years.
Of course, rich, Christian, and white guys are the last safe minority to make fun of, so maybe they have a point...
But that's the point--they're a 'safe' target because they're *not* a minority group. That's what's so disgustingly hypocritical about their assumption of victim-hood: that they mimic the rhetoric of the oppressed.
America is not ready for a president who confuses binders with duffel bags.
I'm enjoying this election more than usual because both candidates are such extraordinary pieces of garbage that it really doesn't even matter.
Yeah, Romney is basically a less likeable Darth Vader that wants to complete America's transition into a serfdom ASAP, but holy shit is Obama just a totally reprehensible douche as well. Fuck both of these guys and fuck this retarded country.
Obama's much better on environmental issues, which are the only thing that REALLY matters in the long run. Plus I trust him to appoint at least slightly better judges to the supreme court when the current batch start dying off in the next year or two.
Not that Obama's great on environmental issues but at least he's not making "plunder every resource without regard for the consequences" a campaign promise like Romney is.
uncreative cynics make the world a more boring place.
Oh yes, the internet badass to whom all candidates are disqualified, because his coolness cannot be sullied by descending to the mortal realm of repurcussion for even a moment.
Fuck you too misterbuns, but also fuck cynics. I'm not being cynical here.
Yes, Obama is marginally better than Romney by every measure. He's still represents a lot of bullshit that no decent person should feel good about supporting. That's why in my opinion the vocal/enthusiastic Obama supporters as pretty much the center-right equivalent of those teabagger morons.
When I say it doesn't matter I mean that the workers of this country are 100% fucked either way. This economy will not get better for the overwhelming majority of us anytime soon. Pretending that either of these guys gets us any closer to the answer is just contributing to the problem.
Don't cut yourself on my edge, cognitivedissonance. I'm happily voting for Jill Stein, so not all candidates are disqualified. I see repercussions for voting for both Obama and Romney. Voting for Obama is supporting too many regressive policies to be palatable to me.
As someone not tied to American economic policy, on which Obama's policies have little effect on me, it is so dissapointing to me to to watch four years of the American left complain about Obama and is horrendous social policies (extending the Patriot Act, assasinating civilians, a massive expansion of the drone strike policy, etc.) only to fall in line at election time. I wish people's social convictions ran deeper than that. Does it only bother you skin deep that the Democrats now own Guantanamo Bay and the Patriot Act?
Anaxagooras, you cared enough to reply and I really appreciate that.
You would have a good point if I said that workers were 90% fucked or something like that, but isn't saying that they are "100% fucked" just a more awkward way to say that workers are completely and totally fucked?
You don't vote FOR anybody, you vote AGAINST. No number of third party candidates will ever change the fact that half the country is going to vote for the most evil choice presented, and therefore it is your responsibility to do whatever it necessary to make sure the most evil choice is replaced by a considerably less evil one. We'd have bypassed the last decade if idiots like you had just voted for Gore and dealt with the ideological details down ticket.
But, hey, you're another election year forum troll, we get it. You'll be gone in a month thank God, give our regards to Messrs. Koch, Koch and Rove.
Gore didn't pick up enough votes because people didn't like his positions enough to vote for Nader. So, naturally, people accuse the voters of electing Bush instead of Gore for being a better candidate than RALPH NADER.
I also love the "Gore would have fixed everything for sure!" fantasy people cling to. Nothing bad could have happened under Gore, a candidate so appealing to the left that people went and voted for Nader in remarkable numbers.
I'm not even sure what that means, but it sounds like something that you couldn't possibly know anyway just based on the phrasing.
Yeah let's mourn the miscarried administration of the liberal warrior Al Gore and his good buddy JOE LIEBERMAN.
The fact that so many Democrats still blame 2000 on the people that voted for Nader instead of facing the fact that Gore was a shitty, almost blue-dog candidate is proof of how much influence the Kochs, Rove, etc. really have on our incredibly retarded political discourse.
Every other election I've been eligible to vote in, I've done the pragmatic thing and voted Democrat. I don't blame anyone for doing the same this year. I get that particularly on minority and women's issues, there is a big difference.
Holy God, though. I went house to house canvasing for Obama in '08 because I figured, "hey, he was a constitutional law professor. He'll close down Gitmo and repeal the Patriot Act for sure!"
His handling of the NDAA's "fuck habeas corpus" subsection, which his Justice Department is STILL fighting to uphold despite court challenges, is what made me decide I can't vote for him. That's not the lesser of two evils. That's just evil.
I'd also like to point out that his economic policy has been trickle down economics, pure and simple. Shoveling trillions of dollars to large banks in the hope that is raises all ships is not policy I'd expect from the "populist" party. Yet that's what he did.
Incidentally, our last Democratic President signed NAFTA. Ross Perot was the only candidate in 1992 that wasn't full of shit on how it would be the nail in the coffin for American manufacturing. Think about that for a minute, and what it means for supporting the Democratic party.
"Shoveling trillions of dollars to large banks in the hope that is raises all ships is not policy I'd expect from the "populist" party. Yet that's what he did."
I like how even the "edgy" I'm-not-voting/I'm voting third party have done the polite, status quo thing and bought into the right-wing bullshit meme that Obama is somehow to blame for a ton of shit that has nothing to do with him. Obama is not the ultimate savior, and he has done some genuinely shit things, but anyone actually comparing him in a literal sense to Romney is politically retarded and too busy trying to be all INDIE or whatever to actually bother realizing that the dumb Mother Jones-esque myth that Democrats and Republicans are identical should have fucking died in the 90s.
They are not the same and Obama, for all his faults, is not a "lesser evil." Handing over the keys to this country to a completely out of touch plutocrat like Romney who literally is just Bush Jr. Part 2 just because you want to wear Che Guevara shirts or whatever and KILL YOUR TELEVISION and vote for some third party that hasn't got a fucking chance in hell is probably the stupidest, most politically indefensible thing anyone could do simply in the name of making some vapid statement about THE ESTABLISHMENT or whatever. If Obama is elected, chances are some very real positive things could happen in this country in the next 4 years, and I think the last 4 years have been massively game-changing for the way the US is perceived abroad and how people view themselves as Americans. It's also possible that nothing particularly good will happen and Obama will be disappointing in many areas. Fine. However, if Romney winds up in office, you're fucking deluding yourself if you think his administration will be remotely comparable to Obama's in terms of the anti-citizen bullshit that will emerge.
Where does this Romney is the boogie man stuff even come from? He was governor of a liberal state and, during his time in office, he was essentially a grab bag of political positions in the same way Clinton was. He was also the least popular candidate to the GOP establishment due to his far more moderate positions, and won the nomination because every single other person turned out to be unelectable.
As a person, he seems like a vapid, uncaring, rich asshole that probably sleeps well at night because he doesn't think the awful things he does are awful. But given his history, I don't think he has any political motivation whatsoever. Hilary clearly wanted to change healthcare. McCain clearly wanted to continue the war on terror. Ron Paul clearly wants to enact libertarian policies. I may not agree with the latter two, but I at least have some respect for them because they want to hold the office as a means to reach their goal. I get the sense with Romney (and Obama, Bush jr, and Bill Clinton) that being President is the goal.
That said, just as Bush surrounded himself with neocons that destroyed the country, Romney seems to have surrounded himself with pro-corporation politicians and lobbiests, so he's probably the greater of the two evils here. So, economically, Obama is a little better. Socially, however, they're a wash, with Romney having more grey area.
This is the best summary I've read of the Obama/Romney choice:
ďIf you vote against Obama because he canít get stuff done, itís kind of like saying ĎThis guy canít cure cancer. Iím gonna vote for cancer.íĒ
The very worst Obama can do will still be light years better for the middle and lower classes than Romney. And a lot of people gripe that Obama hasn't done X, Y, or Z, yet they seem to forget the GOP in the Senate and their RECORD NUMBER of filibusters/threats.
Gitmo closing? Guess which party wouldn't let the prisoners be moved to the U.S. for trial?
Unemployment? Guess who shot down a bill to stop subsidizing businesses that move labor overseas?
There's been a shitload of legislation addressing the issues that people want Obama to solve, but it gets cock-blocked by a party that's admitted all they want to do is make everything fail or not happen and blame Obama.
"Shoveling trillions of dollars to large banks in the hope that is raises all ships is not policy I'd expect from the "populist" party. Yet that's what he did."
Yeah, Obama's no FDR, he should have done what FDR did. Which was, uh, pump funds into banks and insure their assets so the economy could stabilize and recover.
Did your parents have a house? Thank a bank for that. Did you ever get a car that you couldn't afford all at once? Thank a bank for that. Banks provide essential services in modern economies, and I'm actually sort of sad I even have to say that, because it should be glaringly obvious that banks are important. This doesn't mean that banks should be allowed to gouge the customer either; there is a difference between commerce and corruption. But getting mad that Obama stabilized the banks is just crazy stupid.
Speaking of crazy stupid ... "I'm happily voting for Jill Stein, so not all candidates are disqualified." The very best I can say about Jill Stein is, her fans like her because she isn't a serious candidate. If she were ever to take her candidacy seriously -- as in with any intention of ever getting elected, in this cycle or the next -- she would start accepting donations and courting special interests, and her fan base would accuse her of selling out.
So voting for Jill Stein is effectively the same as writing in "Pinkie Pie" on your ballot. At least writing in "Pinkie Pie" would be more honest; at least you'd be acknowledging that you are voting to be smug, not to actually try to move the country in a positive direction.
Obama is pretty damn far from perfect, but he's the best candidate out there, and he's a better president than most of his critics deserve.
And by the way, "trillions" of dollars weren't shoveled into banks. That's a Republican talking point that "accidentally" mixes up the amount of assets insured with the amount actually spent. That's like worrying your Dean Cain fan site is going to overload the server because, hypothetically speaking, everyone on the Internet could try to visit it at the same time.
Total actually disbursed: $466 billion
Total that has been recouped as of mid-October 2012: $385 billion
Net cost: $81 billion
That's $81 billion to keep our economy from going over the cliff; even if we never see another cent of that again, that's a TREMENDOUS bargain.
Clearly we don't appreciate the banks enough. They are great corporate citizens that benefit us all so much with the responsible use of their tremendous influence over our government. Maybe that's why the Obama administration has gone out of their way to protect banks and financial institutions from any accountability for their actions that caused our economy to collapse.
I also love how so many people seem to want to pretend that liberal frustration with Obama is the result of ridiculously high standards or ignorance of the obstructionist tactics of the right wing.
How about his abysmal record on civil liberties? Not just Gitmo, but signing the Patriot Act, the NDAA, and bragging about indiscriminate drone strikes that harm mostly innocent civilians? What about the conditions that prisoners like Jose Padilla and Bradly Manning are being held in?
How about the abhorrent "Grand Bargain"? If I am a Democrat, am I really expected to believe that ten-to-one cuts compared to tax increases is a reasonable compromise with the right-wing? Am I supposed to ignore the clear signals that Obama sent to the right-wing that he is open to cuts to Social Security and Medicare as a way to humor this ridiculous manufactured hysteria over the debt?
Am I really supposed to believe that Obama and the rest of the weak Dems WON'T give away almost anything to get some deal done to avoid the "fiscal cliff" right after the election?
It's easy to pretend that people voting third party on the left are just unreasonable, but you have to draw the line somewhere. The Democrats might have to lose a few more elections to learn how to dance with those that brung them, and we can all agree that this is very unfortunate.
How about you draw the line somewhere that doesn't help Romney get elected? Hell, with the way the Republicans are trying to restrict voting rights, this might be the last time you have the privilege of throwing your vote away.
If you disaffected "Progressive" types were in the habit of voting more often, we would probably have a much better Congress and would be able to get more done. You speak of "weak" Dems, but if they don't have the strength they used to, it's because their ranks are still depleted from the Civil Rights Act, which supercharged the Republicans and has given them the South for the past 50 years. So you can't stand the Dems for being "weak", fair enough; but at least acknowledge that they got that way by doing something that was admirable and necessary.
I sometimes say the Civil Rights Act is the worst mistake the Democrats ever made (politically speaking), to drive home the fact that we're still dealing with its aftereffects. Everything the Democrats are trying to get done today, but can't because of opposition / obstruction, is another consequence of the Civil Rights Act. In a few years' time demographics will start turning around and the Democrats will be firmly back on top, but in the meantime we have to fight tooth and nail to keep Republicans from causing as much destruction as they can.
@Bort I actually buy Chris Hedge's/Richard Wolff's argument that the current problem with the left is that the entire, er, left, is absent. Compare the political actors in place now versus the 1930's. FDR ran for President as a pretty centrist Democrat. What pushed him left was the fact the there were large, militant labor, communist, and socialist organizations coordinating with each other.
The thing that kills me about Obama is the utter lack of vision across the board. Environmentally, economically, socially, it's just technocratic solutions inside the current paradigm. I feel like that's much more the fault of a global left that is only just starting to dream again, though. It's not that I don't care, I'm just much more focused on rebuilding institutions that allow for us to come up with big ideas as a human race that don't involve feudal levels of income inequality, which neither party is planning on eliminating.
If we were just talking about minor (or even somewhat substantial) ideological differences between the left and Obama I could see myself agreeing with the "lesser of two evils" sentiment. But what we are talking about is much deeper than that; a vote for Obama is an endorsement of some incredibly wrong and deeply evil policies. Romney being a horrible person does not change this.
Voting for Obama may seem like the responsible choice in the short-term, but in the long-term an Obama loss may just be what the Democrats and the left need to get motivated.
We are in a situation right now where countless self-described liberals and progressives are willing and ready to vote for somebody that is objectively and with no hyperbole a moderate to right-wing Republican. This is why we are fucked for the foreseeable future; Obama and the rest of the weak Dems KNOW that they are free to pander to the oligarchy with absolutely no fear of losing the left.
Our votes are taken for granted by the Democratic Party, despite the absence of support from the left being the deciding factor in the 2000 and (arguably) the 2010 elections. Maybe it has to be the deciding factor in the 2012 election as well before we can trust Democrats to govern as if they actually respected traditionally Democratic principles and ideals. Complain to Obama and the DNC, not the left.
p.s. - To the argument that the Civil Rights Act was some huge mistake that we are all still paying for, FUCK that mentality. That is exactly the problem with Democrats today.
Too many Democrats think that expecting anything even vaguely progressive from the Democratic Party is some radical idea that the majority of Americans will reject. That's just bullshit. If Obama and the Democratic congress had come out of the corner swinging in 2009 and at least sincerely tried to deliver some change the 2010 election would have been very different, and this election would probably be in the bag. Don't underestimate the effect of the disillusionment of Democrats and the left with Obama.
The Civil Rights Act WAS a huge mistake, on the strictly political level. Any initiative that supercharges the opposition while making you lose in half the country for 50 years has to rate as a mistake, in terms of politics. Even LBJ knew it at the time; he predicted he'd lose the South for a long time, and he was right.
It was nonetheless the right thing to do, and that tells you something important about Democrats: they're willing to take their losses if in doing so they can accomplish the right thing. That also tells you something about disillusioned Democratic non-voters: they contribute nothing. What they should be doing is voting in massive numbers in every election -- every primary, every off-year general election -- so their meager numbers might pack a bigger punch and help offset the political damage of the Civil Rights Act. They don't, though. All they're good for is saying "okay, the Democrats got us the Civil Rights Act 50 years ago, but what have they done LATELY?" What the Democrats have done lately is try to regain enough numbers to do some more good ... and damn if disillusioned Democrats aren't just getting in the way.
I toss this one out for Old_Zircon ... if the Democrats hadn't passed the Civil Rights Act, the Republicans may well not have turned into the reactionary anti-science idiots they are today. Under those circumstances, we might have an easier time doing something about climate change today.
There is one congressman and one senator currently active that was in congress in 1964. What sense does it make to support a group of politicians for something a different group of politicians under the same banner did? How much turnover does it take before the people there now no longer get credit for the things the people before them did? What sense does it make to take them at anything but their own record? Why not throw FDR's history on the pile, if you're supposed to vote maudlin?
Maybe this sounds radical to you, but politicians, on either side, should never be able to count on an individual's vote. That is absurdly destructive to the process.
Hooker: because Democrats still pretty consistently go to bat for civil rights, fairer tax codes, better wages, jobs, a saner foreign policy, and progress in general. I still see the same tendencies among the Democrats that got us the Civil Rights Act, the New Deal, and hard-won labor rights. True, there's no proof that the Democrats would make everyone here happy if they suddenly dominated both chambers today, but they would certainly get a lot more done than they've been able to with obstructionist Republicans.
We were one vote away from a Public Option, and the holdout wasn't even a Democrat (it was Joe Lieberman).
I agree! I like most of the Democratic senators and representatives (and even some Republican ones)! I'm not and never have been an American citizen, but were I, if my representative was an average Democrat-type, I would vote for them.
However, we are not talking about the Democratic party. You are. We're talking about Obama and the worthless things he has done with the presidency, chief among them being the horrific drone strike policy in Pakistan and Afghanistan. How much leeway to kill innocent people or continue to suspsend American's civil liberties (re-signing the Patriot Act, for instance) do you give a person because they won the nomination of the Democratic party? Joe Lieberman has an astonishingly liberal voting record except for his unabashed support of the Iraq War, and that was enough for every liberal institution in America to turn on him with incredible vitrol to the point that he was actually expelled from the party despite the fact that he was still (as evidenced by the fact that he _still_ got back into the senate as an independant). So, that alone can show you that you can expell bad apples from the party if the supporting base of the Democratic party wants to. Too many people, however, are far too willing to roll over on basic human rights issues. Obama is okay on financial issues. He got some form of national healthcare through. But short of starting wars, he's every bit as bad on foreign policy issues as the last President was, and liberal anger from 2000-2008 was almost always on issues of foreign policy.
That he was still electable, even.
Okay, Hooker, I've asked this before, and I don't think anyone has a good answer. Perhaps you do. We know there are terrorists overseas who are able and willing to launch strikes at the US and other nations. We want to stop them, but we also don't want to kill innocent civilians. What do you think is the best option? Here are the options I can think of:
A) Do nothing, let terrorists get it out of their systems at their own pace.
B) Trust other nations to get the terrorists for you, you know, like Pakistan did with bin Laden.
D) Full-scale invasion.
E) Carpet bombing.
F) Cruise missile strikes.
G) Drone strikes.
H) Hostess Fruit Pies.
I) Marmite to increase their zinc levels and thus make them less aggressive.
Of these options, G is the one that will cause the least needless death while getting the job done. Therefore, I think drone strikes are FUCKING AWESOME. I'm curious what strategy you recommend for dealing with terrorists currently out there. (You and I have the luxury of selecting option A, because nobody will hold us accountable if terrorists get through again. It's very liberating to not be responsible for consequences. But that doesn't mean it's a realistic option for any president of any party.)
Those are hardly the only options, but I don't drone strikes is a better option that doing nothing. The drone strike program has been shown to kill innocent civilians far more than terrorists, while it has not been shown to effectively combat terrorism.
"We know there are terrorists overseas who are able and willing to launch strikes at the US and other nations" is such an absurd statement because, while true, their effects are negligable. There are domestic terrorists that want to kill you as well. There's no accurate number of how many innocent people the drone strike program has killed, and there are fuzzy numbers at best about how many innocent+guilty people the drone strike program has killed. However, in Pakistan alone, the number roughly equals the number of people that died in the September 11 attacks. So you're left with vague thousands of people killed by a program and anyone's guess how many of them were terrorists. That doesn't seem like the best way of combatting terrorism. It sounds like V2 rockets to me.
I don't know the best way to combat terrorism, and neither do you. I'm of the belief that a global effort towards nations that support terrorism, either explicitly or implicitly. But that's not what America has done with the drone strike program. I'm also of the belief that raising the standard of living in poor nations will combat the problem as well. "Developing" nations that are actually developing (China, India, Nigeria, etc.) don't have a terrorist-level problem with the West. Not-developing nations do. Double-so for not-developing nations that the United States is constantly dropping bombs on. This seems plainly obvious to me.
Everyone's opinion on drones is going to miraculously change once they hit our skies... except mine.
I will be insufferable when that day comes, and I look forward to it.
Also, sort of unrelated, I wish the whole debate was up here, because it was the first time, ever, that I thought Obama might actually be kind of stupid. It was such a children's retard slap fight with momma crying that I was stunned.
Oh for Christ's sake Bort. I'm sick of this stupid "Civil Rights Act" bullshit you trot out at ever possible opportunity to excuse the Democrats' dysfunction. "If they hadn't been such good guys and done the right thing, they'd still have 70 senators and a majority in the House." Bullshit.
Let's start with the idea that the Civil Rights Act was such a huge mistake and that the Democrats were politically foolish in trying to do the right thing (and before you call that a strawman, I specifically remember you saying in one of your many comments about this that passing the Civil Rights Act in spite of the political cost demonstrates their "decency"). Why did the Act get passed? It wasn't because Johnson or Kennedy was trying to do the right thing. As late as April 1, 1963, Kennedy was firmly opposed to any civil rights legislation. He and his successor were perfectly happy to let segregation continue. It took MLK and images of firehouses and policedogs on TV to push the Democrats into reluctant action. The Civil Rights Act wasn't done because it was the right thing to do, it was political expedient just like everything else in politics. If the Civil Rights Act hadn't been passed, it would have alienated a vast swath of the non-South that demanded change.
Now the idea that the Civil Rights Act "has given [the Republicans] the South for the past 50 years". Once again, bullshit. This is a sickening simplification of a complex situation. If the Republicans have controlled the South for 50 years, why is Republican Party identification in the South most prevalent among younger white voters rather than older people who would be expected to be most opposed to desegregation? How did the Democrats hold onto legislatures in the Deep South until the 2010 elections? 15 years after the Civil Rights Act in 1980, how was the southern congressional delegation still dominated by Democrats and indeed was dominated until 1994? Race certainly had a role in the realignment of the South, but credible scholarly evidence indicates economic factors were just as, if not more important.
Politics isn't some war strategy game where we talk about good guys and bad guys and "depleted ranks". The South realigned for reasons having little to do with your Civil Rights Act crap. The Democrats passed the Act purely for political advantage. Get the fuck over it.
Hey asian hick ... ? I know the reality of the matter sucks, but the reality of the matter is, the Civil Rights Act DID hurt the Democrats politically. Ever heard of the Southern Strategy? It works. It won't work forever, but it's worked since the early 70s and will probably continue to in some states for some time.
I won't deny that the Civil Rights Movement applied pressure for change. But the Democrats were not just responding to polls the way you seem to want to reduce it. Remember the Dixiecrats back in 1948 ... ? That was nearly 20 years before the Civil Rights Act, and already bigoted Democrats were feeling unwelcome in their party. Hell, one of Truman's proudest accomplishments was his 1946 President's Committee on Civil Rights, whose recommendations he personally expressed to Congress. The Democrats' move towards civil rights had been in the works long before MLK Jr hit the scene.
Bort did you even read the law review article I linked? Or did you just repeat the exact same argument a little more shrill, scared to process any new information that might contradict your "insight"? I'll make it easy on you and quote the relevant part:
"On April 1, 1963, President John F. Kennedy stood firmly opposed to the introduction of a major civil rights bill. He believed that such a law would not pass, and that its debate by the Congress could divide and destroy the Democratic party. Seven weeks later, on May 20, 1963, Kennedy announced to his cabinet that he was directing the Department of Justice to draft a civil rights bill."
What a bold stand by the party of civil rights! What happened in the interim? Birmingham of course. Like it or not, the Democrats were happy to hang the African-Americans out to dry to maintain the New Deal coalition with the South. It took an event that threatened to undermine their political position elsewhere in the country to kick their ass into action.
Did civil rights hurt the Democrats? Probably. Goldwater was able to exploit it in 1964. I said as much in my post up above. But you've gone much further, stating that the Civil Rights Act was the Democrats' "greatest political mistake" and "gave the Republicans the South for 50 years". Did you even examine the scholarly book I linked? It uses actual facts rather than the ramblings of a poetv beardo to make its point. That point being that the realignment of the South was an economic phenomenon. That's why younger southerners are more likely to be Republicans and older southerners more likely to have remained Democrats. You still haven't explained how the Republicans having the South for 50 years meant its congressional delegation was dominated by Democrats 30 years after the Civil Rights Act. Indeed, look at a congressional map even from 2008. Three out of Mississippi's four House seats were held by Democrats! The legislatures of Alabama and Mississippi were dominated by Democrats until 2010; Hell Arkansas' still is. Carter and Clinton were able to be quite successful in the South. Sorry dude but your argument does not hold up and deliberately oversimplifies a complex situation.
|The Mothership |
The Guardian deconstructed this nicely:
If you like it then you shoulda put three rings on it. #bindersfullofwomen
I would be much more supportive of female equality if more females were as cute as the chick who asked the question.
| Register or login To Post a Comment|