Flat Tax Proposal (Paul)

I don't dispute in any way the notion that the Southern wing of the Democratic Party was the primary racist institution in the USA prior to the 1960's. It's clear this is the case. Almost all local governments in the South were Democrats and they promulgated all of the exclusionary laws that we began to overturn in the 50's and had almost completely wiped out by 1970.

There's no question this is the case.

However that doesn't change the fact that the Republicans decided to pander to racists as their primary strategy to win elections in the post Civil Rights era. It's what they did. This is as indisputable as the facts in the first paragraph above.

America is not complicated. We're full of shit and we pretend it doesn't smell because we're powerful enough to get away with that. That era is slowly going away. We're not going to like the post Pax Americana era very much.

BTW, if you want a really interesting take on the American Revolution you can look at the de facto emancipation of all slaves in Great Britain in 1772. Slaves throughout Britain but not in overseas possessions get freed by the ruling of an English court.

The conflicts that had been building over the years involved trade and taxation but it's not hard to see influential slaveholders like George Washington and Thomas Jefferson suddenly becoming much more hardened against the continual infringement on their income and property when the most valuable part of that property, their slaves, suddenly became threatened by English law.

 

The South in the past was all Democratic. But now it's all Repub. These GOPs however don't compare or are even close in their racism to the Dems and the KKK lovers of the past. But it amazes me that some of these post Civil War traditions and ideas are still around.

 

The South is not all Republican. It's a majority Republican region that still managed to give Barack Obama 25% of it's electoral votes in 2008 and 2012.

As to the level of racism present it's just not clear how it compares to earlier eras. There is a raft of Civil Rights legislation that was passed in a fairly narrow two decades from about 1954 to 1975 or so. Those laws represent the primary protections against overt racism, both in government and in commerce. It's not clear what would happen if those protections vanished. We have some clear indicators in the 2010 redistricting, which did not water down minority representation but were extraordinarily exclusionary in terms of the overall power structure. That was stealth racism at work.

 

I just looked it up. In 2008 Obama won 3 states in the South: VA, NC and FLA. and in 2012 he won: VA and FLA. All the rest went red. The thing that freaked out the Repubs were the percentages minorities voted for Obama. And they know the minority population is increasing. They don't want the minority to become the majority. As a matter of fact they don't believe the minorities should even be allowed to vote. As for the Deep South. Traditional white Democratic families are now Republicans.

 

Right so in 2008 Obama took 55 Southern electoral votes. In 2012 he took 42 Southern electoral votes. The thing to realize is that Florida has twice as many electoral votes as any other Southern state except Texas. Virginia has as many electoral votes as Mississipi and Arkansas combined.

The reason Obama got the margins he did was that he cut into the Republican electoral column significantly in the South. This has made them absolutely berserk in response because aside from those electoral votes they just don't have a pool to draw from elsewhere.

If Florida goes Democrat as a normal course of events it is hard to see another Republican being elected to the Presidency. If Florida and Virginia become blue states it's almost out of the question.

This is why the Republicans have been as angry collectively as they've been over the last two terms. Obama is not a huge Liberal President. He's a Democrat who might create a permanent Democrat majority in the Electoral College. This is why the Republicans have been willing to do anything to avoid striking any kind of bargain with him. They can't recognize him as a legitimate leader of the country because that way lies their ending.

 

Idk man. Its all relative to the year/candidate... those statements were true in 2008 & 2012 but the electoral college changes so much based on the candidates and political makeup of the country I don't think we can make those kind of proclamations. No one party will ever come close to a "permanent" majority in the electoral college. thats strong language. That's looking at the present and assuming the future will always be that way.

Besides "blue states" could just as easily become red over night anyway. Republicans have been collectively angry over losing the elections just like Democrats were collectively angry after 2000 & 2004. The parties don't like to lose ever, the Obama victories weren't the signaling of any permanent change in the electoral college or even the voting tendencies of the electorate. Just the Dem Nominee winning vs. the GOP nominee in those given years

 

I'm not suggesting it's easy to become a permanent majority party but I do think it's a lot easier than you'd think to become an unelectable minority party.

Right now the Republicans are a regional party with most of their real power concentrated in the South. The average American voter doesn't trust them to govern the country, which is not surprising given their recent propensity to rail against the Federal government. There is a large minority block, larger than the African American bloc, coming into play over the next generation in Hispanic voters and the Republicans have been virulently anti-Immigration which is an issue that bloc cares about.

It's not a good playing field for the Republicans and it's not likely to get better until the current generation of standard bearers passes on. Even then, young Conservatives aren't likely to make a big difference for the Republicans because their issues don't resonate well in the youth cohort at this point.

 

I think the biggest issue for them has been their nominees. McCain and Romney both sucked ass. If they nominated a moderate, fiscal conservative/socially progressive candidate they would be tough to beat.

Fortunately (Democrat here) they get hung up on the groups of their voters that are too right wing and either nominate guys that have no appeal or their nominee doesn't want to lose the base and acts like an ass.

 

honestly and perhaps this is short sighted of me, I know its different than most - -but I don't really care about a candidate's plan regarding immigration, borders, etc. It's usually all talk anyway and honestly I don't think its a big issue. The illegals aren't taking our jobs because the companies are just moving to them in Mexico

 

You just described Mitt Romney.

 

But he had to talk up his non-existent Conservative bonafides to get the nomination. So will Jeb Bush. Then the general election comes and they get run over by the combination of their own campaign statements and the fact that they're flip-flopping like a trout in frying pan to try to get moderate voters to come back to them.

George H.W. Bush would have gotten re-elected in 1992 if he hadn't had to do the "read my lips, no new taxes" thing. He knew he was going to have to raise taxes when he said it and he made a liar out of himself to get the nomination.

 

Well, all candidates have to pander to their base to get nominated. Nothing new about faking right (or left) and running up the middle.

The problem is with the Republican base. Pandering to that bunch of neanderthals puts you so far outside the mainstream that you just can't plausibly swim back anywhere near to shore.

Romney was the governor of Massachusetts and rammed through an early iteration of an Affordable Care Act. He got zero traction from the left and very little from moderates. His actual record of governance was scarily irrelevant to voters from both parties.

 

The Conservatives weren't stupid. They knew despite his denials he was a true moderate and that Romneycare was his program. The biggest double talk was his denials of this and denouncing ObamaCare. So basically nobody trusted him.

 

So what is the problem today BB??

 

So do u think that is unfair?? Voting for a given candidate solely because he is black, or she is black, or he is latino......and so on?? Same if someone votes for Clinton - just because its a "she". It surely taints the popular vote, ya think?

 

Good candidates don't have to pander much. It's the guys who really have no party or are in the wrong party that have to pander.

Romney should be on the right wing of the Democratic Party not on the left wing of the Republican Party. He could have just stated his basic platform minus all the crap about 53/47 and gotten elected in the general election if he was running in the Democratic Party.

The company you choose to keep is a real issue. As governor of Massachusetts Romney's politics were to the left of Bill Clinton's when he was governor of Arkansas. Democratic and Independent voters didn't like him though because he was putting his arm around the far right. He had no business being in the Republican Party. That wing of the party died along about 1983 and he just didn't get the message or something.

Romneycare and Obamacare are so close to each other that it's ridiculous. Obama and Pelosi tried to sell the country a conservative healthcare plan from 1993 and the conservatives ran amuck in response.

 

Bro you can vote for whatever reason you want. If you think it's unfair to vote for someone because they're black (and you're black) like the GOP thinks. Well then Welcome to the USSR. All political views are highly subjective, anyways.