[Louise]

Thank you Kate66, for that answer. You have a good point. I'm a Northerner, in a liberal state, who has always lived here. I don't see the prejudice here, among many of the Republicans I know. Some, yes, it exists, but, not the majority. I see just as much prejudice in the Democrats I know here. I will concede to the fact that it is probably very much different in other parts of the country.

I try very hard not to get into knock down, drag out fights on here. The main reason is that it doesn't do any good. I doubt that any of it changes a single mind. But, as a whole, the intelligence level is so high on this board that I wish we could all put anger aside and figure out what to do that will heal the chasm that seems to have developed in our country.

Just imagine the headlines "Members of the CoTH Community Singlehandedly pull the US to Health Again."

[Anne FS]

The first Civil Rights Act was in 1957, under Eisenhower (a Republican). That's when Thurmond filibustered. He was a Democrat then. He and other unhappy Dems as well as many Republicans were furious with Eisenhower. Notice in 1960 the Republicans lost the Presidential election. Thank God, however, that the Democratic PARTY continued to push for anti-segregation & anti-discrimination laws in the face of tremendous opposition and violence.

When Kennedy became President he continued to push for Civil Rights in 1963 and had many meetings with leading Republicans like Dirksen to get it passed (old timers like me will recall that name). There were many unhappy Dems. Kennedy was killed and Johnson pushed it through. It was a catalyst for many Democrats leaving the Democratic party for 3rd parties, which were unsuccessful. The South changed from being pro-Democrat to anti-Democrat. As I said, they created the Dixiecrat and American Independent parties, to name 2. The point is they left the Dem. party because it no longer shared their views. When the 3rd parties didn't get anywhere, guess where these people went? They did not come back to the Democratic fold.

[ZiggyStardust]

I completely agree with you. These two issues let the dems cloud the larger issues and make a mockery of the election. They were able to win over the simple minded and make them feel that small things are really big issues, while ingoring the really important things like the economy, the bloated national debt,and jobs.

Haha, yes, control over one's own body (abortion rights) and the legal rights to recognize one as a spouse are really small things.

[showhorsegallery]

Haha, yes, control over one's own body (abortion rights) and the legal rights to recognize one as a spouse are really small things.

They are not minor issues at all. But faced with the looming fiscal issues we are facing they are minor in comparison.

The Supreme Court has upheld Abortion. A President can't do anything about that. Gay Marriage will happen.

What is an immediate problem is the HUGE deficits and high unemployment.

[minnie]

Sure wish I'd sold my stocks yesterday!

O.K. I just gotta ask.....why would I get so many thumbs down on a statement that I wish I'd sold my stocks yesterday? Makes no sense. Are people that happy that I'd lose money because the market's down so far today?

There wasn't anything political, racist or controversial in that statement.

I just said I wish I'd sold my stocks.

Am I just getting thumbs down to ANYTHING I post?

Inquiring minds want to know!

[sunny59]

Not something I have generally had much feeling on, until last night. I was watching the R/R headquarters on the live stream and suddenly it dawned on me that there was not a single white person. I kid you not. After I noticed, I watched for 20 mins specifically to count how many non-white people I saw - none! So then I flicked over to the O/B live stream and was struck by the total mish-mash of colours and shapes - white, Asian, black, hispanic - everyone.

Now, that in itself doesn't say that all Republicans are racist, however does indeed represent perhaps what the feeling is about non-white and republicans together.

Also, looking at the exit polls today, only 7% of the African-Americans that voted, voted republican. The numbers are slightly higher for Hispanic, but not much.

This begs the question - is it the non-white people who are racist voting by race? or do the republican policies impact non-white people more than white people and therefore they don't vote that way? or is the republican party racist. I don't know the answer, but the statistics are interesting.

I addressed this on another thread, but the answer is clearly the latter. In all the other recent elections, the vote of minorities has been predominantly democrat. Often > 90%. The highest (94%) for Johnson. Obviously they were voting for policies, NOT color.

[sunny59]

For every link posted that is supposed to support the liberal beliefe that all Reps are racists, I could post a billion that display the opposite. That would still not convince them that the beliefs they hold on to are completely not true.

I have not seen one post saying "all Reps are racists". But I have seen posts (including my own) that say racism is alive and well in the right wing. As I posted already, I see it here on a daily basis and not just a few scattered incidences.

[SimpsoMatt]

What is an immediate problem is the HUGE deficits and high unemployment.

And these issues were not ignored by Obama voters. When Obama was being endorsed by people like Bloomberg and The Economist magazine, there were obviously many people with a good understanding of economic issues who felt that Obama has a better solution than Romney. You can disagree with those opinions, but it's not correct to say that Obama voters were ignoring fiscal issues and voting only on social issues.

[Noms]

I have not seen one post saying "all Reps are racists". But I have seen posts (including my own) that say racism is alive and well in the right wing. As I posted already, I see it here on a daily basis and not just a few scattered incidences.

This calling GOPS racist just never gets old, really, I could listen to it all day.

[loshad]

On a lighter note, I'll bet the Unskewed guy and his followers are feeling REALLY silly this morning.

[Natalie]

On a lighter note, I'll bet the Unskewed guy and his followers are feeling REALLY silly this morning.

And Nate Silver can have a nice "I told you so" chuckle as well, haha.

[showhorsegallery]

And these issues were not ignored by Obama voters. When Obama was being endorsed by people like Bloomberg and The Economist magazine, there were obviously many people with a good understanding of economic issues who felt that Obama has a better solution than Romney. You can disagree with those opinions, but it's not correct to say that Obama voters were ignoring fiscal issues and voting only on social issues.

I've got some sobering news for those who think voting for Obama is going to improve the economy. Taking money away from the economy just to put it back in (after the Government has taken its cut in the form of administrative fees of course) in the form of stimulus doesn't do a lick of good. The money was already in the economy. You're not adding to the pie by moving the money around. Printing more money only devalues the currency and discourages savings, the very thing we should encourage. Wages will not rise as quickly as the cost of goods will so your paycheck will not go as far as it once did. Printing money leads to inflation which will decrease your buying power. Borrowing money means we will have to pay it back with interest. You can NOT spend your way out of debt. We have a spending problem not an income problem.

Four years from now will determine if I'm right. I feel confident in my statement above. If you disagree just wait and see. The only hope I have is the Republican controlled house will keep spending to a minimum and the 2014 mid-term elections will bolster their numbers.

[Noms]

I addressed this on another thread, but the answer is clearly the latter. In all the other recent elections, the vote of minorities has been predominantly democrat. Often > 90%. The highest (94%) for Johnson. Obviously they were voting for policies, NOT color.

You fail to see the obvious, Until 2008, there were NO candidates of color, not a single one. So your logic is totally without any merit.

AND, that proves the almost undeniable fact that the black vote went to Obama, based on the color of his skin, rather than the content of his policies.

[minnie]

How many of you would be so in debt that 40% of your takehome is interest payments?

Add to that, you're unable to make ANY payments towards the principal and you have to keep borrowing more, so the percentage of your takehome going to interest will only increase?

And then......because your lender has decided you're so far in debt, it decides to INCREASE the amount of interest you pay because you're a riskier proposition.

Now, you only have 60 cents from every dollar to pay the mortgage, utilities, provide food and clothing, educate your children, provide health insurance and out of pocket medical expenses and let's not forget transportation.

And your take home pay isn't enough to cover those expenses, so you borrow some more.........

[sunny59]

I call BS on this fact, the southern democrats, the democratic 18 were staunchly opposed to the Civil Rights Act that passed in 1964. That is a FACT.


The bill came before the full Senate for debate on March 30, 1964 and the "Southern Bloc" of 18 southern Democratic Senators and one Republican Senator led by Richard Russell (D-GA) launched a filibuster to prevent its passage.


This re-writing of history to suit liberal ideas really needs to stop.

Did you actually read and understand the post? Yes, Thurmond and others were D at the time, but they switched because of this legislation. If you look at the D votes it was overwhelmingly favorable with Northern Ds, while the southern Ds were opposed. This completely changed the face of the D party and the south turned red...... No rewriting of history at all.....

The real difference in votes for this D sponsored act was North Vs South not D vs R and it reshaped the entire south......

[Noms]

How many of you would be so in debt that 40% of your takehome is interest payments?

Add to that, you're unable to make ANY payments towards the principal and you have to keep borrowing more, so the percentage of your takehome going to interest will only increase?


And then......because your lender has decided you're so far in debt, it decides to INCREASE the amount of interest you pay because you're a riskier proposition.

Now, you only have 60 cents from every dollar to pay the mortgage, utilities, provide food and clothing, educate your children, provide health insurance and out of pocket medical expenses and let's not forget transportation.

And your take home pay isn't enough to cover those expenses, so you borrow some more.........

Minnie, I am affraid silly matters such as the economic crisis in the US have been pushed aside in favor of the more urgent matters.

Human Rights
Abortion
Birth Control
Gay Marriage

[minnie]

I've got some sobering news for those who think voting for Obama is going to improve the economy. Taking money away from the economy just to put it back in (after the Government has taken its cut in the form of administrative fees of course) in the form of stimulus doesn't do a lick of good. The money was already in the economy. You're not adding to the pie by moving the money around. Printing more money only devalues the currency and discourages savings, the very thing we should encourage. Wages will not rise as quickly as the cost of goods will so your paycheck will not go as far as it once did. Printing money leads to inflation which will decrease your buying power. Borrowing money means we will have to pay it back with interest. You can NOT spend your way out of debt. We have a spending problem not an income problem.

Four years from now will determine if I'm right. I feel confident in my statement above. If you disagree just wait and see. The only hope I have is the Republican controlled house will keep spending to a minimum and the 2014 mid-term elections will bolster their numbers.

One of the reasons is to redistribute the money into the areas of the economy you deem most deserving. Like green energy. Or electric cars.

[Noms]

Did you actually read and understand the post? Yes, Thurmond and others were D at the time, but they switched because of this legislation. If you look at the D votes it was overwhelmingly favorable with Northern Ds, while the southern Ds were opposed. This completely changed the face of the D party and the south turned red...... No rewriting of history at all.....

The real difference in votes for this D sponsored act was North Vs South not D vs R and it reshaped the entire south......

This is what you posted which it totally FALSE. "as the Democrats firmly stood up for Civil Rights. "


They in fact did not firmly stand up for civil rights. The KKK was made up of all democrats. All the of KKK was democratic. ALL.

[sunny59]

This calling GOPS racist just never gets old, really, I could listen to it all day.

Do you deny racism exists in the RW?

[Lady Eboshi]

The economy evolved into this mess over the last 35 years, and it's going to have to evolve back out of it. Did you know that our industrial output is actually at the same level as it was in the all-time highs of the 1940's? The difference is that automation has eliminated nearly all of the unskilled manual labor. No stroke of anyone's pen is going to change that equation much, and both of the candidates surely knew it.

On social issues, the GOP needs to start "getting it" about now that the culture has moved on--WAY on--from where they seem to be stuck in the "Leave It To Beaver" era. The "Average American" today is not a white, male head of household with a factory job, but a single woman of color--with kids and a service-sector job. A platform telling her she can't get birth control, must bear the child of a rapist, will never see pay parity or be able to afford retirement or health care is not going to win her vote, as we've seen.

Fear always results in finger-pointing at anyone perceived as an "out" group, but it just didn't work this time.