When will Hillary Clinton give up her candidacy ?

@georgeob1,

your use of history of the pre civil rights era fail to recognize that the Dixiecrats (of then) are comfortably nested within the GOP of today.
If all the GOP would hve remained the party of TEddy Roosevelt, Id probably till be a GOP.

When the GOP was overtaken by the increasing conservative philosophy, it became n nethema to the humn condition. Call it "naive" if you will but you know dmned well that governmentl" intervention" in everything from Civil rights to most environmentl programs would never have been accomplished otherwise. I think youve agreed with my past chestnut that
"Businesses and industry rarely do "the right thing" without some degree of government direction ".

1 Reply

@farmerman,

What was the USSC t "thinking " when they voted to denut sec 4 and 5 of the Voter Rights Act of 1965. I really think they honestly felt that, in this "post civil rights era" these two sections were no longer needed. Sec 5 is the place where any changes in a states voter laws no longer needed Fed preapproval.
SO WHAT HAPPENED??
Alabama, Arizona, North Carolina, Ohio, Texas and Wisconsin (ll with GOP majorities in the legislatures or the governors office) quickly passed much more restrictive voter laws.
Can you say naiive?

NOW GEORGE OB, if you really think that the USSC decision (under HOLDER v) was a good one that served the rights of all citizens, then I wanna have some of what your smoking.

I especially am drawn to the Alabama law ehich, via redistricting ala GOP, had clustered black districts so theyd never ever have a majority of US Huse selections (unless they vote GOP).
Your argument about Dem redistricting ala Congressman Gerry falls on deaf ears since youre talking about THEN, Im talking about NOW.

2 Replies

@farmerman,

Thanks for keeping up with the voter laws. My wife and I have been voting absentee ballots for many years which is convenient for us.

Two important information for voters in California.
Here's how California's new voter registration law will work - LA Times
www.latimes.com/.../la-me-pol-ca-motor-voter-law-20151016-htm...
Los Angeles Times
Oct 16, 2015 - California's new voter registration law will enable people to register to vote when they go to the DMV to obtain or renew a driver's license. ... The statewide voter registration database, Vote-Cal, is on track to be implemented by June 2016, said Secretary of State Alex Padilla.
"Time off to Vote" Notices | California Secretary of State
www.sos.ca.gov/elections/time-vote-notices/
Secretary of State of California
Employees are eligible for paid time off for the purpose of voting only if they do not have sufficient time outside of working hours to vote. The intent of the law is to ...

0 Replies

@farmerman,

farmerman wrote:

What was the USSC t "thinking " when they voted to denut sec 4 and 5 of the Voter Rights Act of 1965. I really think they honestly felt that, in this "post civil rights era" these two sections were no longer needed. Sec 5 is the place where any changes in a states voter laws no longer needed Fed preapproval.
SO WHAT HAPPENED??
Alabama, Arizona, North Carolina, Ohio, Texas and Wisconsin (ll with GOP majorities in the legislatures or the governors office) quickly passed much more restrictive voter laws.
Can you say naiive?

More restrictive than what? Certainly not more restrictive than what prevailed before 1965. Requiring IDs of voters does not constitute a restriction aimed at any subset of the population.

Gerrymandering is a time honored practice among politicians of both parties. It was done in the late 1960 s in some of these states to guarantee Black representation under the direction of the Justice department, and I have little doubt that it has been done, perhaps with a didderent view in mind since then. You are making some rather broad accusations about issues over which I have little information, and done so without disclosing the information that lead you to your conclusions. Please elaborate.

3 Replies

@farmerman,

I didn't expect him to be tried. Bush wasn't. I did wonder where all the righteous indignation was about innocents murdered by a US president, though...

0 Replies

@georgeob1,

As Farmerman pointed out, you've made a pretty shady omission in disregarding the broad move of the Dixiecrats into the Republican party. It is one of the most significant political realignments of the last century. You know this history, surely, so why the pretense it didn't happen?

I put a question to you at the end of my last post. Can you respond to it, please. If a libertarian scheme of governance (of the sort you favor) is as effective in producing broad prosperity and liberty in a nation, one would expect to see some fine instances of the thing extant in the world. I see no such thing.

If there are no such examples, yet in contrast many examples of highly successful and free nations which operate with progressive systems, how can you or anyone else have any confidence at all that your notion will work? I don't quite get this.

2 Replies

@georgeob1,

So the gerrymandered redistricting that was just passed coincidentally when The USSC removed sec 4 nd 5 from the VRA, is ok with you and you dont see any governmentally sdriven racism inherent in the Alabama law. OR, the fact that voter id laws in Az,NC,Texas, and Wisconsin, while written in 2012 but were held for passage until the VRA section 4 and 5 were rescinded which let em get away with it .

Too bad that Scalias career move stayed all of these (in my mind) cynically racist laws go forward.

I think many republicans go out each day actually believing that they ARE NOT the swine that their lawmakers prove them to be.

1 Reply

@georgeob1,

sorry, before I get snotty I think I should have elaborated.

The USSC in the 2013 Holder decision, restructured the Voters Rights Act of 1965. Sections 4 an 5 were rescinded . These were the sections that, basically stated that Federal Approval was no longer needed when states wanted to make changes to their voting laws. It was purely a coincidence that , as soon as these sections were annuled, the states I mentioned started their own returns to Jim Crow. (Limiting absentee ballets, no convenient voter registration, required photo id.s {i know I know==thats to protect us from all these bldk voters fraudulently voting, racial gerrymndering).

Obviously Im not an attorney but I can red the decision, the majority brief, the dissenting BRIEF(S), and the rush to change laws by the GOP legislature/governor regimes

1 Reply

@farmerman,

This needs repeating, because this tells most people how the GOP tried to suppress voting by blacks.

Quote:

Obviously Im not an attorney but I can red the decision, the majority brief, the dissenting BRIEF(S), and the rush to change laws by the GOP legislature/governor regimes

The GOP are the ones trying to create roadblocks to voting when they should do everything in their power to encourage it. That's if they believe in Americanism.

http://correctrecord.org/the-2016-gop-record-on-voting-rights/

0 Replies

Earlier here, I made the prediction that after the Nov elections, and quite regardless of the popular vote, the degree by which Clinton wins, the number of seats in both houses the GOP will lose - regardless of all that, Republicans and their media allies will launch a broad narrative claiming that Clinton has no legitimate mandate to carry through on those policies she has campaigned on. A key instrument they will use in trying to pass off this narrative will be that people voted only to keep Trump out of office. Trump will push a different story - that the system is rigged against him (and his supporters) but other Republican politicos won't use that one (it is inherently self-indicting) except in some version that aids an existing propaganda line (ie voter fraud).

Presently, Tierny Sneed at TPM and Ed Kilgore at NY Mag have very good pieces up on these matters
http://talkingpointsmemo.com/dc/trump-clinton-legitimacy-campaign
http://nymag.com/daily/intelligencer/2016/08/does-hillary-need-a-mandate.html

1 Reply

@blatham,

blatham wrote:

As Farmerman pointed out, you've made a pretty shady omission in disregarding the broad move of the Dixiecrats into the Republican party. It is one of the most significant political realignments of the last century. You know this history, surely, so why the pretense it didn't happen?

He's had it pointed out repeatedly on this site. As have other Republicans. (I won't call them conservatives, because they're not really in favor of small government. They just want government to micromanage things like what medical procedures women can get, and who is allowed to be alone in the bedroom together.)

2 Replies

@DrewDad,

George isn't much of a social conservative though clearly influenced by his Catholicism, at least the version of it that catholics who really do not like Francis very much adhere to (ps Dennis Prager has a piece up at NRO this morning noting Francis' ideas that is completely ******* insane). George is, it seems to me, a Hayek kind of guy. The key tell is his use of "liberty".

0 Replies

This is just too good.

Ed Kilgore has a post up on Trump and supporters "unskewing" the polls. The whole thing is worth reading but this is just too delightful and must be shared.

Quote:

Trump himself has a habit of criticizing individual polls he doesn’t like. Some of his fans are getting more systematic about it. Radio talk show host Bill Mitchell offered this zen-like observation on Twitter: “Imagine polls don’t exist. Show me evidence Hillary is winning?”

http://nymag.com/daily/intelligencer/2016/08/trump-supporters-unskewing-polls.html

1 Reply

@DrewDad,

Quote:

(I won't call them conservatives, because they're not really in favor of small government

I think you have that backwards. I won't call them Republicans, because they're not really in favor of small government, they're Truman Democrats, just capital "C" Conservative.

0 Replies

@blatham,

Quote:

“Imagine polls don’t exist. Show me evidence Hillary is winning?”

Followed by the sound of one hand clapping (the back of his head. I volunteer my hand.)

1 Reply

@bobsal u1553115,

That really is a dilly, isn't it.

I've been attending to Ed Kilgore for years first at The Democratic Strategist, then when he went over to Washington Monthly to replace Steve Benen and now finally to his perch at NY Mag. Really smart guy and a fine writer.

0 Replies

The dumpster fire grows. Last week, Hannity and WSJ editor Bret Stephens had a little twitter insult-fest. Here's from today's WSJ...

Quote:

Sean Hannity’s Veneration of Ignorance
The right’s political huckster gives Al Sharpton a run for his money.
By BRET STEPHENS

http://www.wsj.com/articles/sean-hannitys-veneration-of-ignorance-1470698528

Let's note that the huckster (just one of many) makes around $40 million each year running his con for dull humans (which, mind you, is about half what either Limbaugh or Beck have made). And this really is a problem for political discourse and sanity in US politics when rabble-rousing of the nature now common on the right is so highly incentivized. It has taken conservatives far, far too long to confront the beast they helped create. I have no sympathy whatsoever.

0 Replies

@blatham,

Quote:

Earlier here, I made the prediction that after the Nov elections, and quite regardless of the popular vote, the degree by which Clinton wins, the number of seats in both houses the GOP will lose - regardless of all that, Republicans and their media allies will launch a broad narrative claiming that Clinton has no legitimate mandate to carry through on those policies she has campaigned on. A key instrument they will use in trying to pass off this narrative will be that people voted only to keep Trump out of office. Trump will push a different story - that the system is rigged against him (and his supporters) but other Republican politicos won't use that one (it is inherently self-indicting) except in some version that aids an existing propaganda line (ie voter fraud).

Strictly speaking (and not wanting to risk dividing, but, it is a truth), Hillary has already that exact same thing happen to her during the democrat primary. Luckily for Bernie Sanders and his supporting team (which seems to be different than some of his supporters) and Hillary and her supporting team, they all had something to bargain with which was their support during the general election and Hillary had Bernie wanting some of his ideas added to the platform. Republicans have no incentive to try and meet half way, so they won't.

1 Reply

@revelette2,

It's a fair point, rev. It seems to be a function of the extremist mindset where their own ideology seems to them the only legitimate view and value set.

The difference here, as you understand, is that those Bernie or bust folks are a very small contingent within the left and they have no presence within Dem party's elected reps, not even Sanders himself. And while they do have a voice in left wing media, it is not significant even there.

On the other hand, that extremism is now a standard feature on the right seen in political representatives, the GOP itself in its modern form, and broadly across right wing media.

When Ornstein and Mann (and many others) talk about asymmetry in the two political parties presently, this is a key element in what they are referencing.

0 Replies

@farmerman,

farmerman wrote:

So the gerrymandered redistricting that was just passed coincidentally when The USSC removed sec 4 nd 5 from the VRA, is ok with you and you dont see any governmentally sdriven racism inherent in the Alabama law. OR, the fact that voter id laws in Az,NC,Texas, and Wisconsin, while written in 2012 but were held for passage until the VRA section 4 and 5 were rescinded which let em get away with it .

There was a great deal of gerrymandering to achieve exactly the opposite of what you describe here a few decades ago following the enactment of the now rescinded provisions you cite. I don't have any information on the specifics of the redistrivctings you cite and you haven't provided any either - only your opinion. That's OK with me, but don't assume your statements are at all persuasive. The restrictions you cite were peculiar to those states due to past disenfranchisement of Blacks. They were, from the start, a temporary measure to bring about change. the USSC ruled that they were no longer justified and restored the discretion of these states to act as do all the others. Evidently you have a problem with that.

If requiring IDs for all voters to limit duplicate voting and voting by the dead or non citizens (the traditional activities of several prominent Democrat political machines) constitutes discrimination against blacks, then do exactly the same requirements for the TSA at airports and for credit card purchases of $300 or more, or cash withdrawls from banks also constitute discrimination?

2 Replies

When will Hillary Clinton give up her candidacy ?

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know