I'll Never Vote for Hillary Clinton

Neither the Civil Rights Act of 1957 nor the Civil Rights Act of 1960 are major bills.

I forgot you don't have a sense of humor. Verbal irony. It's a big waste of time and YOU should get a hobby to replace your A2K hypocritical thought police job.

Please correct:

Quote:

Neither the Civil Rights Act of 1957 nor the Civil Rights Act of 1960 are major bills.

To: Neither the Civil Rights Act of 1957 nor the Civil Rights Act of 1960 are major bills in the history of the Civil Rights movement. However, both bills were introduced by Emanuel Celler, Democrat of Brooklyn, NY.

If my choice is to vote for Hillary Clinton or the eventual republican nominee, I would clearly have to vote for Hillary Clinton.

To not vote is not a choice I would make. To not for one candidate is not that much different than actually voting for the other candidate.

It's the Trumpification of debate. Faced with facts you just deny it all.

Both acts were sent to Congress by one Dwight D. Eisenhower (R). I'm sorry that you feel you need to move the goal posts when called on the carpet for your bullshit.

Please tell me one major Civil Rights Bill since Reconstruction introduced by a Republican.

Real Music wrote:

To not vote is not a choice I would make. To not for one candidate is not that much different than actually voting for the other candidate.

And there you're wrong.

If leftists (I won't use the terms "liberals" or "progressives," as those terms are largely meaningless now) could coalesce around a single candidate - say, the Green Party's nominee - and show, by their numbers, that they are a force to be taken seriously, then the Democratic Party might be nudged into adopting a more leftist agenda. We've seen that happen many times before in US history - such things as the income tax, direct election of senators, and women's suffrage were all advocated by third parties before being adopted by a major party. More recently, Ross Perot's insurgent candidacy in 1992 made the presidential race all about the issue (or non-issue) of the budget deficit, which politicians are still yammering about today.

If Clinton is the Democrats' nominee, a vote for a third-party candidate won't be a vote for her Republican opponent. It will be a vote for principles that Clinton and her party cannot be trusted to advocate in office. It will be a message that leftists cannot be ignored or taken for granted by the centrists who control the party. That's a message worth making and a ballot worth casting.

Quote McGentrix:

Quote:

Both acts were sent to Congress by one Dwight D. Eisenhower (R). I'm sorry that you feel you need to move the goal posts when called on the carpet for your bullshit.

Both acts were introduced by Emanuel Celler, Democrat of Brooklyn. Eisenhower did not even particularly support the last two sections of the 1957 Civil Rights bill. And neither the 1957 nor 1960 Civil Rights bill was a major bill in the history of the Civil Rights movement which is why the Civil Rights Bill of 1964 was made necessary and is considered the landmark bill of the Civil Rights movement, along with the 1965 Voting Rights Bill and the 1967 Civil Rights Bill, (Housing).

The Fourteenth Amendment provided for apportionment of representation in Congress to be reduced if a state disenfranchised part of its population. But this clause was never applied to southern states that disenfranchised blacks. No blacks were elected to any office in the South for decades after the turn of the century; and they were also excluded from juries and other participation in civil life.

By the 1920s, as memories of the Civil War faded, the Solid South cracked slightly. For instance, a Republican was elected U.S. Representative from Texas in 1920, serving until 1932. The Republican national landslides in 1920 and 1928 had some effects. However, with the Democratic national landslide of 1932, the South again became solidly Democrat.

Southern demography began to change as well. From 1910 through 1970, about 6.5 million black southerners moved to urban areas in other parts of the country in the Great Migration.

From 1876 through 1944, the national Democratic party opposed any calls for civil rights for blacks. In Congress southern Democrats blocked such efforts as Republicans made on the issue.

In the 1930s, black voters outside the South largely switched to the Democrats, and other groups with an interest in civil rights (notably Jews, Catholics, and academic intellectuals) became more powerful in the party. This led to the national Democrats adopting a civil rights plank in 1948. A faction of Deep South Democrats bolted the party, and ran their own "Dixiecrat" presidential ticket, which carried four states, South Carolina, Alabama, Mississippi, and Louisiana.

The Republican Party began to make gains in the South, building on other cultural conflicts as well. Demographics began to change southern states in other ways. Florida began to expand rapidly, with retirees and other migrants from other regions becoming a majority of the population, which did not share the traditional southern hostility to the Republicans.

By the mid-1960s, changes had come in many of the southern states. Former Dixiecrat Senator Strom Thurmond of South Carolina changed parties in 1964; Texas elected a Republican Senator in 1961; Florida and Arkansas elected Republican governors in 1966. In the upper South, where Republicans had always been a small presence, Republicans gained a few House and Senate seats.

Republican President Richard Nixon adopted a "Southern Strategy" for the presidential election of 1972: continue enforcement of the civil rights legislation of the 1960s, but be quiet about it, so that offended Southern whites would continue to blame the Democrats, while talking up the Democrats' increasing association with liberal views. He was aided by centrist Democrats' attacks on the eventual nominee as a radical. This strategy was wildly successful – Nixon carried every southern state by huge margins.

The South was still overwhelmingly Democratic at the state level, with majorities in all state legislatures, and most U.S. Representatives as well. Over the next 30 years, this gradually changed. Veteran Democrat officeholders retired or died, and older voters who were still rigidly Democrat also died off. There were also increasing numbers of migrants from other areas, especially in Florida, Texas, and North Carolina.

With the "Republican Revolution" in the 1994 elections, Republicans captured a majority of Southern House seats for the first time.

Today, the South is considered a Republican stronghold at the state and federal levels, with Republicans holding majorities in every southern state after the 2014 elections. Political experts have often cited a southernization of politics following the fall of the Solid South.

If you split the vote between Clinton and Sanders (as a third party), the other candidate will get into office. You know this. So instead of getting Clinton, who is more liberal/left than 85% of congress, you'll get Trump who, well....

The country will never vote for someone as far left as Sanders.

There is NO moral way to stand-your-ground in the presidential election this year. None. Campaign, trumpet, vote for Sanders in the primary. Get Clinton to move to the left and take positions that you/Sanders enjoy. When she beats Sanders (and she will)...get in line and prepare to vote AGAINST the far right, who you much recognize are your political enemies.

I have a feeling that you probably support 80% of what the democratic party supports.

Here's the 2012 Democratic Party Platform....curious what you disagree with.